I had missed that Ivor Cummins, who was previously an 'expert' on Covid, is now an 'expert' on climate change. I just checked out his video, and saw a few comments alerting him, and his viewers, to this video. Then went back fifteen minutes later, and those comments had mysteriously disappeared. Weird, because after all he's only interested in 'the facts', and you would think he would embrace the opportunity to learn some. Ah well. Great video as always, potholer.
Thank you for pointing that out. This way I can spare myself the time of looking up the original video and commenting there and don't give it an interaction boost.
You always have the other option... Denounce for spam/false claims. From what I know about RUclips it might mean he won't get money from the video until he addresses the claim >:)
Very disappointed Adrian - I was hoping for the word 'feck' said in the way only the Irish can. You did make up for it though with '"chemical gobshite". Well said. Thank you!
This type of denial by big energy is so similar to the tobacco companies in the 60’s. They produced all kinds of “research” showing no harm from smoking, polls where doctors agreed. Some executives of big tobacco today still in denial, saying there has never been cause and effect shown.
It's even been a lot of the *same people* doing denialist "research" for the energy industry since the 1990s who previously did it for the tobacco industry.
One thing anyone can be sure of is that whenever they see capital letter "FACTS", it is presented so by someone who doesn't understand the difference between a fact and an opinion.
I think it’s also worth mentioning that rapidly increasing co2 levels at the end of the Permian helped create the worse mass extinction of the Phanerozoic Eon.
It worth pointing these things out. Like that graph that shows CO2 and temperature going in lockstep with each other for the last 800,000 years, and that CO2 is now shooting off the chart, upwards. That's usually when the cognitive dissonance starts to really boil up to the surface in the 'sceptic' crowd. (I call them deniers, even though Potholer54 doesn't like that term, I don't agree. They're doing it on purpose, they're not merely mistaken. They're conscious liars)
Climate-change denialists are like someone at the top of a tree sawing through the trunk below them, saying: "It's all fine, this tree wasn't always here!"
Funny! But isn’t it odd how people who want evidence and point out facts and use verifiable evidence and the full geological history of the earth to point things out get called climate deniers? Yet people who use emotional rhetoric, fear and authoritarian dictates and only cherrypick bits of data that suit their exaggerated claims while denying things like the little ice age and medieval warm period going even as far as to fabricate fate hockey stick graphs that erase these historic events get called What?
@@anomamos9095 - Put the Kool-Aid down, friendo, it isn't good for you. Try reading an article on climate science in respected journal or, better still, sit down with a peer reviewed paper and put some effort into understanding the science. Visit the NASA and NOAA websites and make use of their "ask a climate scientist" page. If you have trouble there are lots of people here who would be more than willing to help you as well. Or just go on as you are--probably easier for you that way
Too many people buy into the denial, not trusting science but completely trust the Multi Trillion $$ fossil fuel industry who have a vested interest in keeping making Trillions of $$ for their shareholders. It baffles Me.
Looking at the comments of any video like this, what is most shocking is that there are som many people who are wilfully ignorant of science who feel happy to display their ignorance to the World. As someone who is a geoscientist with 30 years experience, and have been following (and partially publishing) climate science throughout, I know a bit about this. Despite the frantic rivalry between scientific working groups, not a single study (that has survived rigorous statistical analysis) in 2 decades is inconsistent with, or does not show, anthropogenic climate change is happening and accelerating.
That demonstrates the political machinations and corruption when it comes to the funding and publishing of studies. Additionally, you shouldn't discount the value of amateur enthusiasts in furthering scientific research. Amateur astronomers have played a significant part in the research of our galaxy.
@@dl2839 Absolutely. I have worked very closely with non professional palaeontologists in several countries. They are typically less competitive than professionals and more open with data
Honestly, the thing that made me glad about this was the map where you pointed out how here in the UK, we simultaneously use metric and imperial for different things, and you're right, it is so confusing
Put a few litres of petrol in your car, drive at the mile per hour speed limit to the pub and get a pint of beer and 25ml of whisky. I feel that the UK isn't fully committed to the metric system.
Same as here in Canada. I weigh about 170lb. I'm about 5 foot 11 inches high. Excuse me while I go on a 25km bike ride. It's only +2C out, so it will be a bit cool today.
@@knarf_on_a_bike tbh, I understand Canada better. Having close connections with a big neighbor that uses imperial it’s hard to avoid learning and using that system, if anything because Americans think it’s others who have to accommodate them. The UK doesn’t have that excuse. Iirc having to show unit prices in metric was one of the reasons Brexiters moaned about. Recently one politician proposed to go back to full imperial in the name of sovereignty and to give the middle finger to the EU. I don’t think the idea went anywhere.
I am very glad you continue to make these kinds of videos. Personally, I am worn out from correcting the same old lies over and over and over. The zealots are indefatigable.
@darylwilliams7883 - Hang around the channel long enough and you'll see that no matter how thorough the research put into making these videos, "skeptics" will never* shift their positions. The reason is their "skepticism" isn't based on substantive flaws in science, it's based on their socio-political and religious views. No matter how many articles and papers and lines of evidence you show them, everything that doesn't conform to their prior beliefs is a lie. On more occasions than I'm willing to admit I invested considerable time in tracking down and reading peer reviewed papers and articles, reading over summaries on pages like the Met Office, NOAA, and NASA, and running what I found by people who are actually science literate. I would do that because a skeptic would pose a seemingly genuine question about equilibrium temperature or some such. In every case what was the pay off? 'Peer review is pal review, the real science is happening on RUclips' (not a joke, someone actually said this) or 'You trust NASA and NOAA? They're all liars, wattsupwiththat has the real data'. It's enough to make a cat laugh. It took a long time of getting similar responses before it dawned on me that just *_*maybe*_* these "skeptics" aren't really interested in science...huh? It took me years to realise this but I'm not that bright, so I give myself a pass. *NB - a handful of "skeptics" have said ph54's content helped them change their minds, but so few that I wonder at the effort involved
"No o, no, no... This isn't 'poison' we're pumping into the air you breathe, it's happy plant food gas! We're actually filling your air with it to save you from starvation out of the goodness of our hearts! Promise!" -Exxon, apparently
Most people in the ‘truth/freedom club’ are being steered to blindly take the ‘anthropogenic climate change is a hoax’ line. They do not want debate And are incapable of it. Divide and rule.
I'd seen this argument come up *a lot* recently and had wondered where it had spawned from. It's always said with such authority but it seems not one of them have ever stopped to think what they're _actually_ saying. I've never seen anyone anywhere ever suggest we drop CO2 levels below 250/200/180/150 (whatever their magic number is) ppm, just that current rise is too much too quickly. So what point are they trying to make? I get the impression that if their house ever flooded they'd refuse to have it drained, because water is essential for life and removing it would be disastrous for all living things!
I mean.... I guess the heat and more CO2 was good for the dinosaurs? But I dont remember any humans running around back then... People need to stop framing the climate crisis as "we're killing/destroying the planet" or "we need to save the planet" and start realizing that the Earth will go on and life will continue. With or without us. We only jeopardize *our* place on this planet. (And technically other contemporary species... But just like us, they are replaceable.)
Call me anthropocentric but I find it somewhat beside the point that animal and plant life flourished in some parts of the globe when CO2 concentrations were much higher. The fact is that concentrations of human populations, agricultural regions, cities and other infrastructure, much of it on or near the coast developed where they are over the last 10,000 years when global temperatures, CO2 concentration and sea levels were stable until CO2 level began rising with the industrial revolution. CO2 may be plant food, but higher CO2 concentrations lower the nutritional value of crops, and also encourage the growth of weeds. And higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations mean that more CO2 is dissolved in the ocean where it forms carbonic acid, lowering ocean pH which adversely affects marine life at the base of the ocean food chain. And there is something else that is important to plant growth. Water. In Australia, where I live, the foodbowl regions are drying out due to increased temperature and reduction in rainfall.
You don't need to be anthropocentric. The current fauna and flora, lets call them the quaternary fauna and flora, are adapted to our current icehouse cold climate. It would suck for almost all of them if we went back to mesozoic temperatures/co2 levels in such a short span of time.
Really appreciate this, very digestible. Especially like seeing the Jurassic climate on our current landmass- matches projections of potential things if we don't do much pretty well (if not identical severity).
Wait a minute. I recognise that voice. That's Father Austin Purcell AKA 'the most boring priest in the world'. According to Father Ted, the entire population of a village in Nigeria once sailed to their deaths on a crocodile-infested lake to escape him.
The continuous increase of solar luminosity makes a lot of these comparison to 100's of millions of years ago more complicated they they frame them. Sure CO2 levels were higher in the Cambrian, but also the Sun was 5% weaker, which changes the calculations a lot.
"Can you imagine [...] a two foot long grasshopper?" Ah, a blast from the past. "No! Shut up and go away!" Perfect! Never change, Potholer. Never change :)
Most people are unaware that great joy can come from immersing oneself in propaganda that reinforces what one wants to believe in. This has been proven many times before but that is an aspect of propaganda that generally isn't taught. Keep in mind that many people derive joy from immersion in lies and distortions of the truth. That is also one of the characteristics of some cult followings.
Totally agree it's like adult make-believe, its too hard to deal with the cognitive dissonance or don't have the mental capacity to do so, much more fun to engage in a childish fiction.
Then there's a thing called "natural skepticism." A thing of language that requires stories to be comprehensive (logically consistent) and to be supported by other experiences. This thingie has to be blocked in order for one to be sucked up by those cults.
CO2 is only ever a limiting factor in plant growth in very ow levels; the current atmosphere is well above that. Plant growth today is limited by water, light, heat and above all nutrients. If CO2 were the limiting factor, fertilisers would be completely useless because CO2 would be limiting plants, not nutrients. In a closed environment, such as a greenhouse, water, light, heat and nutrients can all be optimum and CO2 can be limiting (many greenhouses pump in extra CO2).
"In a closed environment, such as a greenhouse, water, light, heat and nutrients" And, don't forget, temperatures. Industrial-sized air conditioners are must for any large greenhouse installation. Climate control is important for most plants. Funny that, eh?
