How do we know climate change is caused by humans?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 янв 2024
- 🤓Expand your scientific horizon on Brilliant! ➜ First 200 to use our link brilliant.org/sabine will get 20% off the annual premium subscription.
In this video I summarize the main pieces of evidence that we have which show that climate change is caused by humans. This is most important that we know in which frequency range carbon dioxide absorbs light, we know that the carbon dioxide ratio in the atmosphere has been increasing, we know that the Ph-value of the oceans has been decreasing, the ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere has been changing, and the stratosphere has been cooling, which was one of the key predictions of climate models from the 1960s.
The quiz for this video is here: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/...
In this video I explain how the greenhouse effect work in much detail: • I Misunderstood the Gr...
🤓 Check out our new quiz app ➜ quizwithit.com/
💌 Support us on Donatebox ➜ donorbox.org/swtg
📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ sciencewtg.substack.com/
👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ / sabine
📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ sabinehossenfelder.com/newsle...
👂 Audio only podcast ➜ open.spotify.com/show/0MkNfXl...
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
/ @sabinehossenfelder
🖼️ On instagram ➜ / sciencewtg
#science #shortly 
Наука
PLEASE do more content like this--how did we learn X, how did we come to discover X, how did we figure out X. It is so good and it is a type of content I've been looking for for years
or maybe you should go to school
@@michaelmr101except they don't teach you that stuff. They only tell you definitions, give you formulas etc, but rarely will they give more details. Let's be real, it would take too long or to advanced for the students to learn at pre college level
Agree, it's actually hard to find condensed explanations like this that you could convey to someone else easily. Same with the flat earth thing, I don't actually bother debating those people, but it's actually surprisingly hard to cut through the crap they believe with some simple facts when you haven't got them at your fingertips.
solve for X
What's causing global warming? Explained in less than two minutes.
ruclips.net/video/sKDWW9WlPSc/видео.html&ab_channel=CarbonBrief
My uncle doesn’t think the warming bit is a hoax but he thinks the ‘crisis’ bit is a scam, synthesised to advance geopolitical power, to control the serfs, through unwarranted fear, and to justify and rationalise uncontrolled, ever increasing debt. He says more and more people are coming to see it like that.
No crisis should go to waste. Covid was fantastic, but "sadly" it's over, and politicos need a new scarecrow to explain why taxes should rise a bit more, and serfs have a bit less freedom. You will eat ze bugz.
You might ask him what part of unprecedented wildfires, drought, and heatwaves strong enough to cause fatalities isn’t a crisis? And if he says “Well, I don’t see it” you might suggest that he stick his head out of his little bubble once in a while and take notice of what’s happening in other parts of the world.
Your uncle maybe needs a higher level of education? Conspiracy theories often sound plausible, but reality ensures that most simply aren't sustainable.
@darkwinter6028 while it is certainly possible for this kind of conspiracy to be implemented, there is just NO way to keep the number of people needing to be involved from "spilling the beans".
Exactly!
I have doubts about how accurately we can measure temperature and 'extreme weather events' from 500, 1000, 5000 years ago. Even if we are one or two degrees off, it changes everything by an order of magnitude. I'm sure we can get a 'reasonable' idea but we've only been measuring weather quite recently. Also, many have criticized how many temperatures are taken in cities instead of the countryside - where cities are usually a degree or two warmer due to concrete, etc. I'm not saying cliimate change isn't real or isn't caused by humans, but I really question how accurate we can get with this.
I'm just a trade worker, not a scientist and I gave up studying the sciences when I ran into some personal life difficulties that forced me out of college some years ago but your informative and fun videos have made me fall in love with science again. Even though it pains me greatly that I'll likely never be a scientist myself or contribute anything to research I can still enjoy catching up on the progress made by others.
I was a machinist. During my career I invented a modification of the Boeing 777 that made it the safest airliner in history. 1800 flying. No mass fatality accidents in 30 years. An acrylic submarine nose I made is in the opening credits of Star Trek Enterprise. The Atlantis resort is made of many acrylic aquarium panels, and tubes I made. I made the heart of the Large Hadron Collider. Made it 10 times better than expected, and was thanked personally by the engineers. I was told because of my work it effectively increased the power 10 times. Instead of expecting up to 100 years to find the first evidence for the Higgs boson it was expected to take as little as 10 years. It took 8.
In my free time I solved dark matter. It's ordinary matter. I solved global warming. It's not caused by fossil fuel. invented a widely popular 3d stereograph pinup collection. I invented a flying car system in conjunction with a city architectural technology never seen before. Buildings, and cars float in an oxygen, and Sulphur hexafluoride gas mix in a domed city. I designed a electric catapult space launcher that's much more practical, and economical to build, and operate than any other design, and I solved the landing problem of SpaceX. Increase roll authority to minimize roll. Eliminated nearly all crashing, reduced fuel required, and increased payload by several hundred pounds.
You can still contribute. There's a lot of low hanging fruit of problems to be solved, and inventions needed to solve them.
@@dpsamu2000 Agreed. I'm currently working on a way to teach accomplished machinists humility online
@@SnackPatrol How's that workin' out for you? Loser.
@@dpsamu2000 Laughing my bolls off. Well executed.
@@MuffinologyTrainer Too bad nobody else gets to see it. Some loser deleted it as usual.
I have heard the phrase "carbon dating" for YEARS and never once made it into a pun. I feel ashamed and bow at the snarky genius of Sabine.
There's a radio ad in GTA San Andreas that's based on this pun, so the idea is definitely not new.
What is the IDEAL TEMP? What is IDEAL CO2 level? What is biggest green house gas? WATER VAPOR by many factors greater than CO2.
All of CO2 only 2% is man made. About 0.04% of atmosphere CO2 and the man made. CO2 is 0.0000008% of atmosphere. CO2 LEVELS HAVE BEEN HIGHER IN PAST AMD IT WAS COLDER, BEFORE HISTOR OR MAN... SO WHAT...
Hoax because of the POLITICAL POLICIES and obfuscation, outright LIES. Yes CLIMATE is changing, always has always will. HOW MUCH IS DUE TO MAN? ??? 1% 2%. GIVE ME A NUMBER!!! HONEST SCIENTIST SAY WE DO NOT KNOW, NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION.
If no fossil fuels useful by man today. EXPERTS WITH MOR PHD's THAN YOU say yemps might drop 1 degree? Yawn. What is the IDEAL temp? WHY DO YOU NOT MENTION SOLAR ACTIVITY, PLANETARY ORBIT VARIATIONS THAT REALLY CHANGE TEMP??
I too have the experience that it's not always easy to find satisfying answers to my questions on the internet. When it is about climate it is extra tricky because it is hard to tell opinions apart from facts.
It's hard to tell if alleged facts actually stand up to scrutiny. Anyone can show a graph, but how do we know its source evidence is accurate? What parameters are there to show its significance. Does a decline of 0.06 in the pH scale (at Hawaii, not elsewhere) mean anything? What factors are missing? Contrary to the impression given by RUclips clips, science is complicated, and hard.
@@fredneecher1746 Good on you. Do not listen to the "I know more about climate change than you do. It's too complicated for your pea brain." Do your own research and if you can, read the reports and thesis yourself. I have read 28 of them and seen quite a few errors in them. Almost all ignore the #1 gas that effects global warming - water vapor. The oldest one I read says that the earth will fail because of all the coal being used and that if nothing is done within 20 years, it will be too late. Punch line? It was written several years before the Titanic sunk. Yeah, that Titanic.
You should become familiar with Steve Koonin.
I agree Frederick. Sabine approaches this as a case to make, rather than a question to answer. I would rather listen to a good scientist who thinks it through critically.@@fredneecher1746
@@christopheryellman533 Steve Koonin - "Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters"? Got it in my library.
Saw a large rise in average temperatures during the later years of WWII. With the massive influx of industrial production, tens of thousands of aircraft, countless fields of crops/town/cities burning.. vehicles gobbling up petrol. Etc etc
Didn't go back down until after the war and not until the 60/70s did it reach similar levels again.
To me that was all the proof I needed.
The global temperature rose from the early 1900's until the mid fourties, from where it fell for the next thirty years,when co2 levels were rising, the opposite of what you just claimed
@@cortical1 Seek out noaa unadjusted data,you'll find that you are wrong.
@@shanecollie5177 State your position clearly, instead of claiming alternative data. Do you believe that the global average temperature has been increasing? And do you believe that this relates to human activity? Just answer yes or no for each of the two questions. We'll go from there. If you cannot have a grownup conversation and show you're incapable of answering two simple yes or no questions, you will be disqualified as a puerile kook. Answer them now.
@@cortical1 Noaa data will show that you are wrong about your assertion as to when global temperatures rose and fell during the 20th centuary. Data does not care about your opinions. I have directed you to the source of the data but you choose to believe something different.
@@shanecollie5177 I actually collect data for NOAA, Einstein, at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. There is nothing you could possibly teach me about NOAA data. 👌🏻
Thank you for the video. I heard a lot of interesting correlations, but I didn't hear anything approaching causal evidence (as was suggested at the beginning of the video).
Just for the record, I do believe that human activity is playing a role in climate change, but I'm guessing my estimate of the extent of that role is significantly below Sabine's.
Considering that the sun's output has weakened over the past 40 years (NASA) and all three Milankovitch Cycles are in COOLING phases, and that we can trace the CO2 added since the Industrial Revolution to combusted fossil fuels, what other major forcing agents exists to warm the planet?
YUP
The entire video explains why it was doubtlessly us who released the additional CO2 that is warming the atmosphere. The warming is not created by additional solar activity of the sun. The additional carbondioxide was created by burning fossil fuels that once were plants. So this is not a question of opinion or belief. I recommend to watch it again.
@rayzsome8852 You are making the assumption that the warming observed is 100% caused by additional CO2 released by humans and there are no other factors that contribute to that equation outside the domain of humans.
