What bothers me the most about climate change or global warming is that nobody talks about the fact that the solutions being proposed by governments are likely to cause more actual harm and suffering than the climate change alone.
@@MarshallTheArtist are they not though? Governments continue to ignore nuclear energy and yet want to produce electric vehicles from carbon emitting factories. They continue to use taxation without showing any real benefits while ignoring countries like China that has the worst emissions.
@@simonwatson2399 That is the thing. Nobody can say for certain which option will cost more lives. If the response to climate change is anything like the response to Covid, then likely more lives will be lost with government intervention.
Slight correction here: The "pale blue dot" was captured way further away then Saturn's orbit. Saturn is roughly 1.5 billion km away from the sun. This picture was taken at a distance of 6 billion km away from Earth.
11:35 --" ...but heats up the lower atmosphere where greenhouse gases accumulate.." >>> CO2 , Methan, Ammonium and watervapor are quite evenly distributed! But do you know whats more abundant in the lower regions? Argon! Plus: The denser, the higher the temperature. In fact all weather stations haven been replaced into the valley, often next to a street where they are easier accessable, but also show 0.5-1.5° higher temperatures. Plus: the sun has shun with greater intensity. But that does not heat up the atsmosphere! Its the visible light, especially green light which incite water to change into vapor. Wate-vapor is the greenhouse gas with the greatest impact. Clouds reflect IR rays back down to Earth, slowing down cooling processes, and in addition: Every time water vapor turns back to rain, it emitts the stored solar energy into the air, heating up the air. Thats not just stored IRlight, thats a lot of visible light converted into IRwaves. Therefore the suns activity has a huge impact
Arvin, I cannot tell you how many times I have tried to explain to someone that weather is not climate but you... this is absolute brilliance. You have a *gift* for concise explanation. Exceptional video!
It’s actually very simple: if it’s unusually cold, it’s weather. If it’s unusually warm, it’s climate change. But what does it matter? The world will end in 2030 according to world renowned climate expert Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes.
@@rhandeymaahrsch2151 The only thing that’s going to end in 2030 is the renown climate expert Alexandra Cortez at least let’s hope so I don’t know why we got a wait so long
Um, seriously? This video was terrible regular bullshit propaganda... He said a bunch of unverified stuff suggesting more extreme weather... Which has not been observed nor did he link to any data that we could verify. Furthermore he brings up an argument from consensus with the mythic 97% if scientists, then uses that as an ad Hominem argument about the 3% who make fancy RUclips videos. Really when you find out the methods used to obtain the 97% statistic, you'd laugh out loud. He also mentioned model simulations that were forced to fit historical trends that can't be used for any accurate prediction, doesn't address the extreme bias for warming in all models.... There is a lot of stuff he left out. I think he wants people to watch the stuff he was paid to make... He does mention other content in climate change in his video...
One explanation for the Fermi Paradox is that civilizations tend to develop the means to destroy themselves before the ability to communicate with the stars.
Unlikely to be the cause, as we leak out signals all the time. Proxima Centauri was able to hear hitler’s speeches and most things afterwards. The point is, is that we are constantly leaking signals. So other species should as well. But there is nothing.
My only issue with this as a solution is that whatever happens would have to be so thoroughly catastrophic as to completely eliminate at a minimum, all life more conplex then a bacteria, every single time, without error. Climate change cant be it, even at our destructive levels, we've already determined it generally as an exestential threat. Even at our current pace we can survive climate change at this point. Even if climate change wiped out humanity, and most complex life, any future inhabitants would not have nearly the available resources to cause as much damge. It cant be nuclear war, even at the peak, there was still a possibility for humanity to survive, mostly in the southern hemisphere. It wouldnt have been easy, and the odds were against humanity, but it was possible. Even still, that doesnt see complex life eradicated. My bet is that earth is among the first, weve already passed a previous filter such as the development of eukariotic cells, or that the conditions required for intelligent life are so rare that you get maybe 1-2 per galaxy.
@@drbuckley1 I am aware, in fact i said that at least twice, which is my point. At its worst the 2 biggest threats to humanity right now would not reduce earth to simple life only. Neither may not even be capable of fully eliminating humanity. It only takes a few species to survive for life to quickly rebound. The crux of the self selfdestruction hypothesis is that life MUST be common. Not even just life, but intelligent life that develops into a technological civilization. So common that at MINIMUM 2 species must have evolved within the same galaxy and close enough where the only thing preventing each others discovery is the certainty that they wipe themselves out before they get a chance. Anything outside of a galaxy is far enough away that those lifeforms will likely never contact eachother anyways. When you take that into account, it becomes an almost certainty that any event that isnt thorough enough will almost certainly develop a new technological species.
He is so amazingly clear. My go to has been the 2 million year ice age range of CO2 between 180-280 parts per million. Glacial periods down to 180. Interglacials up to 280. But today 422 and rising. So climate has changed in cycles governed by the orbit and tilt of the planet 🌎 over the last 2 million years. But now we’ve left the cycle with a 50% rise in CO2 over the ice age average.
@@christinearmington 440 million years ago the average temperature was 12°C (today 15°C) and the CO2 level was at a whopping 4200ppm (today 412ppm). What's your explanation for that?
@@oldineamiller9007 @Oldinea Miller the explanation is in the video. It took 50,000 years for volcanos to load up the atmosphere with CO2, meaning when the temperatures reached their peak the CO2 levels were approximately the same 50 or 100 years before that. Therefore the fact that now the CO2 levels are rising at an extremely higher rate per 50 years hints at the possibility that we're going 200 mp/h towards a wall with our eyes closed.
@@oldineamiller9007 you can search it up yourself, but, long story short, this statement has to do with the early studies on the subject, the averaged time periods, the uncertainty on the data (for example an early study had uncertainty margins for CO2 (+/- 1800ppm), the method the samples were taken and analyzed with, etc. Newer studies have reduced immensely this uncertainty and have proven the relationship between CO2 and temperature. Apart from that, there are other factors also (Milankovich cycles, etc) which affect the temperature. We take that all into account in our models and see that this is indeed an anthropogenic global warming.
Why are our leaders not being honest about the time needed for potential reversal effects to show? If it took 200 years of unbridled industrialisation to get to this point, it will take significantly longer to constrain that industrialisation such that any reversal impact becomes measurable. This means absolutely no-one on the planet today will see any noticeable change or benefits from the measures proposed. No one.
Finally a video that thoroughly combines and explains all the scientific evidence for climate chance. Surprisingly there aren't they many videos like this on RUclips
Exactly what I was thinking. Not combines all, but just simply explained in a way that makes sense, in a way that doesn't force you to blindly accept something, or on the flip side, read half of Oxford's library.
Sadly no one prioritizes this issue enough to change anything. The solution is less consumption (Don’t buy stuff that you don’t need) and more birth control. 90% of species will die and it will be humanity’s fault.
Arvin, I'm sure this sounds like a very silly question, but where did you find the graph at 11:37 (with the temperature anomalies of the stratosphere/troposphere)? I can't seem to find it. This is a kind of graph I've always wanted to find after I learned that the upper atmosphere temperatures are in fact decreasing.
I can't even give you a busted up pointer to the place, lol. I'm avoiding certain keywords, too. Keep getting my comments yoinked by RUclips. It's from NASA. "EarthObservatory nasa features GlobalWarning page 1". If you Google that, it should be the first hit (: Just shy of halfway down the page - which has a lot of other great related information totally worth checking out.
@@ArvinAsh you do know that this casts doubt on anthropogenic CO2 as a cause of global warming... CO2 is considered well mixed, if it were causing an increase in surface temps, the CO2 in the upper atmosphere would warm as it absorbs infrared radiation. In fact, these model simulations that seem to fit historical surface temperatures so well don't fit the upper troposphere very well at all.
From what I understand the "upper atmosphere" is indeed cooling due to the IR being contained by the CO2 below it. Normally much of the sun's energy would be reflected back into space and warm the upper atmosphere on the way. But the CO2 in the lower atmosphere absorbs the reflected energy and re-radiates it as infrared in random directions so about half of that IR goes back to the surface which warms us a bit, mostly in the northern hemisphere.
@@ArvinAsh The question is how much of the increase in temperature is caused by CO2 alone without considering positive feedback loop. I believe some scientists have already proven CO2 using pure physics calculation only contributes 0.7 degrees Celsius at most if we double it to 800 ppm.
Some top scientists are refuting that CO2 is the gas that causes warming. The physicist Freeman Dyson is one of the scientists that basically say CO2 is not the molecule that causes warming. They also say that Climate models(from Freeman Dyson as well) say that these mathematical/statistical models cannot be used to extrapolate into the future. Other environmental scientists/ Geologists also say that in the Earths past CO2 levels were 800 ppm to 2000 ppm, this was few thousand years ago, and there was no issue. So, the message that generally comes out to the public is that CO2 being the gas that causes warming is SETTLED SCIENCE, but there are many scientists who disagree. SO the question seems to be that CO2 being the gas responsible for warming is Not Settled Science. I think that there needs to be a big Scientific Debate in Public between these 2 groups of Scientists, so the Public can see what is what! When there are disagreements between scientists, then the Science is Not Settled.
What you are referring to is the ice ages during the Pleistocene epoch. Several more minutes could have been used up to explain how the various Milanovitch Cycles played an important role in the ice age cycle. There are of course numerous other videos on RUclips explain the ice ages in detail. Perhaps this channel does as well though I don't know for sure.
I’d like to know why no video,or even scientists ever say anything about all the concrete,and asphalt factor in to the warming? I’m sure we all know that this is a huge factor, not to mention that in the 1800’s there was little concrete and no asphalt ,when they factor in the temperatures of the times. They just blame cows and cars. Maybe they should plant more trees in those places where they like to deforest. I love the part where 97% of the scientists agree. Of course they do, or their funding would stop.
Scientists have been aware of the Urban Heat Island Effect for over 200 years. It is well understood by climate scientists and factored into to all results of all urban temperature gauges.
Huh, that's what got me to start worrying about climate change. If the Earth sets ablaze, I'm pretty sure that will affect my ability to get on the internet.
The Scientific Community is not researching the ultimate answer to Climate Change. This “ultimate” energy is water splitting for hydrogen. Water has near equal energy as gasoline. The reaction necessary for splitting water is complex. I have formulated this reaction. The reaction is complex, but the crux of the reaction is Bismuth ferrite, this reaction is a Nobel prize winner.
Wow! Never have I ever heard such a great explanation about climate change. The way of approaching it via energy 'stored' in the atmosphere is ingenius. I also loved the animations, those were superb too! Excellent video, Arvin, as always!
No, it's not ingenious, it's dishonest and generally unhelpful back of the envelope estimate based on thermal capacity of air the volume of our atmosphere at sea level. It's a figure arrived at by highschool science and used because it's a big number and fits the AGW narrative. The temperature of the surface layers of the atmosphere is not ALL the energy in the atmosphere, the climate data clearly shows cooling or no change in the upper layers of the atmosphere. That energy is constantly exchanged with earth through wind and weather, always in major flux. It's meaningless. Now is the temperature of the atmosphere increasing? Sure. A tiny amount. An amount so small, you need hundreds of climate scientists and expensive supercomputers to measure and report it.
@@kayakMike1000 the upper atmosphere is cooling because less energy is reaching it as it's being trapped in the lower atmosphere by the increased greenhouse effect of adding more CO2 to the lower atmosphere. If you object to the numbers, show why they're wrong. With numbers.
@@kayakMike1000 retreating glaciers, rising oceans, desertification, and more extreme weather are all additional evidence that increasing temperature is not good. Irrational denial is no excuse for unethical values.
@@gravitonthongs1363 The ocean is not acidifying. The ocean is and will always be alkaline with a pH around 8.2. There is no evidence to suggest that ocean become acidic from CO2. CO2 plus water does not make for an acid ocean as CO2 largely STAYS as CO2 when dissolved in water. Algae and kelp are plants that USE CO2. Also, what are you going to do about rain? It has a low pH from nitrogen oxides fixed through natural lightning. Besides, a warming atmosphere cause a warmer ocean which reduces CO2 solubility in water. You can't have catastrophic AGW from CO2 if it's stuck in the ocean making the ocean acidic. There's enough calcium carbonate in the ocean to neutralize quite a lot of alleged carbonic acid.
@@gravitonthongs1363 carbon dioxide concentration increasing does appear to be caused by mankind, but satellite data indicates that there is a greening effect due to CO2 fertilization. This was actually noted in the last IPCC. Apparently, plants are able to use water more effectively so they grow well in more arid environments. So much for "desertification"
@@ArvinAsh you are wrong on many accounts in this video, Arvin. I am extremely disappointed in your claim of 97% of scientists agree on anthropogenic CO2 caused climate change. The paper suggesting this myth was demonstrably wrong.
You're wrong too. I am not saying that the climate isn't changing OR that humans aren't causing it... I am just saying it's probably NOT anthropogenic CO2. Look at CO2 absorption spectra. It's tiny narrow band absorber in infrared. Now check out H2O. It's a very broad band that overlaps the CO2. There is also lots more H2O vapor in the atmosphere... The vast majority of greenhouse effect is coming from H2O. CO2 is a well mixed gas, and if CO2 were responsible for warming, wouldn't we see higher temperatures in the upper atmosphere? The model simulations, from what I have read, all predict much more warming in the tropical troposphere from greenhouse gass forcing, but satellite and weather balloon data does not confirm this information. The model simulations are probably wrong.
@@kayakMike1000 - "The paper suggesting this myth was demonstrably wrong." I defy you to "demonstrate" this without reference to a paper that is, in fact, demonstrably wrong.
What about El Niño and La Niña? Also the video could mention about Clouds interference on climate change and that co2 on atmosphere is very good for plants productivity and development . All i know is climate is a very complex thing with lots of variables and those NASA models are funny, it's never bad to doubt about weird claims of non-factual stuffs.
I would recommend learning more about the subject. His conclusions are pretty bad and remarkably debatable. The Paleocene thermal maximum had lots of biodiversity and the ocean has always been alkaline. Furthermore, huge volcanoes erupting in huge basalt floods that covered continents is a pretty likely source of global warming. Also, undersea volcanoes are going to release a lot H2O vapor that would also cause a greenhouse effect.
@@anksssssssss look up basalt floods. There were large sections of earth that were covered with active plume volcanoes for eons. And yeah, the earth wasn't very habitable then because if that volcanic activity. Sheesh. It's like teaching chess to chimpanzees...
I truly like your channel, you explain in simplicity that anyone can understand it. Thanks for sharing your excellent knowledge with everyone. We learn a lot from your channel.
I do believe that we - humans are responsible for current climate change. I still remember that when I was a kid, summers were not as hot as today, and winters were not as mild as today. 20+ years ago we still have winters with at least a month with snow, and today we have only few days with snow. Not to mention that this summer was so hot that all the grass in our city dried, become yellow and still not recovered as the beginning of September.
The temperature graph you started with is wrong. Adjustments to account for the lower fidelity of past data systematically cool the past. When you undersample current temperature data to match measurement rates of the past, the warming disappears.
So if you change the data you get the answer you want, that's not science. You have a hypothesis that historical data is incorrect, so all you need to do is prove it.
This might be the best video on climate change ever produced. Thanks Arvin. Particularly good leaving politics out 100%. Pure science is what this topic needs. Just great.
The scale on the temperature rise chart has been moved to obscure areas where cooling has increased..... the climate is changing and many factors are at play, namely solar activity, milankovitch cycle, the pole shift/flip, the chandler wobble, increased volcanic activity, earths core cooling and of course us....... we are part of the equation, and yes the only part we have any major control over..... but we are not the be all end all when it comes to climate change.
I appreciate the spirit and intention of your comment. I hope you are aware, however, that EVERY scientific point in this video has been known and understood by climate scientists for several decades. It _was_ nicely summarized here, though. Importantly, the “politics” in climate science comes from AGW Denialism, _NOT_ from climate science. AGW Denialism has _also_ contributed the accusation that climate science has been “politicized”. They have been very successful in perpetuating the false accusation that climate science is fraudulent, and underlain by a secret leftist political conspiracy. Thus, when you compliment Arvin Ash for not being “political”, you are inadvertently validating the bogus anti-science agenda of AGW Denialism.
If you had paid attention, you would have noticed Arvin remarking that apathy is worse than denial. Perhaps listen to your hero and start acting responsibly and work towards a better world.
About the Theorical models used to predict very high temps in the Future, we should "thanks" to Al Gore that he destroyed the reputation of those models when, 20 years ago he predicted that by now there shouldn't be any snow in the North Pole or that cities as Miami should be underwater by this years. None of these "predictions" happened...hence the people really don't think it will matter the temp increase (at least for the next 50 years)
Al Gore is not a scientists yet he is still continually misrepresented because he actually got some people to pay attention. These events were presented as the low side of a large range... not dates certain.
I'm sad and want to cry. I live in the Southern US and the people I've argued with about human caused climate change who say its not real is mind blowing. No science will change their minds. Nice video, I'm a subscriber now.
@@cloudpoint0 Lol, but isn’t this about “climate change”? I love the moving of goal-posts in regards to this quackery since like 2004; Al Gore, is that you??