@@Leafsdude Not sure what you are trying to say, other than point out correctly that within a greenhouse made of glass heat can increase to a level where it is unsuitable to life, and so clearly understand the greenhouse effect.
@@Leafsdude depends on the species; C4 grasses and many palms for example flourish at high temperatures whilst conifers do not, but it is more that plant parasites such as fungi like high temperatures.
@@charlesunderwood6334 Palm trees still stop peak performance before 35*C (95*F). There's a reason you primarily find cactus in the desert, and even they have such a hard time in those conditions that they are spread far and wide. The point is that temperature is one of the limiting factors. So messing with temperature changes as we are is likely going to be a net negative for plant growth. Especially since plants can't just up and move if they feel the pinch.
extra CO2 can be beneficial to plants but i notice how certain people ignore how higher temperatures can adversely effect the Nitrogen cycle - in other words you could grow more plants but the nutritional value will plummet. this doesn't include the relative nutrient content of the soils in areas that would become the new "growing" areas in a warmer world (it's a lot lower btw).
Yeah it’s a smoke screen. Sure it’s better for plants in a green house with all the other variables covered by humans. Not so good for the plants where they actually live in the real wild world. Not so good for the oceans. Not so good for farming on a large scale. Etc etc
Hell, even if global warming _did_ yield all-around better crops: we'll still lose tons of arable land to desertification and entire harvests to frequent extreme weather events. Those would have to be some pretty amazing crops to make up the difference.
I mean we have also royally screwed up the nitrogen cycle with our overuse of fertilizer and that's another major component of climate change that needs to be addressed.
When you showed the Uk as tropical that didn't sound so bad until I remembered I live on the coast and all that ice melting wouldn't be good for my house
LOVED this video! Thank you. I love the subject of temperature when it comes to geological time periods. Do more of it, please! Been a fan for many years.
what are the chances that Ivor Dunning-Kruger Cummins sees this video and retracts any of his claims? Close to zero I suppose, sadly. Thanks for making these videos Mr Hadfield, you are brilliant!
1:08 This is a picture of a cement factory, that white smoke isn't CO² - I learned this interesting fact via reading the video description, thx Potholer54!
I can sniff their BS from a mile away but I am way too lazy to go find their study and dig up the graphs and all that. When I argue with pro carbon motorheads I can just point to your video and the hard work is already done. And you do it in such an exhaustive and clear way too. Great resource as always.
Excellent debunk, Potholer! But I really think you missed out on a golden opportunity to put the cherry on top by discussing what rapid addition of CO2 did to life. Specifically at the end of the Permian and at the end of the Triassic. That really would be the nail in the coffin for these “CO2 is ackchyually GOOD!” blowhards…
@@Roadshow_Rabbit So 97% of climate scientists, every major scientific organization, as well as every major oil company, who admit fossil fuels cause climate change, are all wrong? 🤔
Plants also need minerals, water and the right temperature range -- and too much CO2 is already disrupting all three. Anyone who babbles about CO2 being "plant food" without considering climate change or the necessary uptake of minerals is someone who knows bugger all about agriculture.
Another well done video. I always 'alert' when I hear such adjectives as 'better', 'dangerous', and the like. This is a great example. The first thing that came to mind when "better CO2 levels back in the day" was, "better for who??". And you taught me something new about the "Cambrian Explosion" today, so thanks for that as well. One coworker always liked to say, "CO2 levels have always been changing just like the solar cycles". Well yeah, if you measure on scale of hundreds of thousands of years.... But there's one problem with pointing to CO2 levels 150 million years ago and saying "see? It didn't kill off life that time." I just point out that humans weren't around then, not even 'cave men'.
So booming with life... that should somehow mean we are to take it that this would be beneficial for human life? I guess this guy didn't get the memo about there being vastly different types of life that thrive or suffer under very different circumstances.
Actually I shouldn't even say "human life" as much as "the human community as it is now". There might well be conditions on earth under which humans could thrive, but wouln't be good for the kind of community we have built up now, if our conditions changed very quickly into those conditions.
The metric map joke was funny but Canada should've been green too. There's way too much imperial in Canada still, partially due to sharing almost everything with the US. Heights and weights for people are still done in imperial and temperatures are often given in both scales.
Yeah I live in Canada, Doing 100km/h on the highway after putting 100l of gas in my 2.5ton truck. This is all while being a 5'11 Male that weighs 185lb. We're fucked up.
I realized I’ve missed a few of your latest videos so I subscribed 😃 About time after watching your videos for 10 years or how long you’ve been going at it 😄 I’m eagerly awaiting the 2nd part.
@@potholer54 Ah yes. Excellent! You know, this sounds naive, but you were the one who made me believe that climate change is real. It was an old video you made with MS paint many years ago 😊
@@Campaigner82 Hey, there's nothing wrong with being wrong, as long as you're willing to change your mind when presented with better evidence and/or arguments. Just the fact that you did so demonstrates maturity and growth. As I'm fond of saying, if you can't look back 5, 10 or even 15 years and cringe at something you did, you haven't grown in the interim.
While certain conditions can be "good for life" in general, the rate that those conditions come along has nearly wiped out all of life several times because life doesn't adapt very quickly. So it might be that Cambrian levels of heat could support plenty of life - but switching to that level of heat in a few centuries or even millennia would invariably mean a mass extinction. Getting smacked by an asteroid and/or a volcanic apocalypse wasn't "good for mammals" so much as it was _barely not too bad_ for mammals while being _definitely too bad_ for almost all of their competitors.
It’s not even what’s good for humans, it’s what’s good or not for agriculture. Agriculture became viable only at the start of the uniquely stable Holocene, we’ve taken the chemistry of the atmosphere back 25 million years, and that’s means one thing: agriculture is going away. Maybe denial is not as bad a choice as facing the future? Being a scientist I am unable to look away from the awful reality.
Please include the effects of temperature on most plants' ability to grow. There is an ambient temperature at which plants can no longer grow or produce seed/fruit, because they're spending all their energy on cooling themselves. It varies from genus to genus etc., but for some plants and crops it's 28 degrees celsius, and for some it's as low as 18 degrees celsius. Above these temperatures, the plants actually release more carbon dioxide than they take in and become global net CO2 suppliers. Please cover that aspect of the subject matter, as well!
extra CO2 can be beneficial to plants but i notice how certain people ignore how higher temperatures can adversely effect the Nitrogen cycle - in other words you could grow more plants but the nutritional value will plummet.
@@potholer54 Would you be able to do a video that highlights the similarity of the current anthropogenic warming with past hyperthermals, many of which caused mass extinctions? It would be a slam dunk against the buffoons who claim to know all about palaeoclimatology and there are already numerous peer-reviewed papers that examine the similarities between modern times and the end-Permian and end-Triassic extinctions, as well as the less severe Middle Miocene Climatic Optimum. End-Permian Mass Extinction in the Oceans: An Ancient Analog for the Twenty-First Century?, Payne and Clapham 2012, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences Anthropogenic-scale CO2 degassing from the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province as a driver of the end-Triassic mass extinction, Capriolo et. al. 2022, Global and Planetary Change Volume and rate of volcanic CO2 emissions governed the severity of past environmental crises, Jiang et. al. 2022, PNAS Climate-model evaluation of the contribution of sea-surface temperature and carbon dioxide to the Middle Miocene Climate Optimum as a possible analogue of future climate change, You 2010, Australian Journal of Earth Sciences The Miocene: The Future of the Past, Steinthorsdottir et. al. 2020, Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology
I have looked at the Permian-Triassic in my video 'A history of the Earth in 33 minutes.' One of the reasons I don't mention it here is that Cummins never mentioned it. So it strays a bit from direct rebuttal of his claims. But I may crowbar it into the next video, if I don't stray too far off-topic.
@@potholer54 That's precisely because that's a topic these contrarians don't want their audience to know. They'll bloviate about how high CO2 levels were during the Jurassic or Cretaceous, for example, but don't want you to zoom in specifically on the Early Toarcian or Cenomanian-Turonian Thermal Maxima--two other transitional intervals within those geologic periods that are closely analogous to modern warming, and that weren't very good for life. It is on topic in the sense that these biotic crises are the so-called "good old days" these contrarians who suddenly become palaeontology gurus prefer to omit. It's also a double whammy, because many of these hyperthermals were caused by degassing of fossil fuels via intrusive volcanism (I'll again save you time by providing the titles of the papers for this factoid), something that can be easily turned into a lampooning of the "THERE WERE NO CARS BACK THEN" smart-arses. And it again showcases why these warming events are perfect analogues for modern times. Cummins aside, this really would be a perfect stand-alone video that both rebuts the mythmakers and communicates the science of the similarities of current warming to many geologic events. Methane Release from Igneous Intrusion of Coal during Late Permian Extinction Events, Retallack and Jahren 2007, The Journal of Geology Siberian gas venting and the end-Permian environmental crisis, Svensen et al. 2009, EPSL Paleomagnetism of trap intrusions, East Siberia: Implications to flood basalt emplacement and the Permo-Triassic crisis of biosphere, Konstantinov et. al. 2014, EPSL Field evidence for coal combustion links the 252 Ma Siberian Traps with global carbon disruption, Elkins-Tanton et. al. 2020, Geology Explosive eruption of coal and basalt and the end-Permian mass extinction, Ogden and Sleep 2012, PNAS Mercury evidence for combustion of organic-rich sediments during the end-Triassic crisis, Shen et. al. 2022, Nature Communications Thermogenic carbon release from the Central Atlantic magmatic province caused major end-Triassic carbon cycle perturbations, Heimdal et. al. 2020, PNAS Hydrothermal venting of greenhouse gases triggering Early Jurassic global warming, Svensen et. al. 2007, EPSL Changes in carbon dioxide during an oceanic anoxic event linked to intrusion into Gondwana coals, McElwain et. al. 2005, Nature
Not too long ago I went over all the CO2 Institute's "facts." Roughly half of all the facts were completely irrelevant to any current concern about AGW because what happens over evolutionary or geologic timescales is completely irrelevant to what happens in the next century. A huge portion of the remainder were p-hacking by picking arbitrary start dates.