@@mattclark6482 The sun has weakened over the past four decades, according to NASA, and the Milankovitch Cycles that drove warming in earth's past are in COOLING phases now. Global temperature has risen exactly as our CO2 emissions have since the Industrial Revolution, which is just one of several lines of evidence scientists cite to connect to an anthropogenic cause. The consensus that today's warming is anthropogenic and not natural, is now 99.9%, according to the latest survey of the scientific literature by Cornell University. Even Exxon's own scientists in leaked memos have acknowledged that combusted fossil fuels are warming the planet to a damaging degree.
You missed the most important bit - how sitting in front of traffic or throwing soup at artworks will cause a decrease in CO2 instead of just more green-washing.
Ah, I will be making a joke about this on Saturday, don't want to repeat myself...
@@SabineHossenfelder Planning jokes ahead of time, how delightfully German of you 😂♥
ruclips.net/video/bkrcxLgHn-w/видео.htmlsi=cPW30FacDJPVFg23
Lol they calculate the impact of their protests based on statistics, it's not as simple as you make it out to be, maybe do some research into them before assuming you know why they are doing it
Pretty simple really.
Car drivers "ah dam,n they're blocking the roads, guess I wont drive today"
co2 decrease achieved
"[carbon 14] is really good for dating organic stuff, tho I'd recommend you leave it at home for the first dinner"
that's hilarious 😂
two (or even three) jokes in one, that's genius! :D
It's not even remotely funny.
@@hime273they are bots trying to legitimise the agenda😂
When I saw the headline, I was sure the comments would have been turned off.
Then how are you making this coment
@@definitlynotbenlente7671 Do you understand English? English is my 2nd language and I completely understood what Mike wanted to say.
And, do you live in our world or under a stone? It's a common habit to turn off comments when it comes to topics that only allow for "one correct" opinion. And this topic is such one.
@@bjornna7767 she almost never disables the coments on there video and mabey hard for you to understand but not every thing you dislike is propaganda to controll you
Check out my comment. I debunked her nonsense with facts!
@@bjornna7767 I think you understand science as well as English.
Sabina. Just when I started to make some sense of all this, I read chapter 3 of "Fake Invisible Catastrophes..." by Patrick Moore and threw up my hands, in practice for when the world comes to an end. What do you make of his interpretation of the longer trends in CO2 and temperature. Im waiting with bated breath. Regards, George
She may not have read it, so maybe explain his interpretations?
This is perfect. I've had that exact problem you described at the start of the video- finding the actual scientific evidence rather than just someone saying it's true.
She just said it was true. She knows better and is lying.
@@jamesmcginn6291 prove to us why we should believe u instead
@@jamesmcginn6291 She did not just say it was true, she explained in some detail how we know it is true.
@@jamesmcginn6291 If you're so sure that she is lying I'm certain you can easily point out which point or points that she mentioned are incorrect and I am sure you can also point us to the relevant scientific literature that supports your claims!
She's literally telling what has been said and asserting it as fact.
I set this task to a group of my Level 3 BTEC Applied Science students, because I know that it is not as simple a question as the public believe. I reckon over 99% of people who vehemently believe in anthropogenic climate change, have absolutely no idea at all what the evidence is, they just know that all the experts are agreed. Not one single student came up with the evidence, even when later prompted as to what I was looking for. Rather they just came back with rising CO2 levels coinciding with increased industrial activity, and similar information to your initial searches.
Except… all the “experts” absolutely do not agree.
@@chingron Just the ones who aren't paid off by big carbon.
You would have to conduct controlled prospective experiments on whole close Earth analog planets with large surface oceans to accurately determine the climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. The effects are highly dependent upon the initial conditions. If the initial mean surface temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration are suboptimal for plant growth, then raising them is actually beneficial.
@@johngeier8692 for plants yes but what about the unwanted consequences? I find it extremely ignorant for people to say in isolation that increasing CO2 is good for plants. They think they have a gotcha when they are only harping on one side of the story.
Except global warming is not relevant for overall trends toward cooling historically, which is a bigger threat than any warming ever would be. A single super volcano which we are overdue for would plunge us into global winter or a single large enough asteroid. We are concerned about the wrong things. A carbon tax is a ponzi scheme for rich elites and would od nothing but green washing. Electric vehicles do nothing to help green energy because of refusal to use nuclear energy, which is safe, reliable, and ultimate future of energy, but stopped by interest groups and environmental nut jobs.
Sabina, again, very nicely done. You formatted the evidence supporting the anthropogenic origins of climate change in five concise premise-proof talking points. I also enjoyed your rebuttal to “Climate Scientist” on the CO2 Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) in an earlier video.
😂😂
Wow, as an ex-scientist I loved how simply you explained this. I am not too hopeful in an environment where opinion carries as much weight as knowledge, unfortunately.
Well it may convince a layman but it does not even amount to high school science. She says that ocean pH is changing and somehow this rules out that changes in solar activity are causing "global warming". FFS she is supposed to be a scientist. She comes here are makes an idiot of herself because she is way outside her field and is totally uncritical. I guess she believed all the BS AI Chatbots tell her instead of checking whether it even makes sense. Sadly she fools folks like you who give undue deference to her qualifications in particle physics or whatever she used to do.
Fantastic synopsis. Extra credit for not making it 20 minutes longer than needed or ranting and postulating. Much appreciated.
I’m still waiting for the new ice age they promised us in the 70s
And what happened to the acid rain. And how does Australia still have an ozone over it?
@@williamadams4855 And killer African bees :-D
@@bizzjoe forgot about that one.
@bizzjoe Also this probably would have all been resolved if we would have ran out of fossil fuels by now.
They changed it to global warming when the science and predictions kept failing. Unfortunately, it still fails.
Next, I would like to see a video that looks at how and why and when the narrative changed over time. When I was young, we were all being warned of a coming ice age. Why was that? If if the scientists were wrong about that, why were they wrong, and how did they happen to incorrectly reach that consensus?
I remember this 30 years ago: The coming ice age then they switched to heating. As if they need a global catastroph to push through the world government..
@@peterlustig8778 Now we have the warmest whatever on TV while freezing off our ass in a cold wet winter-spring.
The narrative never changed. This very idea that "the narrative changed" itself is a modern invention put out by climate change deniers to just discredit scientists and this so called "consensus" about global temperatures falling in the future was not a real thing at the time in the 60s-70s like these people say it was.
The actual reality was that even in the 60s and 70s it was clear beyond dispute that greenhouse gases we emit will lead to global warming. This is was already well understood and accepted by the relevant scientists in the 60s. What happened is that there was a separate, unrelated question about the net global effects of putting so much aerosolized materials into the atmosphere and what effect this specific increase in aerosolized particles would cause. And, reasonably, it was thought that the net effect would be a cooling one as light from the sun is reflected away more by the increase in aerosolized particles in the atmosphere.
And it was correct. But that was an entirely different question. Their was indeed a very small cooling effect, BUT that has nothing to do with the warming caused by the greenhouse effect, which obviously way way overwhelms any cooling effect so the net effect together is still perfectly consistent with temps rising overall.
So there was no conflict, no "change of narrative". They were two related things, and scientists were correct about both... both in the 60s and now. There is no contradiction, no "change".
You just heard that somewhere and so assumed it was true, because it's a common made up talking point made by people trying to discredit climate scientists. But it's based on nothing real. There was no "change in narrative". There was no change at all. Its been consistent the whole time. What you need to do now, is realize how many other climate change talking points you've just accepted just as easily are also based on nothing/misunderstandings/outright lies.
Please debate a scientist that disagrees with you. We need more debates for clarity.
But, where do you find a reputable climatologist who does not endorse anthropogenic climate change?
@@mikereed100 People who have worked for the BBC said they had that exact same problem. The BBC have this ridiculous notion of "balance" where they give both sides equal credence - even if one is overwhelmingly more accepted than the others. They could find 50 scientists in 5 minutes who would be willing to come on and explain anthropogenic climate change - but would take days to find a single one who would say it's natural.
@@mikereed100 NIPCC. whether you think they are reputable or not is irrelevant. What we need is anybody who argues against statistics, theories, motivations, etc. needs to be debated out before we just blindly believe this.
@@kennetharob Absolutely
Ceres science, climateviewer, oh there's countless around actually, problem is they're shuffled to the bottom of an algorithm, and the colleges and the scientific publishers love hot button money making issues. So... they can come up and say their piece, but are rapidly shoved beneath the surface by the hungry grant biters.
This point about the carbon isotope ratios was completely new to me - great information! I did not expect to really learn something new from the video but yet again I did.
There's always more things to learn! Like sea levels rose 400 feet over the last 20,000 years.
I commented on it in the previous video. We verify the ratio in the atmosphere using tree rings
I've been telling people this for a while (since it's not a well known fact) - and it's such a damning piece of evidence.
Anyone realize global cooling is more a threat than warming? An ice age is easier and more likely than a runaway greenhouse effect. Historically, ice ages and global winters were more devastating than warming periods for life on earth aside from few notable exceptions. Cold is the enemy not warmth.
For me the thing about Stratospheric cooling was new to me
This was quite interesting for such a short video. I was aware we could tell the CO2 was from burning fossil fuels, but I didn't know exactly why.
Also hadn't heard of Stratospheric Cooling
didnt you learn in school that CO2 is plant food ? essential for photosynthesis? earth at its greenest was above 2000 ppm right now its 400 ppm ,Dunning Kruger cant science
There is also the masking of warming by "global dimming" [cooling] by atmospheric particulates. That's a thing, and a changing thing.
Have you heard of geoengineering and HAARP?
@@kenwoodburn7438 or stratospheric aerosol injection ?these folks will limit their breathing to save themselves from dangerous CO2 😂 the same CO2 thats pumped into greenhouses to maximise yields and save water .These people forgot what they were taught school that CO2 is essential for photosynthesis.
@@kenwoodburn7438- Geoengineering has been used for decades to create weather extremes that can then be falsely ascribed to fossil fuel emissions. The agenda behind the weaponization of geoengineering is as obvious as it is frightning, and of course Sabine doesn't have a clue about it, being the poorly informed climate alarmist that she has become.