@@sergpie The Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Climatic Optimum are just local persistent weather changes that occurred in Europe and the North Atlantic region and are not about global warming or climate change. Both of these aren't even visible in any global temperature reconstruction whereas the recent warming is an unprecedented thermal spike going back over millions of years at least. And it isn't finished happening yet. Why are you distracting readers from this channel's topic? Are you really Viscount Monckton of Brenchley?
You missed the boat on a few items here. The range of interaction with infrared long wavelength photons is very narrow for CO2 and even more narrow for methane. That doesnt change no matter how much CO2 or methane you put in the air. Water vapor has a much wider range of interaction with photons and also overlaps the range of CO2. So adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will have very little effect on the temperature since they know this range of long wave photons is already blocked from leaving the atmosphere based on the planck curve they can meausre.
CO2 lingers for hundreds of years and and every change in CO2 has effected global temperature regardless of the cause. That rise creates heat which creates evaporation so the CO2 causes more water vapor. CO2 is the regulator and H2O is the feedback mechanism. It's not one or the other but the two in tandem. The melting of the tundra is releasing huge amounts of methane which is 25 times as powerful a GHG as CO2.
You seem to be forgetting that not ALL of the co2 IR bands overlap with water vapour. The same with methane. So me of them fall in the otherwise IR transparent band of the atmosphere. Then you also forget that the half life of water vapour in the atmosphere is 9 days whereas co2 is 120 years and methane 10.5 years. Lastly that water vapour is not a forcing factor of climate change. The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. You can't add more water vapour to force warming, it condenses out too quickly. Unless you cross the tipping point where surface water either boils or water becomes super-critical.
Those who emit the most Co2 should make the biggest cuts. So thats, movie/pop stars, politicians, rich business people etc. But they actually do very little whilst being total hypocrites about it. For the ordinary person who drives a small car (unlike most americans) and flies once a year, what are we expected to do? Not goto work, not take our kids to school, not have a holiday? US has by FAR the largest per capita co2 emissions of any major country, and quite frankly Americans are doing less than most to cut their co2 emissions. Get out of your giant trucks/SUV's and drive small cars like us Europeans.
@@XEinstein Can't really take my 6 yr old kid on a bike. Dont have a train near me and bus will take 2.5 hours per day. Most of us who dont live in a big city with good public transport need to use a car.
@@rchatte100 I've been carried on my mom's bike since I was one year old. Through sunshine, rain and snow, so that argument is pure nonsense. And the fact that cars exist makes it possible to live far away from work. So arguing that "hey, I live 20 miles from work so I need a car" is turning cause and effect around. Try to imagine living 20 miles from work if cars would not exist.
@@XEinstein I seriously doubt you went to school everyday during your childhood on you mother's bike. I think thats an entirely false claim. I can imgaine a world where we lived in vertical cities that required no commuting but that's NOT the real world. Saying we could all travel in a eco firendly way on an alternative planet is not helpful or realistic. We need to deal with the real world situation where most people do not live in cities with good public transport. So commuting every day in a small car where there is no alternative is perfectly reasonable. If it's not then fine, i'll take a bit more warming rather than having no job, no school for my kids, and a completely miserable life.
It would be helpful if you'd do a video on the science of solar radiation management or geoengineering. The NAS put out a solid report on this last year, and the CFR put out an even better report on it last week.
What I don't understand is why it took 0.24 gigatons of CO2 over 50K years to create much more warming than today, and yet we are emitting 10 Gigatons per yea with much less warming. That's inconsistent. What gives?
Great question! What I didn't get into is that once earth crosses a 4-5 degree C threshold, then this probably causes an additional release of methane from methane hydrates which are currently frozen and locked. This causes an asymptotic increase in temps. because methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas. This is what happened during PETM according to the evidence. We haven't reached that point yet.
Natural slowness of the system? It takes time to change something as large. Meaning if we stop emitting now the warming effect will remain for a very long time.
@@ArvinAsh But then how does that show that it was the C02 doing the warming? If 0.24 gigatons was enough to get over that edge and release all that methane, how have we not reached that point by now? This would seem to me to indicate 2 possibilities: 1. It took all that time to warm up the system 2. It wasn't the C02 and it was something else Number 1 just intuitively seem bizarre to me, and I don't have an answer for number 2, so if you could please explain I'd be all ears
@@mockupguy3577 That's also what I thought at first but that seems weird to me. It's not like the heat from summer stays during autumn, is it? No. But according to this it should. So it seems weird to me.
So basically no matter how much we cut emissions the climate is still going to change. We're transitioning into a new epoch, and that means everything's going to chang, including us. The earth has changed her frequency and that will bring big changes no matter what we do. The animals are getting smarter too, though the change is gradual through our persecution it's still noticeable .
I've been extremely moved by celebrities flying private jets to Award ceremonies where they lecture me about my carbon imprint. In the real world I have met only a very few amount of people who deny climate change or even deny that the change is largely caused by mankind. Heck, your 97% scientific consensus seems closer to my experiences in talking to people in the real world about their climate change position. And those few that think it is just one big hoax that isn't real are usually the most ineffective people around in terms of creating policy. The real dispute seems to fall on what the solution is. It's not that most people think it's a hoax, in my experience. It's that the solutions are disagreed upon. HOW do you solve it? What do the solutions mean to poor people around the world who will be most affected? How do you get China or other countries on board? Why the resistance towards nuclear power? And so on. IMO this issue will never meet a solution unless all sides are able to come to the table and have a fair and honest conversation about it, and I do not see that happening. Even if we in the USA came to an agreement on a solution, how effective is that solution if other nations refuse to participate? It's a tough problem to solve, although I am sure those prone to authoritarian measures believe they have easy solutions.
What about the contrarians that represent the 3% that have, through history, shown that consensus sometimes has a tendency to be nothing but incentivized Bible-thumping (i.e., 97% of theologians believed in geocentrism, while a 3% lunatic fringe believed in heliocentrism). A telescope was busted-out and the rest was history. I guess we need a better telescope; but after all the restrictions allowed due to “scientific consensus” during Covid, and that it is now coming to light what a farse the lockdowns were, I’m a tad skeptical if not cynical. Add to that my family’s home in western Italy that hasn’t had a tide-level increase since the 1810s, and compare it to the Democratic party’s predictions in America that said it’d be underwater by 2016, then one starts hearing those thumps again.
Money motivates all nations and when there is money to be made from green technology and money to be lost by inaction (eg your crops die or you lose your workforce because drought causes them to leave etc) then we may see change. China is the worlds top producer of solar and wind energy (just google it) so it sounds like they are in. They know where the money is. And massive corporations like Shell are injecting a lot of money into green technology. So corporations are at least transitioning. Don’t know if it will be enough to save us though.
My understanding that a lot is being done in many different areas to solve these problems and good progress has been made. There is one video that really gave me insight into this progress and I'm happy to share it: ruclips.net/video/LxgMdjyw8uw/видео.html
The biggest problems with addressing climate change are "political narratives" and a "divisive world view." When correcting climate change gets hijacked to forward wealth distribution politics, and clean, efficient fuel sources (i.e., nuclear power) fail to be mainstreamed, ... then no progress is made. Add the fact that several major countries such as China, Russia, and India have little or no emissions regulations nor do they even care. There can be no progress made when the worst offenders refuse to do their share. Recognizing our human contribution to climate change is not enough. You have to identify what stands in the way of progress ... even if fails to support trendy political narratives.
Wealth inequality is, in fact, a key obstacle since going on an energy (read: wealth) diet is essential to reacting in time. Redistribution has to happen lest killing people by the billions is an acceptable option. Equitably expecting poorer developing nations to cutback is also problematic when wealthier nations have already emitted more than their share of CO2 getting wealthy off of it first. Talk about "worst offenders". Fairness literally require reperations as those nations start to suffer the worst of climate change. To deny wealth equalization while dangling magic solutions like nuclear or continued consumption is even worse. We will not innovate and consume our way out of this. Sacrifice and equity is a must.
@@snizami *"Wealth inequality is, in fact, a key obstacle since going on an energy (read: wealth) diet is essential to reacting in time."* ... And onward go the narratives! Taking something from one person and giving it to another does not reduce CO2 levels. Reducing CO2 levels reduces CO2 levels. *"Fairness literally require reperations as those nations start to suffer the worst of climate change."* ... As long as you believe that someone owes something to someone else because of (fill in the blank), then no progress will be made. Nobody has a monopoly on destiny, my friend. This adds to the validity of my original comment that humanity is not willing to sacrifice its narratives ... not even for the sake of correcting climate change.
Ghoulish libertarian thinking predicated on the utterly absurd belief that the ones who have in the first place got it completely on merit, perfectly equitably, without impacting anyone else. The world is not a perfect meritocracy. Even more absurd in the context of climate change when modern day wealth was literally generated on the back of fossil fuels whose impact will now most devestate those who partook in it the least.
@@snizami *"Ghoulish libertarian thinking predicated on the utterly absurd belief that the ones who have in the first place got it completely on merit, perfectly equitably, without impacting anyone else. "* ... None of what you wrote reduces any carbon emissions whatsoever. *"Even more absurd in the context of climate change when modern day wealth was literally generated on the back of fossil fuels whose impact will now most devestate those who partook in it the least."* ... Again nobody has a monopoly on destiny and nothing you have written reduces carbon emissions. Nuclear power and electric cars knocks out a major chunk of global carbon emissions. Thank you for illustrating how humanity will never give up their narratives to combat global warming. The narratives have become more important than human survival.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC EVs will barely make a dent, are net + carbon emitters from source 2,3 and will remain so, and they require massive net+ infrastructure and maintenance. Nuclear reactors are expensive, take years to build, and provide good base power while being unable to react to changes in demand.. There are no magic solutions, certainly not ones based around ever greater consumption (through purchase of cars for e.g.). It's going to be painful and yet your worry is for the highly privileged to not lose some of it in the process. God forbid they have to pitch in. As I said, such a mindset is downright ghoulish: sociopathic even.
This video more than anything else I've seen or heard is the best at describing climate change and it's reality along with its probable causes. Thank you, Arvin.
@@simonwatson2399 Then provide untampered, empirical and direct evidence for all man made climate change claims and predictions that have been proven ? I find it very hard to believe (science does not have belief in it) when thus far none of these man made climate change claims and predictions including tipping points have never been proven, not one
If we were serious about doing something and moving to a non fossil fuel society , we would be building Nuclear plants like crazy. I bothers me that this well tested and efficient source of energy receives almost no attention. This makes me call into question how serious folks are.
I am not a climate change denier, but I also think critically about this. Who becomes an environmental scientist? Do they do that for the money? No. People become environmentalists because they care about the environment. In fact they care so much about the environment that they don't mind lying about it. Sometimes the end justifies the means, they believe. But we have had safer nuclear power for decades now and better advanced technologies but environmentalists still say its got to be solar and wind. They don't care about making the world work, they care about the environment. 97% of environmentalists say people are to blame, but if I go to Boston and ask who is the best baseball team 97% will say the Red Sox. Does that mean its true? I just think we can't listen 100% to the people who've been shouting "Chernoble killed millions!" When in fact it killed 26. We need a sane voice in this, someone who doesn't care, and can give an honest opinion judgement about it. Maybe a TV show with an activist and a denier of roughly equal charisma get prepared questions and get to come on and make their cases and attempt to refute the others. Unfortunately it's hard to prove a negative.
Do ppl become mechanics because they want to mate with cars or do they really just want to fix them? If they aren’t saying what you want to hear you need to change what you want to hear not challenge their motives. We’re talking ALL credible climate scientists. Not just a few.
@@jjhhandk3974 That's a creepy way of phrasing it but yes, very often it's a person who loves cars is going to be a mechanic. Ask one about his car and he'll probably talk your ear off about cars. What makes them "credible"? I used to believe the CDC was sacrosanct, scientists who saved the world behind the scenes. Turns out they are just as much political hacks as anybody else, who change their response based not on science but what the president wants, or the airlines or the teachers union. Changing yourself to fit the herd is sheep mentality. You go be a sheep though, I'm sure you derive a lot of comfort from the feeling of community. I will think about it critically and join a team on my own terms. 🚗 🐑 you're a creepy kid! Stay away from my car!
Covering climate change by going from quantum to cosmic. Really the best sir. Thank you. I dont need to attempt explaining too hard now. Just need to share this.
@@jdin3987 Time is that which separates events such that everything doesn't occur at once. If you really want to believe that time is an illusion, but it sounds like a denial of objective reality.
@@mikepuccini4932 : Large homes are still the exception in the US. 80% of the population lives in metropolitan areas. Lots of right-wingers believe the AGW deniers so they don't care. The size of the home does not necessarily indicate the total levelized carbon footprint.
It's wild how controversialized non-value-based things have become within our modern political status quo. Something this well-sourced, evidence-based, and honest garnering this many dislikes really hints at the idea that the only thing the detractors would ever _not_ dislike would be a video telling them that what they _want_ to believe is correct, & affirming some identitarian insanity in that regard.
@@oldineamiller9007 you on the other hand will forever ignore any overwhelming evidence that doesn’t suit your beliefs. Repeated test results are not opinion.
sun emits light of various wavelengths. Some of it bounces back into space after hitting the upper atmosphere, about 20-25%. The rest hits the surface of the earth and most of it gets absorbed because it is darker. It then re-emits it as heat, most of which bounces back to the surface. And More of it bounces back to the surface if there is excess CO2 in the atmosphere.
99% of your video content I agree with and 90% of this one I also agree with wholeheartly. But there is one part I vehemently disagree with. The responsibility of who is to fix this. "You can do your part" isn't going to solve this. The impact of the residential sector is negligible compart to the commercial and industrial sectors. Cars alone account for around 1% of all greenhouse impact. Me getting an electric car might make me feel better about myself or give me social credit, but it still causes greenhouse emissions across the board in generation. Same goes for so much. Green energy isn't a solution, While I might be able to power my house, its not a viable solution for an entire country, more so in the population dense sections. Nor is it the US's problem to solve anymore. We have 2 countries that account for well over the majority of greenhouse emissions that we must address if we want to solve this problem. The fundamental burden of solving the issue of worsening climate change falls upon the lawmakers and diplomats. These people are the most vocal and impactful in either shifting the burden to us, the people with "You can do your part" while they do nothing, or flat out reject the notion that climate change is real. Plus solving the problem of nuclear power fear might also help as its the most green energy we have that can work today. Hello Thorium? Thank the gods China is finally looking into Thorium molten salt reactors, the entire world will benefit from this if its successful.
Completely agree. Most people go on and on about individuals reducing their carbon footprint - what a vacuous and disingenuous platitude. It is businesses that must change, an individuals carbon footprint compared to business is so insignificant it is laughable. For those individuals who could make reasonable (meaningful?) carbon footprint reductions, well, they're the top 10% of people, the rich & powerful. The other 90% of us, the normal person on the street, surely could reduce their carbon footprint by a little bit, but it would not make any noticeable difference at all. Also of course, add in the fact that to make any meaningful dent at all in carbon emissions would require certain countries to sign up and commit to vast reductions in carbon emissions via agreements such as the Paris Climate Agreement (looking at you China! by far the biggest carbon emitting nation on earth but they refuse to act).
We can donate to political candidates who care about climate change. (Or volunteer or vote.) Oil companies lobby governments, so we can also donate to political candidates who want to limit corporate donations.
@@nathanbanks2354 I want my lobbyists to lobby for rare-earth mining by children in the Congo that necessitate the razing of rainforests because electric cars are good for penguins and trees! Lol
If human carbon emissions are causing a warming trend, then why was there a cooling period between 1945 and 1975? I don't argue either way, I simply point out a discrepancy.
Volcanism and industrial sulphate aerosols are said to be responsible for the cool spike in the warming trend. We can cool the planet by releasing more sulphate, but it has other extreme consequences for life.
Earth did cool by about 0.2 C during that period. There are some theories as to why this happened. sudden increase of soot could be one reason. Soot would block sunlight to some degree. Ice cores from Greenland seem to support this theory. Realize that data is never going to be perfect. There are always going to be fluctuations in any given set a of data. As a scientist, you have to look at overall trends over decades. And compare that to prior decades to come to any conclusion. If you make a conclusion on a myopic set of short term data, that would not be a good scientific approach. Here is an article about my earlier comment: earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature4.php#:~:text=In%20addition%20to%20carbon%20dioxide,cooling%20trend%20from%201940%2D1970.
There is also the theory that an increase in sulfates from industrial production in the 40's contributed to cooling as it acted as an aerosol blocking sunlight. Volcanic eruptions like Agung in 1962 also resisted warming from accumulating atmospheric CO2 until the mid 70's. Here is a link that explains the connection. www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming/
What is the recommended % of CO2 we need to achieve? What has been the variation of climate over the last 1000 years? What is the variation of CO2 over the last 1000 years? Why is it that CO2 lags temperature increases not lead it? Why is it China profits from this massive change in energy provision than any other country on earth? Why is it China produces more CO2 than any other country, yet they aren't mentioned in any global warming information?
