Hey Insane Curiosity Squad! If you liked the video, we would love for you to share it with your friends or on other social networks like Facebook, Reddit Instagram, Tik Tok and Twitter, etc.. ( Since the algorithm is not cooperating in showing us to the public😅). In just 30 seconds, you will greatly help our Channel to grow and improve our future content. A big thank you from all of us.
It was just as hot, if not hotter during 1930s. Ice started melting 15,000 years ago according to science. Common sense indicates the longer ice melts, the less of it there is. Less ice means less cold being produced which leads to warmer temperatures. Problem is there is no money to be made saying that
Science has determined that there is a food that immediately and permanently erases the need for physical intimacy in women. That food is : wedding cake
@@theoriginalkyttyn7724 it rose....until the government got involved in marriage. In all western nations, the birth rate is below replacement numbers. Most of that is due to divorce laws, child custody laws, and feminism as an ideology destroying the nuclear family, not to mention....the removal of God. The population explosion world wide is mostly in China, and in 3rd world countries in Africa. That doesn't include advances in medicine and longer life expectancy for people due to modern advances beginning in the industrial revolution. Prior to that time period, life expectancy was low. People were lucky to reach age 40, and more women experienced complications in delivery that resulted in the passing of the mother, the child, or both.....something that isn't quite as commonplace these days. Maybe you should look more at statistics and history before you open mouth and insert foot.
I would suggest that we don't yet fully understand natural climate cycles, and probably never will. Humans think a century is a long time, whereas Earth measures time in 100,000,000 year increments. It would be something if we actually knew how much we don't know. Only arrogant climate alarmists believe that all questions have been answered, and that we actually asked the right questions.
@@jeffreyhusack2400 i didnt say we couldnt slow it down. i said we cant stop it. yet yu agree. but said i am wrong. interesting. now my question is this. how would you like to slow it down? lower the co2 levels? that would be interesting. the higher the levels. the more food plants produce. bigger yields. now we are at what? 420 parts per million on co2 levels? how low would you like to take it. cuz i will tell ya now. we get below 180. there will be starvation on the planet. below 150 and all life on the planet dies.
I don't suppose the recording of temperature's having shifted away from the countryside to cities that continue to get bigger would have anything to do with the supposed temperature increases being recorded, It also helps that the starting date for references happens to be at the lowest temperature of a mini ice age in 1884 Oh and just a bit of info they have removed the earlier temperatures reading so you can't validate it anymore, how convenient. I wonder what we will do when we destroy the Oxygen creating plants by starving them of their Co2.
It came to mind that major cities are heat sinks, have the most political power in a state, and generally have the same political party. They might advocate more for Climate Change reforms than their cooler rural cousins.
20 Plus years ago I worked on a UK international communications satellite earth station in a rural area on the English/Welsh border. We had a Met Office weather station on site and were trained to report conditions back to the Met Office every 4 hours. It was an ideal rural location for accurate data. Then the Met Office decided to close that location for some reason. It seems they much prefer data from urban areas and Heathrow airport to bolster the climate warming narrative.
@@jeffjohnsonl9883 No, there is a third, and it really is the only one worth reading........ The Bible, it will quash all fear of this world and where it is headed. God has already answered the climate question, in Genesis 8:22.
@@jeffjohnsonl9883 No one knows when the Father will return. We are told to always be prepared. Until Jesus returns. And since the prophecy in the Bible, of the Jews returning to their homeland happened in 1948; we are in the downward spiral. God promised us in Genesis 8:22 that the earth would not be destroyed until His return. Summer, winter, fall and spring, the seasons, and earth would endure to sustain us.
When do we start measuring? The 1800s? Then we have warmed a little. Mideval Warm period? Then we have cooled by 4 degrees. The Roman Warm Period was even warmer than that. Go back to the dinosaurs, and CO2 was 2000ppm, and they had forests pole to pole.
The problem is the speed of the changing, and our ability to adapt to the changes without nuking the planet out of fear and greed. It is our survival that we are worried about. And plants and animals. We will have to do something to protect them too.
Firstly, the Mediaeval Warm Period was based off extremely localised data collected by a British scientist (Victorian I believe. Not going to bother looking it up again), this scientist studying samples in a very specific area of the Scandinavian region. It does not confirm that this warm period was in any way extensive, and if you read contemporary writings and look at Mediaeval paintings from elsewhere in Europe, especially Britain, you will see that it was anything but warm at that time. Core samples from ice/soil and tree rings confirm this. The same goes for the one that happened in Roman times. Purely localised to the Mediterranean. Indeed, there are Roman artefacts in Britain that have been translated as 'complaints' from Roman soldiers about the constant wet and the cold. It annoys me that videos like this arise to throw more fuel on old wives tales that climate change deniers latch onto. All your type want is an excuse to do nothing and rebel against any changes governments might try to enforce. So long as you can live out your life, that's all you care about. But your kids, grandkids are going to suffer and die well before their time because of your ignorance and disinterest. If you think this year's weather extremes are bad enough (and I'm sure you're really having trouble trying to dismiss them as just a little hiccup in the climate), just wait until you see what's ahead.
@@shawnmorgan7644 Ice cores are a thing but not millions of years. Throughout the year there are slight warming and cooling events. Enough for the layering scientist see. In the 50s I believe 3 planes were lost on an ice shelf in the arctic circle. When they were rediscovered 20 to 30 years later they were found in a layer of ice the scientists had deemed millions of years old. Same layering and everything. Slight change on a cool day or windy day compared to still wind helps make the layers they see. A small difference can make a big difference.
I'm glad to hear the truth, not not government BS. ❤ I've known this for years. I've been studying it. Also, space weather and the weak shields are in play here.
The results of this "truth" align pretty exactly with what the government says. We need to be more open minded and actually pay attention to the details and not just what floats our boat.
In the 1970s when I was in GRADE SCHOOL I (and everyone else) was taught about the ICE AGES that have been melting for eons, long before man could have factored in to it at all... Sooooo...
I like it warm. So too does most life. In recorded history, the two periods of warmer temps resulted in a better standard of living for most humans. More plants results in more animals which results in more food. As Seven of Nine said, "We will adapt." On the flip side, ice ages are NOT good for life.
But can we come to a point where the increase in heat starts turning good agricultural land into desert? I would argue it, although still minimal, has already begun.
its obvious the earth goes through cycles it and always will as long as the sun is there and i highly doubt theres anything will ever be able to do about it, people just capitalize on the fools that believe there lies
I’ve wondered about this for a long time. Usually science proposes a theory, and then tests it with control groups and test groups. We can’t do that with the climate. If we can’t, how can we tell if climate is changing because of natural cycles or man-made pollution? I think the natural cycles tend to be underplayed, because they can’t be used to call for strict government controls over the population.
@trenttan3779 yes I know and everything science has worked out points to it being cyclical not man driven. Hence why I say they choose to ignore their own evidence
Water vapor is the number one biggest greenhouse gas by a huge margin...so what we really need is an evaporation tax. If that sounds stupid, just remember that carbon taxes are ironically 97% dumber than an evaporation tax.
The warming may not be the fault of humans, but the destruction of earth's forests, ocean and other ecosystems stops the planet from dealing with the changes in the best way possible for us. It's not the change, but the rate of change that stops organisms from being able to adapt, and human activity is making the changes more abrupt and adding additional stresses.
Most humans, animals and plants are forced to rapidly adapt to climate change 4 times a year during the normal seasonal changes. Most deaths have occurred when it stays very cold for too long. The people of Dubai (the most successful city on Earth) live in a dry climate that reaches more than 120F all the time and they succeed just fine: they are even building the Earths longest city, in the desert. The one thing that climate alarmist scientists share in common is their funding sources.
I suggest the following readings: "Climate Change - 2014 - De Larminat" "Solving the Climate Puzzle The Sun’s Surprising Role" - Javier Vinós "FORCE MAJEURE The Sun’s Role in Climate Change" Henrik Svensmark Sun's role is often grossly (and conveniently) underestimated because most of the times its radiative forcing is considered a direct effect of variations in energy intensity, while it is likely the case that the Sun acts as a control mechanism of other phenomena.
Nobody wants to hear it because there is no financial interests in it. But I am on the same page as you about it. Everything, and I mean everything is a drop in the bucket compared to the power of the sun. If we could somehow harness and bottle up 100% of it's energy for one day we could power humanity in its entirety for thousands of years. People want to point to vehicle emissions, industry, even volcanoes and storms, but they tend to overlook the gigantic ball of fusion the size of thousands of earths up in the sky. It's a huge influence and that's not going to change anytime soon.
If we did not have a huge industrial complex and maybe 5bn motor vehicles on the road daily around the world I could possibly believe this explanation, but basically this is a sophisticated attempt to really “pull our plonkers “!