It's really disappointing that she seems so ignorant about the sinister climate change agenda and its well-documented history. I guess it is time for me to unsubscribe from this channel.
Finally, after 10 years, someone explained an anthropomorphic global warming effect vector to me. I have been lambasted, spat upon, vilified, mocked, harassed, etc. but never got a real answer until now. Thanks, Sabine.
Hi Sabine, is there a saturation effect in the absorption yield from CO2 and how significant is it? Because at some point a significant portion of the radiation energy around those absorption bands must be allready transferred. Is there a certain ppm limit where the warming effect stops?
No, just diminishing returns.
We take into account the diminishing returns when estimating the warming from additional CO2.
I seem to remember you did another video on why CO2 causes heat trapping, and how it's really quite a non-trivial reason. It might be a good idea to put a link to that video in the info beneath this video, because it goes into a bit more detail on the radiation and trapping.
Good idea, will do!
Yes that video put a whole new meaning to what we are doing. In other words what is really needed is depopulation.
If done in a responsible way which means some will lose out on reproducing then so be it.
@@MasterBlaster3545 Why do you believe depopulation is a responsible way to counter climate change? I would like to understand your logic behind it. You do know people are a form of carbon sink, don't you? Where would those carbon go if people are depopulated?
Carbon dioxide doesn't trap infored it's to dense and reflective. Venus has a 90% reflection rate
@@SabineHossenfeldercarbon is more reflective. Venus has a 90% reflection rate and is internally heated. Your thinking of carbon monoxide. Also needs to transfer heat or else it would make things cooler
Your quizzes are perfect. I often want to relay your information to friends and family, and with other channels I'll be like "Uuuh, wait well... just watch the video". But when I take your quiz it forces me to make a hard memory about the topic points, and gets me to rewatch certain sections. Then when I'm transcribing from memory, I'm representing the information accurately :)
All the charts in the World wont get through to those committed to denial, it is best just to carry on as if their opinion on the subject doesn't matter any more because it doesn't.
I heartily agree. Denial of science and climate change religion will sadly never be totally eradicated :(
Carbon dating gets nocked out of wack every time a nuclear weapon is detonated.
Only Carbon-14 dating, and only when trying to date something that was exposed to the atmosphere after 1944.
You answered some questions I've had for a long time. I hadn't been able to find the answers elsewhere.
It’s not a hoax but is it really an existential threat to humanity? No.
If we wait long enough and take zero precautions (which we aren't), it'll certainly be. Like it's starting to
That is, if you somehow think preventable deaths from disasters, extreme weather, resurfacing diseases and population displacements to not be emergencies that can lead up to Anarchy.
I that’s a ridiculous bar. It’s not gonna kill us all but it’s making millions of lives worse and killing enough already.
Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and Floridians (to name a few) are going to have a hell of time in the coming decades, because flooding is going to continue to get worse, and so much will be destroyed.
In western Canada, we used to only have to worry about dangerously smoky conditions a few days a year at most. Now it can be WEEKS. It’s not acutely life-threatening, but breathing ASH is absolutely horrible for your cardiovascular system
That's the heart of the issue, is it actually an " existential level" event or happening? Absolutely not , and anyone who says it is , is lying to you. As an aside, our collective Govts have failed horribly at combating hunger, homelessness, and drug abuse, problems FAR simpler than changing a planets climate - what exact part of that fact would lead anyone to believe they can successfully do that? I can not think of a single Govt program that has been so wildly successful that I'd even begin to entertain they can "alter the planets climate".
Most people don't even grasp what temperature really is: the average kinetic energy of molecules! It's the vibrations of the molecules that we feel as temperature. And they also do not grasp that WHY CO2 or other greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation: the specific configuration of the molecule which allows them to vibrate thereby storing energy in form of vibrations, just like guitar strings. If I flick a guitar string (i.e. I inject outside energy into it), it vibrates for a while (i.e., it stores this energy for a while). This is how greenhouse gas molecules are - you flick them (via sunlight) and they vibrate - for a long time - and it's to do with their molecular structure and the tightness/looseness of the chemical bonds.
I had understood it actually, but NOW I want to know: How is CO2 different when it's composed of C12 or C13?
Because all these experts, only until recently have been making a big deal about CO2. Supposedly that's all we needed to know. If they were SUCH experts, why have they bored down on this SPECIFIC detail only now as opposed to explaining it to us earlier on?
Are they just upping their game in the face of challenges, or were/are they merely still pontificating?
Yes, it's possible that virtual backgrounds have contributed to a slight reduction in the frequency or importance of in-person housewarming functions, particularly for more casual or remote gatherings.
Can you cover the covid vaccines and excess death rate next please Sabine?
And the reality of the moon landing lol.
I’m getting fed up with all this pointless debate. It’s like being on one of those old wooden ships..cannons firing all around as other ships battling away, masts falling and fire breaking out and we are all wondering whether the ship has woodworm!
@@andrewlucas6214 woodworms are a conspiracy of the elites to pull you inline!
@@georgelionon9050 pretty dumb comment, as excess death rates after vaccinations are horrible and completely obviously covered up by govs and media. Check OSCD statistics in yuonger age groups, and do the math, it's shocking, and yet no word about it.
UC Davis has had posted on their University website for years a long article about nitrogen in Boreal Forests. They say that past rapid CO2 rises on Earth were sequestered by the Boreal Forests absorbing the CO2 into increased forest growth, naturally sequestered CO2! And the reason the Boreal Forests can do this is because they have excess nitrogen in their soils which the forests can absorb more rapidly than is normally thought to occur in nature and that this phenomenon deserves further study.
Observations show that ocean levels and climate change has fluctuated so much it is reliant on when we pick our climate change points on. Earth temps have changed since the beginning of time. There are far greater things to worry about such as tyrants and totalitarians. We have plenty of time to find alternative energy methods for transportation and manfacturing without shutting down and starving the population. Funny they never point to China's carbon production.
@@kellyfutrell6832 I mean yes tyrants are a problem, but the climate today has one large issue.
Yes there are natural means of compensation. The issue is... humans. Do you want to give up your house to grow a forest there? Like yes vegetation will increase if CO2 levels rise and will absorb a lot of it. Unfortunately the forest area on earth is shrinking, not increasing. The planet can only compensate for the increased CO2 production of humans if we let it. On top of that most of those fluctuations where fairly slow. We currently see changes even just in decades. We do not really know if the mechanisms that worked in the past would be able to work here.
@@kellyfutrell6832this is like saying that because we're about to hit a tree anyway, we might as well hit the accelerator in the car.
@@georgesimon1760 I think it is more appropriate to say:
"there is a tree 60 miles ahead that I might run into in one hour of travel time.
But there are massive sinkholes in the road immediately ahead of me that I should worry about first."
Yes, taking care of our shared home (the planet) is an issue to address.
But the time to real consequences of getting the climate problem wrong are on wildly different time scales than many of our other more present issues.
@@williamrgrant that's just an excuse to do nothing. There's no reason to wait on climate mitigation while we work on other issues.
"I don't actually understand any of this, AND it goes against my preconceived notions so it's still a hoax" The Uncle
In their publication "Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001-2020" in "Atmosphere" (peer-reviewed), Vahrenholt and Dübal were able to show the greenhouse effect from the sum of all greenhouse gases (water vapor, methane, CO2 etc.) under "clear sky" conditions with an increase of only 1.20 W/m² in the last 20 years - however, this increase is even overcompensated in the cloudy areas to the tune of 1.48 W/m². In the last two decades, there has therefore been no global increase in radiation intensity due to the so-called greenhouse gases in the form of atmospheric back radiation, but rather a slight reduction (0.28 W/m²) in "All Sky".
This means that the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere cannot be responsible for global warming in the last 20 years. The warming during this period is due more to changes in the clouds than to the classic greenhouse effect.
"The science is settled!", said no real scientist ever.
"Settled" in science is basically Scientific consensus, which is the widespread acceptance that all attempts to refute a hypothesis or bust a theory have failed. It can only be observed long after it has formed.
Anthropogenic global warming is occurring and settled, but it is hardly the most important or interesting area of climate research because of this. AGW is a baseline; just as evolution is the baseline for evolutionary biology.
The 1.1C global warming since 1880 is settled. The 0.2C per decade global warming since 1980 is settled. The insignificant decline in solar energy output since 1980 is settled. These are observed effects, consistent with physical theory.
@@rps1689 what part of «... said no real scientist ever.» did you omit again. There is no consensus about global warming.
Climate research, you know aliens research is also a real thing too. Just like people tracking and researching ghosts, spirits and poltergeist. Myself I find the possibility of the loch ness monster and similar ones in the Baikal lake to be more plausible.
Anyhing will be a science, doesn't make it true, you can have a fandom and make stats and call you a pokemon sociologist, and that's science. You can do the same with climate or anything you want! What's your point.
There is a change of temperatures, how can you be certain it is meaningful or related to human activity, deliver evidence, go ahead, links to scientific publication and data that can be verified, or remain silent.
Exactly. We know absolutely nothing at all and just need to blindly guess on all things in the future ever. Will gravity work if I step out the window? Impossible to say. The science is never settled!
Ever
@@mattleathen445the earth is 5.5 billion years old… man knows what exactly?
Good job! You seem to be exactly the right person to make this video. I think it's astonishing that you have a bunch of people in the comments who identify themselves as 'that uncle', but instead of angry diatribes, I see people mostly exchanging opinions in a rather calm and civilized manner. With this topic and on this platform that is quite the acomplishment in itself!
These "uncles" gather at Sabine's channel because they, due to their issues, see her as "the one showing the finger to Them", which she isn't. The issues these people have are they are narcissistic and have low amount of knowledge, and that's a deadly combination behind so many antiscience movements today (antivaxxers, flatearth morons, chemtrail idiots, etc.).
Because this video invites more conservatives, which are better to communicate and discuss ideas with online. 😅
Wonderful, Sabine, and thank you very much for everything you have shared with us. Would you please put this information into context? At what point are any of these values considered material changes that justify $trillions spent, de-population, eating bugs, etc.