As long as cuntservatives don't give up on THEIR STUPID UNIMPORTANT causes of "getting more guns" and "not allowing immigrants to vote" and "not allowing LGBTQ people to speak", then we logical people should never give up on our INFINITELY more important cause of fighting Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)
What they also don't get is that the time those changes took in the past were thousands of years, where life had enough time to adapt to the new environment. So plants never suffered with extra low CO2, they simply adapted to use less CO2. What we do at the moment is changing the CO2 levels within some decades. Waaaay too fast for anything to adapt to. What happens when climate changes too fast, we saw at the end of the ice age, when a lot of plants and animals went extinct. And that change took hundrets of years(!) More CO2 doesn't mean more plants, as long as we don't cover the earth entirely into tomato plants. Plants in already extreme environments need a precise balance of water, temperature, nutritients, light and yes CO2. You can't just rise one component and say it'll be fine. Thats not how nature works. Water is good for humans, but now force someone to gulp buckets of it every day. Right. It will get you really sick.
Yes, and heat is a critical factor. I garden, and the hotter summers are disastrous to many of my plants. This past year, we got two or three weeks of unusually warm weather in June, which resulted in plants trying to go to seed early. Green beans went leathery, spinach and radishes bolted, tomatoes developed blossom end rot and fell off the vine, and so on. Warmer weather also allows pests to flourish.
@@maryanneslater9675 Absolutely right. With just a few days of temperatures above 75 degrees, spinach, lettuce, cauliflower, cabbage and broccoli all bolt. Between 85 and 95, flowers on tomates and cucumbers drop off. Blueberries become necrotic and rot. Wheat yield plummets. Photosynthesis itself stops entirely at 104 degrees. Not shared by fossil fuel industry propaganda is that while CO2 can help crops grow more lush, the warming that accompanies it often cancels out its benefits.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 another interesting phenomenon is that too much CO2 does help some crops to thrive better, but they lose nutritions because of that. So the farmers harvest more weight, but less calories and nutritions. There is a study out there somewhere, which I don't remember anymore from whom it is.
The outside world is not a greenhouse. In the outside world, rising CO2 has TRIPLED heatwaves since the 1960s, according to the EPA. Heatwaves DECIMATE crops. You do know that a few days of temperatures above 75 degrees STOPS lettuce, spinach, cabbage, broccoli and cauliflower from developing, and stresses many other plants to reduce yield, right? At 104 degrees all photosynthesis STOPS, and many seeds won't even germinate. Think of places in the world like Phoenix, which suffered through 31 straight days of above 110-degree temperatures this summer. If you're a subsistence farmer (and there are still over a billion in the world), you lose your crops, your sustenance and your livelihood in one fell swoop. Now add in the world's increasing extreme precipitation events, which are drowning crops and washing away topsoils and fertilizer. Natural disasters cost American farmers $21.5 billion last year, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation. Only half of this was covered by insurance, the payouts of which have increased 500% over the last 20 years. Extreme precipitation crushed midwest farmers in 2019, preventing 20 million acres from even being planted, nearly doubling the previous record from 2011. South Dakota alone lost $627 million worth of corn, and Mississippi lost nearly all of its wheat. See NORTHEAST FARMERS HEARTBROKEN AS FLOODS DEVASTATE MONTHS OF LABOR AND CROPS ARE SWEPT AWAY, PBS News Hour, Jul 2, 2023 for a look at how extreme rain wiped out farms in New England this year, and especially in Vermont. Then there is the increase in drought intensity and duration and the increase in wildfires. Canada suffered through the biggest wildfire in its history this summer. Greece suffered the largest fire in European history. Wildfire burn acreage in the western U.S., meanwhile, has tripled over the past 30 years. These fires not only wipe out whole forests and release waves of CO2, the smoke they produce travels hundreds of miles, dimming the sun and reducing photosynthesis. While rising CO2 can make vegetable plants more lush, it does so by increasing sugar content and reducing zinc, iron and protein, making them LESS nutritious for human consumption. Th outside world, alas, is not a greenhouse. In the outside world, CO2-driven warming is melting the icecaps, which in turn have raised absolute sea level four inches since 1993, according to NASA and the World Meteorlogical Org. It's rate of rise has also DOUBLED since then. According to NOAA, high tide flooding along the American south and Gulf coasts has risen an astonishing 400% and 1100% respectively since the year 2000. Even New England, which is uplifting land from glacial rebound is up 140%. It's why New York, Louisiana and Houston have a combined $100 billion in flood mitigation projects in the works and why Miami Beach has moved buildings and raised 105 miles of roads. See A SILENT KILLER: HOW SALTWATER INTRUSION IS OVERTAKING COASTAL FARMLAND IN THE U.S.---Modern Farmer, August 3, 2023 With elevating storm surges from sea level rise, more and more farms are suffering yield loss from soil salination. Some farms globally have lost the ability to grow anything at all because of repeated wash-overs. The outside world is not a greenhouse.
And when life didn't have time to adapt, like when Siberian coal deposits literally exploded that's called a mass extinction, this particular one was known as The Great Dying. Idk about you but I'd prefer if Earth wasn't in a period that could be described with any of those words.
Every chemical engineer knows that all systems are linear. If decreasing CO2 levels is bad for plant life, increasing it is good. Without restriction. We also know that the rate of a process is irrelevant. If animals were able to live in high CO2 environments, evolving as CO2 levels rose gradually for 100 million years, then animals now will be fine with the same increase over a few hundred years. Obviously! /s
@@jam99 I learned recently that including /s at the end of a post is a way to let people know you're being sarcastic, and neither serious nor trolling. I think it helps :)
... and then there is the little issue of the RATE of change. This is what the Geological Society of London concluded in 2020 after a major review of the Earth's temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels over the last c.500 million years: "the current speed of human-induced CO2 change and warming is nearly without precedent in the entire geological record, with the only known exception being the instantaneous, meteorite-induced event that caused the extinction of non-bird-like dinosaurs 66 million years ago. In short, whilst atmospheric CO2 concentrations have varied dramatically during the geological past due to natural processes, and have often been higher than today, the current rate of CO2 (and therefore temperature) change is unprecedented in almost the entire geological past." see: Journal of the Geological Society, Lear et al, vol.178, 2020 We have a name for previous periods in Earth's history when atmospheric CO2 levels and temperatures increased at rates nearly as fast as we have been causing them to increase recently. They are called "Mass Extinctions".
Exactly correct! You'll probably be interested in these papers: End-Permian Mass Extinction in the Oceans: An Ancient Analog for the Twenty-First Century?, Payne and Clapham 2012, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences Anthropogenic-scale CO2 degassing from the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province as a driver of the end-Triassic mass extinction, Capriolo et. al. 2022, Global and Planetary Change Volume and rate of volcanic CO2 emissions governed the severity of past environmental crises, Jiang et. al. 2022, PNAS
I wish I could have the brains kr the knowledge to properly evaluate scientific papers. But I don't. So you are the next best thing. Thank you for what you are doing
From the little botany I remember, it is not a linear line on the graph where increase co2 give the same amount of growth as chlorophyll is not as efficient at higher temps. You will get to a point where more CO2 has no effect on growth
Chlorophyll also doesn't just magically inside the plant, it needs to actually build those molecules and to do that it uses proteins and proteins need nitrogen and phosphor, hence why NPK fertilizer exists. It stands for Nitrogen Phosphor Kalium (the international name for potassium which is used to build DNA). It also needs other minerals like copper to enable electron transport and of course water to provide the hydrogen in the carbohydrates the plant builds itself from and also to maintain homeostatis within the plant cells.
The fact that fossil fuel apologists keep coming out with even more comically easy to debunk talking points - that contradict all the previous ones - certainly says a lot about their "skepticism".
We are not "fossil fuel apologists", we are C02 supporters. C02 is essential for life on this planet. It's crazy how the woke keep villainizing it. Just like how they villainize the nuclear family.
@@Leafsdude - Seems like ad saw your comment about him making "potentially verifiable claims about reality" and immediately decided to rebut that as fast as he possibly could 😄
Do you think these clowns are purposefully using the Nigerian Prince style of filtering out people who think? I can’t understand how folks fall for this half arsed denial crap. Keep up the good work combatting it!
Usually the point of this kind of misinformation isn't really to convince anyone but rather to create the impression that the facts aren't certain so people without the necessary information will be doubtful. They basically try to shout so loudly that it sounds like there'd a bigger opposition and thus a bigger divide than there actually is.
... The Mesozoic Era was just GREAT ... for giant reptiles. Also massive forest fires, insect-borne viral disease and violent weather patterns. NOT so good for mammals - most of which were about the size of squirrels and little more than prey for small dinosaurs. Read a bit, folks ... so much better than getting ALL of your information from RUclips videos ! ...
This video even under states the danger of climate change as the most dangerous part that is relevant to us lies in the word "change". It doesn't need to be that bad to be very dangerous as the main danger today comes with rapid change as it's something plants can't handle. It doesn't help if there are plants that can live in the hotter climate if they don't live there right now or have time to spread before going extinct due to the places they now live gets to be deserts.
Surely the point about CO2 levels is that changes initiate changes in the flora and fauna. Changes to the environment over short periods may not be good for h sapiens and that is why our nickers are in a twist. The point is not whether life thrives in a CO2 regime but whether our sort thrives and is not even inconvenienced.
More importantly, do our crops thrive. It's not exactly a coincidence that the majority of the world's population lives in temperate regions with predictable weather patterns that enable agriculture, but if climatic zones suddenly shift then some of the most productive agricultural regions will experience desertification or just see significant losses in crop yields. And we can't just move further north because the weather patterns shift globally and also like does anyone think that the majority of the world's population being forced to migrate would end well?
I mean if by "Better" we mean large suathes of the planet would have been borderline uninhabitable to humans due to heat and humidity, sure? Dinosaur climate is great for giant reptiles and trees and stuff but much less good for animals that need to sweat to cool themselves.
@@javelinXH992 40% of the population and majority of infants live in the modern tropics. Per mainline IPCC style no chance of 50 in our time. I do own a sauna. Seen estimate Venus with our style atmo would be 70 or a just warm enough sauna. 🧖♀️ We'd have learned to colonize and I'd have 🙋♀️ for trying it. Part reptilian 😼
Humans come from the African savanna. And our food production happens in mostly warmer climates as well. Warmer is definitely better for humans, problem is how fast it happens.