@@brandi7986yes, we do. But the difference between a tree that's being cut down and the trees being planted is the gigantic difference in scale between the 2. The average mature tree will sequester something like 46kg of carbon every year. However, it takes an average of 15 years for a newly planted sapling to offset just the carbon produced during its production from seed collection to its final location. That's if it survives! 9 out of 10 of its sibling saplings will die soon after planting (meaning that they 'never' pay off the amount of carbon it cost to produce them, the surviving sapling will have to take on that responsibility as well - a significant factor that is never included in the figures). So, you might be contenting yourself that trees are being constantly replaced, but the carbon/water mass displacement of felled mature to sapling tree exchange is ridiculously out of balance. Indeed, you would have to plant several thousands to tens of thousands of saplings to replace every mature tree that is felled. That is simply not happening, because if it was, we would 'all' be planting a certain number of trees every year. It would take that much manpower to do so (since we would be trying to replace a mass of mature trees that would cover the size of Scotland at the very least).
How was it clickbait? They talk exactly about the cause and provides examples of cooling and heating in the past. Edit: I got to the end and he included humans in it lol
In 1800 there were 1 billion humans living on this planet, in 2024 there are 8.1 billion. It’s warmer now because there are 7 billion more people farting 💨
@@JoeSchmow If you really want to limit CO2 emissions you might want to “eliminate “about 7.9 billion people since we all generate 1kilo of CO2 per day..That’s 4 million tons of CO2 a day.
Reducing waste that pollutes the ocean is a good start. Landfills currently should hold garbage and other biodegradable material. The other non-recylables like most plastics should be better contained for long term while cost effective recycling technology is developed. Other hazardous industrial waste should be treated like nuclear waste.
Better yet we should put a big damper on producing so many cheap and single use plastics. Take them out of the equation. We survived for thousands of years without them. Whether or not climate change is human caused or natural, whether or not it is a serious issue or not aside, pollution is a problem no matter what and we don't need to cover the planet with unnatural junk that will never go away. That can't be good long term no matter how you cut it.
The 4pm almost daily occurring storms in Waco Texas are extremely rare now but as a kid I worked at a gas station and seen it almost daily! Now young people in that area have never heard of it because it's typically just high pressure system baking the area most of the summer like a pressure cooker and it takes a big cold front or a hurricane coming inland to break up the high pressure system in the summer. The sky to the west use to get very dark close to 4pm then there would be dumping rain that would cool everything down. I don't live there any longer but family told me for years it's pretty much gone still and rarely rains now unless something dramatic happens like a hurricane or the fall strong cold fronts.
Why no one ever considers the temperature of earth's core as a factor for global warming ? ... (through conduction and convection) It is known that nuclear fission also occurs in earth's core.
Lol the only way it could cause a temperature increase would be if the ground had radiant energy caused by heating from magma. Since the earth's crust heats and cools from solar radiation we know that it's not the cores effects. The ground we walk on would have to be hundreds of degrees. We know it's not because we are alive. However, volcanic activities could alter the climate by releasing suffer dioxide, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. All three are green house gasses.
Because nuclear fission occures everywhere where the radioactive materials are present? And it has been occuring throughout all 5 billion years of Earth's existence? All those numerous cycles of global warming and ice ages?
The Earth's inherent heat has little to no effect but you make an interesting point about nuclear fusion at the core. We know that fusion is responsible for transmutation of elements on the sun. Here's a mind bending hypothesis. Hydrocarbons are a natural result of this process. Meaning that we'll find hydrocarbons no matter how deeply we drill. Given that drilling in the deepest areas of the ocean where the crust is thinnest have produced evidence of huge abundances of hydrocarbons, I think it logical to assume this is true. Hydrocarbons are not produced in abundance by decaying plant matter. Want proof that hydrocarbons are produced in huge amounts by the natural processes found in our universe? Ok. A light-years long cloud of methane has been discovered in open space. The discovery occurred some years ago. I'll leave it to you to Google. Also, all of the gas giant planets in our solar system have significant amounts of hydrocarbons in their atmospheres. Lastly, Titan, one of Saturn's moons has lakes and seas of methane and ethane. I'm pretty confident when I say there has never been life in such abundance, if any, on Titan to produce the prodigious amounts of hydrocarbons found on the surface of Titan. The hydrocarbons in the Earth's crust will continue to be replenished but our extraction of them might exceed the rate of the replenishment. Should we strive to find cleaner sources of energy? Absolutely! But, our use of hydrocarbons has a negligible effect on the climate because the natural emissions of CO2 swamp human emissions by a very large factor.
Sometimes it is perhaps forgotten that the reduction of air, water and soil pollution alone are good reasons to take exactly the same measures that have been proposed to slow down global warming.
Civilization is based on burning things for energy. A lot of folks have their $ & livelihood/work/skills invested in continuing fossil ⛽. We really should transition out of Petro as cheap fuel, just for what you said, but also to preserve 🛢️ for truly vital needs, like critical plastics, chemicals. Peak oil is real, coming.
Yep, i can definetlly see nature declining where i live...as population and vehicle per capita grow, more plastic, concrete is replacing vegetation. I had opportunity to work in tropical areas (Carribean, Indonesia) soo much plastic and oil in the port area....to imagine the colorful fish we keep in aquariums are choking on all that.
refreshing to see some actual common sense and real science about this topic! next, look into the topic of micro nova from our sun, you'll start to see why civilization resets roughly every 6000 years.
By your use of the term "exponential" , you demonstrate that you have no concept of what is meant by the term or its mathematical effects or that you are being hyperbolic. Either way, you are wrong. The increase in the temperature of the planet is not exponential.
Nice try, but no cigar. Bernays would be fascinated by how much PR ( propaganda ) has evolved, but he was dealing with a less sophisticated audience with his " torches of freedom. The title was a crude hook, as those that have seen through the " it's you, it's CO2, Oil will make us boil " have spent many hours comparing the conflicting arguments, and the evidence of their own eyes and ears ( much to the party's disfavour, denying this being their final and most important command ) . Anyway, I digress ! Here's my narrative :- Recalling my time as a self identified Green, it was a pleasant identity to have. Other Greens were generally pleasant, nice people, and inoffensive. We had this common belief that we really cared, felt a responsibility and were prepared to make sacrifices for a greater good. But therein lay the danger. We didn't regard ourselves as sanctimonious, but behind the facade of our niceness lurked a sanctimonious hubris, in that we regarded people other than ourselves as ignorant and in need of saving. It began with a love of nature, not a bad thing to have, a dislike of pollution, desolation, and contamination. But contaminated we were, we took the CO2 global warming, climate crisis narrative, hook, line and sinker, with little question, or examination ! Yes the people selling the idea buried us in data, but we didn't choose to examine, or challenge them, we were the chosen, who were out to save the planet. How many have rewatched Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth ? The first time I watched it I took it as truth, it spurred me on, confirming my belief and reinforcing my self image. Well it didn't stand the test of time, much like Greta's tweets, it's an embarrassment, the crisis failed to emerge. CVD ! Thank you CVD for opening my eyes. You revealed yourself for what you are, ambitious totalitarian, authoritarian, Malthusians, who hate humanity ! There they all were, the philanthro capitalists who sold me “ Oil will make us boil “ pushing by every means bar physically holding me down, to put an experimental gene therapy into my body, into all our bodies ! You let the mask drop, and as a consequence, I rigorously examined everything you had ever told me and found it wanting ! There is always more than one way to approach a problem, so why not employ all of them ? The problem in your eyes is us, the useless eaters, so how do you reduce our numbers ? Well if you can get them to hate themselves, which a generation or more clearly does ! Get them to identify as a blight on the planet ? And then they might just volunteer, go quietly ? Slowly poisoned by novel “foods”, novel pharmaceuticals, particles sprayed into the air, starving as the politicians who claim to represent them attack the food supply, through austerity because the oil that fuels our prosperity is reduced and removed, or better still casualties to avoidable wars. Well you misunderstood this former Green ! Yes I love nature, and I love the planet, but I love humanity too. And as for you Malthusians ? You are the problem seeking a solution, and people are starting to realise, so you’d better finish building your bunkers soon !
Well said, the Green movement is very much like a religion in it of itself. The part where you talked about the belief that you could "save" others and that they were viewed as the ignorant masses is spot on. It's how virtually every cult throughout history has operated, but the difference is these cults did not have government on their side (unless you consider the Catholic Church as a cult, which is certainly arguable, but I digress). I have learned, if nothing else, in life to always be leery of those who come around with the magic advice or product that will "save" you. Whether it's Greenies, Jehovah's Witnesses, or snake oil salesman, it's all the same to me. Thank you for the perspective of someone who was there and part of that "side" themselves, it's very interesting and does not come as a big surprise to me.
All that matters, is global warming happening, yes or no. Most agree it is. The cause is irrelevant. The impact on humans could be catastrophic. All that matters is what we can do about it. How do we adapt as a civilization. Some people feel a natural cause is an excuse to do nothing. This could be a big mistake.
I am just a bit curious as to just how we as humans should adapt to help solve GCC (AGW)… all of humanity deciding to become hunter-gathers again? In that case, IIRC my studies in this area, the entire Earth could support about 10 million people just before the development of agriculture. A whole heck of a lot of us would have to assume the ambient temperature of the local surroundings…you going to volunteer to self-delete for the sake of the planetary environment?😂
Unfortunately, humans need a disaster to take action. The earth and universe don't care that humans exist. Self deletion won't be an issue. Everything we can do is better than just except our fate. Other countries are making changes - EVs, for example. Unfortunately, recent humans have never experienced a major climate change. There are no sure solutions. Our ancestors adapted by changing habits and locations. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't. Nevertheless, they tried. They did what they knew to do at any given moment.