We are producing about 4X CO2 that all plants on earth can consume. If there is a "recommend" CO2 level, it should probably be 1/4 of what we are producing, unless we can increase the amount of carbon sinks such as forests and algae around the world. CO2 doesn't really lag, this is why we are setting new records for temp every year - as more CO2 accumulates, anything we measure is generally higher. China has a huge manufacturing sector with very little regulation. The world can demand that they do something about it, or make their products more expensive, by having them pay a "pollution" import fee. But the important thing to note is that the USA is still has the largest accumulated emissions, yet there is no national commitment to reduce our emissions, whereas China as signed the Paris agreement. We are all in this together. Let's NOT do nothing because someone else is not doing something.
@@ArvinAsh where is the info on USA being largest emitter? Ad what is the recommended level of CO2 for the world, not the emissions, just the actual % CO2 for the atmosphere
@@simonwatson2399 do you know what you are saying lol, all life ceases at 150ppm, hahaha hahaha good idea, let's just die because people don't know basic information they are talking about, what the heck dude at least bring some brains to the table
I've been wanting to learn about this for a loooong time! I always thought the solution to me understanding this cycle was to read a bunch of research papers, but really the way you explained thought the lens of simple physics is absolutely amazing! I'm pretty confident I got the hold of the basic mechanics of climate change. Would love to see a follow up, nuanced video though! Thank you Ash!
Yeah buddy, a fifteen minute RUclips video is just as good as reading papers on the subject. You wanted to learn about this important and pressing subject for a looooooong time, did you? But you couldn't be bothered to, say, Google it to find any of the dozens, nay, hundreds of accessible articles for the layperson published by everyone from the New York Times to Wired to the National Weather Service? If that's too intimidating for you, I'm sure there's simple material out there meant for children and morons, you drooling imbecile.
Very good video and very informative, but at the end i would like to point out that our individual footprint compared to the industrial footprint of the big oil companies like shell or bp and big companies etc. is negligent at best. So maybe we sould start pointing out that, rather than blaming each person individualy for not recycling or using a plastic straw. Keep up the good work!
What bothers me the most about the whole climate change debate is the fact that whether it's real or not we're still destroying the envoirement and driving hundreds of species into extinction. Immidiet action is necessary no matter what is going on with the climate!
Lol, scientists agreeing on something that is completely wrong is as old as science itself. One of my main problems with the whole "climate change" thing is that it focuses on the least of our problems. Overall pollution (especially of the oceans) and the de-greening of the earth are far bigger threats than global warming.
Agree with you or not, your presentation does what no talking head bleating on tv at everyone about global warming and it’s possible causes: Rather than simply tell, you coherently and considerately explain for anyone who wishes to discuss. Many thanks indeed
@@darrenelkins5923 begin with facts and not with fantasy i have not made any assumptions clearly, you 'agree' with statements in the video there can be no 'coherent' conversation about this man made climate fantasy
no mention of the fact that solar activity over the past 100-150 years has been the highest in the past 6,000-8,000 years, as indicated by sunspot cycles . . . but that doesn't seem set to continue . . .
Solar activity would increase magnetic storm activity so you would see vibrant northern lights. But this does not increase global temperature. As I stated in the video, the amount of solar energy hitting the earth (which has been rather precisely tracked for the last 50 years) has actually declined somewhat. In addition, if more energy was coming from the sun, both upper and lower atmosphere would be affected. The evidence for man made climate change is overwhelming. Why continue to make excuses, denying scientific evidence? Why not accept it and try to do something about it? We are all in this together.
@@ArvinAsh Then consider this: during the "Holocene climatic optimum" that occurred roughly between 9,000 and 5,000 years ago, temperatures were significantly warmer than now. And they seem to have been the "most warm" at higher latitudes, as they are now. So which of the various factors that you dismissed as accounting for current warming (ii.e. besides CO2) do you think caused that episode? I'm not being dogmatic here, and I don't believe you are either.
@@sidviscous5959 what about the current accepted theory about this period do you not accept? Milankovic forcing was estimated to be worth 40W/m2 compared with today.
@@sidviscous5959 : Climate always changes for a reason. We know enough about natural cycles to know that this warming is not natural but extremely fast and out of sync with natural cycles. Industry has increase CO2 by over 60%. CO2 regulates Earth's temperature. As it warms the atmosphere, more water evaporates which is the most abundant GHG. CO2 regulates and H2O is the feedback mechanism. Saying that because warming happened before; industry can't cause warming now is like saying: because there were forest fires before humans, humans don't cause fires. It's poor reasoning.
@@lrvogt1257 Yet we know that the inordinate warming in the early 20th century was due to not industry or carbon dioxide, but by irradiation anomalies from the sun; particularly in the arctic. The main motivators for migration towards the USA of Southern Italians and Greeks in that period was due to the fact that agriculture had been decimated by about 1915/1920, where oranges would literally singe on trees in Sicily. That has yet to happen since. If anything, my family in Sicily has been investing in tarps to cover their citrus crops due to the inopportune amount of unseasonable frost near Catania. But yeah, save the polar bears and eat bugs, I guess 🤷
How is it nonsense? It's a conservative number from 4 different papers. Even if you believe all the data are flawed, the consensus is a LARGE number. It's not like 5% or 20% or even 50%, it will be the vast majority of climate scientists. Don't fall for that flawed argument from science deniers.
@@ArvinAsh What are you saying? Science is not based upon consensus. When classical electrodynamics was developed, all physicists of that time agreed that the theories of absolute space and absolute time were correct. It takes one person to be right in science.
A surgeon walks into the breakroom, " hey guys, I think we should wash our hands before we put them inside people". Consensus of surgeons who think they know everything..... There is no need to appeal to consensus when you are showing actual data to support your argument. If people weren't using this topic to pass laws and make themselves obscene money on the side that point might actually be useful. Thank Al Gore and his lies for the current skepticism.
@@Kath-N true. But absolute space and absolute time were overturned by creating a better theory that explained both the results of existing experiments and also made testable predictions that existing theories got wrong and the new theory got right. Opinion might have been divided, but experiments proved which model was more likely to be correct, or at least closer to correct.
A few facts. None of this is speculative or controversial -It's been known in physics for well over a century that CO2 absorbs and re-radiates infrared, AKA heat -With no CO2, Earth's average temperature would be ~0 F instead of ~61 F. -Industry raised CO2 to 150% of what has been the normal high for a million years… As CO2 rises so does temperature. -When heat energy is added to a fluid system it becomes more active. -A warmer, more active atmosphere means more extreme weather. -A warmer atmosphere increases evaporation making droughts worse faster with more crop failures and fires. -A warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor. 7% more per 1 C. This makes precipitation more intense and increases wet-bulb temperatures. This makes more and worse flooding. Water vapor is also a GHG. -A warmer atmosphere melts more ice. The heat plus the melt expand the volume of the ocean. -Less white ice reveals more blue ocean which absorbs more heat. -Melting permafrost releases more methane which is a far more potent GHG than CO2. -Because of geography, the Arctic is warming much faster than the Earth as a whole. This changes the Jet Stream to larger, deeper waves which makes warm, high-pressure and cool, low-pressure areas more extreme producing more extreme weather. -Warmer oceans means more energy is available to tropical storms.
No that's what your media and govt education system tells you Co2 increases have very limited resulting temperature increases Double Co2 doesn't double heat. Much of the planet is freezing much of the year. Coming out of a mini ice age, this very small heating (models are not real data) is expected The 1930s were hotter - tornados and hurricane are NOT increasing nor are droughts.. many places in the world (I live in a few these days) are actually cooler, the sea level is doing fine...just go to your local beach ..... the COP conference is a money maker billions they made - and what results have the trillions spent on Net Zero had.....nobody in the world is able to say that all the money spent causing untold environment damage and causing financial hardship for common people has improved anything and by how much? NO ONE! Propagandized people everywhere ENjoy winter up in the northern hemisphere - it's already a freezing doozy of an early winter
As long as there is corporate greed, nothing will change. We have solar/wind etc etc. But it's insanely expensive to "help" the climate, because of corporation and their greed.
Arvin....How is the HUGE spike of potent GreenHouse Gas, Nitrous Oxide, "relatively recently" which is being measured in the Atmosphere affect climate change when NOX is also included with the complex energy variables interacting as mentioned here ?
I admit I was also on the team that thinks climate change is natural but when the part with C12 and C13 came, the first I ever heard of it by the way, I was convinced.
The evidence provided by stable isotopes of carbon has been known by Earth scientists for decades. We welcome you back, in any case, to “team science”. You can trust that the interpretation that present day climate change is anthropogenic is based on _many_ mutually supportive lines of evidence, not just one; and that the high degree of confidence in this conclusion is based on overwhelming support. The accusation that climate scientists were just “making this up” or are corrupt or incompetent is part of a much broader attack against science and “the elites” that is insidious and evil.
@@-_James_- Its actually in 2014 when the "scientists" organized a big expedition to the antarctic to demonstrate to the world once and for all that the polar icecaps were melting due to global warming. It was a big media event and outlets like the BBC reported it "live". But the "scientists" got stuck in polar ice because antartica ice has frozen much more of the ocean while they had assumed they would find open sea and depleted ice. It was a huge debacle and they got stuck for weeks and had to be rescued by a Chinese ship. They did not even land in the antarctic. After that, the term "global warming" was quietly dropped and today we hear about "climate change". Back then, they used to say "climate change" occurs naturally over eons and was something that man had negligible influence over. Today, we are told that climate change is anthropogenic and that what took hundreds of millions of years to occur by nature, man is doing in decades. No more talk about global warming. The contrived war on carbon is reckless at best because carbon dioxide gives life to the flora, and decreased CO2 means decreased source of oxygen and food - vital ingredients for survival the human beings on planet earth. For the greenhouse effect, CO2 is only marginally relevant and the main player is water vapor - that's what the PHYSICS illustrates. Check out this video (series). ruclips.net/video/lsMWUK4WGkk/видео.html I hope Arvin Ash will stop relying on "authoritative sources" and do the research himself as a PHYSICIST and a youtuber and report back to us in the not too distant future.
We really need to, as a society, get past this fear of nuclear energy. That's only from the mistakes of the past generations. Technology, safety, knowledge, electronics, have advanced so much that things are night and day different. We had a very rough learning experience with the nuclear era and it timed up sadly with war but science and technology has advanced so so far in this realm just no one wants to commit to it because they have all these fears when really our fears come from this era that didn't take any safety measures, poorly engineered designs, poor technology, not respecting the dangers of working with the material which caused for so much unnecessary injuries. Now we have discovered so many new methods and possibilities to approach and apply this energy source in such a safer and controlled manner with layers of safety precautions set up that we really need to overcome these fears and see that if we want to eliminate carbon emissions, but still have enough electricity, then we need to trust nuclear energy. We went through our rough learning experience. It was rough yes, but things have advanced so much. You don't ever get better at anything if you give up and it's only natural that you stumble and fail when you're very first learning. So I know it's sad that had to happen the way it all did but I strongly believe nuclear energy is our future. Just think how much computers, ROV's, robotics, understanding of safety, understanding of different ways to build reactors, to use different materials, with much safer methods of operations so the reactors just power down and shit off and some are designed to be unable to melt down like we saw in the ancient reactors of Chernobyl. We won't be having anything like that going forward, that was the past, the future of nuclear is much more advanced, thought out, tested, I know we can do it. I know we can grow past our past trauma's.
Hi Arvin, good overview. If you'll allow me I would like to nitpick and expand on a few points, only because this is my favorite subject and what I know better than any other in the world. 1) You mention that the dangers of global warming is not just the heat but the extreme weather. What is worth emphasizing more than even extreme weather is the change in the climate itself. The Earth's climate has been remarkably, unusually stable for about 8,000 years. It's not a coincidence that this is when human civilization was born. The reason climate change is such a huge problem is because it is climate 'change' not climate 'changed'. It is a multi-century game of chase, of rain cross political borders and coastal cities struggling to survive. We are not hunter gatherers anymore, we have invested trillions in infrastructure and political borders for which regional climate patterns were a critical assumption. Now those assumptions are vanishing and will be unpredictable for a very long time. +1 C does not look very different but consider that during the last glacial maximum, the world was only around -5 C cooler than today -- and the world looked completely different. +5 C is well within the realm of possibility especially under business as usual scenarios. 2) It is worth noting that the extreme precipitation and hurricane intensity are not just predictions, they have already been observed. Extreme precipitation is already increasing globally on average (see for example: Höppe and Grimm, 2009; Groisman et al., 2012; Donat et al., 2019; Dong et al., 2020; Kunkel et al., 2020). So too is hurricane intensity (Hoyos et al., 2006; Grinsted et al., 2019; Elsner, 2020), droughts (Masih et al., 2014; Chen and Sun, 2017; Pan et al., 2018; Peng et al., 2019) and heat waves (Duffy and Tebaldi, 2012; Knutson et al., 2019; Chambers, 2020). I have spent the past two years collecting and categorizing peer reviewed papers that are based upon real world observations, an all of the papers I cite are based on actual data. 3) Similarly there is more observational data to point to the fact that human activities are responsible for the warming. For example the fact that nights are warming faster than days, also known as a decreasing diurnal temperature range, has been observed all across the world (Easterling et al., 1997; Alexander et al., 2006; Zhou et al., 2009; Davy et al., 2016 + at least 20 others) You did note the cooling of the upper atmosphere; here are some citations for that: (Emmert et al., 2004; Emmert et al., 2008; Lastovicka et al., 2006; Santer et al., 2013) And you missed what I think is the best one of them all, that there are studies that have directly measured the increasing greenhouse effect from CO2, from both satellites and ground based stations. We can literally see the radiative forcing from CO2 (Feldman et al., 2015; Gastineau et al., 2014; Harries et al., 2001; Kramer et al., 2021; Philipona et al., 2004; Raghuraman et al., 2021) Sorry to nerd out on you, if you want to see how I pulled these papers you can check out the database I published at climateobserved.org, the site is completely free to use and as far as I have been able to tell, nothing else like it exists.
I hope everyone realizes that worldwide temperatures began being recorded in the 1950's and 1960's. These temperature recording stations were then located in rural areas far from urban areas ( urban areas create conditions that raise the temperature about 4 degrees above the normal temperature because of the man made structures retaining more heat during the day and radiating during the night time). Over the last six decades these rural areas have in many cases become urbanized which all by itself raises the average temperature. It is not the highs that are so radically being raised the lows are now higher. Much of this is caused by urban areas retaining the daytime heat and then radiating it at night. Taken over a whole it has been found in the USA that about 40% of the once rural temperature recording areas are now urbanized. I am not discounting the increase in CO2 but this rising temperature data has been skewed by some major portion of the temperature rise of these urbanized areas raising the low temperatures during the night. One other major problem is every single model has been back tested on the past and failed but still the models are reconfigured so that the new variation in the variables are rejigged to stay constant with future man made expectations. Even a .3 to .5 degree skew causes the forecasts to change radically but the model makers and those reporting these number have a vested interest in maintaining the narrative. Once again do not read into this post that I am not for saving the environment and ecosystem from man made causes.
This is a good point, but I should point out that temperature data taken from satellites and weather balloons have been very consistant with recording stations on the ground. It is unlikely for urbanization to effect all these measurement methods in the same way, so the effect of urban recording stations is probably not substantial. Also, modeling the climate over many years is very difficult, so it is no surprise that they are struggling to make consistant models. The inaccuracy in the models is not necessarily caused by inaccurate temperature data.
@@justme-n-gracie Of course it began long before that in simple temperature collecting stations. I am talking about a world wide effort to monitor the earth on a planet basis in concert with data collection stations. In the USA it began in the 1700's but that underscores the point that all stations were begun in rural areas and the urbanization had not begun in earnest. Plus the last state in the USA was not added until 1959 when Hawaii and Alaska joined the USA as States.
@@samuelthecamel The satellite data is the only reliable manner to collect data over the oceans but that began even later than the 1960's, plus it collects data over both urban and rural areas when that still includes the urban area warming effect. Urban areas are of course man made but that does not stop the skew from the data occurring. The same data from areas that remained rural and the comparison from now urban areas show a much decreased rise in temperatures concerning the night time temperatures rising when the natural environment is much better at reflecting heat during the daylight hours and not absorbing it just to radiate it later on when the sun goes down.
Scientists have know about the Urban Heat Island Effect for a couple of hundred years. Climate scientists factor that into to their calculations. It's well known and understood.
Clear date in this video is great. The message that individuals are responsible for climate not giant corporations that knew the cause and effect in the 1970 and spread misinformation and lobbied for law protecting their assets are to blame. We need change from the top down not the bottom up. Sue major corporations for the damage from exacerbated storms.
Why should we only sue corporations? Everyone has a carbon footprint. Although corporations might contribute more, this doesn't mean they should be held solely responsible.
The problem is that less than 1 percent of people understand the implications, the other 99 percent control what to do about it. Science is not the issue, I personally do not believe that you can dumb the science down enough so that the general population can understand.
Well, you may be right. But denying the science or blaming it on global conspiracies, as many tend to do, is not helpful. And I'm afraid the latter is being popularized on social media as well as some shady talking heads in the news media.
@@ArvinAsh The vast majority of people do not understand how greenhouse gasses warm the planet, or why a warmer planet is a bad thing. So they turn to conspiracies to make sense of the world. Remember, things we do not understand is indistinguishable from magic. Simple minds require extremely simple rationalisations.