What consensus of sober, legitimate climate scientists and politicians are calling for laws to mandate the eating of bugs and the reduction of population?
@Sabine: Can you make a video about the saturation level of CO2 in the atmosphere? I read that from a certain level of CO2 on there is no effect on temperature anymore!?!
I don´t get a couple of things and hope you can clarify:
1. If we burn fossil fuels which shifts the C12/C13 ratio. Doesn´t that mean that we are restoring the ratio how it was in the past?
2. All graphs were from after the industrial revolution kickt off. Do you know where i can get pre "industrial revolution" graphs for CO2 levels in the athmosphere?
3. How many % of climate change can be attributed to human activity (Controlling the data for other variables like sun activity, measuring in urban vs rural areas ect)
What do you mean ratio as it was in the past? Which exactly moment in the past? It was changing many times over geologic history? Also, how would that make anything better?
@@KateeAngelhow are things worse? There's no real trend in extreme weather events, except for people not maintaining their damns and building more stuff in flood planes.
Yes, we're digging up carbon that was once in the atmosphere. However, the change in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is unnaturally fast for the living to adapt to the changes. Also, 99% of the species that lived in the world is now extinct. So do you want us humans to go extinct too because it's natural? Or do we do our best to maintain Earth so that we can live longer in a better environment?
The timespan over which bio-organisms turn into now usable fossil fuel is much greater than the equivalent rate at which we are burning those. So yes, we are pumping CO2 back into the atmosphere, as in we are restoring the ratio ; except that we are much overdoing this, which actually imbalances said ratio the other way around.
Basically, we are burning more fossil fuel than is able to naturally generate.
#3 is over 100% of warming is attributed to us releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere. If CO2 levels stayed at the 280ppm before the industrial revolution we would currently be in a period of cooling rather than warming.
TBH I never heard that carbon isotope explanation before, and this is both a great scientific evidence and a easy one to understand. Thanks Sabine for exposing it in such a didactic way.
My uncle says her isotope correlation is unsubstantiated.
John replied about how the isotope correlation is unsubstantiated. Which is correct but I dont think is helpful So let me try to explain
C12 is the Carbon in the CO2 we exhale, as well as the CO2 that plants use, and that fossil fuels produce.
C14 is radioactive and there are small amounts of it on the planet which lest us do carbon dating of ancient items.
C13 was produced by the testing and use of atomic weapons 80 to 90 years ago. We dont know if there was a baseline of C13 before that so it could have been 0 before we started using atomic weapons.
Measurements of the ratio of C12 and C13 in CO2 show C13 declining over the last 50 years. This could be because we are producing more CO2 or it could be because it was created 80 to 90 years ago and is slowly working its way out of the atmosphere. We don't know for sure.
@@GrandpasPlace C14 is the isotope created from nuclear bomb tests, not C13
@@GrandpasPlace further to that plants do use C13, the utilisation differs whether it is a C3 (wet and cool type plant) or a C4 (are dry hot climate type plant). This is well known even in anthropology where they test ancient collagen for what types of plants the creatures ate or in the case of carnivores what the animals they ate did eat.
A decline could be described as going down if plants of the type most likely to take in C13 also increase as was shown by NASA satellites showing a vast greening of the planet.... largely by C4 types of plants.
The acidification aspect was equally dismal. You have three states, Acidic (Below 7) Neutral (7) and Alkaline (above 7) so if you move from one state towards the other without crossing Neutral it is Neutralisation. Seawater is generally around 8.1ph (alkaline) and the amount of CO2 to neutralise it from 8.1 to 8 is staggeringly large and with each subsequent change is larger than the last meaning it is logarithmic (about 10 times) so to change from 8.1 to 7.8 would be about 110 times more than 8.1 to 8.0 and we are taking about changes in the error bands here so nothing to see with this anyway. Another aspect is that the ocean is outgassing CO2 meaning there is less because temperature also plays a part in this, the ph can change purely from temperature in this case.
Also if CO2 was the driver it would not follow the temperature record by 800-1200 years in the proxy records...
@@GrandpasPlaceWhat about the influence of forestry and forest fires?
Hey Sabine, question: Wouldn't we say that private cars are an atavistic concept, because you transport yourself with a machine that is twenty times heavier than yourself, and is uselessly standing around most of the time? And considering that we now know that using energy is actually really expensive, as it was for most of human history?
If you want to reduce your carbon footprint from transport, some suggestions:
- If you can, use the bike or walk
- Next best, use public transport (not flying though)
- If you need a car only sporadically, rent or borrow it if you can. (1/3 of the CO2 effect of a typical car comes from building and scraping it, so even just reducing the number of cars helps)
- If you need to use a car, either rented or owned, go for an electric and small one if you can.
- Try to reduce the number of car rides. For example: if you commute, try to team up with colleagues or neighbours and ride together. Similarly, if you do need a car for shopping, consider teaming up with your neighbours and/or try to do several shopping missions in one go. If you use the car or any CO2-intensive transport for holidays, consider making your trips less frequent but longer.
My understanding is that the amount of heat that the atmosphere retains due to CO2 has a saturation point…meaning as C02 increases it retains less heat and we’ve reached a point where the CO2 were adding shouldn’t cause the atmosphere to heat all that much.
Nope. Earth is far from the saturation point. Even Venus has ways to go. And that's hell already.
the temperature on Venus has nothing to do with CO2, but with pressure. Mars is all CO2 but very, very cold. And as regards saturation: the optical depth for infrared in our atmosphere is just a few meters... it is all absorbed and re-emitted right near the surface. In fact it is not at all clear that the small CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is responsible for the temperature of the planet (water vapor, which makes up a huge fraction of the atmosphere, has a similar absorption spectrum)
@@paoloesquivel7430
@@paoloesquivel7430😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
It's a controversy because the truth costs rich people money. Look for "controversies" on whether smoking causes lung cancer or cheeseburgers cause heart disease.
To not have come across the wealth of evidence that cholesterol doesn’t cause heart disease is a controversy in itself.
Plastic in the Sees,suige, chemicals, All costs money for the rich at the W,E,F.
Skeptoid had a podcast about this , less detailed but along the same lines. Thank you saving!
Please show proof of "more extreme weather events"
Well there are well over 400 published peer-reviewed studies looking at weather extremes around the world showing mounting evidence that human activity is raising the risk of some types of extreme weather, especially those linked to heat. Easy to access nowadays considering it is easier to get around paywalls to check out what top leading working scientists publish.
Droughts, floods, and hurricanes are occurring at higher strengths due to climate change, and evidence points to climate change contributing to the frequency and magnitude of tornado behaviour.
That`s a purely religious statement.
Usually wind is the result of temperature differences. If the climate gets warmer the poles heat up more than the equator. The temperature differences get smaller. Thus a global warming should reduce the extreme weather events.
@@holgernarrog "If the climate gets warmer the poles heat up more than the equator. "
Why?
@@WAUZZZ81ZDA There are 2 effects that make the poles heat up more than the equator in case of a warming (positive**).
It is the Stefan Boltzmann law. The back radiation increses with the 4th exponent of the surface temperature. It is a very strong effect! This law is not disputed. Second it is the water evaporation. It increases strongly with the temperature*.
*The water evaporation is not understood well yet. There are in the best case empirical formulas that apply for some water bodies. It depends on water temperature, air temperature, solar radiation, wind and waves. It is one of the reason why it a climate modelling would be extremly challenging. Or the climate models provide any result you wish.
**In warm ages the earth surface suitable for civilization increases.
@@holgernarrog are you replying to me? If so I'm not sure how asking for evidence is a religious statement. Please explain.
This video is informative, clear, concise, and precise. Really shows the causal evidences. Thank you so much.
Sabine, the quiz is actually really helpful to remember the arguments you name better! However, to see which answers were correct, the website charges me a fee. Are there no quiz service websites which offer this for free? I was confused to see the Paywall by educational content from you.
Don't you think, that she needs to eat too?
I mean, you can see the results for free, but the analysis of each answer is gotta be paid not only because Sabine gets a cut for her work making the quiz, but also to make the website work
Yeah, but it's not particularly helpful when you don't know which answer was wrong. And for that feature you've to pay. As it is now, I probably won't take the quiz again.
@@queenleech36or you pay a few coins, or aren´t you payed for youe work too?
You are mistaken. This is not free education. She is running a business. Same as climate panic industry wants your money too. They need to “teach” you first tho
Fun fact: In 1976 Vangelis released the album Albedo 0.39. The albedo is the fraction of light that a surface reflects, and back then that's what the earth's albedo was. As of today, that figure has fallen to about 0.30 which is a pretty big change in less than 50 years!
One of the first albums I ever bought - still love it.
Didn’t realize that albedo had changed that much in 40 years. Now I have to check on the other terms. What’s going on with the obliquity of the ecliptic?
After 5 minutes of googling, I think Vangelis used a wrong value. The current estimate is 0.30 but it hasn't moved at all during last 10 years.
@@Milan_Openfeint it really is a bad measurement, from what I can find online, albedo has decreased by around 0.05 since 1850, and only about 0.02 since the 80's with more accurate measurements, maybe the 0.39 comes from a different way of taking measurements that have not been accordingly modified
lol what the fuck kind of credit does a musician have in making that assessment?
just defer everything to everyone and never question it... lol
I am a uncle many times over. Last week I became a great uncle as my nephew s wife had a baby boy. I do not need much convincing as I have been farming for fifty years and I can see the affects of global warming. I had never been in a Cat 5 hurricane even though I have lived in Florida for a very long time. Hurricane Micheal roared through my area destroying crops, barns , trees and houses and power lines . I saw entire forests broke like they where match sticks. Made a believer out of me.
Hurricane activity HASN'T CHANGED GLOBALLY!
It's that simple. Explained in five minutes without simplifying nor reducing. Make sure you memorized as surely didn't understand.
But my uncle sits at home on his couch sometimes and feels things. Are you sure we're not tunnel visioning on evidence and physics at the danger of disregarding the emotional outbursts of my uncle?