@@josephhouser8188The process to mine the lithium to power the batteries in electric vehicles is as much or more polluting than the emissions from conventional internal combustion vehicles. And it's only going to get worse as lithium reserves are spent and we have to dig deeper to mine more if it. That's clearly not the savior people make it out to be. One of the biggest impacts on the planet is human agriculture. As the population grows, more people need food. So if we are going to be a planet of 8 billion, 10 billion, or more we are going to have to find a way to cope with it. The joke about "self deletion" really wasn't far off if reality. Unless we deleted half the population or more we aren't returning to pre industrial conditions. Obviously that's ludicrous to save people by wiping out others. I personally don't believe the condition is nealy as dire as it is made out to be. Don't forget, there are financial interests and governmental interests in keeping everyone scared and under control. That doesn't mean we should just scorch and salt the entire planet either. There should be a happy medium in everything. This planet is fully capable of accommodating many more than we have now, we just need to take care of it. Doesn't mean ending industry and agriculture, that's suicide. But it does mean not dumping waste everywhere, depleting all the resources, and covering the planet in plastics that will be there for millions of years.
Click bait title: spoiler alert: Warming is pretty much all the fault of humans. That aside, Note: * All the research on natural explanations for climate warming get nearly no funding compared to research proving (not really debating) human caused global warming. * Tonga Eruption Blasted Unprecedented Amount of Water Into Stratosphere. So volcanoes can also push water (the biggest green house gas) into the atmosphere * The Oceans hold 1000 times the solar energy held on earth than the atmosphere and land. OF COURSE oceans impact the climate, but are nearly totally ignored by climate research. If the oceans warmed or cooled by .0015 C, that would mean as much as the 1.5 C we claim the climate has warmed. And we have no data to measure the "global temperature" of the oceans. * Stomata proxies do not average Temperature/CO2 levels the same way that ice cores, ocean sediments do. Tree ring data is very unreliable (there are many reasons rings are smaller or larger other than temperatures and CO2 levels. Even within the same tree). Stomata proxies show spikes in temperature and CO2 levels that the other proxies do not, but compare with current observations. Note that climate science almost totally ignores Stomata proxies. All in all, the video is pretty much a propaganda piece, down playing what we know about natural warming and playing up climate models to support a anthropological global warming (AGW) theory that in fact has no data to support it.
@@trapeye0 What does "school boy stuff" even mean? That scientists that study the sun, volcanoes, cycles in paleo climate, carbon cycles, methane cycles, etc. are all wasting their time because they should know everything by the 6th grade?
we did this for sure. Once we have totally messed things up the planet will bounce back. The trees will come back and perhaps new animals will begin. Humans are going to decline. Sadly this appears to be our future
The latest studies show that since the last ice age, more or less 20,000 years ago, the global temperature has slowly increased to the level prior to the industrial age. With the onset of the industrial age, the temperature has spiked considerably and shows no sign of abating - that increase is directly laid at the feet of human interactions brought on by that age as nothing based on nature alone is significantly different than before that time. You can play all the games one likes, but that is how it is...
"since the last ice age" Briefly described in the video, but to be clear: Ice ages are long periods of time when ice persists at the Earth's poles. We're in an ice age now. Humanity has always existed in an ice age, as the current ice age is about two and a half million years old. What you mean is "the last glaciation". As some in these comments have pointed out, the Earth is definitely cooler now than at various points in the past. That isn't an excuse, though, as humanity is a product of, is adapted to, and has no prior experience of a warmer Earth.
There are just 8 billion of us (and counting) eager to feast on this blue ball in space. It was life itself that created the oxygen rich atmosphere we breath, the fossil fuels we use. That took millions of years. We’re consuming, harvesting and destroying the limited resources in a blink of the eye. Thus changing the atmosphere and inducting climate change. Our impact is huge. Let’s face the truth!
@@bertkok2400 I agree with you, In just 400 Years, out of 2 Billion+ Earth History, We are destroying everything fast ! And in the worst way ! + 8 Billion people on Earth !
Do we make things hotter ? Maybe but are we the primary cause ? I don’t think so. It’s just life and the world is fine. We can always keep trying to do better and we should but the world will last longer than us of that I’m sure. As I’m sure the world is warming on its own. It’s human arrogance to assume what happens in the world begins and ends with us alone.
- We live in the same climate as it was 5 million years ago - I have an explanation regarding the cause of the climate change and global warming, it is the travel of the universe to the deep past since May 10, 2010. Each day starting May 10, 2010 takes us 1000 years to the past of the universe. Today July 03, 2024 the position of our universe is the same as it was 5 million and 168 thousand years ago. On october 13, 2026 the position of our universe will be at the point 6 million years in the past. On june 04, 2051 the position of our universe will be at the point 15 million years in the past. On june 28, 2092 the position of our universe will be at the point 30 million years in the past. On april 02, 2147 the position of our universe will be at the point 50 million years in the past. The result is that the universe is heading back to the point where it started and today we live in the same climate as it was 5 million years ago. Mohamed BOUHAMIDA, teacher of mathematics and a researcher in number theory. ruclips.net/video/ZFXRGfMENek/видео.html
Anything but CO2, right? Anything but what we have mountains of empirical evidence to prove beyond all doubt? Anything but what 99.9% of all publishing scientists agree on? Ignore all the evidence and invent some pseudoscientific quackery. Is that what you're proposing here?
You are out of date, warming stopped 18 years ago , we are currently in a Maunder minimum, with low solar activity thats why we are experiencing long cold winters and cool wet summers , despite the fiddled data coming from NOAA and the British Met office , low solar activity allows cosmic rays to penetrate our atmosphere which helps cloud formation and in the last 2 years we have had plenty of cloud cover and as I look out my window today the 3rd of July there is a thick blanket of cloud cover .You should also note that yes we are in a warm period of earth's cycle but its the coldest warm period for 18,000 years and the warm periods since then have been steadily decreasing . The earth is due in the next 2,000 years for another glaciation and the climate trend is for cooling with possibly another mini ice age in between. There is no published evidence that co2 , a minor greenhouse gas has any effect on climate or temperature change. The main GHG which no one talks about is water vapour which is about 2% of the atmosphere. C02 is about 0.04% , of which 97% comes from earth's natural sources . Less than 3% comes from human activity
Warming didn't stop 18 years ago. See NASA GLOBAL TEMPERATURE. Cosmic rays reaching earth increased over the last fifty years, which according to contrarian scientists should have caused global COOLING. We've experienced exactly the opposite. The GCR measurements from the 2019-2020 solar minimum actually BROKE 1997'S RECORD BY 25% and were at the highest levels ever recorded. Cosmic rays and significant climate change have no backing in the scientific data, although Svensmark and others have tried. An increase in clouds both cool the planet by reflecting more sunlight and warm it by trapping more heat. So far in the scientific data, it's a wash. A warming climate results in FEWER clouds, not more, according to the data.
Numerous studies carried out 25-30 years ago clearly showed that CO2 follows temperature. Since CO2 follows temperature it obviously does not control temperature. This video is barking up the wrong tree.
They follow each other. Higher heat thaws permafrost, burns trees, etc. which releases CO2, which prevents more heat from escaping into space, and so on.
@@craiglowen1470 CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat and prevents it from escaping into space, heats up the earth, resulting melting, humans injecting more CO2 into the atmosphere from fossil fuels, etc etc, list goes on, leading to more CO2 in the atmosphere increasing temperatures more, creating a runaway effect.
it *IS* our fault! CO2-level has increased by over 50% and methane (CH4) has massively increased, compared to pre-industrial times (even N2O is a factor)
Tell yourself that all you want. whether it’s our fault or not It’s still happening and we still have to deal with it. These things are not mutually exclusive.
Oh, it's definitely happening, and the parts that are meaningful are our fault. I'm also pretty confident that we'll do nothing. The greenhouse gas being belched into the atmosphere today will take centuries to have its full effect as the atmosphere, oceans, and even surface will take that long time to reach equilibrium. In the meantime, we can expect far more to be pumped into the atmosphere while Senators promote denial by saying, "Look at the snowball!".
Thank you, Insane Curiosity, for highlighting the true causes of global climate variability even in this age of ever-increasing greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, or at least for the first four out of five factors. I personally think that the last factor is overrated, and there are many more natural factors at play than are discussed in this video. Also worth pointing out that the eruption of the mainly submarine Hunga Tonga volcano in early 2022 released prodigious amounts of water vapour (by far the most powerful greenhouse gas), warming the atmosphere even to this day. (It didn't release an especially large amount of sulfur dioxide, which leads to global cooling - unlike Pinatubo, Krakatoa, or certainly Tambora.)
Humanity is responsible for the changing climate. So.one would think we could just stop it from happening. But, we won't...too much money on the table. There will never be a time when we value anything over money. Glad to be an older person.