9:13 the heat absorption of water vapour is exactly the reason why I think Hydrogen fuel is a bad idea. If we replace Gigatons of carbon emissions from cars, trucks, ships, planes by Gigatons of water vapour as exhaust from Hydrogen fueled vehicles then we are not solving a problem we are making the problem worse. Especially because the specific heat ratio of water vapour is higher than that of carbon dioxide.
"Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) emit approximately the same amount of water per mile as vehicles using gasoline-powered internal combustion engines (ICEs)." - See Water Emissions from Fuel Cell Vehicles - Department of Energy for source. Also remember that water vapour does not accumulate in the atmosphere - it just leads to a bit more rain.
Thank you, Arvin! It's so reassuring to hear the facts of our situation explicated by an intelligent, eloquent voice of science. Invaluable service from an engaging channel!
Much appreciated. Thank you. The biggest problem may be convincing skeptics that there is a problem. I hope we can win some converts based on science. Thanks for watching my friend.
Well, that's a common misconception. Agricultural surfaces consume much more CO2 than the same sized surfaces of forests can do. The proof: The CO2 level rises by 10ppm every year from October to May and decreases by 8ppm from May to October. The agricultural used area of the northern hemisphere is much larger than the one of the southern hemisphere meanwhile the forests are about equal. The southern hemiphere has more ocean suface which gets warmed during winter and outgasses some of its CO2, meanwhile it's cold in the northern half and the agricultural activity is very low. This matches perfectly to the yearly oscillation of the CO2 level.
My question is, why are so many people so intrinsically skeptical about human influence on the Earth? Like, is it a natural tendency to avoid blame? Or do they just think of the planet as some kind of detached background?? So confusing! 😫
People generally are not as smart as they think they are and therefore don’t understand when others are deceiving them for nefarious reasons. Just go through some of the comments.
Defence mechanism? Not wanting to stop driving that SUV? People believe so many strange things. Flat earth. Antivaxx. Chemtrails. Many loud Americans are anti-government on principle and assume everything is the opposite of what authorities tell them.
Arvin I would love to see a video of how much the annual Forrest fires contribute to atmospheric CO2 ( and other compounds). Just calculate California over the last 3 years. Also include the amount of carbon sequestration lost from the destruction of millions of acres of forest. Maybe then climate activists can put pressure on politicians to increase the response to Forrest fire. Presently it is severely lacking. There should be a large and immediate Air suppression to allow ground crews to contain them early so they don’t burn out of control for months.
The trouble with suppression of forest fires is that it just allows the fuel to build up more and more over time, until you reach a point where there's so much you end up with fires so large and hot they kill the trees too. It's a vicious cycle.
@@simonwatson2399 We are indeed caught in a vicious cycle. It is because of a 100 years of suppressing every fire that started that a vast amount of congestion in forests has resulted. You may already be familiar with all of this, so pardon me if this is redundant. Now because of climate change worsening drought and heat waves and stronger winds have created the perfect storm. Fires are much more aggressive then in the past. Now many and probably most fires have to be confronted directly because human lives and property are at stake. And there are efforts to reduce the undergrowth that feeds these monstrous fires which is a step in the right direction. But there too there are risks. As you probably heard the Hermit Peak/Calf Canyon in New Mexico fires both had their origins in controlled burns. That fire ended up burning the most acreage in New Mexico history. In the past at least a couple decades ago that fire wouldn't have taken off like it did. Anyway this is the time we are living in for the foreseeable future. Stay well.
If climate change is actually important then there should be significant improvements to fuel reduction, aerial fire suppression and bark beetle eradication (genetically altered mosquitos drastically reduce their population). Yet none of these are being pursued in any meaningful way. Instead we have carbon taxes and carbon offsets. So Al Gore can fly around alone in a 747 to play golf as long as he buys a huge Montana ranch and says he won’t develop it?!?! That somehow is doing something. Also all of the Hollywood people are doing the same. 400 private jets flew across the country so people could go to one party………for Obama. These are the people pushing for climate taxes on me, but they are wealthy enough to get around the tax. Solve the forest fire issues (they aren’t insurmountable by any means) and we’ll have a bigger healthier carbon sink. And a few less gigatons of CO2
This is the most lucid explanation of climate change. Most of us are confused between weather and climate. It is frustrating that the Western countries which are in minority, progressed by consuming fossil fuels as if there’s no tomorrow. Now the burden of saving ourselves falls on the poor and progressing countries. West can lecture the rest of the world to conserve nature.
It does indeed sound frustrating, true, but frustrating. However, some of the burden must also fall on air travel and ocean liners. I won’t throw out an exact figure because I do not remember, but I can confidently say the vast majority of the worlds green house has emissions come form 4 sources: Airlines, ocean liners (shipping and cruise ships) China, and India. The rest of the world combined doesn’t come close to those 4 things
This was going great up till 14 minutes. Then "each of us can lower our carbon footprint". Nope, that's just an old big oil PR strategy. Each of us can do SFA (apart from not making another baby and going vegan). Each of us can do almost nothing to lower our carbon footprint because those choices have already been aggregated into our systems, institutions, political economy and production modes. As consumers we have choices only between the products and services offered, to allow us to continue producing and consuming in the prescribed manner.
True. But combined pressure can make a difference. Eg if we all turn away from mass consumption then there’s no need for mass production. If we refuse red meat then we don’t need so many cows. Change happens when there is will from the people (think about the end of slavery in the US). But you’re right. When the system normalises certain behaviours it is hard to get people to change and work against it.
Use bicycle instead of cars , reduce use of electricity , stop wasting water and other resources . There are few things u can do to actually reduce ur own carbon footprint .
@@anksssssssss If somebody is firing a gun at you you may as well run away - your speed reduces the relative speed of the bullet, but it doesn't solve the problem.
@@junglejuice4052 Yes. Combined pressure applied to the structure - ie revolution - can make a difference at a structural level. Individual virtue signalling gestures (prescribed by the owners of the structure) cannot.
@@theosphilusthistler712 it will solve , as reducing electricity demand and petrol/desal demand will eventually lead to decrease production , and over all reduce CO2 emissions.
Wow, a whole 70 years of Earth's "history". And these readings are TOTALLY reliable. For example, I came across people 'taking the temperature" of the ocean. Theory doing this so scientifically that they were taking the readings in 10 feet of water that was heated up like a bathtub in the middle of summer due to the shallowness and lack of current flow.
There are over 17,000 platfom/stations plus 1000 upper air stations, 4000 ships, 4000 aircraft, and a dozen satellites collecting data. Thousands of stations south of the Arctic circle and north of the Antarctic circle is more than sufficient to get a picture of the current rate of global warming
@rps1689 Oh yes, I know. I've seen some in person, that's the great part about it. Is you have human fallibility And predisposition Measuring to make claims against less than one millionth of the earth's history
You need to look at the areas we’re we took all the oil out of the ground ! As a mechanic if you take oil out of the engine that heats upto 800 degrees acting as a buffer from the core and the crust and replace with water that can boil at 150 degrees you’ll find that this is a major factor! Check maps of oil wells n spots of warming !
Silly, maybe stupid question Arvin, but couldn't we just use reverse solar panels? Couldn't we just install reflecting material on large areas like roofs to reflect as much sunlight as possible back to space?
Lowering the temperature through increased albedo is very possible and recommend, but it means you would have a dirtier looking roof as it ages so you would have to clean it, and people lazy af:)
Sure, it is possible. But even if you put it on all roofs of the world, the effect would probably be minimal. Most of earth's surface is not inhabited by rooftops, especially given the vast oceans.
Both are good questions. "Reverse solar panels" - Do you mean, to absorb the infra-red light emitted at night from Earth's surface, and convert that into electricity? No, we can't convert infra-red light into electricity efficiently. The solar panels that we've built work best under direct sunlight-where the photons have higher energy. They don't work at all with infra-red. Installing reflecting material on surfaces: Yes, it's being done. I can tell you the big changes I myself have observed in India over the last few decades. Earlier we only had black tar roads, and many people coated their roofs with black tar to waterproof it. Nowadays, most roads are being converted to "white-top" roads. Roofs are being constructed with white cement, or in any case, painted white to keep the houses below cool. People are also installing solar panels and solar water heaters on roofs to absorb sunlight. At the very least, they're planting rooftop gardens. Granted, the driving factor for all that is to save money, not combat global warming. But it certainly helps in its own way. I even read about an experiment (not in India) where actual scientists are planning to spray reflective particles into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight away, exactly like you suggested. 👍
Thank you thank you so much for making this video. This will save me a lot of time. It used to take a lot of time to explain people what is climate change and other things about it. Now I will share this video and this will reduce their questions and save me time. Thank you.
I’m sure there is climate change it’s been changing up and down since the ice age. This is what happens. Humans effecting climate change is what I disagree with.
@grindupBaker that's what your mom said when you were a kid. Still hasn't changed. Good luck with that. You think your miniscule emissions can effect the climate of a whole planet? Really? You think some plastic bags and straws are really making a difference? Blub blub blub. Go sniff some glue bubba. Or better yet go get on one of those boats or recycling barges and take a trip to the random banana republic country they send it to and pay them a fee to take. Because it's cheaper doing it that way than actually recycling the stuff. Then those same countries take those boatloads of crap and throw it in the ocean. lol
@ I disagree with it based on the fact, the Earth has endured cataclysmic disasters, many times the magnitude of anything we can produce as human beings. For instance. In prehistoric times, large volcanic eruptions could last for hundreds of thousands of years, with some major events spanning over millions of years, depending on the specific volcanic system involved; for example, the Deccan Traps in India are believed to have erupted over a period of hundreds of thousands of years, significantly impacting the end of the Cretaceous period when dinosaurs went extinct. So basically… there were eruptions producing some of the worst air, impacting, sulfur and gases into the sky at the Earth is still here and these lasted many times the length of which humans have been on earth. Yet you think that some little carbon emissions are going to make a difference? Whatever happens on earth is going to happen regardless of whatever we do. If all humans stopped using any type of gluten and just lived off of wheat germ and water gathered by rain storms, the Earth may still be headed for cataclysmic change because that’s what planets do. As we slowly move toward that change, which may be thousands of years from now, subtle changes will become noticeable. We as human beings think everything is about us so we interpret signs as resulting from our direct interventions. During the time periods listed above, the world was mostly uninhabitable however, it’s still survived. The oceans were polluted to the point of being giant pools of acid. Yet they still turned around and became what we know them today.
@@ArvinAshWho gets to decide what is science? Why is that soul is not incorporated into science? Nikola Tesla said that the day science begins to explore non physical phenomena it will make more progress in a decade than all centuries of its existence. So why is science deliberately ignoring this? The direction science is going in right now, with complete and overt materialism, it will lead to our downfall and extinction faster than climate change will even if climate change is real (human induced climate change is not but even if you assume for the sake of the argument.)
The video is great in explaining the cause of global warming. And it is also great because it does not simply picture a doomsday scenario. The world will survive, life will survive, humans will probably survive, but the point is that the suffering will increase and our civilization may end. The most problematic point is that there is no answer to the question "what shall we do". The hint to the personal CO2 footprint is weak and will result in nothing. The climate change will cost millions of life, but the change of industry from oil oriented to other energy ressources will also cost millions of life. Whatever we do, I see no way forward without reducing the number of humans on earth.
I hope you realize that your very reasonable and scientifically justified expectations _ARE_ the “doomsday” scenarios that are so mocked and derided by anti-science AGW Denialusts. They claim that AGW will actually be beneficial. Just sayin’.
We need to trust innovations and bravery to trust and fund these projects. We need to take risks globally to push these innovations and now it seems impossible, isolation will increase in the future and nations will take sides. I have little hope for the future.
A strong focus on nuclear and renewables, while developing more CCS for industries that cant fully decarbonize would solve our problems, we could have avoided the worst effects had we started even 10 years ago, but even a hard push now could see us barely break 1.5C by 2100. We have more then enough available low carbon solutions to support our population. To effect meaningful change through population reduction would result in the need to reduce by billions.
We cannot even agree on not invading neighbour countries, if this climate change can only be fixed by human collaboration, we are doomed.
Sssshhhh we all share the international space station whilst also being at proxi war......but don't tell anyone
Argument beautifully said!
@@tim.jenkins75I think when you’re that far away from home - you are grateful to have a neighbour. 😂
Human cannot do anything except to adjust and move, it has been like this. They way of nature.
exactly, tell your US friends to F out from Europe.
What bothers me the most about climate change or global warming is that nobody talks about the fact that the solutions being proposed by governments are likely to cause more actual harm and suffering than the climate change alone.
That's speculation, not fact.
@@MarshallTheArtist are they not though? Governments continue to ignore nuclear energy and yet want to produce electric vehicles from carbon emitting factories. They continue to use taxation without showing any real benefits while ignoring countries like China that has the worst emissions.
@@MarshallTheArtist Well, if the solutions are anything like the response to COVID, then it is speculation that is pretty spot on.
@@snarbywrx lol. Only if you're happy to put money before lives, which is pretty much what the climate change deniers want.
@@simonwatson2399 That is the thing. Nobody can say for certain which option will cost more lives. If the response to climate change is anything like the response to Covid, then likely more lives will be lost with government intervention.
Slight correction here: The "pale blue dot" was captured way further away then Saturn's orbit. Saturn is roughly 1.5 billion km away from the sun. This picture was taken at a distance of 6 billion km away from Earth.
Also, the 97% thing is a well known myth.
11:35 --" ...but heats up the lower atmosphere where greenhouse gases accumulate.." >>> CO2 , Methan, Ammonium and watervapor are quite evenly distributed! But do you know whats more abundant in the lower regions? Argon!
Plus:
The denser, the higher the temperature. In fact all weather stations haven been replaced into the valley, often next to a street where they are easier accessable, but also show 0.5-1.5° higher temperatures.
Plus:
the sun has shun with greater intensity. But that does not heat up the atsmosphere! Its the visible light, especially green light which incite water to change into vapor. Wate-vapor is the greenhouse gas with the greatest impact. Clouds reflect IR rays back down to Earth, slowing down cooling processes, and in addition: Every time water vapor turns back to rain, it emitts the stored solar energy into the air, heating up the air. Thats not just stored IRlight, thats a lot of visible light converted into IRwaves. Therefore the suns activity has a huge impact
Arvin, I cannot tell you how many times I have tried to explain to someone that weather is not climate but you... this is absolute brilliance. You have a *gift* for concise explanation. Exceptional video!
All BS if you don't share THE BEST CLIMATE (FOOD; HEALTH) SOLUTION EVER. Guess where.
It’s actually very simple: if it’s unusually cold, it’s weather. If it’s unusually warm, it’s climate change.
But what does it matter? The world will end in 2030 according to world renowned climate expert Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes.
@@rhandeymaahrsch2151 The only thing that’s going to end in 2030 is the renown climate expert Alexandra Cortez at least let’s hope so I don’t know why we got a wait so long
Um, seriously? This video was terrible regular bullshit propaganda... He said a bunch of unverified stuff suggesting more extreme weather... Which has not been observed nor did he link to any data that we could verify. Furthermore he brings up an argument from consensus with the mythic 97% if scientists, then uses that as an ad Hominem argument about the 3% who make fancy RUclips videos. Really when you find out the methods used to obtain the 97% statistic, you'd laugh out loud.
He also mentioned model simulations that were forced to fit historical trends that can't be used for any accurate prediction, doesn't address the extreme bias for warming in all models.... There is a lot of stuff he left out.
I think he wants people to watch the stuff he was paid to make... He does mention other content in climate change in his video...
@@kayakMike1000 Oh my. (sigh)
One explanation for the Fermi Paradox is that civilizations tend to develop the means to destroy themselves before the ability to communicate with the stars.
Unlikely to be the cause, as we leak out signals all the time. Proxima Centauri was able to hear hitler’s speeches and most things afterwards. The point is, is that we are constantly leaking signals. So other species should as well. But there is nothing.
Gen Ripper: That is what I thought the first time I ever heard of the Fermi Paradox many years ago. My thought was nuclear, however.
My only issue with this as a solution is that whatever happens would have to be so thoroughly catastrophic as to completely eliminate at a minimum, all life more conplex then a bacteria, every single time, without error.
Climate change cant be it, even at our destructive levels, we've already determined it generally as an exestential threat. Even at our current pace we can survive climate change at this point. Even if climate change wiped out humanity, and most complex life, any future inhabitants would not have nearly the available resources to cause as much damge.
It cant be nuclear war, even at the peak, there was still a possibility for humanity to survive, mostly in the southern hemisphere. It wouldnt have been easy, and the odds were against humanity, but it was possible. Even still, that doesnt see complex life eradicated.
My bet is that earth is among the first, weve already passed a previous filter such as the development of eukariotic cells, or that the conditions required for intelligent life are so rare that you get maybe 1-2 per galaxy.
@@tlpineapple1 Simple life survives; technological civilizations do not.
@@drbuckley1 I am aware, in fact i said that at least twice, which is my point. At its worst the 2 biggest threats to humanity right now would not reduce earth to simple life only. Neither may not even be capable of fully eliminating humanity. It only takes a few species to survive for life to quickly rebound.