My uncles did their own "research" which involved:
- Ignoring PhD's and other degreed persons as they were "brainwashed by the system".
- Only accepting results that agreed with their preconceived ideas.
You address a real problem and I think it's a difficult one. I think it's human nature not to want to hear that we are causing a catastrophic problem and that we need to change our behavior. Also it unfortunately doesn't hurt that it makes people feel superior when they think they have the truth and the experts are all just lying to them.
Honestly, I don't know how to get through to people like your uncle.
In that case just ask his wife, if she could do you a favor and talk to your uncle on any second day how these emotional outbursts hurt her feelings. She should mention that the stress is such high that she can't do the chores until she calms down and that include 2 hours of intensive talk about her feeling. It is just a shoot in the dark, but i guess it takes less then 14 days before the emotional outbreaks of your uncle disappear like magic.With good connection to the church they might even accept it as a wonder.
It's termed Bias Dismissal
I like Sabine, but this sounds precisely as what she did in her research :). @@davidg4288
Thanks as always Sabine. Always a pleasure tuning in to your newest post. See you tomorrow. Hugs!!
Dear Sabine, could you please make a video on how we easiest and fastest could tackle climate change? For instance, by reducing world wide particle missions from household coal consumption (heating, cooking etc), by reducing particle emissions from vehicles, by increasing Co2 uptake from lakes and oceans, by increasing reforestation programs and perhaps a few iother simple solutions that don´t necessary focus on direct Co2 emissions but on reducing particle emissions in combination with an increased Co2 uptake in nature. Would be nice to hear the swiftest possible solution to a global problem without ruining the global economy.
A great book on this is Mike Berners Lee "There is no Planet B". Not preachy, sometimes amusing, yet a great talent to crunch numbers in an entertaining way and give you a feeling for where the big possibilities for saving CO2 lie.
My uncle said that then why not the main economical powers reduce their ecological footprint and give money to the undeveloped countries so they can keep developing without polluting to avoid the warming.
He asked me if you can do a video about that as well.
The poor countries have asked the rich countries for this money. Of course they have been turned away.
But that's a political matter that you're raising. Let the engineering and the finance and the politics of climate change response be (mis)handled by the engineers and financiers and politicians. In the meantime, let's at least get the climate facts straight.
I see a lot of complaints about "smoothed" observation data. Maybe a video comparing raw to adjusted data and discussing the adjustments would be helpful. BTW this was a great summary without a wasted word.
Good luck with that.
Smoothing is just taking a moving average, isn't it?
Perhaps you're talking about homogenisation. The placement of meteorological stations isn't the same over time, some are shut down, and some new ones are installed. So a continuous curve has to merge time series.
What percent of global warming is caused by human activity? Couldn’t it be that global warming is caused by both human and natural causes? How can one be confident that the majority of warming is caused by fossil fuels?
@@stuartkim4857 That has been quantified to between 80% and 120% of the warming since the last half of the 19th century, if I remember correctly. I don't have the reference in my head, but I remember Simon Clark discussing such a quantification or attribution in one of his videos.
@@stuartkim4857 Fossil fuels, land use change and livestock. Rice paddies and ruminants emit methane. Deforestation releases CO2.
A good summary Sabine. All of this is uncontroversial i.e. most skeptics agree that CO2 is rising and the additional CO2 derives from fossil fuels. The controversy is about what happens in the future. How much temperature rise would a doubling of CO2 cause and how does this factor alongside the natural temperature cycles? Would this on balance be a bad thing or a good thing and what we should do to mitigate any negative effects? It’s about feedbacks, particularly whether the CO2 rise drives an increase in water vapour in the atmosphere and whether or not the models provide a reliable forecast of future temperatures. This is a lot more complex.
definitely a bad thing ... seen the floods ? then there are increased temperatures when its not raining .Then you can also get steam bath conditions . If the temperature reaches 35C and 100% humidity then humans cannot ..repeat .. cannot survive ...because we cannot release body heat and so like a car engine without a radiator we overheat and die . A medical FACT not a climate science fact . And that has nearly happened a few times recently ..This is why there are climate refugees ...even internally displaced climate refugees
This.
Ugh, just stop. You guys were wrong before about climate change not happening, and you’re wrong now about it being a good thing or stopping it being impractical or whatever flavor of denialism you prefer. Don’t you guys ever get tired of being wrong? I’m gonna drop a fat “i told you so” now, and maybe in another ten years I’ll see you in the comments again and I can drop another one. Lying stupid assholes who aren’t willing to make any sacrifice for the greater good. Ten years dude 👀🫵
water vapor concentration in the atmosphere is directly related to temperature, so while other greenhouse gases have a much smaller impact, they increase the concentration of water vapor, accelerating the warming effect. other greenhouse gases removed, water vapor would be stable.
The issue is CO2's saturation point doesn't allow any more heating once it's reached. And we've already pretty much reached CO2s max saturation point when it comes to heating.
As it stands, we're much closer to having too little CO2 than too much.
Very well, but that's qualitative reasoning, which doesn't tell us if the impact of human activity is significant. Or even if there's an impact or if it's overall positive, because you focus on one item only. As someone once said, let's not making the situation worse by guessing.
Maybe with Bokeh mode we may even forget that there are background people working on prevention of global warming.
--
Ah, I see your point now. Using Bokeh mode in a garden setting where gardeners are working might indeed create a somewhat surreal or disconnected effect, as it could blur out the context of their work. It's important to consider the appropriateness of the photographic technique in different situations to avoid conveying unintended messages or creating awkward compositions.
ChatGPT 🌹
Accepting what you say which I definitely do, how then do we account for climate change in the past - i.e. since the end of the Younger Dryas and the beginning of our 'civilistation'? Glaciologists, dendrologists, geographers, historians, archaelogists, etc all concur in there being quite significant variations - for example, the so-called "Medieval Warm Period' or the 'Little Ice Agent' which followed it. I have never heard an explanation of why these past variations have happened.....it would be great if you could explain! I have total faith in you Sabine to explain all things scientific that interest me.......if only you had been around when I was a kid!
'Little Ice Agent' lol.
Those darn little ice agents 🤣
You must have Google Gboard..
Unfortunately Dr. H., whine I love dearly, neglected to address other factors that can contribute to warming of the lower troposphere and cooling of the upper atmosphere:
1) increased water vapor, which has an even greater effect than CO2,
2) changes in global cloud cover,
3) changes in solar activity, meaning sunspot and coronal mass ejection activity, not solar irradiance,
4) natural cyclic fluctuations in ocean currents having periods from decadal, to multi-decadal, to century, and even millennium and longer,
5) and even changes in cosmic radiation.
The UN IPCC’s climate model regime has been repeatedly falsified; repeatedly shown to run to warm, about double what has been credibly observed (you know, actual science).
The good doctor is out of her wheelhouse. Climate is a massively complex chaotic system. It’s not enough to show that hydrocarbon fuels are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere; one must also show that the extra 0.0001 portion by volume of CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of not just warming, but dangerous warming.
The best measure of reality is to look as changes in sea level as registered by paleo geological science and by tide gage records. Do not make the mistake of combining or concatenation either with satellite derived sea level. They are not the same measurement, and the satellite derived data is HIGHLY manipulated, unlike paleo geology and tide gage records. When you do that, you’ll find no acceleration or unusual rate of increase in sea level.
You can also observe the polar ice, both ocean and land borne. We have written records going back over a century for that. And we have ice core proxy records from both a Greenland/Arctic’s glacier, and an Antarctic glacier What we’ve observed recently is nothing new.
The data doesn’t lie, but government bureaucratic scientists do.
We CAN account for climate change in the past. That doesn't mean that currently it's the same causes.
we do have a pretty good idea what caused some of those climate events, the problem is, as always, there are too many variables, and one or all of them could be the responsible for those events. the difference with anthropogenic climate change is that we have a pretty good idea of all the other variables for global average temperature increase, and the only one that aligns neatly is the CO2 released by humans.
Phew, I almost subscribed to this channel.
shame, would have been a good decision, but you are not that important luckily
This is great, and ofc helps prove the previous civilisation theories, because without those missing civilizations warming the atmosphere how could the earth have warmed and exited the previous ice ages 🤔
I wish climate scientist would first explain how our electro magnetic field gets it's strength ? Sometimes I almost wonder if maybe magnetic reversals influences our climate but then I remember it's all the gases.
Hi Sabine, first off, thank you for your educational content - it's incredibly valuable and much appreciated. I have a question regarding the gravity of climate change as a global issue. In your view, how does the seriousness of climate change compare to other potential threats like nuclear war, the rise of AI, or asteroid impacts? And should our focus on it outweigh efforts to combat world hunger or diseases?
I'm not trying to downplay climate change's importance, but rather I'm curious about its prioritization in the grand scheme of global challenges. For instance, if one had a certain amount of resources (which could also be thought of as funding for scientific research), what percentage would be best allocated to addressing climate change? Do you think it warrants a pause in other research areas until the climate is stabilized?
This topic might even make for an interesting video discussion :D
The topic sounds more social-political than scientific. I'd be surprised if Sabine tackled it.
Climate change is a more serious concern than all of those, but it's slow and quiet, so it sneaks up on people, rather than being sharp and sudden like an atomic bomb. Like to compare it to nuclear war, such an exchange would kill a lot more people all at once, but the lasting effects of it would settle down a lot faster than climate change is, and over the next hundreds of years would likely end up killing fewer people. Also, nuclear war is entirely avoidable by just choosing not to have a nuclear war, whereas climate change is happening, and would take significant work to stop.
As for AI, it's way too hard to predict how that plays out, but could either be terrible or great. There's really not much anyone's planning to "do" about that though.
As for asteroids, a big enough asteroid could do more harm than climate change, but we have a pretty good idea that no such asteroid is heading our way, and hopefully we would be able to stop it if we did. We're putting reasonable effort into that possibility.
As for world hunger and disease, climate change is the largest contributing factor in both problems, and that will only become worse as climate change gets worse, so efforts to solve climate change helps solve both.