You're asking the wrong question. By tying global warming to human activity, you create a 'them vs us' mindset, allowing 'them' who disagree to argue that it is 'natural' and simply ignore the problem. Of course this is preposterous ... because 'natural' does not mean benign. And of course it is 'mostly' human caused, but rather than blaming each other, we should all concentrate on mitigations and solutions we can all live with. For example, rather than demonizing oil companies, we should hold our noses and work to help them transition to sustainable, yet profitable alternatives. In the case of a volcanoes and asteroids, which are 'clearly' natural, and definitely not our fault ... we'd all want to find a solution. Global warming should be seen exactly the same way. It doesn't make any difference if it is our fault or a natural cycle ... we still need to figure out what is causing the problem, find a solution, and fix it, because our very existence depends upon getting this done.
Not a bad presentation.At least some of the many factors influencing earth’s atmosphere were discussed, but the interaction between all of these factors are handled in a way that might lead one to conclude that each one was an individual contributor, and there was no potentially complicated interaction between them all. Maybe that was outside of the scope of this particular short piece.Possibly a discussion of the “greenhouse effect” and the contribution of various gases at various concentrations could be done at a different time. If you have a working knowledge of physics, you can further understand the “greenhouse effect “by referring to a paper written about 120 years ago by Max Planck and Karl Swarz child in their study of black body radiation. The greenhouse effect is discussed and the relative contributions of the various greenhouse components is discussed in detail. If you’re able to study this, you will find that CO2’s contribution to warming is logarithmic and much more limited than hypothesized by The current catastrophic anthropogenic CO2 mediated climate change narrative.
Not a bad presentation.At least some of the many factors influencing earth’s atmosphere were discussed, but the interaction between all of these factors are handled in a way that might lead one to conclude that each one was an individual contributor, and there was no potentially complicated interaction between them all. Maybe that was outside of the scope of this particular short piece.Possibly a discussion of the “greenhouse effect” and the contribution of various gases at various concentrations could be done at a different time. If you have a working knowledge of physics, you can further understand the “greenhouse effect “by referring to a paper written about 120 years ago by Max Planck and Karl Swarz child in their study of black body radiation. The greenhouse effect is discussed and the relative contributions of the various greenhouse components is discussed in detail. If you’re able to study this, you will find that CO2’s contribution to warming is logarithmic and much more limited than hypothesized by The current catastrophic anthropogenic CO2 mediated climate change narrative.
We keep hearing abouy how humam activity is.mainly responsible, But it isn't cars or any individual. The reality is we need to shift the reponsibility back to the corperations. Becaude they are the manufacturer's. But manufactuers want to blame individuals. So, as a group we can buy less things. Make our own supplies and drive less, but it is such a drop in the bucket of what is really being manufactuered for governments.
Be that as it may this is the way I see it: Wondering if human beings have reached a point if they can be considered a force of nature? Take a look at the feed from ISS while on the night side. One can clearly see that we shoved nature in the tiny unlit spots which do not allow a sustainable ecosystem existence, we created huge highways in the way of great migrations effectively interrupting them. With most of the world "still to develop" ecosystems don't stand a chance and that's our biggest problem. Furthermore, if the summer is unbearable, there's solid science on the fact that putting an extra layer or a blanket will not be beneficial...
Considering all other planets in the solar system are going through environmental changes similar to the Earth, it's more likely to believe that there are external forces at play. Correlation does not equal Causation. Also, not a single model has ever been completed that took into account all environmental aspects, synchronicities, and perturbations. They all omit one or more critical datasets to suit the benefactor of the study. Now, if we talk about ecosystem destruction, the chemicals in our water, the land killed by pesticides, the waste we've allowed due to greed, then I'm all for saying that Humans caused all of that, but in no way have we changed the climate, and even if we had an impact it would be quite small compared to other larger factors, like the SUN and the fact that the Earths' protective magnetic field is collapsing, which allows more solar radiation to enter our atmosphere, causing more storms, adverse weather, change in climate patterns, polar vortices, atmospheric rivers, and pretty much everything else we've been experiencing. Climate alarmists have been around since the science has been invented, and they've all been wrong.
I think we can positively affect anything we choose to. We just need information that we can use to develop methods and means by which we can take action. However, 10,000 years is a fairly miniscule sample. Im pretty sure we can delve back more than 2 million years and see more of the picture. Undeniably, we do contribute to climate change and changes in everything else on the planet. We need to be cautious and judicious. We also need to be reasonable and patient. We are working on solutions and we need more data to make more accurate predictions for how well and enduring our efforts will be. We also need to develop solutions for scaling things back when we need to. I'm hopeful for the future. 😊
Undeniably, both natural and human influences are at play. The key, is both the actual changes, and the rate of those changes. The greatest disadvantage that the majority of people have, is that the individual human lifetime is not even a proverbial wink of an eye, compared to the geological time-scale. A mini example of this is Mount Etna. We know from what are actually recent eruptions that there have been catastrophic events, yet the 6 million humans living close, are largely oblivious to this.
You simply can't force developing nations to stop doing exactly what we did to get to where we are today. They want what we have and darn the consequences to get there. As Greta would say... HOW DARE YOU! Don't sit on your high horse and tell others they can't want to do better for themselves.
I'm gonna be real Simplistic nature wants to do away with Mankind it can be done easily. Yes, we just went through a pandemic. We are frail creatures. So basically the planet is warming. And I just say enjoy the ride there's not much we can do about it. But I also believe we must be better stewards to our world.
What effects does man have on the natural climate control by putting out all the fires caused by lightning strikes, which could potentially burn for weeks, months or longer. Would that not also warm up then cool the planet. We have sped up the inevitable but we need to adapt not blame. For with out the industrial revolution (which goes back to the first blacksmith) our existence, knowledge and technology would not be possible
Want some peace of mind just try and learn all you can of human history. Learn in all sources you can find. This will help you understand that people create a lot of needless crazy shit in their heads that result in anxiety and violent behavior. Basically most of our problems throughout history started by random crazy bullshit in our own heads. So just relax and enjoy your damn life’s, it’s the only one you have.
it's not about opinion. Calculating the effect suffices. the additional greenhouse gases are solely responsible. The earth would slightly cool because of the milancovic cycles. That's very well understood and would be reflected by measurements right now, if only we didn't release the stored carbon from millions of years.
Has any one researched or considered the effects man is having on the earth's magnetic field, with all our power grids and now with all the electric vehicles and equipment society is now using and will increase the use of over the next several years (till we find a problem with that). If I'm not mistaken the majority of which is concentrated in the northern hemisphere. Could it not cause an imbalance to the geomagnetic field of some form.?
Even as temperatures increase, burying one's head in the sand on how to deal with it does no good. If you also contribute to it, you're not helping yourself, you're helping the temperature increase. So laying faults aside, realize that if the video says the temperature will continue to increase but you're happy to say its not our fault and thumb your nose at the climate change folks, you're still in the same hot water, so enjoy silently boiling about that.
Maybe sea mounds saturate the local areas with co2 etc more than expected being transported in currents to the surface where pressure releases it into air currents. Particulate matter and surface charge do their thing harder while excited every time our star belches energy our way , ozone loss and particulate matter while doped up on star sauce breeds hurricanes and tornadoes as ferrel air currents dive south and mash around. A tragic hoolahoop ride around a galaxy washed this way and that like a drunkard may have percentiles of ownership as well .😊 Random thoughts eh
History shows life on earth does better during warm periods. Plant life does better with more CO2. Better to accept the extra warmth and work to mitigate any negative effects on infrastructure.
The Earth's distance from the Sun determines the Earth's temperature. Our planet is a living breathing entity full of life. We the human race can observe what our planet does to control climate and assist it in its task.
base on your explanation I believe that human consumption on energy isn't cause global warning, but position of solar system in the milky way caused fluctuation in radiation received from neutron belt
Total dishonest clickbait. The title suggests we're not causing today's climate change but the video itself ends up saying that we most certainly are. Yellow journalism at its finest.
“Variations in solar activity can influence earth ‘s climate in several ways, however the direct impact of solar radiation is relatively small compared to other factors such as greenhouse gas emissions…” Probably the dumbest statement attempting to sound smart ever uttered. Solar radiation is the ONLY reason the earth is warm. A good example of variation in solar radiation is according to latitude. Does solar radiation at the equator have a greater effect on temperature than at the North Pole? Or does CO2? If the CO2 levels were 20 times higher than they are today, and the sun did not exist, how much temperature variation would the earth experience? All the other planets in the solar system have been experiencing higher temperatures for at least a decade. The solar variations at some of the outer planets is minuscule to the point it is difficult to measure- so what next is warming them up? Greenhouse gases ?
It sounds dumb to you but just think about Mercury and Venus. Mercury gets roughly four times the solar radiation that Venus gets but yet Venus is hotter than Mercury. And on Venus, both day and night ate equally hot.
Does it matter if we are at fault or are we going exterminate people to lower the temperatures. If we do the rich should be the first to go as they contribute the most pollution and they have the biggest carbon footprint. But that won’t happen. So let’s just adapt like we have in the past .