The crux of the self selfdestruction hypothesis is that life MUST be common. Not even just life, but intelligent life that develops into a technological civilization. So common that at MINIMUM 2 species must have evolved within the same galaxy and close enough where the only thing preventing each others discovery is the certainty that they wipe themselves out before they get a chance. Anything outside of a galaxy is far enough away that those lifeforms will likely never contact eachother anyways.
When you take that into account, it becomes an almost certainty that any event that isnt thorough enough will almost certainly develop a new technological species.
thanks for pointing that C12 and C13 proof. I always struggled here when trying to answer, why this is not normal. Now i can argue even better
Also search Henry's Law
He is so amazingly clear. My go to has been the 2 million year ice age range of CO2 between 180-280 parts per million. Glacial periods down to 180. Interglacials up to 280. But today 422 and rising. So climate has changed in cycles governed by the orbit and tilt of the planet 🌎 over the last 2 million years. But now we’ve left the cycle with a 50% rise in CO2 over the ice age average.
@@christinearmington
440 million years ago the average temperature was 12°C (today 15°C) and the CO2 level was at a whopping 4200ppm (today 412ppm).
What's your explanation for that?
@@oldineamiller9007 @Oldinea Miller the explanation is in the video. It took 50,000 years for volcanos to load up the atmosphere with CO2, meaning when the temperatures reached their peak the CO2 levels were approximately the same 50 or 100 years before that. Therefore the fact that now the CO2 levels are rising at an extremely higher rate per 50 years hints at the possibility that we're going 200 mp/h towards a wall with our eyes closed.
@@oldineamiller9007 you can search it up yourself, but, long story short, this statement has to do with the early studies on the subject, the averaged time periods, the uncertainty on the data (for example an early study had uncertainty margins for CO2 (+/- 1800ppm), the method the samples were taken and analyzed with, etc. Newer studies have reduced immensely this uncertainty and have proven the relationship between CO2 and temperature. Apart from that, there are other factors also (Milankovich cycles, etc) which affect the temperature. We take that all into account in our models and see that this is indeed an anthropogenic global warming.
Why are our leaders not being honest about the time needed for potential reversal effects to show? If it took 200 years of unbridled industrialisation to get to this point, it will take significantly longer to constrain that industrialisation such that any reversal impact becomes measurable. This means absolutely no-one on the planet today will see any noticeable change or benefits from the measures proposed. No one.
The most severe effects have spiraled in the past 40 years, but yes, the groundwork for this runaway effect was laid 200 years ago.
Finally a video that thoroughly combines and explains all the scientific evidence for climate chance. Surprisingly there aren't they many videos like this on RUclips
Exactly what I was thinking. Not combines all, but just simply explained in a way that makes sense, in a way that doesn't force you to blindly accept something, or on the flip side, read half of Oxford's library.
most are superficial, missing-hole leftist talking points with no logic.
Nearly everyone admits that climate change is happening, blaming it on humans is where they get silly as hell.
This is not evidence. John Christie provides the REAL evidence you are looking for. Look him up.
No such thing as a global average temperature even if it did exist it would be impossible to find.
Sadly no one prioritizes this issue enough to change anything. The solution is less consumption (Don’t buy stuff that you don’t need) and more birth control. 90% of species will die and it will be humanity’s fault.
Arvin, I'm sure this sounds like a very silly question, but where did you find the graph at 11:37 (with the temperature anomalies of the stratosphere/troposphere)? I can't seem to find it. This is a kind of graph I've always wanted to find after I learned that the upper atmosphere temperatures are in fact decreasing.
I can't even give you a busted up pointer to the place, lol. I'm avoiding certain keywords, too. Keep getting my comments yoinked by RUclips. It's from NASA. "EarthObservatory nasa features GlobalWarning page 1". If you Google that, it should be the first hit (: Just shy of halfway down the page - which has a lot of other great related information totally worth checking out.
@@WhompingWalrus Thank you so much. I found it. Definitely gonna check out the rest of the page too, as it looks very concise and informational :D.
Please see all the references in the description. It's a NASA chart: earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ContentFeature/GlobalWarming/images/msu_1978-2010.png
@@ArvinAsh you do know that this casts doubt on anthropogenic CO2 as a cause of global warming... CO2 is considered well mixed, if it were causing an increase in surface temps, the CO2 in the upper atmosphere would warm as it absorbs infrared radiation. In fact, these model simulations that seem to fit historical surface temperatures so well don't fit the upper troposphere very well at all.
From what I understand the "upper atmosphere" is indeed cooling due to the IR being contained by the CO2 below it. Normally much of the sun's energy would be reflected back into space and warm the upper atmosphere on the way. But the CO2 in the lower atmosphere absorbs the reflected energy and re-radiates it as infrared in random directions so about half of that IR goes back to the surface which warms us a bit, mostly in the northern hemisphere.
The warming from the sun is consistent, it is the retention of the heat caused by CO2 that changes due to emission caused by human activities.
Precisely!
@@ArvinAsh The question is how much of the increase in temperature is caused by CO2 alone without considering positive feedback loop. I believe some scientists have already proven CO2 using pure physics calculation only contributes 0.7 degrees Celsius at most if we double it to 800 ppm.
@@leoteng1640 Would you mind explaining which feedback loop you are talking about, exactly? Also, could you provide sources for the .7 degree claim?
Nope.
Some top scientists are refuting that CO2 is the gas that causes warming. The physicist Freeman Dyson is one of the scientists that basically say CO2 is not the molecule that causes warming. They also say that Climate models(from Freeman Dyson as well) say that these mathematical/statistical models cannot be used to extrapolate into the future. Other environmental scientists/ Geologists also say that in the Earths past CO2 levels were 800 ppm to 2000 ppm, this was few thousand years ago, and there was no issue. So, the message that generally comes out to the public is that CO2 being the gas that causes warming is SETTLED SCIENCE, but there are many scientists who disagree. SO the question seems to be that CO2 being the gas responsible for warming is Not Settled Science. I think that there needs to be a big Scientific Debate in Public between these 2 groups of Scientists, so the Public can see what is what! When there are disagreements between scientists, then the Science is Not Settled.
“You can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason-if you pick the proper postulates.”
-Isaac Asimov (1920-1992)
The graph at 7:16 does not explain why Florida was under water 1M years ago and FL double in size 40k years ago. Seattle was under 100m of ice.
No it doesn't. Because it's about the current climate change being brought about by man.
What you are referring to is the ice ages during the Pleistocene epoch. Several more minutes could have been used up to explain how the various Milanovitch Cycles played an important role in the ice age cycle. There are of course numerous other videos on RUclips explain the ice ages in detail. Perhaps this channel does as well though I don't know for sure.
I’d like to know why no video,or even scientists ever say anything about all the concrete,and asphalt factor in to the warming? I’m sure we all know that this is a huge factor, not to mention that in the 1800’s there was little concrete and no asphalt ,when they factor in the temperatures of the times. They just blame cows and cars. Maybe they should plant more trees in those places where they like to deforest. I love the part where 97% of the scientists agree. Of course they do, or their funding would stop.
Scientists have been aware of the Urban Heat Island Effect for over 200 years. It is well understood by climate scientists and factored into to all results of all urban temperature gauges.
Most people don't give a damn as long as their internet connection doesn't get affected. 🤨🤣
Huh, that's what got me to start worrying about climate change. If the Earth sets ablaze, I'm pretty sure that will affect my ability to get on the internet.
well, they can't get at the pc if there's no air conditioner on, did You feel the heat nowadays XD
yeah it would be way worse when gets cold
Wow. Thank you for getting the important message out.
What a wonderful video on climate change!!!
The Scientific Community is not researching the ultimate answer to Climate Change. This “ultimate” energy is water splitting for hydrogen. Water has near equal energy as gasoline. The reaction necessary for splitting water is complex. I have formulated this reaction. The reaction is complex, but the crux of the reaction is Bismuth ferrite, this reaction is a Nobel prize winner.
Wow! Never have I ever heard such a great explanation about climate change. The way of approaching it via energy 'stored' in the atmosphere is ingenius. I also loved the animations, those were superb too! Excellent video, Arvin, as always!
No, it's not ingenious, it's dishonest and generally unhelpful back of the envelope estimate based on thermal capacity of air the volume of our atmosphere at sea level. It's a figure arrived at by highschool science and used because it's a big number and fits the AGW narrative. The temperature of the surface layers of the atmosphere is not ALL the energy in the atmosphere, the climate data clearly shows cooling or no change in the upper layers of the atmosphere. That energy is constantly exchanged with earth through wind and weather, always in major flux. It's meaningless.
Now is the temperature of the atmosphere increasing? Sure. A tiny amount. An amount so small, you need hundreds of climate scientists and expensive supercomputers to measure and report it.
@@kayakMike1000 the upper atmosphere is cooling because less energy is reaching it as it's being trapped in the lower atmosphere by the increased greenhouse effect of adding more CO2 to the lower atmosphere. If you object to the numbers, show why they're wrong. With numbers.
@@kayakMike1000 retreating glaciers, rising oceans, desertification, and more extreme weather are all additional evidence that increasing temperature is not good.
Irrational denial is no excuse for unethical values.
@@gravitonthongs1363 The ocean is not acidifying. The ocean is and will always be alkaline with a pH around 8.2. There is no evidence to suggest that ocean become acidic from CO2. CO2 plus water does not make for an acid ocean as CO2 largely STAYS as CO2 when dissolved in water. Algae and kelp are plants that USE CO2. Also, what are you going to do about rain? It has a low pH from nitrogen oxides fixed through natural lightning. Besides, a warming atmosphere cause a warmer ocean which reduces CO2 solubility in water. You can't have catastrophic AGW from CO2 if it's stuck in the ocean making the ocean acidic. There's enough calcium carbonate in the ocean to neutralize quite a lot of alleged carbonic acid.
@@gravitonthongs1363 carbon dioxide concentration increasing does appear to be caused by mankind, but satellite data indicates that there is a greening effect due to CO2 fertilization. This was actually noted in the last IPCC. Apparently, plants are able to use water more effectively so they grow well in more arid environments. So much for "desertification"
Amazing to get your insights and perspective as always!
Glad you think so! Much appreciated Brian.
@@ArvinAsh you are wrong on many accounts in this video, Arvin. I am extremely disappointed in your claim of 97% of scientists agree on anthropogenic CO2 caused climate change. The paper suggesting this myth was demonstrably wrong.
You're wrong too. I am not saying that the climate isn't changing OR that humans aren't causing it... I am just saying it's probably NOT anthropogenic CO2.
Look at CO2 absorption spectra. It's tiny narrow band absorber in infrared. Now check out H2O. It's a very broad band that overlaps the CO2. There is also lots more H2O vapor in the atmosphere... The vast majority of greenhouse effect is coming from H2O. CO2 is a well mixed gas, and if CO2 were responsible for warming, wouldn't we see higher temperatures in the upper atmosphere? The model simulations, from what I have read, all predict much more warming in the tropical troposphere from greenhouse gass forcing, but satellite and weather balloon data does not confirm this information. The model simulations are probably wrong.
@@kayakMike1000 - "The paper suggesting this myth was demonstrably wrong."
I defy you to "demonstrate" this without reference to a paper that is, in fact, demonstrably wrong.
What about El Niño and La Niña? Also the video could mention about Clouds interference on climate change and that co2 on atmosphere is very good for plants productivity and development . All i know is climate is a very complex thing with lots of variables and those NASA models are funny, it's never bad to doubt about weird claims of non-factual stuffs.
This is my favorite video on the subject so far. Excellent work, as always.
I would recommend learning more about the subject. His conclusions are pretty bad and remarkably debatable. The Paleocene thermal maximum had lots of biodiversity and the ocean has always been alkaline. Furthermore, huge volcanoes erupting in huge basalt floods that covered continents is a pretty likely source of global warming. Also, undersea volcanoes are going to release a lot H2O vapor that would also cause a greenhouse effect.
@@kayakMike1000 lmao , u talking about 1000 times more volcanic activity , world would be inheabitable if that had happened .
@@anksssssssss look up basalt floods. There were large sections of earth that were covered with active plume volcanoes for eons. And yeah, the earth wasn't very habitable then because if that volcanic activity. Sheesh. It's like teaching chess to chimpanzees...
@@kayakMike1000 true it's like teaching chess to monkey , who can't understand c12/c13 ratio .
@@kayakMike1000 Which part of C12/C13 increase described in the video you think is incorrect?
I truly like your channel, you explain in simplicity that anyone can understand it. Thanks for sharing your excellent knowledge with everyone. We learn a lot from your channel.
I do believe that we - humans are responsible for current climate change. I still remember that when I was a kid, summers were not as hot as today, and winters were not as mild as today. 20+ years ago we still have winters with at least a month with snow, and today we have only few days with snow. Not to mention that this summer was so hot that all the grass in our city dried, become yellow and still not recovered as the beginning of September.
The temperature graph you started with is wrong. Adjustments to account for the lower fidelity of past data systematically cool the past. When you undersample current temperature data to match measurement rates of the past, the warming disappears.
So if you change the data you get the answer you want, that's not science. You have a hypothesis that historical data is incorrect, so all you need to do is prove it.
This might be the best video on climate change ever produced. Thanks Arvin. Particularly good leaving politics out 100%. Pure science is what this topic needs. Just great.
The scale on the temperature rise chart has been moved to obscure areas where cooling has increased..... the climate is changing and many factors are at play, namely solar activity, milankovitch cycle, the pole shift/flip, the chandler wobble, increased volcanic activity, earths core cooling and of course us....... we are part of the equation, and yes the only part we have any major control over..... but we are not the be all end all when it comes to climate change.
I appreciate the spirit and intention of your comment. I hope you are aware, however, that EVERY scientific point in this video has been known and understood by climate scientists for several decades. It _was_ nicely summarized here, though.
Importantly, the “politics” in climate science comes from AGW Denialism, _NOT_ from climate science. AGW Denialism has _also_ contributed the accusation that climate science has been “politicized”. They have been very successful in perpetuating the false accusation that climate science is fraudulent, and underlain by a secret leftist political conspiracy. Thus, when you compliment Arvin Ash for not being “political”, you are inadvertently validating the bogus anti-science agenda of AGW Denialism.
If you had paid attention, you would have noticed Arvin remarking that apathy is worse than denial. Perhaps listen to your hero and start acting responsibly and work towards a better world.
@@oisnowy5368 That was uncalled for and unhelpful.
About the Theorical models used to predict very high temps in the Future, we should "thanks" to Al Gore that he destroyed the reputation of those models when, 20 years ago he predicted that by now there shouldn't be any snow in the North Pole or that cities as Miami should be underwater by this years. None of these "predictions" happened...hence the people really don't think it will matter the temp increase (at least for the next 50 years)
Al Gore is not a scientists yet he is still continually misrepresented because he actually got some people to pay attention. These events were presented as the low side of a large range... not dates certain.
Shut up crazy.
maybe happening 30 years slower but it still happening fast.
The problem is not coming to agreement about Climate Change. The problem is coming to an agreement on what to do about it.
Not in the US. Many people do not believe it exists. US has a lot of climate deniers.
The comparison of CO2 emissions in the PETM vs today is really depressing.
I pitched in my two cents worth by saving tree; I've stop buying NYT.
I'm sad and want to cry.
I live in the Southern US and the people I've argued with about human caused climate change who say its not real is mind blowing. No science will change their minds. Nice video, I'm a subscriber now.
What do you think about the Medieval Warm Period or the Roman Climatic Optimum? We didn’t have SUVs back then.
@@sergpie Local changes, not global warming. Somewhere else cooled equally during those times, oceans especially.
@@cloudpoint0
Lol, but isn’t this about “climate change”? I love the moving of goal-posts in regards to this quackery since like 2004; Al Gore, is that you??
@@sergpie
The Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Climatic Optimum are just local persistent weather changes that occurred in Europe and the North Atlantic region and are not about global warming or climate change. Both of these aren't even visible in any global temperature reconstruction whereas the recent warming is an unprecedented thermal spike going back over millions of years at least. And it isn't finished happening yet.
Why are you distracting readers from this channel's topic? Are you really Viscount Monckton of Brenchley?
@@sergpie both have been shown to be localised events, not global.
Highly informative. This video should be standard viewing in high schools across the nation.
I thing there are a lot of eco student terrorist already.
Who are you shilling for?
@@shadowdawg04 says the shill.
This video would be banned in Florida High Schools. The Governor doesn't like Woke and he doesn't like science.
@@simonwatson2399 Typical Comucrat...nothing original - LMAO!
I love all of Arvin's content, should be number 1 on youtube !
@Train 2noplace well said
In the last 50 years? Are you suggesting that the world did not have thermometers in the 1930s and 40s? It was as hot or hotter than it is today.
You missed the boat on a few items here. The range of interaction with infrared long wavelength photons is very narrow for CO2 and even more narrow for methane. That doesnt change no matter how much CO2 or methane you put in the air. Water vapor has a much wider range of interaction with photons and also overlaps the range of CO2. So adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will have very little effect on the temperature since they know this range of long wave photons is already blocked from leaving the atmosphere based on the planck curve they can meausre.