I came across the 150ppm idea on twitter a few weeks back and asked the simple question of, who on the planet is saying, that we need to go that low, what ensued was just dancing around the question and saying, that low co2 concentration around 280ppm caused hard times in the 1800's. Sure was something
Yes, it seems to be a rather recent talking point that now spreads across the blogosphere and social media. A few years ago it was "CO2 benefits plants" and now it's "Reducing CO2 is harmful" and they're banking on their target group not actually bothering to do basic maths.
It seems we're going into the bargaining stage of climate change. I've even heard some Canadians say "well my country will have so much farmland and mining areas freed up!" A few years ago it was "climate change isn't real" now it's "climate change is good actually!"
@@frankhuggins9733 Who want's to fine-tune CO2? Where is anyone considering that? People want humanity to stop messing with CO2 levels. Climate change is no issue. Rapid climate change is the problem.
Fun fact: C4 plants evolved during the miocene and it is believed that declining CO2 was a significant selective pressure allowing them to proliferate.
Having lived in red, green, and blue regions... Yes. The UK pretending to be on metric while using inches, feet, yards, miles, pints, pounds, and [the one that even Americans don't know exists] stone - that's a laugh.
Oh, the Brits only use non-metric when it suits them, but ditch it the moment they gain by using metric - like no longer selling pint bottles but reduce them to 500 ml (and then to 470 ml). As Bulmers did with their cider (even though the pint was completely fine everywhere in the EU, as long as the metric measure was also present; I think I had those 470 ml bottles at one time, they're at 500 ml at the moment, so I'm not sure) …
For the same reason non-RUclipsr conspiracy theorists have done so since whoever came up with the first one, which was probably long before there was science. For example, it's hard to be certain, but it looks like Nero invented the conspiracy theory that the Christians burned Rome to detract from the conspiracy theory that Nero burned Rome (and fiddled while he watched - that one seems a bit more creative: he wasn't even in Rome when it happened). Both are apparently false. Hmm, now I really want to ask Megan if there are any ancient tablets with conspiracy theories. We have the dog walked into a bar, we have the angry customer, we should have the conspiracy theorist.
The dunning Kruger effect. Anecdotal evidence and egotistical humans breed superior complexes. Lots of evidence and information, humble most individuals because of the complex nature of reality.
They usually have to employ a conspiracy theory to cover that problem. "The scientists know, but they're keeping it from us!" (For whatever bullshit reason).
I appreciate info from any place and find the conflicts between "experts" beneficial to my personal study. All side of any issue are needed to arrest confirmation bias
"Here's the thing mate, just hear me out: the CO2 is dangerously low, let's all admit that, but I've got the perfect solution: let's pump CO2 into the atmosphere through fossil fuels industry that I conveniently own a large portion of It." - Some oil baron, probably.
Everything else aside, does this Ivor Cummins guy realize that human beings have evolved to survive in the geologic epoch that we're in? We're not equipped to live in any other geologic epochs where we might either freeze or burn to death.
@@jitteryjet7525are you assuming that Cummings and his Coalition paymasters are human? I'm pretty sure _they're_ the lizard-people who want 40°C average temperatures so they can finally shed their human skinsuits without freezing.
Oh, and regarding your comment about 'cement plants'. My friend worked in one and recounted how they 'shot' lumps of coal down the length of their rotary kiln and he could watch it burst into flame and quickly burn away to 'nothing' as it traveled. A local one near me gets regular deliveries of 'coal' (or refined coke, I forget now). Each month you can see the coal pile suddenly appear when a freighter delivers some (it's on the shore of Lake Michigan) and slowly dwindle down for a few weeks only to be replenished by another delivery.
It'd be coal since it's mainly used to heat the kiln, coke is only used when you need high purity carbon like in the production of steel (normal coal has lots of impurities) however in the production of concrete you're instead trying to remove carbon from the rock by heating it up so much that it reacts with the air and forms carbon dioxide. This is why concrete production has such high emissions and why there's a lot of interest in low carbon concrete or concrete alternatives.
The level of CO2 is not the problem. Life flourishes at any level between 150 and 5000 ppm! Rate of change is the problem! Life simply does not adapt quickly enough at current rate of increase of CO2, and this causes extinctions of species, possibly also our own.
False and fraudholer's own citations very definitively make the point that life doesn't "flourish" at 150 ppm. According to the research he cited, entire ecosystems struggle at low CO2 levels. C3 vs C4 plants doesn't matter, the effect is negative when low and positive when higher. Neither "flourishes" at 150 ppm. Secondly, alleged "rate of change" is not causing any problems on any level and especially not on the plant life and its arguable its even happening at all. Temps are not following the increase in CO2. After all, many of the experiments altered the CO2 literally over night. There is no mass extinction happening. The biggest threats to the human species are withholding or preventing less affluent states from cheap energy which happens to be carbon-based and convincing societies that their own reproduction is a blight on the planet such that they experience population collapse - which is and has been happening.
@@hedgehog3180 Sure I did. I have a BS from Purdue. What is funny is how you clearly believe its a measure of your intelligence but cannot grasp over 90% of what I said. It was neither calculus nor rocket science. lol
I had missed that Ivor Cummins, who was previously an 'expert' on Covid, is now an 'expert' on climate change. I just checked out his video, and saw a few comments alerting him, and his viewers, to this video. Then went back fifteen minutes later, and those comments had mysteriously disappeared. Weird, because after all he's only interested in 'the facts', and you would think he would embrace the opportunity to learn some. Ah well. Great video as always, potholer.
Thank you for pointing that out. This way I can spare myself the time of looking up the original video and commenting there and don't give it an interaction boost.
You always have the other option... Denounce for spam/false claims. From what I know about RUclips it might mean he won't get money from the video until he addresses the claim >:)
Any smart person is distancing themselves as much from the covid hysteria as is humanly possible. Don't forget your mask.
I suspect our 'chemical engineer' is actually a swimming pool serviceman.
Exactly
I almost can't believe he didn't know that the Cambrian Explosion was underwater
"Do your own research" at its finest! 😅
Ivor Cummings turned off his brain a long time ago.
I almost couldn't believe he ignored the Carboniferous period. Then I remembered that that sort of "mistake" is how he makes money.
On behalf of my fellow Irishmen, I'd like to apologize for the chemical gobshite.
Apology accepted but there is no need really. Every village has its idiot
Very disappointed Adrian - I was hoping for the word 'feck' said in the way only the Irish can. You did make up for it though with '"chemical gobshite". Well said. Thank you!
This type of denial by big energy is so similar to the tobacco companies in the 60’s. They produced all kinds of “research” showing no harm from smoking, polls where doctors agreed. Some executives of big tobacco today still in denial, saying there has never been cause and effect shown.
Look up "Rhymes with Smokey Joe" by Greenman3610. You'll be surprised at how much more insightful that observation actually is...
Have you ever heard about the book called Merchants of Doubt
It's even been a lot of the *same people* doing denialist "research" for the energy industry since the 1990s who previously did it for the tobacco industry.
One thing anyone can be sure of is that whenever they see capital letter "FACTS", it is presented so by someone who doesn't understand the difference between a fact and an opinion.
Ah yes, 2 foot long grasshoppers. The strongest argument favoring burning more fossil fuels.
I lol'ed
Now imagine a whole swarm of them coming for your crops. Fun times!
I think it’s also worth mentioning that rapidly increasing co2 levels at the end of the Permian helped create the worse mass extinction of the Phanerozoic Eon.
It worth pointing these things out. Like that graph that shows CO2 and temperature going in lockstep with each other for the last 800,000 years, and that CO2 is now shooting off the chart, upwards.
That's usually when the cognitive dissonance starts to really boil up to the surface in the 'sceptic' crowd. (I call them deniers, even though Potholer54 doesn't like that term, I don't agree. They're doing it on purpose, they're not merely mistaken. They're conscious liars)
Should research the PTEE beyond what you have
Complex
@@DrSmooth2000Like how the Siberian traps erupted and spewed out millions or more tons of CO2 every year? Causing 95% of species to go extinct?
Climate-change denialists are like someone at the top of a tree sawing through the trunk below them, saying: "It's all fine, this tree wasn't always here!"
Funny! But isn’t it odd how people who want evidence and point out facts and use verifiable evidence and the full geological history of the earth to point things out get called climate deniers?
Yet people who use emotional rhetoric, fear and authoritarian dictates and only cherrypick bits of data that suit their exaggerated claims while denying things like the little ice age and medieval warm period going even as far as to fabricate fate hockey stick graphs that erase these historic events get called What?
@@anomamos9095 - Put the Kool-Aid down, friendo, it isn't good for you. Try reading an article on climate science in respected journal or, better still, sit down with a peer reviewed paper and put some effort into understanding the science. Visit the NASA and NOAA websites and make use of their "ask a climate scientist" page. If you have trouble there are lots of people here who would be more than willing to help you as well.
Or just go on as you are--probably easier for you that way
Too many people buy into the denial, not trusting science but completely trust the Multi Trillion $$ fossil fuel industry who have a vested interest in keeping making Trillions of $$ for their shareholders. It baffles Me.
Whenever a headline asks a question... no. The answer is no.
CO2 Coalition? They blocked me on Twitter when I asked them for a source/citation for one of the charts on their website
Typical behavior from scammers. The last thing they want is someone fact checking them.
"[B]eing a chemical engineer..." My eyes rolled so hard that I saw my brain shrivelling at his next words.
Looking at the comments of any video like this, what is most shocking is that there are som many people who are wilfully ignorant of science who feel happy to display their ignorance to the World. As someone who is a geoscientist with 30 years experience, and have been following (and partially publishing) climate science throughout, I know a bit about this. Despite the frantic rivalry between scientific working groups, not a single study (that has survived rigorous statistical analysis) in 2 decades is inconsistent with, or does not show, anthropogenic climate change is happening and accelerating.
That demonstrates the political machinations and corruption when it comes to the funding and publishing of studies.
Additionally, you shouldn't discount the value of amateur enthusiasts in furthering scientific research. Amateur astronomers have played a significant part in the research of our galaxy.