So apparently you didn't watch the video to the end. They pulled the wool over your eyes with their clickbait title. The video simply demonstrates how nature can warm the planet in various ways but then admits that today's climate change is simply man-made.
@@2006gtobob Eleven separate studies confirm the scientific consensus on climate change. Look them up by lead author on Google Scholar: Oreskes, 2004; Doran, 2009; Anderegg, 2010; Cook, 2013; Verheggan, 2014; Stenhouse, 2014; Carlton, 2015; Consensus on Consensus (multiple); 2016; Powell, 2018; Myers, 2020; Lynas/Houlton, 2021. In 2021, Cornell University surveyed the over 88000 climate studies published from 2012-2020 and tallied a 99.9% consensus that human activity, not nature, is driving today's climate change. Even Exxon's own scientists in leaked memos have acknowledged that combusted fossil fuels are warming the planet to a damaging degree. Over 80 academies of science and every scientific institution on earth, from NASA to NOAA to the World Meteorological Organization to the over 50,000 physicists in the American Physical Society publicly endorse the consensus position, which is precisely why every nation on earth is a card-carrying member of the IPCC. See ANALYSIS: WHY SCIENTISTS THINK 100% OF GLOBAL WARMING IS DUE TO HUMANS
@@2006gtobob We didn't hit the override button. Natural warming phases are ushered in by Milankovitch Cycles. All three of those cycles are in COOLING phases now and have nothing to do with today's warming.
Humans are speeding up the natural process of Global Warming due to an increase in carbon emissions. It may be a small % but it’s still adding to the process.
Continue doing this kind of reporting until heatwave temperatures is 60c globally and sea meter rise at least a meter. Then wonder if internet will even still exist.
Were as I do agree with global warming being more natural than Man made, I can't stop thinking about all the A bombs that were tested in the stratosphere back in the 50s, Why don't anyone mention them when it comes to global warming? I am a simple person and don't know much, so please prove me wrong on this
We have overwhelming evidence that proves today's climate change is being driven by our CO2 emissions. The consensus among publishing climate scientists is now 99.9%.
Thanks for this comprehensive overview. In summary: climate does change naturally, however the fast and strong current temperature increase is attributable to human activities (GHG emissions). My view is here: It is scientifically proven that it is indeed human activities through their GHG (greenhouse gases) emissions that disrupt the climate, there is a scientific consensus (more than 99% of published climate studies confirm this), see this study : (pdf doc to download) "Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature", Mark Lynas et al. Also the IPCC (whose role is to summarize the findings on climate change through checking the various peer-reviewed articles) fully confirms this (to people commenting: please spare us the usual denialist BS on IPCC: this is not because you dislike the findings that it proves the messenger is unfit). As for thinking for yourself (a classic among “skeptics” of all kinds), here are my thoughts: 1- We know that the temperature is rising (+1.2°C since the start of the industrial era), although it has been generally stable for 10,000 years (with only slight fluctuations). 2- we have known the GHG mechanism for 2 centuries (Fourier, 1824) 3- we know that CO2 is a GHG 4- we measure that the CO2 content is rising (280ppm before the industrial era, now 420ppm) while the other important GHG, water, has a stable content, and more GHG means more heat 5- we know that we emit billions of tonnes of CO2 annually (transport, heating, industry, etc.) 6- we measure that the C14 content of atmospheric CO2 decreases, which confirms that the excess CO2 is fossil carbon (therefore added by man, since the other possible source of fossil carbon, volcanism, emits 100 times less CO2 than human activities). 7- we know that, while the ground temperature rises, the upper layers of the atmosphere (the stratosphere) have been cooling for several decades, which confirms that this is not a warming that comes from the sun or other radiation (otherwise the stratosphere would also heat up) but the effect of GHGs (publication by Syukuro Manabe, Nobel Prize winner in Physics). 8- we have measurements by the Nimbus satellites of the terrestrial radiation, which therefore make it possible to see the radiation that the Earth sends back to space, in relation to the radiation from the terrestrial ground (the difference between the two is therefore what is absorbed by the atmosphere): we can see the bands absorbed by the various GHGs, and especially the absorption by CO2. The shape of the spectrum observed around wavelengths of 15µm (main absorption of CO2 in the infrared) corresponds very well to what the theory of GHGs indicated 9- the climate change deniers, after more than 40 years of in-depth research on the climate (Charney report in 1979 which raised the alarm and prompted numerous studies on the climate) have NO OTHER scientifically plausible explanation other than CO2. For example, “climate cycles” (Milankovic) indicate that we are in an interglacial period with a very stable climate for 11,000 years (end of the last glaciation, the next one is expected in around 50,000 years), or also “cosmic rays” (Svensmark) hypothesis which has been shown to be false.
Thanks for your detailed comment. You make some excellent points backed by scientific research. It's clear that while climate does change naturally, the rapid increase in temperatures we see now is largely due to human activities, especially greenhouse gas emissions.
I didn't think you mentioned anything about the 5 atomic bombs worth of heat equivalent to Hiroshima and nakasaki that human civilization adds to the atmosphere per second? Maybe I missed that.
I’m a fan of your documentaries - they’re informative, engaging, and packed with fascinating insights. However, after watching this; Are humans are to blame. I believe, No..but, it’s important to consider a broader spectrum of data that challenges. Historical data shows that Earth's temperature and CO2 levels have fluctuated naturally over millions of years. The average CO2 level over the last 600 million years was about 2,600 ppm-nearly seven times higher than today’s 400 ppm. CO2 is a natural part of Earth’s cycle and not solely a pollutant. The sun’s energy output has varied over centuries, significantly impacting Earth’s climate. Increased solar activity has correlated with higher global temperatures, suggesting the sun plays a major role in climate change. Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows no increase in hurricanes or cyclones over the past 50 years. There’s also been no increase in major tornadoes since 1954, and forest fires have not increased since 1970. Over the past 135 years, droughts have not increased, and water vapor, which makes up 95% of greenhouse gases, plays a more significant role in climate regulation than CO2, which is under 4%. While the push for net-zero and green technology is well-intentioned, it has drawbacks. Mining for essential minerals is environmentally damaging and relies heavily on fossil fuels. The carbon footprint of electric vehicles is substantial when considering the entire lifecycle. The drive towards net-zero carbon emissions often overlooks broader factors. Implementing net-zero policies could lead to unintended consequences like energy crises and economic instability. For instance, Germany reverted to coal due to unreliable wind energy, and Sri Lanka faced bankruptcy partly due to environmental policies banning chemical fertilizers. Humans undoubtedly impact the environment, but attributing climate change solely to human-produced CO2 is an oversimplification. CO2’s modest warming effect and its role as plant food suggest it is only one factor among many influencing our climate. Let’s continue to explore these complexities in your documentaries. I love the work you do, and adding more diverse perspectives will only enrich the conversation and understanding of our planet’s climate dynamics.
dont bother with this video, nothing burger, the whole reason ocean temps are increasing is that they are obsorbing more heat by man made emmissions, this video is so stupid!
Do we know the location, quantity and real time thermal output of every hydrothermal vent in the oceans? Is the activity of the Earth's core and what's beneath our feet beyond 6 KM visually proven and known fact as opposed to observed by instrument and based on physics theory? Do we know from observable fact why the magnetic north pole is migrating or why there is the South Atlantic Anomaly? If the World is a patient.....the junior Doctor has done his rounds and he has suggested to the patient with Ebola that they stop smoking, drinking, cut down on sugar and get more exercise then the Ebola will be cured. We haven't found a cure for cancer but in the space of 200 years we have apparently both caused climate change and diagnosed that we've caused climate change. The Keeling Curve for "1700 - Present" (whilst only recorded in detail since 1958) show an oddly plateaued period during the second world war when factories were working 24/7 on war production and all the activities of war from "leaded" petrol consuming vehicles that were not efficient, all the steam ships and steam trains moving men and equipment around and all that concrete that Nazi Germany poured on countless defences and bunkers etc and then the atomic bombs at the end of WW2, people still burning coal as their main source of home heating resulting in the London smogs followed by loads of global aerial nuclear tests, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the space race etc......but the Keeling Curve only really starts to climb from 1970 onwards and then the climb is surprisingly linear. As always all the "solutions" involve me replacing existing perfectly good technology (gas boiler, ICE car) with new technology that is much more expensive and often doesn't work as well or breaks down more and all this new technology will invariably have a shorter lifespan than my current technology because it will all have firmware that can't be updated after a couple of years because the manufacturer doesn't exist (or some similar reason) and all of this based on a science that can't even accurately tell me what the weather will do in two weeks time. IF the carbon dioxide is OUR fault then waiting for us to change to EV's and adopt a carbon neutral way of life is stupid because we should be actively removing carbon from the atmosphere already, not generating a bigger carbon footprint by replacing all the technology so that we can make a theoretical saving in the future. If you pay attention to the people pushing the green agenda you will discover that they don't really want carbon capture or removal technology because the don't want people to hang on to the old technology even if keeping it is a smaller carbon footprint than replacing it. The fact that there are many countries that pollute more than the ones that are switching to more expensive "free energy" renewables, who aren't going to change seems to be lost on the likes of "Just Stop Oil". The fact that there are many regions on this planet where EV's just won't be viable seems to be ignored. The fact that the War in Ukraine has generated absolute tons of carbon that didn't exist before and the World's military can switch to carbon neutral technology will also be ignored...............NOPE............the solution can only be for regular people to spend more money replacing perfectly good technology with more expensive crap so that the Green Agenda can pretend how much better everything is and the Government get fresh income streams from all the new crap technology.