CO2 lingers for hundreds of years and and every change in CO2 has effected global temperature regardless of the cause. That rise creates heat which creates evaporation so the CO2 causes more water vapor. CO2 is the regulator and H2O is the feedback mechanism. It's not one or the other but the two in tandem. The melting of the tundra is releasing huge amounts of methane which is 25 times as powerful a GHG as CO2.
You seem to be forgetting that not ALL of the co2 IR bands overlap with water vapour. The same with methane. So me of them fall in the otherwise IR transparent band of the atmosphere. Then you also forget that the half life of water vapour in the atmosphere is 9 days whereas co2 is 120 years and methane 10.5 years. Lastly that water vapour is not a forcing factor of climate change. The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. You can't add more water vapour to force warming, it condenses out too quickly. Unless you cross the tipping point where surface water either boils or water becomes super-critical.
Those who emit the most Co2 should make the biggest cuts. So thats, movie/pop stars, politicians, rich business people etc.
But they actually do very little whilst being total hypocrites about it.
For the ordinary person who drives a small car (unlike most americans) and flies once a year, what are we expected to do?
Not goto work, not take our kids to school, not have a holiday?
US has by FAR the largest per capita co2 emissions of any major country, and quite frankly Americans are doing less than most to cut their co2 emissions. Get out of your giant trucks/SUV's and drive small cars like us Europeans.
Ordinary people shouldn't drive to work or school. Take a bike. Ride the tram. Go on a train. Leave the car.
@@XEinstein Can't really take my 6 yr old kid on a bike. Dont have a train near me and bus will take 2.5 hours per day. Most of us who dont live in a big city with good public transport need to use a car.
@@rchatte100 I've been carried on my mom's bike since I was one year old. Through sunshine, rain and snow, so that argument is pure nonsense.
And the fact that cars exist makes it possible to live far away from work. So arguing that "hey, I live 20 miles from work so I need a car" is turning cause and effect around.
Try to imagine living 20 miles from work if cars would not exist.
@@XEinstein I seriously doubt you went to school everyday during your childhood on you mother's bike. I think thats an entirely false claim.
I can imgaine a world where we lived in vertical cities that required no commuting but that's NOT the real world. Saying we could all travel in a eco firendly way on an alternative planet is not helpful or realistic.
We need to deal with the real world situation where most people do not live in cities with good public transport. So commuting every day in a small car where there is no alternative is perfectly reasonable. If it's not then fine, i'll take a bit more warming rather than having no job, no school for my kids, and a completely miserable life.
@@rchatte100 seriously doubt all that you want. It was my life for a decade. Looked like this:
ruclips.net/video/SfLJ876lXsQ/видео.html
It would be helpful if you'd do a video on the science of solar radiation management or geoengineering. The NAS put out a solid report on this last year, and the CFR put out an even better report on it last week.
What I don't understand is why it took 0.24 gigatons of CO2 over 50K years to create much more warming than today, and yet we are emitting 10 Gigatons per yea with much less warming. That's inconsistent. What gives?
Great question! What I didn't get into is that once earth crosses a 4-5 degree C threshold, then this probably causes an additional release of methane from methane hydrates which are currently frozen and locked. This causes an asymptotic increase in temps. because methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas. This is what happened during PETM according to the evidence. We haven't reached that point yet.
Natural slowness of the system? It takes time to change something as large. Meaning if we stop emitting now the warming effect will remain for a very long time.
@@ArvinAsh But then how does that show that it was the C02 doing the warming? If 0.24 gigatons was enough to get over that edge and release all that methane, how have we not reached that point by now? This would seem to me to indicate 2 possibilities:
1. It took all that time to warm up the system
2. It wasn't the C02 and it was something else
Number 1 just intuitively seem bizarre to me, and I don't have an answer for number 2, so if you could please explain I'd be all ears
@@mockupguy3577 That's also what I thought at first but that seems weird to me. It's not like the heat from summer stays during autumn, is it? No. But according to this it should. So it seems weird to me.
@@Fantastic_Mr_Fox it is a good point. I could speculate but it would be just that so no point really. Let’s see if someone knows …
So basically no matter how much we cut emissions the climate is still going to change. We're transitioning into a new epoch, and that means everything's going to chang, including us. The earth has changed her frequency and that will bring big changes no matter what we do. The animals are getting smarter too, though the change is gradual through our persecution it's still noticeable .
If there is so much extra energy, why don't we just harvest it? Is it possible to do it?
We could, but it is not make much of a dent, and not all of it is harvestable.
I've been extremely moved by celebrities flying private jets to Award ceremonies where they lecture me about my carbon imprint.
In the real world I have met only a very few amount of people who deny climate change or even deny that the change is largely caused by mankind. Heck, your 97% scientific consensus seems closer to my experiences in talking to people in the real world about their climate change position. And those few that think it is just one big hoax that isn't real are usually the most ineffective people around in terms of creating policy.
The real dispute seems to fall on what the solution is. It's not that most people think it's a hoax, in my experience. It's that the solutions are disagreed upon. HOW do you solve it? What do the solutions mean to poor people around the world who will be most affected? How do you get China or other countries on board? Why the resistance towards nuclear power? And so on.
IMO this issue will never meet a solution unless all sides are able to come to the table and have a fair and honest conversation about it, and I do not see that happening. Even if we in the USA came to an agreement on a solution, how effective is that solution if other nations refuse to participate?
It's a tough problem to solve, although I am sure those prone to authoritarian measures believe they have easy solutions.
I agree about your first statement.
What about the contrarians that represent the 3% that have, through history, shown that consensus sometimes has a tendency to be nothing but incentivized Bible-thumping (i.e., 97% of theologians believed in geocentrism, while a 3% lunatic fringe believed in heliocentrism). A telescope was busted-out and the rest was history.
I guess we need a better telescope; but after all the restrictions allowed due to “scientific consensus” during Covid, and that it is now coming to light what a farse the lockdowns were, I’m a tad skeptical if not cynical. Add to that my family’s home in western Italy that hasn’t had a tide-level increase since the 1810s, and compare it to the Democratic party’s predictions in America that said it’d be underwater by 2016, then one starts hearing those thumps again.
I take it you don’t live in Texas.
Money motivates all nations and when there is money to be made from green technology and money to be lost by inaction (eg your crops die or you lose your workforce because drought causes them to leave etc) then we may see change.
China is the worlds top producer of solar and wind energy (just google it) so it sounds like they are in. They know where the money is.
And massive corporations like Shell are injecting a lot of money into green technology. So corporations are at least transitioning.
Don’t know if it will be enough to save us though.
My understanding that a lot is being done in many different areas to solve these problems and good progress has been made. There is one video that really gave me insight into this progress and I'm happy to share it: ruclips.net/video/LxgMdjyw8uw/видео.html
The biggest problems with addressing climate change are "political narratives" and a "divisive world view." When correcting climate change gets hijacked to forward wealth distribution politics, and clean, efficient fuel sources (i.e., nuclear power) fail to be mainstreamed, ... then no progress is made.
Add the fact that several major countries such as China, Russia, and India have little or no emissions regulations nor do they even care. There can be no progress made when the worst offenders refuse to do their share.
Recognizing our human contribution to climate change is not enough. You have to identify what stands in the way of progress ... even if fails to support trendy political narratives.
Wealth inequality is, in fact, a key obstacle since going on an energy (read: wealth) diet is essential to reacting in time. Redistribution has to happen lest killing people by the billions is an acceptable option. Equitably expecting poorer developing nations to cutback is also problematic when wealthier nations have already emitted more than their share of CO2 getting wealthy off of it first. Talk about "worst offenders". Fairness literally require reperations as those nations start to suffer the worst of climate change. To deny wealth equalization while dangling magic solutions like nuclear or continued consumption is even worse. We will not innovate and consume our way out of this. Sacrifice and equity is a must.
@@snizami *"Wealth inequality is, in fact, a key obstacle since going on an energy (read: wealth) diet is essential to reacting in time."*
... And onward go the narratives! Taking something from one person and giving it to another does not reduce CO2 levels. Reducing CO2 levels reduces CO2 levels.
*"Fairness literally require reperations as those nations start to suffer the worst of climate change."*
... As long as you believe that someone owes something to someone else because of (fill in the blank), then no progress will be made. Nobody has a monopoly on destiny, my friend.
This adds to the validity of my original comment that humanity is not willing to sacrifice its narratives ... not even for the sake of correcting climate change.
Ghoulish libertarian thinking predicated on the utterly absurd belief that the ones who have in the first place got it completely on merit, perfectly equitably, without impacting anyone else. The world is not a perfect meritocracy.
Even more absurd in the context of climate change when modern day wealth was literally generated on the back of fossil fuels whose impact will now most devestate those who partook in it the least.
@@snizami *"Ghoulish libertarian thinking predicated on the utterly absurd belief that the ones who have in the first place got it completely on merit, perfectly equitably, without impacting anyone else. "*
... None of what you wrote reduces any carbon emissions whatsoever.
*"Even more absurd in the context of climate change when modern day wealth was literally generated on the back of fossil fuels whose impact will now most devestate those who partook in it the least."*
... Again nobody has a monopoly on destiny and nothing you have written reduces carbon emissions. Nuclear power and electric cars knocks out a major chunk of global carbon emissions.
Thank you for illustrating how humanity will never give up their narratives to combat global warming. The narratives have become more important than human survival.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC EVs will barely make a dent, are net + carbon emitters from source 2,3 and will remain so, and they require massive net+ infrastructure and maintenance. Nuclear reactors are expensive, take years to build, and provide good base power while being unable to react to changes in demand.. There are no magic solutions, certainly not ones based around ever greater consumption (through purchase of cars for e.g.). It's going to be painful and yet your worry is for the highly privileged to not lose some of it in the process. God forbid they have to pitch in. As I said, such a mindset is downright ghoulish: sociopathic even.
This video more than anything else I've seen or heard is the best at describing climate change and it's reality along with its probable causes. Thank you, Arvin.
fantasy
@@richardcowley4087 sadly not.
@@simonwatson2399 Then provide untampered, empirical and direct evidence for all man made climate change claims and predictions that have been proven ?
I find it very hard to believe (science does not have belief in it) when thus far none of these man made climate change claims and predictions including tipping points have never been proven, not one
@@simonwatson2399 you must be one of these tinfoil hat, flat earth conspiracists !
@@richardcowley4087 lol. I think not.
If we were serious about doing something and moving to a non fossil fuel society , we would be building Nuclear plants like crazy.
I bothers me that this well tested and efficient source of energy receives almost no attention.
This makes me call into question how serious folks are.
I am not a climate change denier, but I also think critically about this. Who becomes an environmental scientist? Do they do that for the money? No. People become environmentalists because they care about the environment. In fact they care so much about the environment that they don't mind lying about it. Sometimes the end justifies the means, they believe. But we have had safer nuclear power for decades now and better advanced technologies but environmentalists still say its got to be solar and wind. They don't care about making the world work, they care about the environment.
97% of environmentalists say people are to blame, but if I go to Boston and ask who is the best baseball team 97% will say the Red Sox. Does that mean its true?
I just think we can't listen 100% to the people who've been shouting "Chernoble killed millions!" When in fact it killed 26. We need a sane voice in this, someone who doesn't care, and can give an honest opinion judgement about it. Maybe a TV show with an activist and a denier of roughly equal charisma get prepared questions and get to come on and make their cases and attempt to refute the others. Unfortunately it's hard to prove a negative.
Do ppl become mechanics because they want to mate with cars or do they really just want to fix them? If they aren’t saying what you want to hear you need to change what you want to hear not challenge their motives. We’re talking ALL credible climate scientists. Not just a few.
@@jjhhandk3974 That's a creepy way of phrasing it but yes, very often it's a person who loves cars is going to be a mechanic. Ask one about his car and he'll probably talk your ear off about cars.
What makes them "credible"? I used to believe the CDC was sacrosanct, scientists who saved the world behind the scenes. Turns out they are just as much political hacks as anybody else, who change their response based not on science but what the president wants, or the airlines or the teachers union.
Changing yourself to fit the herd is sheep mentality. You go be a sheep though, I'm sure you derive a lot of comfort from the feeling of community. I will think about it critically and join a team on my own terms.
🚗 🐑 you're a creepy kid! Stay away from my car!
Covering climate change by going from quantum to cosmic. Really the best sir. Thank you.
I dont need to attempt explaining too hard now. Just need to share this.
I wonder if I can get away with saying "pressure is a stubborn illusion, much like time is a stubborn illusion."
@@jdin3987 Time is that which separates events such that everything doesn't occur at once. If you really want to believe that time is an illusion, but it sounds like a denial of objective reality.
@@kayakMike1000 Objective reality or objective perspective.
People don't seem to be too worried about climate change judging by all the huge homes being built that use lots of energy. 🤔
@@mikepuccini4932 : Large homes are still the exception in the US. 80% of the population lives in metropolitan areas. Lots of right-wingers believe the AGW deniers so they don't care. The size of the home does not necessarily indicate the total levelized carbon footprint.
Well with the destruction of all the trees and plant life can also be a cause for global warming, since they consume CO2
It's wild how controversialized non-value-based things have become within our modern political status quo. Something this well-sourced, evidence-based, and honest garnering this many dislikes really hints at the idea that the only thing the detractors would ever _not_ dislike would be a video telling them that what they _want_ to believe is correct, & affirming some identitarian insanity in that regard.
Well said
Unfortunately, science has become a political punching bag!
By the end of this year you will know at what degree your opinion was misled by the politics and a handfull of unfaithful scientists among the IPCC.
@@oldineamiller9007 you on the other hand will forever ignore any overwhelming evidence that doesn’t suit your beliefs. Repeated test results are not opinion.
@@gravitonthongs1363
Of which "overwhelming" evidence are you talking about?
Why start @ 1950??
Because he wanted to avoid the hot decades of the 20s and 30s of course.
Can anyone explain how does the heat bounce back from the gases when they come from earth but wont bounce back when comes directly from sun?
sun emits light of various wavelengths. Some of it bounces back into space after hitting the upper atmosphere, about 20-25%. The rest hits the surface of the earth and most of it gets absorbed because it is darker. It then re-emits it as heat, most of which bounces back to the surface. And More of it bounces back to the surface if there is excess CO2 in the atmosphere.
99% of your video content I agree with and 90% of this one I also agree with wholeheartly. But there is one part I vehemently disagree with. The responsibility of who is to fix this. "You can do your part" isn't going to solve this. The impact of the residential sector is negligible compart to the commercial and industrial sectors. Cars alone account for around 1% of all greenhouse impact. Me getting an electric car might make me feel better about myself or give me social credit, but it still causes greenhouse emissions across the board in generation. Same goes for so much. Green energy isn't a solution, While I might be able to power my house, its not a viable solution for an entire country, more so in the population dense sections. Nor is it the US's problem to solve anymore. We have 2 countries that account for well over the majority of greenhouse emissions that we must address if we want to solve this problem.
The fundamental burden of solving the issue of worsening climate change falls upon the lawmakers and diplomats. These people are the most vocal and impactful in either shifting the burden to us, the people with "You can do your part" while they do nothing, or flat out reject the notion that climate change is real.
Plus solving the problem of nuclear power fear might also help as its the most green energy we have that can work today. Hello Thorium? Thank the gods China is finally looking into Thorium molten salt reactors, the entire world will benefit from this if its successful.
Completely agree. Most people go on and on about individuals reducing their carbon footprint - what a vacuous and disingenuous platitude.
It is businesses that must change, an individuals carbon footprint compared to business is so insignificant it is laughable.
For those individuals who could make reasonable (meaningful?) carbon footprint reductions, well, they're the top 10% of people, the rich & powerful.
The other 90% of us, the normal person on the street, surely could reduce their carbon footprint by a little bit, but it would not make any noticeable difference at all.
Also of course, add in the fact that to make any meaningful dent at all in carbon emissions would require certain countries to sign up and commit to vast reductions in carbon emissions via agreements such as the Paris Climate Agreement (looking at you China! by far the biggest carbon emitting nation on earth but they refuse to act).
Quite right, this can't be a consumer led change it must come from the top down.
We can donate to political candidates who care about climate change. (Or volunteer or vote.) Oil companies lobby governments, so we can also donate to political candidates who want to limit corporate donations.
The government controls the corporations. The people control the government.
@@nathanbanks2354
I want my lobbyists to lobby for rare-earth mining by children in the Congo that necessitate the razing of rainforests because electric cars are good for penguins and trees! Lol
If human carbon emissions are causing a warming trend, then why was there a cooling period between 1945 and 1975? I don't argue either way, I simply point out a discrepancy.
Volcanism and industrial sulphate aerosols are said to be responsible for the cool spike in the warming trend.
We can cool the planet by releasing more sulphate, but it has other extreme consequences for life.
Earth did cool by about 0.2 C during that period. There are some theories as to why this happened. sudden increase of soot could be one reason. Soot would block sunlight to some degree. Ice cores from Greenland seem to support this theory. Realize that data is never going to be perfect. There are always going to be fluctuations in any given set a of data. As a scientist, you have to look at overall trends over decades. And compare that to prior decades to come to any conclusion. If you make a conclusion on a myopic set of short term data, that would not be a good scientific approach. Here is an article about my earlier comment: earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature4.php#:~:text=In%20addition%20to%20carbon%20dioxide,cooling%20trend%20from%201940%2D1970.