@@dl2839 Absolutely. I have worked very closely with non professional palaeontologists in several countries. They are typically less competitive than professionals and more open with data
I'm not ignorant. Just happy 😊 we're dodging next glacial period
@@charlesunderwood6334paleo-climatology is definitely wide open
@@DrSmooth2000 Well ignorance is bliss as they say.
Another excellent video. I've made my year-end donation to Health in Harmony.
Thanks :)
Honestly, the thing that made me glad about this was the map where you pointed out how here in the UK, we simultaneously use metric and imperial for different things, and you're right, it is so confusing
Put a few litres of petrol in your car, drive at the mile per hour speed limit to the pub and get a pint of beer and 25ml of whisky. I feel that the UK isn't fully committed to the metric system.
Same as here in Canada. I weigh about 170lb. I'm about 5 foot 11 inches high. Excuse me while I go on a 25km bike ride. It's only +2C out, so it will be a bit cool today.
@@knarf_on_a_bike tbh, I understand Canada better. Having close connections with a big neighbor that uses imperial it’s hard to avoid learning and using that system, if anything because Americans think it’s others who have to accommodate them.
The UK doesn’t have that excuse. Iirc having to show unit prices in metric was one of the reasons Brexiters moaned about. Recently one politician proposed to go back to full imperial in the name of sovereignty and to give the middle finger to the EU. I don’t think the idea went anywhere.
I am very glad you continue to make these kinds of videos. Personally, I am worn out from correcting the same old lies over and over and over. The zealots are indefatigable.
@darylwilliams7883 - Hang around the channel long enough and you'll see that no matter how thorough the research put into making these videos, "skeptics" will never* shift their positions. The reason is their "skepticism" isn't based on substantive flaws in science, it's based on their socio-political and religious views. No matter how many articles and papers and lines of evidence you show them, everything that doesn't conform to their prior beliefs is a lie.
On more occasions than I'm willing to admit I invested considerable time in tracking down and reading peer reviewed papers and articles, reading over summaries on pages like the Met Office, NOAA, and NASA, and running what I found by people who are actually science literate. I would do that because a skeptic would pose a seemingly genuine question about equilibrium temperature or some such.
In every case what was the pay off? 'Peer review is pal review, the real science is happening on RUclips' (not a joke, someone actually said this) or 'You trust NASA and NOAA? They're all liars, wattsupwiththat has the real data'. It's enough to make a cat laugh. It took a long time of getting similar responses before it dawned on me that just *_*maybe*_* these "skeptics" aren't really interested in science...huh?
It took me years to realise this but I'm not that bright, so I give myself a pass.
*NB - a handful of "skeptics" have said ph54's content helped them change their minds, but so few that I wonder at the effort involved
"No o, no, no... This isn't 'poison' we're pumping into the air you breathe, it's happy plant food gas! We're actually filling your air with it to save you from starvation out of the goodness of our hearts! Promise!"
-Exxon, apparently
lobbyists claiming that rising CO2 is "good actually" is a level of denial that hurts my brain
no denial, they know its a lie, so its actually worse then denial.
Most people in the ‘truth/freedom club’ are being steered to blindly take the ‘anthropogenic climate change is a hoax’ line. They do not want debate And are incapable of it. Divide and rule.
Nonsense. Have a cigarette, it will calm you.
@@xBINARYGODxthat's part of the pain lul, wilful, scammy ignorance
Don't worry, it's not like a oil company CEO is running cop28 and organising oil deals instead of fixing climate change...
One of the first people I subscribed to on youtube back in the before times and still going strong!
Me too.
It's a good day when Potholer54 uploads!
End times!
@@jimbob-jn6jz Drugs are bad, mkay?
@@LisaBeergutHolst Being ignorant af is worse!
@@jimbob-jn6jz Speaking from personal experience, are we?
@@LisaBeergutHolst No am talking about how people are oblivious or in denial of this! arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/extinction.html
I'd seen this argument come up *a lot* recently and had wondered where it had spawned from. It's always said with such authority but it seems not one of them have ever stopped to think what they're _actually_ saying. I've never seen anyone anywhere ever suggest we drop CO2 levels below 250/200/180/150 (whatever their magic number is) ppm, just that current rise is too much too quickly. So what point are they trying to make?
I get the impression that if their house ever flooded they'd refuse to have it drained, because water is essential for life and removing it would be disastrous for all living things!
Each upload is a gift. Never stop, potholer
I mean.... I guess the heat and more CO2 was good for the dinosaurs? But I dont remember any humans running around back then...
People need to stop framing the climate crisis as "we're killing/destroying the planet" or "we need to save the planet" and start realizing that the Earth will go on and life will continue.
With or without us.
We only jeopardize *our* place on this planet.
(And technically other contemporary species... But just like us, they are replaceable.)
The Cambrian? Really? Are they suggesting that Aquaman and Atlantis were thriving underwater back then?
Just wanted to say that the map at 16:11 made me cackle so hard I spilled my last bag of Cheetos, thanks for the laugh Peter!
Nicely done as usual. I really appreciate your flavor of smack down that doesn't have any anger in it.
Call me anthropocentric but I find it somewhat beside the point that animal and plant life flourished in some parts of the globe when CO2 concentrations were much higher.
The fact is that concentrations of human populations, agricultural regions, cities and other infrastructure, much of it on or near the coast developed where they are over the last 10,000 years when global temperatures, CO2 concentration and sea levels were stable until CO2 level began rising with the industrial revolution.
CO2 may be plant food, but higher CO2 concentrations lower the nutritional value of crops, and also encourage the growth of weeds.
And higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations mean that more CO2 is dissolved in the ocean where it forms carbonic acid, lowering ocean pH which adversely affects marine life at the base of the ocean food chain.
And there is something else that is important to plant growth. Water.
In Australia, where I live, the foodbowl regions are drying out due to increased temperature and reduction in rainfall.
You don't need to be anthropocentric.
The current fauna and flora, lets call them the quaternary fauna and flora, are adapted to our current icehouse cold climate. It would suck for almost all of them if we went back to mesozoic temperatures/co2 levels in such a short span of time.
@@nunofoo8620 I mean that I am concerned with our civilization and the humanitarian and financial costs of AGW.
The planet's environmental history is so fascinating.
The relation between geology and biology is really interesting.
Really appreciate this, very digestible. Especially like seeing the Jurassic climate on our current landmass- matches projections of potential things if we don't do much pretty well (if not identical severity).
Wait a minute. I recognise that voice. That's Father Austin Purcell AKA 'the most boring priest in the world'. According to Father Ted, the entire population of a village in Nigeria once sailed to their deaths on a crocodile-infested lake to escape him.
I thought that was Father Stone.
The continuous increase of solar luminosity makes a lot of these comparison to 100's of millions of years ago more complicated they they frame them. Sure CO2 levels were higher in the Cambrian, but also the Sun was 5% weaker, which changes the calculations a lot.
"Can you imagine [...] a two foot long grasshopper?" Ah, a blast from the past.
"No! Shut up and go away!" Perfect! Never change, Potholer. Never change :)
just seeing a bnew potholer54 video pop up makes me smile.. i just smiled a lot. yey
I find a 140 million year trend being “dangerous” funny. Like the steam roller in austin powers
Most people are unaware that great joy can come from immersing oneself in propaganda that reinforces what one wants to believe in. This has been proven many times before but that is an aspect of propaganda that generally isn't taught. Keep in mind that many people derive joy from immersion in lies and distortions of the truth. That is also one of the characteristics of some cult followings.
Totally agree it's like adult make-believe, its too hard to deal with the cognitive dissonance or don't have the mental capacity to do so, much more fun to engage in a childish fiction.
The RW propaganda is more addictive and dangerous than heroin.
Then there's a thing called "natural skepticism." A thing of language that requires stories to be comprehensive (logically consistent) and to be supported by other experiences. This thingie has to be blocked in order for one to be sucked up by those cults.
CO2 is only ever a limiting factor in plant growth in very ow levels; the current atmosphere is well above that. Plant growth today is limited by water, light, heat and above all nutrients. If CO2 were the limiting factor, fertilisers would be completely useless because CO2 would be limiting plants, not nutrients. In a closed environment, such as a greenhouse, water, light, heat and nutrients can all be optimum and CO2 can be limiting (many greenhouses pump in extra CO2).
"In a closed environment, such as a greenhouse, water, light, heat and nutrients"
And, don't forget, temperatures.
Industrial-sized air conditioners are must for any large greenhouse installation. Climate control is important for most plants. Funny that, eh?
@@Leafsdude Not sure what you are trying to say, other than point out correctly that within a greenhouse made of glass heat can increase to a level where it is unsuitable to life, and so clearly understand the greenhouse effect.
@@charlesunderwood6334 The point is increases in temperatures can decrease plant growth.
@@Leafsdude depends on the species; C4 grasses and many palms for example flourish at high temperatures whilst conifers do not, but it is more that plant parasites such as fungi like high temperatures.
@@charlesunderwood6334 Palm trees still stop peak performance before 35*C (95*F). There's a reason you primarily find cactus in the desert, and even they have such a hard time in those conditions that they are spread far and wide.
The point is that temperature is one of the limiting factors. So messing with temperature changes as we are is likely going to be a net negative for plant growth. Especially since plants can't just up and move if they feel the pinch.
extra CO2 can be beneficial to plants but i notice how certain people ignore how higher temperatures can adversely effect the Nitrogen cycle - in other words you could grow more plants but the nutritional value will plummet. this doesn't include the relative nutrient content of the soils in areas that would become the new "growing" areas in a warmer world (it's a lot lower btw).
Yeah it’s a smoke screen. Sure it’s better for plants in a green house with all the other variables covered by humans. Not so good for the plants where they actually live in the real wild world. Not so good for the oceans. Not so good for farming on a large scale. Etc etc
Hell, even if global warming _did_ yield all-around better crops: we'll still lose tons of arable land to desertification and entire harvests to frequent extreme weather events. Those would have to be some pretty amazing crops to make up the difference.
@HeadsFullOfEyeballs
Not to mention, all the bugs that eat plants would enjoy the warmer weather, too.