You answered your own question. The exponential rise in pollution from WWII and the reconstruction and baby boom that followed filled the atmosphere with sulfate aerosols, which reflect sunlight and act to cool the planet. During this smoggy period, the aerosols overpowered our CO2. That is, until 1970 when the U.S. passed the Clean Air Act and cleaned up those sun-reflecting emissions. (Other countries adopted their own clean air policies). According to the EPA, clearing the air ended up saving the U.S. alone over $22 trillion in health care costs. Most notably, the clearing allowed CO2 to resume as the dominant pollutant and to rewarm the planet again, just as most scientists predicted it would. Scientists really aren't quite as dumb as fossil fuel industry propaganda likes to portray them. The problem is that the larger part of our lay audience is missing the complete picture of scientfifc information, making them easy marks for propaganda and disinformation.
As you stated, we have contributed to and possibly accelerated it but it was already happening and would be happening without us. How much we contribute is also a question as while we accelerate it, the question is by how much and when alarmists make predictions that fail or state things then proven false, how can we know to trust our own judgment. Examine using lithium batteries with all their weaknesses catching fire, exploding, vulnerability to cold, the materials they're made from being relatively rare and then all that energy that will be needed to power them up requiring massive levels of solar panels, wind turbines and other energy sources that aren't able to provide for the needs we will have so that some level of fossil fuels will be needed to guarantee we'll have the energy we need. Nuclear is an option but then we don't want a Chernyobl of what happened in Japan happening more regularly because we vastly increase the number of nuclear facilities and we still haven't even figured out the best way to deal with the waste from the ones we have. Solar panels are made from some of the deadliest materials on the planet and wind turbines chop up our birds and tend to explode so they're unsafe and don't tell me they don't chop up birds as we'll have these damn things all over the place and then our governments will start admitting it was true all along. And what about the trade offs as when the ice thaws, that's more land for us to settle on and, in fact, many of these areas were ice free just a thousand years ago and as the ice melts we are finding proof of human settlements there. More than that, the Viking invasions were made necessary by the northlands they lived on experiencing the Little Ice Age that the climate change alarmists refuse to speak about where their lands began to freeze over because the Winters grew longer and more severe. The people who gave us the theory of Global Warming also largely turned against it because of how it was being exploited to manipulate people. They told us first about Global Cooling and how man made pollution was causing it. They also said that if we reduced pollution that it would naturally begin to warm again because the end of the Little Ice Age was causing the planet to warm before we entered the period of the World Wars where man made pollution exploded to all time highs. And isn't it funny that as environmentalists began winning their battles by the early to mid 1970s that this is when we saw temperatures begin to rise again... exactly as the founders of the Global Cooling/Global Warming theories told us would happen. And the reason they turned against Global Warming was how politicians and special interests with no idea what they were talking about were making the science look ignorant and the people who believed in it look like fools. Yes, Global Warming was happening and it still is but human activity was never "causing" it as these idiots claimed, it was accelerating it as you and the founders of the theory claimed. It was happening anyway and had man made pollution during the World War period not risen so high that it blocked the suns rays from reaching the planet as they should have, the warming period would have continued unabated. The reality is we will run out of fossil fuels one day so we need to create alternative energy sources. But we also need to learn to evolve to the changing planet instead of doing what we're doing trying to change the planet instead. Talking about drilling into volcanoes and so forth are insane and yet, some alarmists are trying to get world governments to do just that. We evolved our current way of living during a colder time and what's needed now is evolving more for a warmer climate which we're not doing. We say sea levels will rise and we'll lose coastlands... life migrates and the new unfrozen lands will be where it migrates to. And then we have Antarctice which, as it thaws out, will be habitable for life again where we've only know a relatively dead continent devoid of most life when we know it was was covered by it. Then we have other revelations such as how during the age of dinosaurs it was up to 20 degrees warmer and there was more carbon in the atmosphere yet they fearmongered about 2% rising of temperatures would burn the planet to a crisp. Truth is that America's corn fields produce more oxygen than all the worlds rainforests combined and where Europe condemns the America's for our environmental problems such as how we cut forests, the US has more trees now than when Columbus arrived and if environmentalists would just step back, we could make the entire Southwest bloom like much of California that was desert until humans brought water there to make them bloom in the 19th century no less. Flooding in the East and drought in the West... geez, sounds like we need a national water pipeline to remove excess water from the regions that flood to the regions experiencing drought and those pipelines could be rigged to generate energy from the water flowing through them. People concerned about the environment rarely educate themselves and they listen to reactionaries rather than thinkers as we have the ability to deal with these things by acting as stewards of the world if only we let intellects willing to admit what's wrong and then to address it as global warming only started increasing again when the environmentalists began winning their battles and pollution, even for an almost threefold increase in human populations, is actually less in many areas now than in 1970. It's a good thing to care and be concerned, but you cannot just blindly support people with political and financial reasons to push climate change because they will mislead you. And when intellectuals think they know something and the science is firm, if they're wrong it can take a century for all of them to die off so new scientists can replace them. How long did it take for science to accept that birds were avian dinosaurs and dinosaurs had feathers when we had the proof as far back as the 19th century? It got rooted that birds were not dinos but a form of reptile and fossil evidence proving they had feathers was actually hidden from us. Only the internet and the fact scientists who knew the truth could bypass the scientific establishment finally got these facts accepted as truth by bringing their evidence straight to us.
What predictions made by a consensus of mainstream climate scientists have failed to come true? Crackpots and outliers are not the mainstream, by the way. Super important to recognize the difference and the credibidlity gap between them.
Insane Curiosity, for the size of audience you have, doing thorough research prior to making these videos should be top priority. Everything you stated has been proven many times over to not be the cause, at this such drastic rate. As a long time follower and earth system climate scientist, do your research prior to making a video that thousands will see, overshadowing the work of thousands of quiet scientists around the globe.
Did you watch the video all the way to the end? Despite their grossly misleading title (clickbait), they ended up saying exactly as you did about our culpability and the rate of warming. I saw nothing else dishonest in the video; just the disingenuous title.
I believe that our weakening magnetic field is letting more solar activity through therefore warming up the earth less solar weather is making more issues it is also solar maximum 25 so that's why things are getting a little sketchy, the induction of solar radiation into the earth also causes our earth to react with earthquakes /volcanoes and extreme weather conditions all part of the great universal cycles ✌️💚🍀🙏to all
There is no evidence to support any of this as a driver of today's climate change while there is a mountain of evidence to support a strengthening greenhouse effect from our CO2 emissions.
Humans do affect, but it's just a cherry atop the cake... even if we stopped and evn captured our CO² back, it wouldnt change much, the world would still keep warming
We had the little ice age and the maunder minimum and then the planets temperature starts to rise. The industrial revolution started at the end of the maunder minimum. Man made global warming is insignificant to NATURAL patterns. Don't worry about it.
The consensus that human activity is increasing the greenhouse effect and in turn is melting the icecaps, raising sea levels, expanding wildfire seasons, intensifying hurricanes, and increasing heatwaves, marine heatwaves, extreme precipitation events, droughts and tick-and-mosquito-borne diseases is now 99.9%, according to the latest survey of the scientific literature by Cornell University. All of these effects will cost the world trillions annually going forward, making any natural climate change in earth's past completely irrelevant.
Hey Insane Curiosity Squad! If you liked the video, we would love for you to share it with your friends or on other social networks like Facebook, Reddit Instagram, Tik Tok and Twitter, etc.. ( Since the algorithm is not cooperating in showing us to the public😅). In just 30 seconds, you will greatly help our Channel to grow and improve our future content. A big thank you from all of us.
The venerable George Carlin said it best;
"...The planet will be fine...the people are fucked..."
"Maybe the planet just wanted plastic"
Ask the people in Pompeii if the feel that they are a threat to the planet 😂
He was wrong.
GC what a legend always spoke truth bless him ✌️💚🙏
Jammin' in NY! Great special!
It was just as hot, if not hotter during 1930s. Ice started melting 15,000 years ago according to science. Common sense indicates the longer ice melts, the less of it there is. Less ice means less cold being produced which leads to warmer temperatures. Problem is there is no money to be made saying that
@@Chet-b1f interglacial warming period is ending in the next 100 years so they gotta milk it as long as they can
Science has determined that there is a food that immediately and permanently erases the need for physical intimacy in women.
That food is : wedding cake
That's why our population has risen so much in the last 2 millennia.
@@theoriginalkyttyn7724 it rose....until the government got involved in marriage. In all western nations, the birth rate is below replacement numbers. Most of that is due to divorce laws, child custody laws, and feminism as an ideology destroying the nuclear family, not to mention....the removal of God. The population explosion world wide is mostly in China, and in 3rd world countries in Africa.