There is also the theory that an increase in sulfates from industrial production in the 40's contributed to cooling as it acted as an aerosol blocking sunlight. Volcanic eruptions like Agung in 1962 also resisted warming from accumulating atmospheric CO2 until the mid 70's. Here is a link that explains the connection.
www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming/
that was the best explanation of climate change that Ive ever watched,thank you man.
What is the recommended % of CO2 we need to achieve?
What has been the variation of climate over the last 1000 years?
What is the variation of CO2 over the last 1000 years?
Why is it that CO2 lags temperature increases not lead it?
Why is it China profits from this massive change in energy provision than any other country on earth?
Why is it China produces more CO2 than any other country, yet they aren't mentioned in any global warming information?
We are producing about 4X CO2 that all plants on earth can consume. If there is a "recommend" CO2 level, it should probably be 1/4 of what we are producing, unless we can increase the amount of carbon sinks such as forests and algae around the world. CO2 doesn't really lag, this is why we are setting new records for temp every year - as more CO2 accumulates, anything we measure is generally higher. China has a huge manufacturing sector with very little regulation. The world can demand that they do something about it, or make their products more expensive, by having them pay a "pollution" import fee. But the important thing to note is that the USA is still has the largest accumulated emissions, yet there is no national commitment to reduce our emissions, whereas China as signed the Paris agreement. We are all in this together. Let's NOT do nothing because someone else is not doing something.
@@ArvinAsh . Didn’t Biden sign the Paris agreement, reverting Trump’s decision?
Totally agree, let’s not follow the wrong doers.
@@ArvinAsh where is the info on USA being largest emitter? Ad what is the recommended level of CO2 for the world, not the emissions, just the actual % CO2 for the atmosphere
@@robberlin2230 the "recommended level" would be that which the atmosphere would contain if we weren't pumping so much extra into it. Around 280ppm.
@@simonwatson2399 do you know what you are saying lol, all life ceases at 150ppm, hahaha hahaha good idea, let's just die because people don't know basic information they are talking about, what the heck dude at least bring some brains to the table
👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼 so precise without much complicated technical terminologies keeping the message clear.
I've been wanting to learn about this for a loooong time!
I always thought the solution to me understanding this cycle was to read a bunch of research papers, but really the way you explained thought the lens of simple physics is absolutely amazing! I'm pretty confident I got the hold of the basic mechanics of climate change. Would love to see a follow up, nuanced video though! Thank you Ash!
Yeah buddy, a fifteen minute RUclips video is just as good as reading papers on the subject. You wanted to learn about this important and pressing subject for a looooooong time, did you? But you couldn't be bothered to, say, Google it to find any of the dozens, nay, hundreds of accessible articles for the layperson published by everyone from the New York Times to Wired to the National Weather Service? If that's too intimidating for you, I'm sure there's simple material out there meant for children and morons, you drooling imbecile.
Climate change is not man made, it's God made
You politely explained the answers to some of the most irritative comments I've seen over the time on RUclips.
Very good video and very informative, but at the end i would like to point out that our individual footprint compared to the industrial footprint of the big oil companies like shell or bp and big companies etc. is negligent at best. So maybe we sould start pointing out that, rather than blaming each person individualy for not recycling or using a plastic straw. Keep up the good work!
In more simple terms, temperature varies several celsius each day, even tens of celsius. So...
I always said how much energy does it take to heat an entire planet by one degree.
What bothers me the most about the whole climate change debate is the fact that whether it's real or not we're still destroying the envoirement and driving hundreds of species into extinction. Immidiet action is necessary no matter what is going on with the climate!
"Green energy"
Lol, scientists agreeing on something that is completely wrong is as old as science itself. One of my main problems with the whole "climate change" thing is that it focuses on the least of our problems. Overall pollution (especially of the oceans) and the de-greening of the earth are far bigger threats than global warming.
Agree with you or not, your presentation does what no talking head bleating on tv at everyone about global warming and it’s possible causes:
Rather than simply tell, you coherently and considerately explain for anyone who wishes to discuss.
Many thanks indeed
fantasist
@@richardcowley4087 what?
@@darrenelkins5923 fantasy nothing more
yet more claims of man made climate
utter fantasy, i am not surprised that i have to spell it out for you
@@richardcowley4087 you have made large assumptions through my comment. Your fury is blind and biases your interpretation of my text.
@@darrenelkins5923 begin with facts and not with fantasy
i have not made any assumptions
clearly, you 'agree' with statements in the video
there can be no 'coherent' conversation about this man made climate fantasy
Kinda like a joke we say during my high school day "The weather is very climate"😅😅😅
no mention of the fact that solar activity over the past 100-150 years has been the highest in the past 6,000-8,000 years, as indicated by sunspot cycles . . . but that doesn't seem set to continue . . .
Solar activity would increase magnetic storm activity so you would see vibrant northern lights. But this does not increase global temperature. As I stated in the video, the amount of solar energy hitting the earth (which has been rather precisely tracked for the last 50 years) has actually declined somewhat. In addition, if more energy was coming from the sun, both upper and lower atmosphere would be affected. The evidence for man made climate change is overwhelming. Why continue to make excuses, denying scientific evidence? Why not accept it and try to do something about it? We are all in this together.
@@ArvinAsh Then consider this: during the "Holocene climatic optimum" that occurred roughly between 9,000 and 5,000 years ago, temperatures were significantly warmer than now. And they seem to have been the "most warm" at higher latitudes, as they are now. So which of the various factors that you dismissed as accounting for current warming (ii.e. besides CO2) do you think caused that episode? I'm not being dogmatic here, and I don't believe you are either.
@@sidviscous5959 what about the current accepted theory about this period do you not accept? Milankovic forcing was estimated to be worth 40W/m2 compared with today.
@@sidviscous5959 : Climate always changes for a reason. We know enough about natural cycles to know that this warming is not natural but extremely fast and out of sync with natural cycles. Industry has increase CO2 by over 60%. CO2 regulates Earth's temperature. As it warms the atmosphere, more water evaporates which is the most abundant GHG. CO2 regulates and H2O is the feedback mechanism.
Saying that because warming happened before; industry can't cause warming now is like saying: because there were forest fires before humans, humans don't cause fires. It's poor reasoning.
@@lrvogt1257
Yet we know that the inordinate warming in the early 20th century was due to not industry or carbon dioxide, but by irradiation anomalies from the sun; particularly in the arctic. The main motivators for migration towards the USA of Southern Italians and Greeks in that period was due to the fact that agriculture had been decimated by about 1915/1920, where oranges would literally singe on trees in Sicily. That has yet to happen since. If anything, my family in Sicily has been investing in tarps to cover their citrus crops due to the inopportune amount of unseasonable frost near Catania.
But yeah, save the polar bears and eat bugs, I guess 🤷
13:30 - global tree coverage has actually been increasing for the past 35 years, not going down.
Forests coverage has been going down. In the US, yes increased. But globally, no.
Wild to hear a guy cite so much data and then throw in the completely nonsense number of 97% of scientists lol.
How is it nonsense? It's a conservative number from 4 different papers. Even if you believe all the data are flawed, the consensus is a LARGE number. It's not like 5% or 20% or even 50%, it will be the vast majority of climate scientists. Don't fall for that flawed argument from science deniers.
@@ArvinAsh What are you saying? Science is not based upon consensus. When classical electrodynamics was developed, all physicists of that time agreed that the theories of absolute space and absolute time were correct. It takes one person to be right in science.
A surgeon walks into the breakroom, " hey guys, I think we should wash our hands before we put them inside people". Consensus of surgeons who think they know everything..... There is no need to appeal to consensus when you are showing actual data to support your argument. If people weren't using this topic to pass laws and make themselves obscene money on the side that point might actually be useful. Thank Al Gore and his lies for the current skepticism.
@@Kath-N true. But absolute space and absolute time were overturned by creating a better theory that explained both the results of existing experiments and also made testable predictions that existing theories got wrong and the new theory got right. Opinion might have been divided, but experiments proved which model was more likely to be correct, or at least closer to correct.
@@simonwatson2399
Then why legislate based upon the conjecture of 97% of paid representatives?
A few facts. None of this is speculative or controversial
-It's been known in physics for well over a century that CO2 absorbs and re-radiates infrared, AKA heat
-With no CO2, Earth's average temperature would be ~0 F instead of ~61 F.
-Industry raised CO2 to 150% of what has been the normal high for a million years… As CO2 rises so does temperature.
-When heat energy is added to a fluid system it becomes more active.
-A warmer, more active atmosphere means more extreme weather.
-A warmer atmosphere increases evaporation making droughts worse faster with more crop failures and fires.
-A warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor. 7% more per 1 C. This makes precipitation more intense and increases wet-bulb temperatures. This makes more and worse flooding. Water vapor is also a GHG.
-A warmer atmosphere melts more ice. The heat plus the melt expand the volume of the ocean.
-Less white ice reveals more blue ocean which absorbs more heat.
-Melting permafrost releases more methane which is a far more potent GHG than CO2.
-Because of geography, the Arctic is warming much faster than the Earth as a whole. This changes the Jet Stream to larger, deeper waves which makes warm, high-pressure and cool, low-pressure areas more extreme producing more extreme weather.
-Warmer oceans means more energy is available to tropical storms.
No that's what your media and govt education system tells you Co2 increases have very limited resulting temperature increases Double Co2 doesn't double heat. Much of the planet is freezing much of the year. Coming out of a mini ice age, this very small heating (models are not real data) is expected The 1930s were hotter - tornados and hurricane are NOT increasing nor are droughts.. many places in the world (I live in a few these days) are actually cooler, the sea level is doing fine...just go to your local beach ..... the COP conference is a money maker billions they made - and what results have the trillions spent on Net Zero had.....nobody in the world is able to say that all the money spent causing untold environment damage and causing financial hardship for common people has improved anything and by how much? NO ONE! Propagandized people everywhere ENjoy winter up in the northern hemisphere - it's already a freezing doozy of an early winter
As long as there is corporate greed, nothing will change. We have solar/wind etc etc. But it's insanely expensive to "help" the climate, because of corporation and their greed.
All the more reason to pressure politicians to move all tax breaks away from fossil fuels and put them in to cleaner energy tech.
Arvin....How is the HUGE spike of potent GreenHouse Gas, Nitrous Oxide, "relatively recently" which is being measured in the Atmosphere affect climate change when NOX is also included with the complex energy variables interacting as mentioned here ?
I admit I was also on the team that thinks climate change is natural but when the part with C12 and C13 came, the first I ever heard of it by the way, I was convinced.
ruclips.net/video/lsMWUK4WGkk/видео.html
The evidence provided by stable isotopes of carbon has been known by Earth scientists for decades. We welcome you back, in any case, to “team science”.
You can trust that the interpretation that present day climate change is anthropogenic is based on _many_ mutually supportive lines of evidence, not just one; and that the high degree of confidence in this conclusion is based on overwhelming support. The accusation that climate scientists were just “making this up” or are corrupt or incompetent is part of a much broader attack against science and “the elites” that is insidious and evil.
When did the terminology change to "climate change"? What happened to global warming?
@@mbvgvskvrs868 Probably when certain "scientists" started using snowy weather to debunk "global warming".
@@-_James_- Its actually in 2014 when the "scientists" organized a big expedition to the antarctic to demonstrate to the world once and for all that the polar icecaps were melting due to global warming. It was a big media event and outlets like the BBC reported it "live". But the "scientists" got stuck in polar ice because antartica ice has frozen much more of the ocean while they had assumed they would find open sea and depleted ice. It was a huge debacle and they got stuck for weeks and had to be rescued by a Chinese ship. They did not even land in the antarctic. After that, the term "global warming" was quietly dropped and today we hear about "climate change". Back then, they used to say "climate change" occurs naturally over eons and was something that man had negligible influence over. Today, we are told that climate change is anthropogenic and that what took hundreds of millions of years to occur by nature, man is doing in decades. No more talk about global warming. The contrived war on carbon is reckless at best because carbon dioxide gives life to the flora, and decreased CO2 means decreased source of oxygen and food - vital ingredients for survival the human beings on planet earth. For the greenhouse effect, CO2 is only marginally relevant and the main player is water vapor - that's what the PHYSICS illustrates. Check out this video (series).
ruclips.net/video/lsMWUK4WGkk/видео.html
I hope Arvin Ash will stop relying on "authoritative sources" and do the research himself as a PHYSICIST and a youtuber and report back to us in the not too distant future.
Thank you for the fantastic video! Very balanced, very informative.
We really need to, as a society, get past this fear of nuclear energy. That's only from the mistakes of the past generations. Technology, safety, knowledge, electronics, have advanced so much that things are night and day different. We had a very rough learning experience with the nuclear era and it timed up sadly with war but science and technology has advanced so so far in this realm just no one wants to commit to it because they have all these fears when really our fears come from this era that didn't take any safety measures, poorly engineered designs, poor technology, not respecting the dangers of working with the material which caused for so much unnecessary injuries. Now we have discovered so many new methods and possibilities to approach and apply this energy source in such a safer and controlled manner with layers of safety precautions set up that we really need to overcome these fears and see that if we want to eliminate carbon emissions, but still have enough electricity, then we need to trust nuclear energy. We went through our rough learning experience. It was rough yes, but things have advanced so much. You don't ever get better at anything if you give up and it's only natural that you stumble and fail when you're very first learning. So I know it's sad that had to happen the way it all did but I strongly believe nuclear energy is our future. Just think how much computers, ROV's, robotics, understanding of safety, understanding of different ways to build reactors, to use different materials, with much safer methods of operations so the reactors just power down and shit off and some are designed to be unable to melt down like we saw in the ancient reactors of Chernobyl. We won't be having anything like that going forward, that was the past, the future of nuclear is much more advanced, thought out, tested, I know we can do it. I know we can grow past our past trauma's.
Very informative video! Thanks!
Very informative! Thank you.
Hi Arvin, good overview. If you'll allow me I would like to nitpick and expand on a few points, only because this is my favorite subject and what I know better than any other in the world.
1) You mention that the dangers of global warming is not just the heat but the extreme weather. What is worth emphasizing more than even extreme weather is the change in the climate itself. The Earth's climate has been remarkably, unusually stable for about 8,000 years. It's not a coincidence that this is when human civilization was born. The reason climate change is such a huge problem is because it is climate 'change' not climate 'changed'. It is a multi-century game of chase, of rain cross political borders and coastal cities struggling to survive. We are not hunter gatherers anymore, we have invested trillions in infrastructure and political borders for which regional climate patterns were a critical assumption. Now those assumptions are vanishing and will be unpredictable for a very long time. +1 C does not look very different but consider that during the last glacial maximum, the world was only around -5 C cooler than today -- and the world looked completely different. +5 C is well within the realm of possibility especially under business as usual scenarios.
2) It is worth noting that the extreme precipitation and hurricane intensity are not just predictions, they have already been observed. Extreme precipitation is already increasing globally on average (see for example: Höppe and Grimm, 2009; Groisman et al., 2012; Donat et al., 2019; Dong et al., 2020; Kunkel et al., 2020). So too is hurricane intensity (Hoyos et al., 2006; Grinsted et al., 2019; Elsner, 2020), droughts (Masih et al., 2014; Chen and Sun, 2017; Pan et al., 2018; Peng et al., 2019) and heat waves (Duffy and Tebaldi, 2012; Knutson et al., 2019; Chambers, 2020). I have spent the past two years collecting and categorizing peer reviewed papers that are based upon real world observations, an all of the papers I cite are based on actual data.
3) Similarly there is more observational data to point to the fact that human activities are responsible for the warming. For example the fact that nights are warming faster than days, also known as a decreasing diurnal temperature range, has been observed all across the world (Easterling et al., 1997; Alexander et al., 2006; Zhou et al., 2009; Davy et al., 2016 + at least 20 others)
You did note the cooling of the upper atmosphere; here are some citations for that: (Emmert et al., 2004; Emmert et al., 2008; Lastovicka et al., 2006; Santer et al., 2013)
And you missed what I think is the best one of them all, that there are studies that have directly measured the increasing greenhouse effect from CO2, from both satellites and ground based stations. We can literally see the radiative forcing from CO2 (Feldman et al., 2015; Gastineau et al., 2014; Harries et al., 2001; Kramer et al., 2021; Philipona et al., 2004; Raghuraman et al., 2021)
Sorry to nerd out on you, if you want to see how I pulled these papers you can check out the database I published at climateobserved.org, the site is completely free to use and as far as I have been able to tell, nothing else like it exists.
Great. Thanks for the additional insights.
Climate change deniers must really hate you.
@@primonomeultimonome 🤣 And they can hate you too! I made my tool free and wide open for anyone to use for a reason.
I hope everyone realizes that worldwide temperatures began being recorded in the 1950's and 1960's. These temperature recording stations were then located in rural areas far from urban areas ( urban areas create conditions that raise the temperature about 4 degrees above the normal temperature because of the man made structures retaining more heat during the day and radiating during the night time). Over the last six decades these rural areas have in many cases become urbanized which all by itself raises the average temperature. It is not the highs that are so radically being raised the lows are now higher. Much of this is caused by urban areas retaining the daytime heat and then radiating it at night.