I mean we have also royally screwed up the nitrogen cycle with our overuse of fertilizer and that's another major component of climate change that needs to be addressed.
Superb science journalism.
When you showed the Uk as tropical that didn't sound so bad until I remembered I live on the coast and all that ice melting wouldn't be good for my house
Brilliant, I was waiting for this since seeing Ivor's video.
Are we in danger of being eaten by dinosaurs or sabre tooth tigers or not?
LOVED this video! Thank you. I love the subject of temperature when it comes to geological time periods. Do more of it, please!
Been a fan for many years.
Every time he says life exploded, I just imagine all the animals bursting into bits of gore and viscera XD
Gore didn't evolve before the Ordovician.
Serial liars suck. Thanks for all you do potholer54
In fact I'd say that serial liars crocosuck.
what are the chances that Ivor Dunning-Kruger Cummins sees this video and retracts any of his claims? Close to zero I suppose, sadly. Thanks for making these videos Mr Hadfield, you are brilliant!
Dangerously low, I guess. 😉
The guy is a known scammer. It was anti vax a couple of years ago. Clearly moving on for the money.
The monotony of Ivor's comments section leads me to wonder whether he edits it down.
Good call, Mallen Baker commented about an hour after your comment saying he noticed critical comments were later not visible anymore.
1:08 This is a picture of a cement factory, that white smoke isn't CO² - I learned this interesting fact via reading the video description, thx Potholer54!
ciments factory contibue for7% of world co2 emissions.
Of course the white smoke isn't CO2. CO2 is invisible.
Welcome back. You've been missed.
2 Potholer vids in December. It's a Christmas miracle!
I can sniff their BS from a mile away but I am way too lazy to go find their study and dig up the graphs and all that.
When I argue with pro carbon motorheads I can just point to your video and the hard work is already done. And you do it in such an exhaustive and clear way too.
Great resource as always.
Maybe you should concern yourself with the evidence, though. It seems that you are being misled because you don't understand the subject well enough.
@@lorrainegatanianhits8331 I did look at the evidence. The pro CO2 people didn’t.
@@lorrainegatanianhits8331 Has it ever occurred to you that *you* are the one who doesn't understand the subject well enough?
@@lorrainegatanianhits8331 why do you think that?
Excellent debunk, Potholer! But I really think you missed out on a golden opportunity to put the cherry on top by discussing what rapid addition of CO2 did to life. Specifically at the end of the Permian and at the end of the Triassic. That really would be the nail in the coffin for these “CO2 is ackchyually GOOD!” blowhards…
Exactly. The rate of change is even more important because life has to adapt or go extinct.
@@nathanlevesque7812 rate of change. Lmao. Co2 is a miracle molecule for life, it doesn’t control temperature
@@Roadshow_Rabbit So 97% of climate scientists, every major scientific organization, as well as every major oil company, who admit fossil fuels cause climate change, are all wrong? 🤔
@@Roadshow_Rabbit Did you never learn calculus or something? Or is this sarcasm?
You make amazing videos, thank you!!
CO2, like Brawndo, is what plants crave. It’s got electrolytes or something.
Plants also need minerals, water and the right temperature range -- and too much CO2 is already disrupting all three. Anyone who babbles about CO2 being "plant food" without considering climate change or the necessary uptake of minerals is someone who knows bugger all about agriculture.
whoosh@@maryanneslater9675
@@maryanneslater9675 the OP agrees with you, but they were trying to make a joke mocking people who babble about plant food
Another well done video. I always 'alert' when I hear such adjectives as 'better', 'dangerous', and the like. This is a great example. The first thing that came to mind when "better CO2 levels back in the day" was, "better for who??". And you taught me something new about the "Cambrian Explosion" today, so thanks for that as well.
One coworker always liked to say, "CO2 levels have always been changing just like the solar cycles". Well yeah, if you measure on scale of hundreds of thousands of years.... But there's one problem with pointing to CO2 levels 150 million years ago and saying "see? It didn't kill off life that time." I just point out that humans weren't around then, not even 'cave men'.
That guy's argument is the equivilant of saying that solar flares aren't dangerous because the sun has always varied in output.
So booming with life... that should somehow mean we are to take it that this would be beneficial for human life? I guess this guy didn't get the memo about there being vastly different types of life that thrive or suffer under very different circumstances.
Actually I shouldn't even say "human life" as much as "the human community as it is now". There might well be conditions on earth under which humans could thrive, but wouln't be good for the kind of community we have built up now, if our conditions changed very quickly into those conditions.
Ystenia Pestis boomed during the 13th century but I don't think the medieval Europeans really appreciated that.
Ivor Cummings, he embarrasses me as another Irish person. States so many things as fact which clearly aren't.
I'm American, and we have a lot more to be embarrassed about, even adjusting for population, as embarrassments per capita
The metric map joke was funny but Canada should've been green too. There's way too much imperial in Canada still, partially due to sharing almost everything with the US. Heights and weights for people are still done in imperial and temperatures are often given in both scales.
Yeah I live in Canada, Doing 100km/h on the highway after putting 100l of gas in my 2.5ton truck. This is all while being a 5'11 Male that weighs 185lb.
We're fucked up.
I realized I’ve missed a few of your latest videos so I subscribed 😃
About time after watching your videos for 10 years or how long you’ve been going at it 😄
I’m eagerly awaiting the 2nd part.
I posted the second part on Saturday, titled "'Top CO2 facts' -- How much and how little CO2 is 'plant food.'" Thanks for subscribing.
@@potholer54 Ah yes. Excellent! You know, this sounds naive, but you were the one who made me believe that climate change is real. It was an old video you made with MS paint many years ago 😊
@@Campaigner82 Hey, there's nothing wrong with being wrong, as long as you're willing to change your mind when presented with better evidence and/or arguments. Just the fact that you did so demonstrates maturity and growth. As I'm fond of saying, if you can't look back 5, 10 or even 15 years and cringe at something you did, you haven't grown in the interim.
@@DrTssha Thank you 😊
I believe so too.
What's it going to take for these people to understand that "good for life" and "good for humans" aren't always the same?
I have heard that the earth being hit by a giant asteroid was good for mammals.
While certain conditions can be "good for life" in general, the rate that those conditions come along has nearly wiped out all of life several times because life doesn't adapt very quickly.
So it might be that Cambrian levels of heat could support plenty of life - but switching to that level of heat in a few centuries or even millennia would invariably mean a mass extinction.
Getting smacked by an asteroid and/or a volcanic apocalypse wasn't "good for mammals" so much as it was _barely not too bad_ for mammals while being _definitely too bad_ for almost all of their competitors.
@@CookiesRiot "Bah, can't make an omelet without smashing eggs" - their answer, probably. (Tell that to the eggs!)
@@KaiHenningsenI be like
We are the eggs !🥚🥚🥚🍳🍳🍳
It’s not even what’s good for humans, it’s what’s good or not for agriculture. Agriculture became viable only at the start of the uniquely stable Holocene, we’ve taken the chemistry of the atmosphere back 25 million years, and that’s means one thing: agriculture is going away. Maybe denial is not as bad a choice as facing the future? Being a scientist I am unable to look away from the awful reality.
C4 plants sound extremely dangerous. Maybe their explosivity was what the presenter meant when he used the word 'dangerous'.
C4 are kind of gross. Looks like me they evolved like arteries.
Please include the effects of temperature on most plants' ability to grow. There is an ambient temperature at which plants can no longer grow or produce seed/fruit, because they're spending all their energy on cooling themselves. It varies from genus to genus etc., but for some plants and crops it's 28 degrees celsius, and for some it's as low as 18 degrees celsius. Above these temperatures, the plants actually release more carbon dioxide than they take in and become global net CO2 suppliers.
Please cover that aspect of the subject matter, as well!
I'll look at how beneficial CO2 is to plants in the next video. This was the other theme of the Coalition's top 10 'facts.'
extra CO2 can be beneficial to plants but i notice how certain people ignore how higher temperatures can adversely effect the Nitrogen cycle - in other words you could grow more plants but the nutritional value will plummet.
@@potholer54 Would you be able to do a video that highlights the similarity of the current anthropogenic warming with past hyperthermals, many of which caused mass extinctions? It would be a slam dunk against the buffoons who claim to know all about palaeoclimatology and there are already numerous peer-reviewed papers that examine the similarities between modern times and the end-Permian and end-Triassic extinctions, as well as the less severe Middle Miocene Climatic Optimum.
End-Permian Mass Extinction in the Oceans: An Ancient Analog for the Twenty-First Century?, Payne and Clapham 2012, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences
Anthropogenic-scale CO2 degassing from the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province as a driver of the end-Triassic mass extinction, Capriolo et. al. 2022, Global and Planetary Change
Volume and rate of volcanic CO2 emissions governed the severity of past environmental crises, Jiang et. al. 2022, PNAS
Climate-model evaluation of the contribution of sea-surface temperature and carbon dioxide to the Middle Miocene Climate Optimum as a possible analogue of future climate change, You 2010, Australian Journal of Earth Sciences
The Miocene: The Future of the Past, Steinthorsdottir et. al. 2020, Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology
I have looked at the Permian-Triassic in my video 'A history of the Earth in 33 minutes.' One of the reasons I don't mention it here is that Cummins never mentioned it. So it strays a bit from direct rebuttal of his claims. But I may crowbar it into the next video, if I don't stray too far off-topic.
@@potholer54 That's precisely because that's a topic these contrarians don't want their audience to know. They'll bloviate about how high CO2 levels were during the Jurassic or Cretaceous, for example, but don't want you to zoom in specifically on the Early Toarcian or Cenomanian-Turonian Thermal Maxima--two other transitional intervals within those geologic periods that are closely analogous to modern warming, and that weren't very good for life. It is on topic in the sense that these biotic crises are the so-called "good old days" these contrarians who suddenly become palaeontology gurus prefer to omit.
It's also a double whammy, because many of these hyperthermals were caused by degassing of fossil fuels via intrusive volcanism (I'll again save you time by providing the titles of the papers for this factoid), something that can be easily turned into a lampooning of the "THERE WERE NO CARS BACK THEN" smart-arses. And it again showcases why these warming events are perfect analogues for modern times. Cummins aside, this really would be a perfect stand-alone video that both rebuts the mythmakers and communicates the science of the similarities of current warming to many geologic events.