So basically, of all the problems facing the world today, climate change is probably the most significant one to tackle. I don't think it's reasonable to spend ALL our resources on it, and I don't think we need to "pause" all other activities because not everyone would really have anything meaningful to add to climate change research, so it's better they do something else, but we should definitely be spending more than we currently are.
@@timogul The concern I have with putting global warming as the highest priority is that this also give it the highest moral value. In the name of saving the climate, all sorts of policies and restrictions can be implemented: banning meat, restricting travel, and justifying negative economic growth as good and beneficial. Human life itself can lose value, as having fewer people can be seen as desirable. Implementing global policies that make energy more expensive might seem desirable from a climate-saving perspective, but they can have deadly consequences, especially for poor countries and for people living on the edge. I want us to save the climate but without losing our humanity and our freedom.
I am no one, but the logic tells me we should solve issues that are manifested first, and use preventive means to stop possible threats as we go. All of them filter type events. So I do not think anyone of them can be carried so far into the future to see the worse filter, just that we react to them when they need recating to, and if we react wrong, many species will die off. Humans are gonna have a bad time, though even by bad choices we may survive these filter events.
@@bertstein8590 So you would prefer not to address climate change _accurately_ because you believe that doing so would inconvenience you? That is not how science works.
The moral questions are your own to deal with, if you believe that your personal freedoms are more valuable to you than the human lives they would cost, then that's fine, you do you, but you can't have it both ways, the moral cost exists whether you ignore it or not.
I will point out though that YOU are the only one suggesting that saving trillions by addressing climate change is somehow "losing our humanity and freedom." Nobody else is asking that of you.
My uncle came back to me. He still thinks it’s a hoax 😂
Because it's unmanly to change your opinions based on what someone else tells you. Especially if it's a woman 🙄 What a goddamn doofus.
He is right you only have to look at historical data from millions of years of CO2 levels and temperature and you will notice that they dont follow each other. You know when we had dinosaurs the temperature was way way warmer then now and the planet was much greener.
@@tomtetomtesson2477 yes, it probably was warmer. But the rate of change wasn't nearly as high as now. Also, why do you think a climate that's good for dinosaurs is good for humans?
The whole point of action against climate change is to keep our atmosphere livable for humans, not dinosaurs. Also, the heat isn't gonna be the thing that kills us, the aftereffects will. And even then, not all of humanity will die, only the less fortunate.
@@jonnevaalanti4949 Did I say its good for the humans? We are no where near 12 degrees but telling the most adaptive primate on earth that we are doomed over a couple of degrees global warming (which we also aint nowhere near) is just fearmongering. History shows the opposite that when its warmer we thrive better and plants just love more CO2 also which actually has been dangerously low for plants recently but no one wants to tell us that. What scientists can do is to measure the temperature outside of city centers and the tell us how much the earths has become warmer before they start fearmongering. After around 30 wrongly predicted doomsday scenarios the last decades its getting tiresome to listen to another doomsday MODELLING scenario.
@@jonnevaalanti4949 You know that we are in a ice age period right now and no matter what we do we it will get warmer sooner or later anyway and telling us humans cant live under when temperature changes is like saying Africans cant live in colder countries. Colder climate has been proven to be more dangerous than warmer climate historically so why would it be any different now? Never trust a scammer who tries to silence opposite scientific views like the so called consensus on climate. They did the exactly same thing with Covid but they have been doing this for decades with climate. Every single scientist, media or politician who have accepted this kind of behaviour should be fired immediately. The thing with historical data is that it shows that temperature and CO2 level has not been correlating before but suddenly it does?
The date ranges on the charts are very recent , to be meaningful they should go way back in time
Thank you for this video... i am sure the Koch bros hate you for it. 😂😂😂
Nice and clear. Never really doubted it. But that doesn't mean that warming and ALL it's associated consequences is such a bad outcome. Also doesn't mean our reaction shouldn't be simply to adapt to the fact like we adapt to other and more drastic changes in the world (population increase, etc...)
I don't think you have done enough research on the effects then. The issue is not humans surviving. The issue is other animals and plants not being able to adapt like humans can. And that eventually leads to hunger of humans.
@@philosophist9562 And of course, sure, people in the US or Europe will probably be able to deal with it - with more intensive agriculture etc. But the vast majority of the world's population doesn't have the same options (not to mention that they will tend to further accelerate climate change, of course). Humans will survive... but it's also likely a whole load of humans will die and there will be tons of conflict as people are forced north.
So i hope you will be the first to adapt and take on a climate refugee fleeing famines?
Carbon from plants going into the atmosphere is not solely from fossil fuels but also from soil carbon being lost due to forests and other land being cleared for farming. Still human caused but not just fossil fuels.
Since C14 is almost non-existent in fossil fuel given it's short half life, this alters the ratios significantly (though, the nuclear test stuff I hadn't heard of before) when it's being pumped into the atmosphere. I'm not sure what you mean by soil carbon lost - it shouldn't affect the levels of CO2 unless you mean via microbial action, but even then, when you consider the total biomass in a system and a relatively stable bio-decay rate, there shouldn't be a net increase in CO2 in the system. That said, as the temperature increases, the bio-decay rate will also increase. (I'm using "bio-decay" instead of "decay" to not confuse it with nuclear decay) When deforestation happens, it removes nature's natural CO2 absorbers, however, over a greater time span, there still won't be a net increase in CO2 from this (the wood from trees, eventually decays and any CO2 captured is re-released). The takeaway from this is to stop burning organic compounds trapped in the ground over geologic time scales.
So net zero is just pointless designed to push us into poverty, while the big corporations carry on this behaviour right?.
@@davestorm6718the takeaway is more nuclear and to stop de forestation and plant trees. Net zero just seems tokenism while we are letting governments and corporations carry on doing this. The biggest countries who pump co2 into the air are China, Russia and America... China is trying to offset some of their emissions, but really fundamentally I don't see America or Russia giving a fk.
Good thinking, but i think the effect is minor, due to we burn way more fossil fuel than taken down trees.
MinutePhysics video once talk about the carbon we throw into atmosphere per year is 100x of total mass in biosphere.
ruclips.net/video/SD9yVca6hHI/видео.html
@@fakestory1753 Sorry but that is not even close to being true. For the atmosphere: current CO2 = 3,200 gigatons approx. CO2 emitted by humans since 1850 = 2,400 gigatons approx. Emissions last year approx 40 gigatonnes. Biosphere breathing effect: 436 gigatonnes per year. I struggled to find a good source for total biosphere carbon but its enormous relative to above figures.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#:~:text=It%20has%20been%20estimated%20that,over%2040%20gigatons%20per%20year.
"... and the fraction's been increasing ever since the beginning of the measurements." Fantastic, I love this one. How do you know what happened before the beginning of the measurements? How about a few thousand years of increasing before the beginning of the measurements?
Because temperature leaves unique isotopic signatures and other marks on living organisms, fossils, and rocks.
Because we have written records and archaeological remains.
The ratio of carbon deflecting light or heat is one good aspect. Like a diamond reflecting, the mechanism allows light at what some aerodynamics call speed, and deflects or reflects like a mirror in some scale..perhaps the color is what some see as that part. Because they don't seem to speak much about it. So like a bling, the opposite collects certain hues and adds to the full scale mechanics of barriers. Yet that means we can't say the natural actual color is the same if it were compared in space because much is filtered ?
this video should show in the very first google search results on climate change
ahh, the narrative crafting algos are all online! check.
No, it should be retracted as it is just another big climate lie.
@@JeffreyBenjaminWhite and being tuned. War is peace.
Wouldn't it be possible to establish a Baseline for Carbon 14 prior to Atmospheric Nuclear Testing by looking at tree and ice cores that span the period before and after?
It is and has been done. It shows climate change is real and happening at a fast rate.
I guess an important change in CO2 levels was already happening and interpreting that data correctly is just more difficult rather than impossible, producing less reliable models. Remember that this video condenses a lot of information, things are always much more complex
Well, the baseline is the Vienna Peedee Belemnite (VPDB) isotope reference. It is a fossil whose C12/C13 ratio was measured with great precision, and it is this reference we compared against other samples. The deviation from this standard is called the Delta-13 (δ13C) ratio. And yes, we can measure the δ13C ratio, and the Oxygen and Hydrogen / Deuterium ratio, in ice cores going back hundreds of thousands of years.
Stable isotope analysis is a fascinating and powerful technique. For example, in my geology department we could tell (from hair and fingernail sample) if a student spent summer in the US or stayed here in Ireland. This is because our dairy cows, beef cattle are grass fed, but dairy and beef cattle in the US are mainly grain fed, and thus end up with a different nitrogen isotopic ratio, which can affect people's own nitrogen isotopic ratio depending on their diet. It's now used en arcology and to solve crimes (Jane/John Does can be pinned down geographically, which can help with identification).
@@Diamonddavej Thanks for your detailed comment.
hmm ok I was not sure if they were measuring different carbons, or if they were factoring in the greenhouse gases from volcanos, when they say there is more co2 being released,
wouldn't this carbon 12 though also cause more plants to feed more readily from the more absorbable carbon 12 they like and can use more readily?
We're digging up ancient CO2, that plants are absorbing more is very temporary, 1 year for grasses (think grains), even trees for the most part are 50yrs. a lot of tree planting is lumber, it's not being left to just grow.
We've been digging up and releasing CO2 for 150yrs, we've deforested massive amounts of land and at best replaced it with lumber trees tho most commonly just annual plants from grazing or crops
Wouldn't a more direct way to estimate the human contribution to carbon in the atmosphere be to estimate the amount of fossil fuels burned and the amount of carbon in those fossil fuels? And then see whether that squares with the rise in carbon?
I liked the quiz at the end which was made available. Neat feature.
I'd like someday to see a short video talking more about the stratospheric cooling effect. If you really want to drive the point home, I'd suggest explaining it. People who are hard-core skeptics on global warming's cause by human activity are going to point at this and claim that it doesn't make sense. They'll say "If CO2 absorbs sunlight and traps it as heat, why does it only do that near the surface of the Earth and not up higher. Sounds like some made-up mumbo-jumbo to support their claims to me!" (and it kinda does) So I think that'd be a neat supplementary video to be made someday.