That doesn't include advances in medicine and longer life expectancy for people due to modern advances beginning in the industrial revolution. Prior to that time period, life expectancy was low. People were lucky to reach age 40, and more women experienced complications in delivery that resulted in the passing of the mother, the child, or both.....something that isn't quite as commonplace these days.
Maybe you should look more at statistics and history before you open mouth and insert foot.
are we helping the planet warm? i say yes. can we stop the planet from warming? nope. it is a natural cycle.
I would suggest that we don't yet fully understand natural climate cycles, and probably never will. Humans think a century is a long time, whereas Earth measures time in 100,000,000 year increments. It would be something if we actually knew how much we don't know. Only arrogant climate alarmists believe that all questions have been answered, and that we actually asked the right questions.
I tend to agree with you that no most likely it can't be stopped but I'm pretty sure it can be slowed down.
@@jeffreyhusack2400 i didnt say we couldnt slow it down. i said we cant stop it. yet yu agree. but said i am wrong. interesting.
now my question is this. how would you like to slow it down? lower the co2 levels? that would be interesting. the higher the levels. the more food plants produce. bigger yields. now we are at what? 420 parts per million on co2 levels? how low would you like to take it. cuz i will tell ya now. we get below 180. there will be starvation on the planet. below 150 and all life on the planet dies.
@@charleshudson1729 yes you are 100% right I didn't say or I guess it didn't come out like what I wanted to say my apologies
@@jeffreyhusack2400 it is all good :)
I’ve fixed it! Tax the sun.
Don't give people ideas...
Meanwhile give earth a glass of water to stay hydrated along with a hat and spf 60 +++ sunscreen. That would be much appreciated.
@@PrestonGarhvey 😂
Haha good idea but I don't think the sun will pay.
I’m sure if they could they would
So nature can do something on her own?!What a surprise!
It can, but humans are abusing it and making it mad.
humans are a part of nature, and there are more than 8,100,000,000 of us. surprise!
Yeah can't be helping our current mess, doubt we'll slow temps let alone reverse.
Mother nature always wins no matter what,things will eventually even out!
I don't suppose the recording of temperature's having shifted away from the countryside to cities that continue to get bigger would have anything to do with the supposed temperature increases being recorded, It also helps that the starting date for references happens to be at the lowest temperature of a mini ice age in 1884 Oh and just a bit of info they have removed the earlier temperatures reading so you can't validate it anymore, how convenient. I wonder what we will do when we destroy the Oxygen creating plants by starving them of their Co2.
@@willdeit6057 Amen, common sense is not that common anymore but it is refreshing when heard!!!! Be Blessed.
It came to mind that major cities are heat sinks, have the most political power in a state, and generally have the same political party. They might advocate more for Climate Change reforms than their cooler rural cousins.
20 Plus years ago I worked on a UK international communications satellite earth station in a rural area on the English/Welsh border.
We had a Met Office weather station on site and were trained to report conditions back to the Met Office every 4 hours. It was an ideal rural location for accurate data. Then the Met Office decided to close that location for some reason. It seems they much prefer data from urban areas and Heathrow airport to bolster the climate warming narrative.
@@roblloyd1879 the outside temperature is always warmer in the city compared to the surrounding farm land..
Two books for people suffering from climate anxiety: "Unsettled" by Stephen Koonin, and "Climate Uncertainty and Risk" by Judith Curry.
@@jeffjohnsonl9883 No, there is a third, and it really is the only one worth reading........ The Bible, it will quash all fear of this world and where it is headed. God has already answered the climate question, in Genesis 8:22.
@@jeffjohnsonl9883 No one knows when the Father will return. We are told to always be prepared. Until Jesus returns. And since the prophecy in the Bible, of the Jews returning to their homeland happened in 1948; we are in the downward spiral. God promised us in Genesis 8:22 that the earth would not be destroyed until His return. Summer, winter, fall and spring, the seasons, and earth would endure to sustain us.
When do we start measuring? The 1800s? Then we have warmed a little. Mideval Warm period? Then we have cooled by 4 degrees. The Roman Warm Period was even warmer than that. Go back to the dinosaurs, and CO2 was 2000ppm, and they had forests pole to pole.
the roman warm period was local, this warming today is global. Thats the difference
The problem is the speed of the changing, and our ability to adapt to the changes without nuking the planet out of fear and greed. It is our survival that we are worried about. And plants and animals. We will have to do something to protect them too.
Ice cores are a thing. We can see back millions of years, actually.
Firstly, the Mediaeval Warm Period was based off extremely localised data collected by a British scientist (Victorian I believe. Not going to bother looking it up again), this scientist studying samples in a very specific area of the Scandinavian region.
It does not confirm that this warm period was in any way extensive, and if you read contemporary writings and look at Mediaeval paintings from elsewhere in Europe, especially Britain, you will see that it was anything but warm at that time.
Core samples from ice/soil and tree rings confirm this.
The same goes for the one that happened in Roman times. Purely localised to the Mediterranean. Indeed, there are Roman artefacts in Britain that have been translated as 'complaints' from Roman soldiers about the constant wet and the cold.
It annoys me that videos like this arise to throw more fuel on old wives tales that climate change deniers latch onto. All your type want is an excuse to do nothing and rebel against any changes governments might try to enforce. So long as you can live out your life, that's all you care about. But your kids, grandkids are going to suffer and die well before their time because of your ignorance and disinterest.
If you think this year's weather extremes are bad enough (and I'm sure you're really having trouble trying to dismiss them as just a little hiccup in the climate), just wait until you see what's ahead.
@@shawnmorgan7644 Ice cores are a thing but not millions of years. Throughout the year there are slight warming and cooling events. Enough for the layering scientist see. In the 50s I believe 3 planes were lost on an ice shelf in the arctic circle. When they were rediscovered 20 to 30 years later they were found in a layer of ice the scientists had deemed millions of years old. Same layering and everything. Slight change on a cool day or windy day compared to still wind helps make the layers they see. A small difference can make a big difference.
People need to take a geology class. It explains a lot about our planets history and how drastic temperature and magnetic shifts occured.
@@drganknstein And here I thought we could just walk everywhere,quit using electricity,and die young and we’d be alright.
@@lv4077 ok
I'm glad to hear the truth, not not government BS. ❤
I've known this for years. I've been studying it. Also, space weather and the weak shields are in play here.
The results of this "truth" align pretty exactly with what the government says. We need to be more open minded and actually pay attention to the details and not just what floats our boat.
@@gwwj naw, the government (well, a certain party) pushes this climate crisis nonsense for its own agenda
In the 1970s when I was in GRADE SCHOOL I (and everyone else) was taught about the ICE AGES that have been melting for eons, long before man could have factored in to it at all... Sooooo...
I like it warm. So too does most life. In recorded history, the two periods of warmer temps resulted in a better standard of living for most humans. More plants results in more animals which results in more food. As Seven of Nine said, "We will adapt." On the flip side, ice ages are NOT good for life.
But can we come to a point where the increase in heat starts turning good agricultural land into desert?
I would argue it, although still minimal, has already begun.
its obvious the earth goes through cycles it and always will as long as the sun is there and i highly doubt theres anything will ever be able to do about it, people just capitalize on the fools that believe there lies
I'd say mans part is mostly due to deforestation
Of course it doesn't help but it's not the main cause.
Bombing natural gas pipelines doesn't help
No, no burning fossil fuels for the last 2&1/2 centuries wouldn’t have not a thing to do with it! Yeah right
Never before have there been so many trees on earth as there are today.
china have planted billions of trees since the 1970s its called the great green wall .......
I’ve wondered about this for a long time. Usually science proposes a theory, and then tests it with control groups and test groups. We can’t do that with the climate. If we can’t, how can we tell if climate is changing because of natural cycles or man-made pollution? I think the natural cycles tend to be underplayed, because they can’t be used to call for strict government controls over the population.
As the video explains, these natural cycles can be accurately measured and gaged against historical records.
Said it way better than me
@@securityranger773yes but science chooses not to. Clearly
@morganwin296 it has been done. That's how we know.
@trenttan3779 yes I know and everything science has worked out points to it being cyclical not man driven. Hence why I say they choose to ignore their own evidence
Water vapor is the number one biggest greenhouse gas by a huge margin...so what we really need is an evaporation tax. If that sounds stupid, just remember that carbon taxes are ironically 97% dumber than an evaporation tax.
The warming may not be the fault of humans, but the destruction of earth's forests, ocean and other ecosystems stops the planet from dealing with the changes in the best way possible for us. It's not the change, but the rate of change that stops organisms from being able to adapt, and human activity is making the changes more abrupt and adding additional stresses.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Most humans, animals and plants are forced to rapidly adapt to climate change 4 times a year during the normal seasonal changes. Most deaths have occurred when it stays very cold for too long. The people of Dubai (the most successful city on Earth) live in a dry climate that reaches more than 120F all the time and they succeed just fine: they are even building the Earths longest city, in the desert. The one thing that climate alarmist scientists share in common is their funding sources.