Methane Release from Igneous Intrusion of Coal during Late Permian Extinction Events, Retallack and Jahren 2007, The Journal of Geology
Siberian gas venting and the end-Permian environmental crisis, Svensen et al. 2009, EPSL
Paleomagnetism of trap intrusions, East Siberia: Implications to flood basalt emplacement and the Permo-Triassic crisis of biosphere, Konstantinov et. al. 2014, EPSL
Field evidence for coal combustion links the 252 Ma Siberian Traps with global carbon disruption, Elkins-Tanton et. al. 2020, Geology
Explosive eruption of coal and basalt and the end-Permian mass extinction, Ogden and Sleep 2012, PNAS
Mercury evidence for combustion of organic-rich sediments during the end-Triassic crisis, Shen et. al. 2022, Nature Communications
Thermogenic carbon release from the Central Atlantic magmatic province caused major end-Triassic carbon cycle perturbations, Heimdal et. al. 2020, PNAS
Hydrothermal venting of greenhouse gases triggering Early Jurassic global warming, Svensen et. al. 2007, EPSL
Changes in carbon dioxide during an oceanic anoxic event linked to intrusion into Gondwana coals, McElwain et. al. 2005, Nature
Not too long ago I went over all the CO2 Institute's "facts." Roughly half of all the facts were completely irrelevant to any current concern about AGW because what happens over evolutionary or geologic timescales is completely irrelevant to what happens in the next century. A huge portion of the remainder were p-hacking by picking arbitrary start dates.
I assume you meant the CO2 Coalition's "facts"?
As long as cuntservatives don't give up on THEIR STUPID UNIMPORTANT causes of "getting more guns" and "not allowing immigrants to vote" and "not allowing LGBTQ people to speak", then we logical people should never give up on our INFINITELY more important cause of fighting Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)
What they also don't get is that the time those changes took in the past were thousands of years, where life had enough time to adapt to the new environment. So plants never suffered with extra low CO2, they simply adapted to use less CO2. What we do at the moment is changing the CO2 levels within some decades. Waaaay too fast for anything to adapt to. What happens when climate changes too fast, we saw at the end of the ice age, when a lot of plants and animals went extinct. And that change took hundrets of years(!) More CO2 doesn't mean more plants, as long as we don't cover the earth entirely into tomato plants. Plants in already extreme environments need a precise balance of water, temperature, nutritients, light and yes CO2. You can't just rise one component and say it'll be fine. Thats not how nature works. Water is good for humans, but now force someone to gulp buckets of it every day. Right. It will get you really sick.
Yes, and heat is a critical factor. I garden, and the hotter summers are disastrous to many of my plants. This past year, we got two or three weeks of unusually warm weather in June, which resulted in plants trying to go to seed early. Green beans went leathery, spinach and radishes bolted, tomatoes developed blossom end rot and fell off the vine, and so on. Warmer weather also allows pests to flourish.
@@maryanneslater9675 Absolutely right. With just a few days of temperatures above 75 degrees, spinach, lettuce, cauliflower, cabbage and broccoli all bolt. Between 85 and 95, flowers on tomates and cucumbers drop off. Blueberries become necrotic and rot. Wheat yield plummets. Photosynthesis itself stops entirely at 104 degrees. Not shared by fossil fuel industry propaganda is that while CO2 can help crops grow more lush, the warming that accompanies it often cancels out its benefits.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 another interesting phenomenon is that too much CO2 does help some crops to thrive better, but they lose nutritions because of that. So the farmers harvest more weight, but less calories and nutritions. There is a study out there somewhere, which I don't remember anymore from whom it is.
The outside world is not a greenhouse. In the outside world, rising CO2 has TRIPLED heatwaves since the 1960s, according to the EPA. Heatwaves DECIMATE crops. You do know that a few days of temperatures above 75 degrees STOPS lettuce, spinach, cabbage, broccoli and cauliflower from developing, and stresses many other plants to reduce yield, right? At 104 degrees all photosynthesis STOPS, and many seeds won't even germinate. Think of places in the world like Phoenix, which suffered through 31 straight days of above 110-degree temperatures this summer. If you're a subsistence farmer (and there are still over a billion in the world), you lose your crops, your sustenance and your livelihood in one fell swoop.
Now add in the world's increasing extreme precipitation events, which are drowning crops and washing away topsoils and fertilizer. Natural disasters cost American farmers $21.5 billion last year, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation. Only half of this was covered by insurance, the payouts of which have increased 500% over the last 20 years.
Extreme precipitation crushed midwest farmers in 2019, preventing 20 million acres from even being planted, nearly doubling the previous record from 2011. South Dakota alone lost $627 million worth of corn, and Mississippi lost nearly all of its wheat.
See NORTHEAST FARMERS HEARTBROKEN AS FLOODS DEVASTATE MONTHS OF LABOR AND CROPS ARE SWEPT AWAY, PBS News Hour, Jul 2, 2023 for a look at how extreme rain wiped out farms in New England this year, and especially in Vermont.
Then there is the increase in drought intensity and duration and the increase in wildfires. Canada suffered through the biggest wildfire in its history this summer. Greece suffered the largest fire in European history. Wildfire burn acreage in the western U.S., meanwhile, has tripled over the past 30 years. These fires not only wipe out whole forests and release waves of CO2, the smoke they produce travels hundreds of miles, dimming the sun and reducing photosynthesis.
While rising CO2 can make vegetable plants more lush, it does so by increasing sugar content and reducing zinc, iron and protein, making them LESS nutritious for human consumption.
Th outside world, alas, is not a greenhouse. In the outside world, CO2-driven warming is melting the icecaps, which in turn have raised absolute sea level four inches since 1993, according to NASA and the World Meteorlogical Org. It's rate of rise has also DOUBLED since then. According to NOAA, high tide flooding along the American south and Gulf coasts has risen an astonishing 400% and 1100% respectively since the year 2000. Even New England, which is uplifting land from glacial rebound is up 140%. It's why New York, Louisiana and Houston have a combined $100 billion in flood mitigation projects in the works and why Miami Beach has moved buildings and raised 105 miles of roads.
See A SILENT KILLER: HOW SALTWATER INTRUSION IS OVERTAKING COASTAL FARMLAND IN THE U.S.---Modern Farmer, August 3, 2023 With elevating storm surges from sea level rise, more and more farms are suffering yield loss from soil salination. Some farms globally have lost the ability to grow anything at all because of repeated wash-overs.
The outside world is not a greenhouse.
And when life didn't have time to adapt, like when Siberian coal deposits literally exploded that's called a mass extinction, this particular one was known as The Great Dying. Idk about you but I'd prefer if Earth wasn't in a period that could be described with any of those words.
But did the dinosaurs condemn hamas?
@rcchristian2- Perfect
This guy saw the stupid sideplot in Jurassic World: Dominion with the giant grasshoppers and thought, "Yes please, that would be great"
Taking a 140 million year trend and pretending that it's a 140 year trend.
Every chemical engineer knows that all systems are linear. If decreasing CO2 levels is bad for plant life, increasing it is good. Without restriction. We also know that the rate of a process is irrelevant. If animals were able to live in high CO2 environments, evolving as CO2 levels rose gradually for 100 million years, then animals now will be fine with the same increase over a few hundred years. Obviously!
/s
I detect a whiff of sarcasm there, pal.
@@jam99 I learned recently that including /s at the end of a post is a way to let people know you're being sarcastic, and neither serious nor trolling. I think it helps :)
@@pesilaratnayake162 Thanks for the education!! :)
Well, no surprise life was exploding with all those C4 plants everywhere
Good one!
@singingway Thank you!
... and then there is the little issue of the RATE of change. This is what the Geological Society of London concluded in 2020 after a major review of the Earth's temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels over the last c.500 million years:
"the current speed of human-induced CO2 change and warming is nearly without precedent in the entire geological record, with the only known exception being the instantaneous, meteorite-induced event that caused the extinction of non-bird-like dinosaurs 66 million years ago. In short, whilst atmospheric CO2 concentrations have varied dramatically during the geological past due to natural processes, and have often been higher than today, the current rate of CO2 (and therefore temperature) change is unprecedented in almost the entire geological past."
see: Journal of the Geological Society, Lear et al, vol.178, 2020
We have a name for previous periods in Earth's history when atmospheric CO2 levels and temperatures increased at rates nearly as fast as we have been causing them to increase recently. They are called "Mass Extinctions".
Exactly correct! You'll probably be interested in these papers:
End-Permian Mass Extinction in the Oceans: An Ancient Analog for the Twenty-First Century?, Payne and Clapham 2012, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences
Anthropogenic-scale CO2 degassing from the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province as a driver of the end-Triassic mass extinction, Capriolo et. al. 2022, Global and Planetary Change
Volume and rate of volcanic CO2 emissions governed the severity of past environmental crises, Jiang et. al. 2022, PNAS
Stop! Stop! He's already dead!
I wish I could have the brains kr the knowledge to properly evaluate scientific papers. But I don't. So you are the next best thing. Thank you for what you are doing
From the little botany I remember, it is not a linear line on the graph where increase co2 give the same amount of growth as chlorophyll is not as efficient at higher temps. You will get to a point where more CO2 has no effect on growth
Depends on species to some degree
Chlorophyll also doesn't just magically inside the plant, it needs to actually build those molecules and to do that it uses proteins and proteins need nitrogen and phosphor, hence why NPK fertilizer exists. It stands for Nitrogen Phosphor Kalium (the international name for potassium which is used to build DNA). It also needs other minerals like copper to enable electron transport and of course water to provide the hydrogen in the carbohydrates the plant builds itself from and also to maintain homeostatis within the plant cells.
The fact that fossil fuel apologists keep coming out with even more comically easy to debunk talking points - that contradict all the previous ones - certainly says a lot about their "skepticism".
We are not "fossil fuel apologists", we are C02 supporters. C02 is essential for life on this planet. It's crazy how the woke keep villainizing it. Just like how they villainize the nuclear family.
@@adanester359 Must be nice to be so persecuted...
@@Leafsdude Fk joe biden crime family and george soros. these animals are ruining my life
@@adanester359 lol, okay boomer.