On a long enough time line, the earth is cooling to absolute zero.
You win my award for the most useless comment to the topic that was addressed in the video.
Congratulations!
And, on a much shorter term, you too will be cooling to zero.
but first it's gonna be swallowed by the sun, which will be a considerable warming
I am not sure about it. Is not the sun swallop up earth during it final stages? Than earth would not exist any more after such time. Than earth will never cool to absolute zero.
@@MassimoAngotzi I was going to write something similar, you, however, phrased it much better than I. Cheers!
Yes, some of the COVID-19 prevention measures implemented during the pandemic, such as reduced travel and industrial activity, led to temporary reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. These reductions had short-term positive impacts on climate change by slowing down the rate of global warming. However, for these changes to have a lasting effect on climate change, they would need to be sustained and integrated into long-term policies and practices even after the pandemic ends. This could involve continued investment in remote work options, promotion of renewable energy sources, and adoption of more sustainable transportation and consumption patterns.
ChatGPT 🌹
Ah yes, of course, we need LONG COVID-19 MEASURES, that's what all humanity is just dreaming about.
This was a very good and informative video. I wouldn't mind going to a green system, BUT it should be done only in a reasonable time frame. It appears to me that it would be a couple of generations before we could truly begin to sustain a change like this. Additionally, nuclear power is a natural resource and would be an excellent gateway source of energy. Fusion power may become successful, but ultimately, the (new physics) around zero point energy is the answer. Lastly, can anyone explain why our solar system planets appear to be warming up as well. It's not just a global warming problem. It's also a Sol system warming event as well.
Perfect summary thank you Sabine for this and all your honest thoughtful work which is up to date,human, humorous and always positively adds to scientific debate.
No mention of factory farming and it's horrific contribution to global warming. Disappointing.
What caused the last warming and cooling. Ice core samples show far higher co2 levels in pre history.
ruclips.net/video/wkqDJwTIg_E/видео.html
@Sabine: I like your videos. There are atmospheric physicists who believe that water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas. I expected you would say something about it. Perhaps in a more consummate video.
Water vapor is of course significant.
But the problem with water vapor evaporates and rains out. So, it has a chicken-and-egg problem. Rising temperature quickly increases how much water vapor there is in the air, which further increases temps. And lower temperatures lower water vapor, which lowers temps.
But CO2 doesn't form rain or snow here on Earth. Any excess CO2 is stuck in the air for tens of millennia, until plants breathe it in and the oceans dissolve it.
In the long meantime, CO2's own greenhouse effect can change how much water stays in the air. That's why we say CO2 drives climate. Water literally balances itself out. CO2 doesn't, not for thousands of years.
@@paoloesquivel7430 I appreciate you taking the time to answer, it reads plausible.
However a consummate answer would address why it gets really cold in the Sahara after nightfall.
The air above the Sahara is not poorer than average in CO2, it's poorer than average in H20 vapor and this happens every night.
A consummate answer would also address how H20 vapor blocks the radiation of heat both ways.
So the more of it we have in the air the harder it will become to get any warmer. Acidification of the oceans is still a problem though for sure.
I am not prepared to reject AGW, nor am I prepared to declare it established knowledge and panic or despair.
I understand the basics of physics, heat transfer and the laws of thermodynamics and if you have consummate answers and communicate them to me I will get them.
I also understand that scientific research from respectable scientists that bolsters reservations towards AGW doesn't get published.
The journals black it out without faulting the methodology. Am I only told what I "need to know"? Check out "Climate "Science" | Dr. Richard Lindzen".
I recently analyzed an energy company, traditionally into fossil fuel, tankers, refineries, gas stations, the whole shebang.
But only recently they've been investing very aggressively by means of takeovers the whole gamut of renewable energy producers in my country.
The only thing that changed since their previous investment attitudes is subsidies.
Ever since "green" energy got subsidized every fossil fuel corporation want to "save the planet" (from themselves?).
@@paoloesquivel7430 Thanks for answering.
I typed a longer answer but the guys in control deleted it.
One more time: The Sahara freezes during night time, it's air is not poorer in CO2, it's just drier. Should it be freezing if CO2 was the main culprit?
Water vapor blocks the radiation of heat both ways, the more of it we have up there, the harder it will get to get any warmer.
@@Mr.V888
However powerful people respond to the science is different from the science itself. I speak about the science only. I'll leave the politics and the engineering and the finance and the machinations to others.
========================
Let's get the basics straight.
(1) As you say, the greenhouse effect of CO2 and H2O blocks heat. That means two things. One meaning is that heat from the sun gets trapped in CO2 and H2O molecules. The other meaning is that the heat the EARTH emits when it is bathed in visible light likewise gets trapped in those molecules. Either way, the heat makes the CO2 molecules start running around and into other air molecules. Each collision increases the speed of the other molecules. That's what we call a higher temperature by definition.
(2) Deserts are cold at night because their atmospheres lack H2O vapor and H2O clouds to trap their heat. Humid areas are warm for the opposite reason.
(3) H2O vapor is indeed a big greenhouse gas. 90% of the total greenhouse effect experienced in pre-industrial years came from H2O. A bit less than 10% of the effect was from CO2. Unfortunately, the Sun being as dim/bright as it is, Earth needs 95% of the full pre-industrial greenhouse effect just to get over the freezing point of H2O and start creating useful amounts of H2O vapor in the first place. So, if we remove all CO2, most of the H2O vapor would rain/snow out of the sky within a few years, leaving us with almost zero greenhouse effect.
(4) We are worried about CO2 in particular because the preindustrial level was already enough to give us the +15C difference between freezing and comfy. At 40% less CO2 during the last ice age, we were just at +8C. We have added 40% to preindustrial level already and are on track to doubling it by 2100. What will happen then? The first estimate of this 'climate sensitivity' was made back in 1856: +5C more. Modern models say +4C.
(5) Also, note that even Richard Linzen agrees with the key ideas of AGW theory. He believes fossil fuel burning releases CO2, that CO2 has been up since we started burning tons of fossil fuel, that most of the CO2 in the air today is from fossil fuel, that CO2 has a greenhouse effect, that CO2 by its own will heat up the planet, and that the odds of the 2020s seeing higher temps than the 2000s would be 50:1. His disagreements fall into three categories, some understandable: a hate of alarmism (good), speaking too early (he based findings on temps data just as the huge heat spike of the 1998 El Niño wore off), and believing too much in the anti-greenhouse effect of clouds (if he were right, the initial warming at the end of the ice age would have stopped as more clouds appeared, and we'd have been stuck with in the ice age forever).
@@Mr.V888
(1) I stick to climatology. Policy, politics, finance, economics, engineering --- I leave to others.
(2) The greenhouse effect does NOT REFLECT infrared/heat back to the ground like a mirror. It TRAPS heat in the air itself, like a blanket. Heat is trapped in the very structure of greenhouse gas molecules. That trapped energy makes them flail around excitedly. Just as a flailing toddler is more likely to hit something else, the heat-excited greenhouse molecules are more likely to bump into other air molecules. Each collision speeds up the other molecules. And that's the definition of higher temperature. The heat radiation turns into hotter air.
(3) Deserts cool fast at night because they lack H2O vapor and H2O clouds that trap heat. And yes, that means ....
(4) H2O is a major greenhouse gas, delivering 90% of the total pre-Industrial Age greenhouse effect. But the Sun is dim enough that we need 95% of the effect just to cross the thawing point of water. Pre-industrial CO2 levels bring 10% of the total effect, catapulting us from H2O's 90%, over the 95% thaw point, all the way to 100%.
(5) We are concerned about CO2 because so little is enough to get us from frozen to comfy. Fossil fuel burning has added +33% more CO2 above pre-industrial values. We are on track to doubling them by 2100. What happens then? The first estimate, released in 1861, was +5C more heat. Modern estimates are +4C. Those are horrible numbers for agriculture and human health, not to mention the rest of the biosphere.
(6) The AGW denier expert you mentioned before actually AGREES with key climate facts. He thinks CO2 is a major greenhouse gas, that the Earth would heat up a lot if CO2 were the only climate knob, that CO2 levels are very much up compared to preindustrial times, that the CO2 spike is due to our fossil fuel burning instead of natural sources, and even that the odds against higher temps in the 2020s vs the 2000s was 50:1.
(7) But that same expert disagrees on three areas, some good (he fights alarmist responses), some understandable (he spoke most in the years after the very hot El Niño of 1998, so temps seemed to have had stabilized), and some questionable (his belief that warming cancels itself out by increasing cloud formation would imply that there can be no warm cloudy days, or that even the warming that ended the ice age could never have started. But it is obvious we aren't in an ice age now but recently were).
How do we know climate change is caused by humans?
1. Basic physics: CO2 absorbs infrared,
2. Atmospheric CO2 content has increased,
3. Ocean acidificatiton: disolved CO2 is decreasing PH,
4. Carbon isotope ratios rich in C12: fossil fuels not volcanos, and
5. Stratospheric cooling: Manabe & Wetheral 1967.
Further evidence not mentioned:
- the increase in CO2 content matches estimates of CO2 released by fossil fuels,
- Satellites can measure where the new CO2 is coming from and it's urban areas not volcanos,
- Solar irradiance is currently decreasing,
- Previous shift in climate are associated with bolide impacts, major volcanism, or changes in ocean ciculation which are not currently happening, and
- Increases in atmospheric water vapour are possible due to a warmer atmosphere because of CO2 (burning fossil fuels also releases water).
You unfortunately missed the parts about rising temperatures, rising water levels, and declining ice covers in this video.
Looking forward to the next video on the topic!