Taken over a whole it has been found in the USA that about 40% of the once rural temperature recording areas are now urbanized. I am not discounting the increase in CO2 but this rising temperature data has been skewed by some major portion of the temperature rise of these urbanized areas raising the low temperatures during the night. One other major problem is every single model has been back tested on the past and failed but still the models are reconfigured so that the new variation in the variables are rejigged to stay constant with future man made expectations.
Even a .3 to .5 degree skew causes the forecasts to change radically but the model makers and those reporting these number have a vested interest in maintaining the narrative. Once again do not read into this post that I am not for saving the environment and ecosystem from man made causes.
This is a good point, but I should point out that temperature data taken from satellites and weather balloons have been very consistant with recording stations on the ground. It is unlikely for urbanization to effect all these measurement methods in the same way, so the effect of urban recording stations is probably not substantial.
Also, modeling the climate over many years is very difficult, so it is no surprise that they are struggling to make consistant models. The inaccuracy in the models is not necessarily caused by inaccurate temperature data.
lol it began long before that
@@justme-n-gracie Of course it began long before that in simple temperature collecting stations. I am talking about a world wide effort to monitor the earth on a planet basis in concert with data collection stations. In the USA it began in the 1700's but that underscores the point that all stations were begun in rural areas and the urbanization had not begun in earnest. Plus the last state in the USA was not added until 1959 when Hawaii and Alaska joined the USA as States.
@@samuelthecamel The satellite data is the only reliable manner to collect data over the oceans but that began even later than the 1960's, plus it collects data over both urban and rural areas when that still includes the urban area warming effect.
Urban areas are of course man made but that does not stop the skew from the data occurring. The same data from areas that remained rural and the comparison from now urban areas show a much decreased rise in temperatures concerning the night time temperatures rising when the natural environment is much better at reflecting heat during the daylight hours and not absorbing it just to radiate it later on when the sun goes down.
Scientists have know about the Urban Heat Island Effect for a couple of hundred years. Climate scientists factor that into to their calculations. It's well known and understood.
Clear date in this video is great. The message that individuals are responsible for climate not giant corporations that knew the cause and effect in the 1970 and spread misinformation and lobbied for law protecting their assets are to blame. We need change from the top down not the bottom up. Sue major corporations for the damage from exacerbated storms.
Why should we only sue corporations? Everyone has a carbon footprint. Although corporations might contribute more, this doesn't mean they should be held solely responsible.
The problem is that less than 1 percent of people understand the implications, the other 99 percent control what to do about it. Science is not the issue, I personally do not believe that you can dumb the science down enough so that the general population can understand.
Well, you may be right. But denying the science or blaming it on global conspiracies, as many tend to do, is not helpful. And I'm afraid the latter is being popularized on social media as well as some shady talking heads in the news media.
@@ArvinAsh The vast majority of people do not understand how greenhouse gasses warm the planet, or why a warmer planet is a bad thing. So they turn to conspiracies to make sense of the world. Remember, things we do not understand is indistinguishable from magic. Simple minds require extremely simple rationalisations.
@@ArvinAsh : The fossil fuel industry is spending billions of dollars on climate denial, misinformation and confusion. See Merchants of Doubt
1% of the population actually controls-and profits from- the production of industrial CO2, deforestation and meat production.
9:13 the heat absorption of water vapour is exactly the reason why I think Hydrogen fuel is a bad idea.
If we replace Gigatons of carbon emissions from cars, trucks, ships, planes by Gigatons of water vapour as exhaust from Hydrogen fueled vehicles then we are not solving a problem we are making the problem worse. Especially because the specific heat ratio of water vapour is higher than that of carbon dioxide.
Condense it before it leaves.
@@aaronale5 that would indeed be the solution, but is it also being done?
@@TD-zr5xm indeed! I've been driving an EV for over two years now. So now I don't feel guilty of taking three or more flights per year anymore. 🤦🏼♂️
Isn’t the oceans giving off a lot more Vapor?
"Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) emit approximately the same amount of water per mile as vehicles using gasoline-powered internal combustion engines (ICEs)." - See Water Emissions from Fuel Cell Vehicles - Department of Energy for source. Also remember that water vapour does not accumulate in the atmosphere - it just leads to a bit more rain.
Thank you, Arvin! It's so reassuring to hear the facts of our situation explicated by an intelligent, eloquent voice of science. Invaluable service from an engaging channel!
Much appreciated. Thank you. The biggest problem may be convincing skeptics that there is a problem. I hope we can win some converts based on science. Thanks for watching my friend.
Cutting complete forests down for farming to create bio fuel should be stopped. It's not better for the climate.
I agree. I also think Ethanol addition to gasoline is a sham.
@@ArvinAsh oh it for sure... all gov and padding of pockets brought that around
@@ArvinAsh I smugly pay extra for non ethanol because corn should feed people and (other) animals.
Also virtue signaling. 🤦♀️🔥
Well, that's a common misconception.
Agricultural surfaces consume much more CO2 than the same sized surfaces of forests can do.
The proof: The CO2 level rises by 10ppm every year from October to May and decreases by 8ppm from May to October.
The agricultural used area of the northern hemisphere is much larger than the one of the southern hemisphere meanwhile the forests are about equal.
The southern hemiphere has more ocean suface which gets warmed during winter and outgasses some of its CO2, meanwhile it's cold in the northern half and the agricultural activity is very low.
This matches perfectly to the yearly oscillation of the CO2 level.
My question is, why are so many people so intrinsically skeptical about human influence on the Earth? Like, is it a natural tendency to avoid blame? Or do they just think of the planet as some kind of detached background?? So confusing! 😫
I think everyone agrees that humans have an impact on the planet. The question is what extent of climate change is natural vs human-caused.
People generally are not as smart as they think they are and therefore don’t understand when others are deceiving them for nefarious reasons. Just go through some of the comments.
The only fish that go with the flow are dead ones; question consensus, especially post-Covid.
Defence mechanism? Not wanting to stop driving that SUV?
People believe so many strange things. Flat earth. Antivaxx. Chemtrails. Many loud Americans are anti-government on principle and assume everything is the opposite of what authorities tell them.
@@edwardwood3622 , yup, half the population is below average intelligence.
Very well made video, thank you !
Arvin I would love to see a video of how much the annual Forrest fires contribute to atmospheric CO2 ( and other compounds). Just calculate California over the last 3 years. Also include the amount of carbon sequestration lost from the destruction of millions of acres of forest. Maybe then climate activists can put pressure on politicians to increase the response to Forrest fire. Presently it is severely lacking. There should be a large and immediate Air suppression to allow ground crews to contain them early so they don’t burn out of control for months.
Good thoughts.
The trouble with suppression of forest fires is that it just allows the fuel to build up more and more over time, until you reach a point where there's so much you end up with fires so large and hot they kill the trees too. It's a vicious cycle.
@@simonwatson2399 We are indeed caught in a vicious cycle. It is because of a 100 years of suppressing every fire that started that a vast amount of congestion in forests has resulted. You may already be familiar with all of this, so pardon me if this is redundant.
Now because of climate change worsening drought and heat waves and stronger winds have created the perfect storm. Fires are much more aggressive then in the past. Now many and probably most fires have to be confronted directly because human lives and property are at stake.
And there are efforts to reduce the undergrowth that feeds these monstrous fires which is a step in the right direction. But there too there are risks. As you probably heard the Hermit Peak/Calf Canyon in New Mexico fires both had their origins in controlled burns. That fire ended up burning the most acreage in New Mexico history. In the past at least a couple decades ago that fire wouldn't have taken off like it did.
Anyway this is the time we are living in for the foreseeable future. Stay well.
If climate change is actually important then there should be significant improvements to fuel reduction, aerial fire suppression and bark beetle eradication (genetically altered mosquitos drastically reduce their population).
Yet none of these are being pursued in any meaningful way. Instead we have carbon taxes and carbon offsets. So Al Gore can fly around alone in a 747 to play golf as long as he buys a huge Montana ranch and says he won’t develop it?!?! That somehow is doing something. Also all of the Hollywood people are doing the same. 400 private jets flew across the country so people could go to one party………for Obama. These are the people pushing for climate taxes on me, but they are wealthy enough to get around the tax.
Solve the forest fire issues (they aren’t insurmountable by any means) and we’ll have a bigger healthier carbon sink. And a few less gigatons of CO2
Arvin, thank you for this easy-to-understand explanation of climate change.
This is the most lucid explanation of climate change. Most of us are confused between weather and climate.
It is frustrating that the Western countries which are in minority, progressed by consuming fossil fuels as if there’s no tomorrow. Now the burden of saving ourselves falls on the poor and progressing countries. West can lecture the rest of the world to conserve nature.
The biggest polluters are in the east, namely China, India, and Russia.
First mover advantage.
It does indeed sound frustrating, true, but frustrating. However, some of the burden must also fall on air travel and ocean liners. I won’t throw out an exact figure because I do not remember, but I can confidently say the vast majority of the worlds green house has emissions come form 4 sources: Airlines, ocean liners (shipping and cruise ships) China, and India. The rest of the world combined doesn’t come close to those 4 things
This was going great up till 14 minutes. Then "each of us can lower our carbon footprint". Nope, that's just an old big oil PR strategy. Each of us can do SFA (apart from not making another baby and going vegan). Each of us can do almost nothing to lower our carbon footprint because those choices have already been aggregated into our systems, institutions, political economy and production modes. As consumers we have choices only between the products and services offered, to allow us to continue producing and consuming in the prescribed manner.
True. But combined pressure can make a difference. Eg if we all turn away from mass consumption then there’s no need for mass production. If we refuse red meat then we don’t need so many cows. Change happens when there is will from the people (think about the end of slavery in the US).
But you’re right. When the system normalises certain behaviours it is hard to get people to change and work against it.
Use bicycle instead of cars , reduce use of electricity , stop wasting water and other resources . There are few things u can do to actually reduce ur own carbon footprint .
@@anksssssssss If somebody is firing a gun at you you may as well run away - your speed reduces the relative speed of the bullet, but it doesn't solve the problem.
@@junglejuice4052 Yes. Combined pressure applied to the structure - ie revolution - can make a difference at a structural level. Individual virtue signalling gestures (prescribed by the owners of the structure) cannot.
@@theosphilusthistler712 it will solve , as reducing electricity demand and petrol/desal demand will eventually lead to decrease production , and over all reduce CO2 emissions.
Wow, a whole 70 years of Earth's "history".
And these readings are TOTALLY reliable. For example, I came across people 'taking the temperature" of the ocean. Theory doing this so scientifically that they were taking the readings in 10 feet of water that was heated up like a bathtub in the middle of summer due to the shallowness and lack of current flow.
There are over 17,000 platfom/stations plus 1000 upper air stations, 4000 ships, 4000 aircraft, and a dozen satellites collecting data. Thousands of stations south of the Arctic circle and north of the Antarctic circle is more than sufficient to get a picture of the current rate of global warming
@rps1689 Oh yes, I know. I've seen some in person, that's the great part about it. Is you have human fallibility And predisposition Measuring to make claims against less than one millionth of the earth's history
You need to look at the areas we’re we took all the oil out of the ground ! As a mechanic if you take oil out of the engine that heats upto 800 degrees acting as a buffer from the core and the crust and replace with water that can boil at 150 degrees you’ll find that this is a major factor! Check maps of oil wells n spots of warming !
Silly, maybe stupid question Arvin, but couldn't we just use reverse solar panels? Couldn't we just install reflecting material on large areas like roofs to reflect as much sunlight as possible back to space?
Lowering the temperature through increased albedo is very possible and recommend, but it means you would have a dirtier looking roof as it ages so you would have to clean it, and people lazy af:)
Sure, it is possible. But even if you put it on all roofs of the world, the effect would probably be minimal. Most of earth's surface is not inhabited by rooftops, especially given the vast oceans.
Both are good questions.
"Reverse solar panels" - Do you mean, to absorb the infra-red light emitted at night from Earth's surface, and convert that into electricity? No, we can't convert infra-red light into electricity efficiently. The solar panels that we've built work best under direct sunlight-where the photons have higher energy. They don't work at all with infra-red.
Installing reflecting material on surfaces: Yes, it's being done. I can tell you the big changes I myself have observed in India over the last few decades. Earlier we only had black tar roads, and many people coated their roofs with black tar to waterproof it. Nowadays, most roads are being converted to "white-top" roads. Roofs are being constructed with white cement, or in any case, painted white to keep the houses below cool. People are also installing solar panels and solar water heaters on roofs to absorb sunlight. At the very least, they're planting rooftop gardens.
Granted, the driving factor for all that is to save money, not combat global warming. But it certainly helps in its own way.
I even read about an experiment (not in India) where actual scientists are planning to spray reflective particles into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight away, exactly like you suggested. 👍
That’s actually a good idea. It has been proposed before . Google it there’s even figures calculated.
Thank you thank you so much for making this video. This will save me a lot of time.
It used to take a lot of time to explain people what is climate change and other things about it. Now I will share this video and this will reduce their questions and save me time. Thank you.
I’m sure there is climate change it’s been changing up and down since the ice age. This is what happens. Humans effecting climate change is what I disagree with.
@grindupBaker that's what your mom said when you were a kid. Still hasn't changed. Good luck with that. You think your miniscule emissions can effect the climate of a whole planet? Really? You think some plastic bags and straws are really making a difference? Blub blub blub. Go sniff some glue bubba. Or better yet go get on one of those boats or recycling barges and take a trip to the random banana republic country they send it to and pay them a fee to take. Because it's cheaper doing it that way than actually recycling the stuff. Then those same countries take those boatloads of crap and throw it in the ocean. lol
You disagree with it based on what?
@ I disagree with it based on the fact, the Earth has endured cataclysmic disasters, many times the magnitude of anything we can produce as human beings. For instance.
In prehistoric times, large volcanic eruptions could last for hundreds of thousands of years, with some major events spanning over millions of years, depending on the specific volcanic system involved; for example, the Deccan Traps in India are believed to have erupted over a period of hundreds of thousands of years, significantly impacting the end of the Cretaceous period when dinosaurs went extinct.
So basically… there were eruptions producing some of the worst air, impacting, sulfur and gases into the sky at the Earth is still here and these lasted many times the length of which humans have been on earth. Yet you think that some little carbon emissions are going to make a difference? Whatever happens on earth is going to happen regardless of whatever we do. If all humans stopped using any type of gluten and just lived off of wheat germ and water gathered by rain storms, the Earth may still be headed for cataclysmic change because that’s what planets do.
As we slowly move toward that change, which may be thousands of years from now, subtle changes will become noticeable. We as human beings think everything is about us so we interpret signs as resulting from our direct interventions.
During the time periods listed above, the world was mostly uninhabitable however, it’s still survived. The oceans were polluted to the point of being giant pools of acid. Yet they still turned around and became what we know them today.
Thank you, very clear
My final time listening to the Left on science was the covid fiasco.
Why has science-denial become part of our political discourse?
@@ArvinAshWho gets to decide what is science? Why is that soul is not incorporated into science? Nikola Tesla said that the day science begins to explore non physical phenomena it will make more progress in a decade than all centuries of its existence. So why is science deliberately ignoring this? The direction science is going in right now, with complete and overt materialism, it will lead to our downfall and extinction faster than climate change will even if climate change is real (human induced climate change is not but even if you assume for the sake of the argument.)
You should stick to right wing science.
The real cause is Lunatics.
Lunatics in jet and SUV
The video is great in explaining the cause of global warming. And it is also great because it does not simply picture a doomsday scenario. The world will survive, life will survive, humans will probably survive, but the point is that the suffering will increase and our civilization may end.
The most problematic point is that there is no answer to the question "what shall we do". The hint to the personal CO2 footprint is weak and will result in nothing. The climate change will cost millions of life, but the change of industry from oil oriented to other energy ressources will also cost millions of life.
Whatever we do, I see no way forward without reducing the number of humans on earth.
I hope you realize that your very reasonable and scientifically justified expectations _ARE_ the “doomsday” scenarios that are so mocked and derided by anti-science AGW Denialusts. They claim that AGW will actually be beneficial.
Just sayin’.
We need to trust innovations and bravery to trust and fund these projects. We need to take risks globally to push these innovations and now it seems impossible, isolation will increase in the future and nations will take sides. I have little hope for the future.
A strong focus on nuclear and renewables, while developing more CCS for industries that cant fully decarbonize would solve our problems, we could have avoided the worst effects had we started even 10 years ago, but even a hard push now could see us barely break 1.5C by 2100.
We have more then enough available low carbon solutions to support our population. To effect meaningful change through population reduction would result in the need to reduce by billions.
Outstanding video, very concise, very easy for the layman to follow. I really enjoy your videos and this one is no exception.
Here is an explanation from a real climate scientist on climate models versus observation: ruclips.net/video/ILiMYQUaz2E/видео.html
Why begin with the 1950s?
What about 1934? 1936?
Because that's when we started keeping robust data.
@@ArvinAsh
You mean convenient data?
So well explained,thank you!