@@Leafsdude - Seems like ad saw your comment about him making "potentially verifiable claims about reality" and immediately decided to rebut that as fast as he possibly could 😄
... The weather was lovely. Unfortunately, getting eaten was almost a certainty ! ... Yum !
Do you think these clowns are purposefully using the Nigerian Prince style of filtering out people who think? I can’t understand how folks fall for this half arsed denial crap. Keep up the good work combatting it!
Usually the point of this kind of misinformation isn't really to convince anyone but rather to create the impression that the facts aren't certain so people without the necessary information will be doubtful. They basically try to shout so loudly that it sounds like there'd a bigger opposition and thus a bigger divide than there actually is.
Great video as usual. Love your work, Peter. Have for years. Many thanks.
... The Mesozoic Era was just GREAT ... for giant reptiles. Also massive forest fires, insect-borne viral disease and violent weather patterns. NOT so good for mammals - most of which were about the size of squirrels and little more than prey for small dinosaurs.
Read a bit, folks ... so much better than getting ALL of your information from RUclips videos ! ...
Excellent video, Peter.
Thanks
Just adding a comment to help against the evil RUclips algorithm, showing my like this way too.
Speaking as a member of the class Mammalia, definitely not. I guess if I were a lizard I might feel differently about living in a gigantic desert lol
This video even under states the danger of climate change as the most dangerous part that is relevant to us lies in the word "change". It doesn't need to be that bad to be very dangerous as the main danger today comes with rapid change as it's something plants can't handle. It doesn't help if there are plants that can live in the hotter climate if they don't live there right now or have time to spread before going extinct due to the places they now live gets to be deserts.
Surely the point about CO2 levels is that changes initiate changes in the flora and fauna. Changes to the environment over short periods may not be good for h sapiens and that is why our nickers are in a twist.
The point is not whether life thrives in a CO2 regime but whether our sort thrives and is not even inconvenienced.
That's rare reasonable take
More importantly, do our crops thrive. It's not exactly a coincidence that the majority of the world's population lives in temperate regions with predictable weather patterns that enable agriculture, but if climatic zones suddenly shift then some of the most productive agricultural regions will experience desertification or just see significant losses in crop yields. And we can't just move further north because the weather patterns shift globally and also like does anyone think that the majority of the world's population being forced to migrate would end well?
I mean if by "Better" we mean large suathes of the planet would have been borderline uninhabitable to humans due to heat and humidity, sure? Dinosaur climate is great for giant reptiles and trees and stuff but much less good for animals that need to sweat to cool themselves.
Inconclusive as yet but mammals specimens recovered from 50C tropics
@@DrSmooth2000 you are very welcome to, live in areas at 50 Celsius. The rest if us meanwhile, would prefer not to.
@@javelinXH992 40% of the population and majority of infants live in the modern tropics.
Per mainline IPCC style no chance of 50 in our time.
I do own a sauna. Seen estimate Venus with our style atmo would be 70 or a just warm enough sauna. 🧖♀️
We'd have learned to colonize and I'd have 🙋♀️ for trying it.
Part reptilian 😼
Humans come from the African savanna.
And our food production happens in mostly warmer climates as well.
Warmer is definitely better for humans, problem is how fast it happens.
@@DrSmooth2000 Where in the world ever do you think humans lived with a temperature of 50 °C?
Now I want a 2 foot long pet grasshopper.
I came across the 150ppm idea on twitter a few weeks back and asked the simple question of, who on the planet is saying, that we need to go that low, what ensued was just dancing around the question and saying, that low co2 concentration around 280ppm caused hard times in the 1800's. Sure was something
Yes, it seems to be a rather recent talking point that now spreads across the blogosphere and social media. A few years ago it was "CO2 benefits plants" and now it's "Reducing CO2 is harmful" and they're banking on their target group not actually bothering to do basic maths.
It seems we're going into the bargaining stage of climate change.
I've even heard some Canadians say "well my country will have so much farmland and mining areas freed up!"
A few years ago it was "climate change isn't real" now it's "climate change is good actually!"
We don't need to go that low. But it is an inevitable consequence of trying to fine-tune CO2 when it isn't needed.
@@frankhuggins9733 Who want's to fine-tune CO2? Where is anyone considering that?
People want humanity to stop messing with CO2 levels. Climate change is no issue. Rapid climate change is the problem.
@@berndborte8214 There isn't any rapid climate change. And CO2 isn't a problem.
Fun fact: C4 plants evolved during the miocene and it is believed that declining CO2 was a significant selective pressure allowing them to proliferate.
*oligocene not miocene: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3248710/
@@1mrs1 As well as aridity. The weird thing is that it evolved independently within several groups of grasses
Good to see you are still out there corrected the misguided. I have been a enjoyer of your work for a very long time.
Ditto
16:12 pause and read map key. You won't regret it.
Having lived in red, green, and blue regions... Yes.
The UK pretending to be on metric while using inches, feet, yards, miles, pints, pounds, and [the one that even Americans don't know exists] stone - that's a laugh.
The UK pretty f****ed with that as with so much else but, pedant alert, the US doesn’t use the imperial system.
Oh, the Brits only use non-metric when it suits them, but ditch it the moment they gain by using metric - like no longer selling pint bottles but reduce them to 500 ml (and then to 470 ml). As Bulmers did with their cider (even though the pint was completely fine everywhere in the EU, as long as the metric measure was also present; I think I had those 470 ml bottles at one time, they're at 500 ml at the moment, so I'm not sure) …
Why do so many RUclipsrs think they've come across amazing scientific facts that experts seem to have missed?
For the same reason non-RUclipsr conspiracy theorists have done so since whoever came up with the first one, which was probably long before there was science. For example, it's hard to be certain, but it looks like Nero invented the conspiracy theory that the Christians burned Rome to detract from the conspiracy theory that Nero burned Rome (and fiddled while he watched - that one seems a bit more creative: he wasn't even in Rome when it happened). Both are apparently false. Hmm, now I really want to ask Megan if there are any ancient tablets with conspiracy theories. We have the dog walked into a bar, we have the angry customer, we should have the conspiracy theorist.
The dunning Kruger effect.
Anecdotal evidence and egotistical humans breed superior complexes.
Lots of evidence and information, humble most individuals because of the complex nature of reality.
They usually have to employ a conspiracy theory to cover that problem. "The scientists know, but they're keeping it from us!" (For whatever bullshit reason).
It gets them views from gullible people who want to believe every bad thing we do is just some made up nonsense, instead of an existential threat.
Where did you find that footage of the Cambrian if they didn't have cameras yet? I call BS 😤
Well, we didn't. But the trilobites...
This is a perfect example of how weak anticlimate changers claims are.
always appreciate your videos. thanks potholer. thanks for doing what you do :) it's more important than ever
I appreciate info from any place and find the conflicts between "experts" beneficial to my personal study. All side of any issue are needed to arrest confirmation bias
"Here's the thing mate, just hear me out: the CO2 is dangerously low, let's all admit that, but I've got the perfect solution: let's pump CO2 into the atmosphere through fossil fuels industry that I conveniently own a large portion of It." - Some oil baron, probably.
i mean.....you hear "back in the good old days" stick quite a lot, but going back to dinosaur times is a bit much.
Why stop at the dinosaurs? If the old days were better why not go back to the Hadean?
@@WhichDoctor1 honestly lets just go back to before the big bang, this universe thing is highly overrated.
A new Potholer video! X-Mas comes early!
Everything else aside, does this Ivor Cummins guy realize that human beings have evolved to survive in the geologic epoch that we're in? We're not equipped to live in any other geologic epochs where we might either freeze or burn to death.
Are you suggesting that Ivor has a sense of nuance and that everything relies on context? Surely you jest.
Are you assuming Cummins is being honest in his belief? I don't think he is, I think he is a denizen of the Panderverse.
@@jitteryjet7525are you assuming that Cummings and his Coalition paymasters are human? I'm pretty sure _they're_ the lizard-people who want 40°C average temperatures so they can finally shed their human skinsuits without freezing.
Your videos are fantastic, thank you!
Oh, and regarding your comment about 'cement plants'. My friend worked in one and recounted how they 'shot' lumps of coal down the length of their rotary kiln and he could watch it burst into flame and quickly burn away to 'nothing' as it traveled. A local one near me gets regular deliveries of 'coal' (or refined coke, I forget now). Each month you can see the coal pile suddenly appear when a freighter delivers some (it's on the shore of Lake Michigan) and slowly dwindle down for a few weeks only to be replenished by another delivery.
It'd be coal since it's mainly used to heat the kiln, coke is only used when you need high purity carbon like in the production of steel (normal coal has lots of impurities) however in the production of concrete you're instead trying to remove carbon from the rock by heating it up so much that it reacts with the air and forms carbon dioxide. This is why concrete production has such high emissions and why there's a lot of interest in low carbon concrete or concrete alternatives.
The level of CO2 is not the problem. Life flourishes at any level between 150 and 5000 ppm! Rate of change is the problem! Life simply does not adapt quickly enough at current rate of increase of CO2, and this causes extinctions of species, possibly also our own.
False and fraudholer's own citations very definitively make the point that life doesn't "flourish" at 150 ppm. According to the research he cited, entire ecosystems struggle at low CO2 levels. C3 vs C4 plants doesn't matter, the effect is negative when low and positive when higher. Neither "flourishes" at 150 ppm. Secondly, alleged "rate of change" is not causing any problems on any level and especially not on the plant life and its arguable its even happening at all. Temps are not following the increase in CO2. After all, many of the experiments altered the CO2 literally over night. There is no mass extinction happening. The biggest threats to the human species are withholding or preventing less affluent states from cheap energy which happens to be carbon-based and convincing societies that their own reproduction is a blight on the planet such that they experience population collapse - which is and has been happening.
@@itry2brational Did you never take calculus or something?
@@hedgehog3180 Sure I did. I have a BS from Purdue. What is funny is how you clearly believe its a measure of your intelligence but cannot grasp over 90% of what I said. It was neither calculus nor rocket science. lol
Yeah, gosh, at least three of the past five, and also the current, mass extinction events were due to do much atmospheric CO2.