Correlation does not equal causation. This all started right around the time JFK was killed and Michael Jordan, Brad Pitt, and Johnny Depp were born... therefore it MUST be that JFK was protecting this planet from "climate change" and Jordan, Pitt, and Depp are the cause of "climate change"... *sigh*
In all seriousness, CO2 absorption bands are already saturated. They absorb everything they possibly can, and no energy from Earth in those wavelengths escape into space (100% absorption). You can't have 200% absorption by doubling, or 300% by tripling CO2.
That is all nonsense based on falsified data. Have a look at my Climate playlist.
These could be just natural phenomena. The question is how to prove it's anthropogenic
These were literally posted over her left shoulder.
but unfortunately, temps not rising, nor water levels, ice not declining
@@CycleWerkz it depends on what timeframe you use.
I'd like to see a video that covers alternative hypotheses for the observed effects, and what evidence has led to them being rejected.
Stop blowing against the “scientific” house of cards
Could be an undiscovered civilization living underground, who have the technology to simultaneously capture all of the CO2 our fossil fuel burning humans do, but themselves emitting an equal amount.
Why do you assume that there are alternative hypotheses in the first place?
It's the sun. The ACRIM data controversy was political garbage.
i can recommend to browse trought www.youtube.com/@tomnelson2080 youtube videos , there are many plausible alternative scenarious from accredited scientist and climate scientist which go against the dogma of the omnipotent CO2 cause and effect hypothesis
Sabine, we are lucky to have you. I want to remember all these points so I can respond to my x-boss and others like him, who say they believe in global warming but don't think it's caused by humans. But one of your points is hard for me to understand, and so hard to explain to others: in the stratosphere, "the additional C02 helps the thin air shed heat more efficiently", known as atmospheric cooling. But why this is the case is not intuitive to me. Can you explain?
One of the arguments used by the people I know who oppose the notion of human created climate change is to say that we are in a natural process of the end of the last ice-age and that in a few years this will reverse itself naturally. While I know there is some truth to this, I understand that we appear to have interrupted these cycles and accelerated warming by human activity. This video points out some of the markers of this, but would you say a little more about the evidence that we are outside of the historic norms please?
You expected Google to answer your question 😂
nowadays google isn't helping anymore 😔
@@everluck35 nowawdays? try 20 years.
Not without the misdirect to an advertisement.
This is more disturbing than funny. She's never strayed from her lane apparently.
Google is an advert spamming site for various billionaires and wef.
I think Sabine did a good job demonstrating that the measured increase in CO2 is from fossil fuels and so caused by humans. Did she address the connection between CO2 and climate change? I'm not sure she did. It may be true sea water acidification is an effect of increasing CO2 levels. But its connection to climate change? Drawing correlations to CO2 levels (acidification) does not draw the same correlation to earth temp. increase. Increase in sea level? That is very difficult to measure in part because of the accuracy and precision of the measurement required but also because of the lack of a real baseline. Extreme weather events? I'm not sure about this one but I suspect the correlation between extreme weather and CO2 increase is primarily supported by atmospheric modeling. I don't know, have any of these computer models been validated? Say, by using historical data to predict the present state of the atmosphere? Again, very difficult and a question that should be asked. We do know and have measured with great accuracy and precision the interaction of CO2 and radiation across a broad frequency range in the laboratory. I guess that is a start but I doubt it is the end of the story.
She did though, the evidence pointed out here was Stratospheric cooling, which exactly fits the models of what CO2 does in the upper atmosphere, which suggests the model's predicted effects in the lower atmosphere - which is more complicated to entangle due to it being much more chaotic - are correct.
Given the short-form video, you can't really expect more to presented on that, but there's plenty of such evidence. Effects like the strengthening of El Nino/La Nina and other such weather oscillations driven by temperature have been well documented, as well as comparisons to historical and geological records of extreme weather events. By the way, sea level and global surface temperature measurements have improved enough with satellite technology that the effects are *very* evident even in the short period we have been able to measure them with that level of precision.
Agreed. It wasn’t a good video at all. Definitely won’t convince any uncles.
@@tomfeng5645It wasn’t a good video, nothing in here would convince a sceptic uncle. Most of the stuff she says here is more like “trust me, bro”, rather than clear, evidence based cause and effect.
@@tomfeng5645It wasn’t a good video, nothing in here would convince a sceptic uncle. Most of the stuff she says here is more like “trust me, bro”, rather than clear, evidence based cause and effect.
Explanation for science illiterates. In science nothing is PROVEN. It's either supported or not supported. There's no "trust me bro" nonsense here. She just presented supporting evidence (as opposed to the crap climate deniers come up with). In that respect, it did what it was supposed to do.
The gh effect of co2 will diminish as the co2 gets more concentrated, because at the spectrum of interest the co2 effect becomes saturated.
Can we have some numbers deduced from first principles?
Like in a back of an envelope calculation?
What will the equilibrium temperature bee. If any?
This should be mandatory viewing for everyone on the planet! Thank you Sabine :)
YEAH like Al Gores inconvenient truth ,,pretty much all lies ,and a HUGE hypocrite
@@billhamilton7524
She's a fraud
ruclips.net/video/oWyxfmHJcd0/видео.html
Nonsense filled article , starting with fossil word ...
Notice she did not mention the effects of methane in the atmosphere and the new evidence that this has being occurring since the retreat of ice sheets. Lots of data on C02, not enough about new findings. Are scientist always this bias with data presentation to make their arguments? Ice core data Sabine!
if anything should be mandatory viewing it is the michael mann/mark steyn court case.
Dear Sabine! I love your channel but help me understand one thing: With CO2 being only .04% of the concentration of the atmospgere, and H2O being say 9ish%, how in the world can we say that a gas that is at such a low concentration is responsible for these changes an no one hardly talks about the elephant in the room which is water vapor? I mean you can actually FEEL without instrumentation the difference between a cloudy night and a cloudless one. CO2 doesn't make sense to me from this perspective even if we humans have increased CO2 by .01%. Curious! Thanks.
The amount of water vapour in the air isn't changing (on average). It's a closed system which has been doing its thing since before we existed. What we are dramatically _changing_ is the carbon cycle.
CO2 modulates the VAST flux of energy radiated by the planet (approximately as great as the flux of energy from the sun). A small change in that vast flux is a huge amount of energy, which is why a small amount of CO2 can cause a large effect. Unlike water vapour (which amplifies any warming) CO2 doesn't precipitate out of the atmosphere (rain), which is why it can cause a problem when it accumulates. The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is determined by its temperature (Clausius-Clapeyron sp? relationship), so if you put more water vapour in the air than the temperature can sustain, it just falls out again as rain or snow.
In theory, the universe is a closed system. If that is the case, are there other things outside of earthly variables that can impact stratospheric cooling? Could the exponential expansion of the universe impact the overall density of the universe, which would impact the temperature of the upper atmosphere? Is there a way to measure the local impact of an exponentially expanding universe?
That’s why you don’t do science according to what you “feel” but to what you observe. Your argument is basically “0.04% doesn’t seem that much, even though I have no idea of how much you need to produce the effects we observe, is it has to be something else”. Also it’s not just purely CO2, climate change is a very complex phenomenon, see the effects of methane on the atmosphere for example
@davemartin Try drinking a litre of water with 0.04% LSD in it, and you will see how small quantities can have a big effect.
Every single person in the world should learn this off by heart from a young age 👍
Thank you for this video. I've never been a denier, but I've always struggled with understanding how exactly it is we know how much of the change is contributed by humans. As you've pointed out, google and other easily searchable results tend to just emphatically state that it is without walking people through the methodology for the conclusions.
Suffice to say, I am far less a skeptic then ever before.
Would love it if you did a video that explains how we quantify the human impact on climate change and differentiate between man made and 'normal' climate cycle change.
To be fair, "that uncle" almost certainly hadn't watched your videos. :)
The fact that it actually is as hard for normal people to find real explanations as you note that it is, and watching their performances I seriously doubt the NGTs of the world even bother to look before going on TV and holding forth, gives me a lot of sympathy for the doubters. Thank you again for being great at what you do!
Thank you for your continued contribution to science. Your thorough scientific analysis is always enlightening and thought-provoking.
However, I couldn't help but wonder about the historical context of the data. While the evidence from the 1980s onward is compelling, I wonder about the trends preceding this period. Specifically, how do we account for the potential rise in carbon dioxide levels and temperature fluctuations before the industrial era?
For instance, before human industrialization, were there natural processes such as widespread wildfires that significantly contributed to carbon dioxide emissions and temperature changes? Additionally, how do we discern the natural climate variability from human-induced influences throughout history?
I believe understanding the pre-industrial dynamics could provide valuable insights into the true extent of human impact on climate change. Your expertise in this field would shed light on these intricate nuances.
Thank you for your dedication to scientific inquiry and for sharing your knowledge with the world.
They don't want to talk about CO2's saturation point, much less any of those subjects. I frankly don't have much faith in this era of research any more.
@@benjamintherogue2421 sure "they" do. It's been debunked. ruclips.net/video/TVBDMeuHq_U/видео.html
@@benjamintherogue2421 sure "they" do. It won't let me put links here, but search "the science of CO2, Debunking the saturation point." It's on the channel called All About Climate. "They" talk about it in great detail.
The fact that they had to rebrand from “global warming” to “climate change” says a lot. Scientists are paid a lot of money to find data which supports human caused climate change. And they deliberately ignore anything that contradicts this narrative.
The media loves it because fear mongering keeps their ratings up. And governments love it, because they can pretend there is an existential threat they are protecting us against.
And so… every year… all the climate activists hop on their private jets to discuss what can be done to force people without private jets to reduce their carbon footprint.
@@mygirldarby I've heard the debunking argument. It's not actually debunked. They just say the energy can leak out and be absorbed into the lower and upper bands, but those lower and upper bands can not absorb nearly enough total energy to make up for the difference that they say they have to for their models to work. They're trying to cram an elephant into the back of a Prius.
The problem I have with climate change is that if we stop it too soon, I won't have my beach front property. 😅
Why are you only looking at the data from 1960 forward, if you go back to 1880 when we started recording temperature data accurately it shows we are in a long term cooling trend. Where are you getting your info on more storms and more intense storms? They have actually decreased. Please state your sources.