I suggest the following readings:
"Climate Change - 2014 - De Larminat"
"Solving the Climate Puzzle The Sun’s Surprising Role" - Javier Vinós
"FORCE MAJEURE The Sun’s Role in Climate Change" Henrik Svensmark
Sun's role is often grossly (and conveniently) underestimated because most of the times its radiative forcing is considered a direct effect of variations in energy intensity, while it is likely the case that the Sun acts as a control mechanism of other phenomena.
Nobody wants to hear it because there is no financial interests in it. But I am on the same page as you about it. Everything, and I mean everything is a drop in the bucket compared to the power of the sun. If we could somehow harness and bottle up 100% of it's energy for one day we could power humanity in its entirety for thousands of years. People want to point to vehicle emissions, industry, even volcanoes and storms, but they tend to overlook the gigantic ball of fusion the size of thousands of earths up in the sky. It's a huge influence and that's not going to change anytime soon.
@@100percentSNAFU Time we built a Dyson Sphere.
If we did not have a huge industrial complex and maybe 5bn motor vehicles on the road daily around the world I could possibly believe this explanation, but basically this is a sophisticated attempt to really “pull our plonkers “!
Bingo
@@TheWorldRealist I'm sorry you think your opinions outweigh actual science
Stop cutting down all the trees down and Not replacing them.
Agreed.
but, where will they put all the turbines and panels
Plant more firewood!
You have any idea how many are planted every year?!
@@brandi7986yes, we do. But the difference between a tree that's being cut down and the trees being planted is the gigantic difference in scale between the 2.
The average mature tree will sequester something like 46kg of carbon every year.
However, it takes an average of 15 years for a newly planted sapling to offset just the carbon produced during its production from seed collection to its final location.
That's if it survives!
9 out of 10 of its sibling saplings will die soon after planting (meaning that they 'never' pay off the amount of carbon it cost to produce them, the surviving sapling will have to take on that responsibility as well - a significant factor that is never included in the figures).
So, you might be contenting yourself that trees are being constantly replaced, but the carbon/water mass displacement of felled mature to sapling tree exchange is ridiculously out of balance.
Indeed, you would have to plant several thousands to tens of thousands of saplings to replace every mature tree that is felled. That is simply not happening, because if it was, we would 'all' be planting a certain number of trees every year. It would take that much manpower to do so (since we would be trying to replace a mass of mature trees that would cover the size of Scotland at the very least).
This title is a real CLICKBAIT !!
How was it clickbait? They talk exactly about the cause and provides examples of cooling and heating in the past.
Edit: I got to the end and he included humans in it lol
I wasted 90 seconds of my life B4 switching off.
Alarmism denies science.
This channel has been bought by the MAGA corp.
@@kbmblizz1940 then you missed the part you would have agreed with, ironically
In 1800 there were 1 billion humans living on this planet, in 2024 there are 8.1 billion. It’s warmer now because there are 7 billion more people farting 💨
@@JoeSchmow If you really want to limit CO2 emissions you might want to “eliminate “about 7.9 billion people since we all generate 1kilo of CO2 per day..That’s 4 million tons of CO2 a day.
@@lv4077 You'll get sued by the WEF.... that's their idea.
Reducing waste that pollutes the ocean is a good start. Landfills currently should hold garbage and other biodegradable material. The other non-recylables like most plastics should be better contained for long term while cost effective recycling technology is developed. Other hazardous industrial waste should be treated like nuclear waste.
Better yet we should put a big damper on producing so many cheap and single use plastics. Take them out of the equation. We survived for thousands of years without them. Whether or not climate change is human caused or natural, whether or not it is a serious issue or not aside, pollution is a problem no matter what and we don't need to cover the planet with unnatural junk that will never go away. That can't be good long term no matter how you cut it.
The earth will continue to evolve and recycle regardless of human beings effect on earth, we'll be a blip in time in the distant future.
No worries, Earths had an average temperature over 20° hotter than today, a few hundred million years ago
And C02 levels were way higher.
@@raybojr1 Thank you!
And all the people inhabiting the Earth at that time made a living just fine, right? Oh, wait...
All species at the time were perfectly suited to the environment, a single volcanic eruption has more greenhouse gas than humans can create in a year.
@bobbun9630 there actually were advanced civilizations on earth millions of years ago.
The 4pm almost daily occurring storms in Waco Texas are extremely rare now but as a kid I worked at a gas station and seen it almost daily! Now young people in that area have never heard of it because it's typically just high pressure system baking the area most of the summer like a pressure cooker and it takes a big cold front or a hurricane coming inland to break up the high pressure system in the summer. The sky to the west use to get very dark close to 4pm then there would be dumping rain that would cool everything down. I don't live there any longer but family told me for years it's pretty much gone still and rarely rains now unless something dramatic happens like a hurricane or the fall strong cold fronts.
@HUFORIC they'll be back but likely not in your lifetime
Why no one ever considers the temperature of earth's core as a factor for global warming ? ... (through conduction and convection) It is known that nuclear fission also occurs in earth's core.
Lol the only way it could cause a temperature increase would be if the ground had radiant energy caused by heating from magma. Since the earth's crust heats and cools from solar radiation we know that it's not the cores effects. The ground we walk on would have to be hundreds of degrees. We know it's not because we are alive. However, volcanic activities could alter the climate by releasing suffer dioxide, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. All three are green house gasses.
Because nuclear fission occures everywhere where the radioactive materials are present?
And it has been occuring throughout all 5 billion years of Earth's existence? All those numerous cycles of global warming and ice ages?
why do you think no one considers it? this has definietly been studied
The Earth's inherent heat has little to no effect but you make an interesting point about nuclear fusion at the core.
We know that fusion is responsible for transmutation of elements on the sun.
Here's a mind bending hypothesis. Hydrocarbons are a natural result of this process. Meaning that we'll find hydrocarbons no matter how deeply we drill.
Given that drilling in the deepest areas of the ocean where the crust is thinnest have produced evidence of huge abundances of hydrocarbons, I think it logical to assume this is true.
Hydrocarbons are not produced in abundance by decaying plant matter.
Want proof that hydrocarbons are produced in huge amounts by the natural processes found in our universe? Ok.
A light-years long cloud of methane has been discovered in open space. The discovery occurred some years ago. I'll leave it to you to Google.
Also, all of the gas giant planets in our solar system have significant amounts of hydrocarbons in their atmospheres.
Lastly, Titan, one of Saturn's moons has lakes and seas of methane and ethane. I'm pretty confident when I say there has never been life in such abundance, if any, on Titan to produce the prodigious amounts of hydrocarbons found on the surface of Titan.
The hydrocarbons in the Earth's crust will continue to be replenished but our extraction of them might exceed the rate of the replenishment.
Should we strive to find cleaner sources of energy? Absolutely! But, our use of hydrocarbons has a negligible effect on the climate because the natural emissions of CO2 swamp human emissions by a very large factor.
The earth isn't warming. It's a leftist conspiracy theory.
Plant more firewood and wait for the forest fires.
Sometimes it is perhaps forgotten that the reduction of air, water and soil pollution alone are good reasons to take exactly the same measures that have been proposed to slow down global warming.
Civilization is based on burning things for energy. A lot of folks have their $ & livelihood/work/skills invested in continuing fossil ⛽. We really should transition out of Petro as cheap fuel, just for what you said, but also to preserve 🛢️ for truly vital needs, like critical plastics, chemicals. Peak oil is real, coming.
Yep, i can definetlly see nature declining where i live...as population and vehicle per capita grow, more plastic, concrete is replacing vegetation. I had opportunity to work in tropical areas (Carribean, Indonesia) soo much plastic and oil in the port area....to imagine the colorful fish we keep in aquariums are choking on all that.
refreshing to see some actual common sense and real science about this topic!
next, look into the topic of micro nova from our sun, you'll start to see why civilization resets roughly every 6000 years.
We would be warming after the last ice age, but the rate rate is exponentially faster since the introduction of emissions. Do the math.
By your use of the term "exponential" , you demonstrate that you have no concept of what is meant by the term or its mathematical effects or that you are being hyperbolic.
Either way, you are wrong. The increase in the temperature of the planet is not exponential.
Or maybe the earth is going through warming because That's it's cycle after roughly 11,000 years of this ice age?
“Do the math”. What math?
I wish the original Ford shouldn't create, let us go back to horse and the wagon!!
Venus is 480 degrees celsius and theres no humans there.
Nice try, but no cigar. Bernays would be fascinated by how much PR ( propaganda ) has evolved, but he was dealing with a less sophisticated audience with his " torches of freedom.
The title was a crude hook, as those that have seen through the " it's you, it's CO2, Oil will make us boil " have spent many hours comparing the conflicting arguments, and the evidence of their own eyes and ears ( much to the party's disfavour, denying this being their final and most important command ) .
Anyway, I digress ! Here's my narrative :-
Recalling my time as a self identified Green, it was a pleasant identity to have. Other Greens were generally pleasant, nice people, and inoffensive.
We had this common belief that we really cared, felt a responsibility and were prepared to make sacrifices for a greater good. But therein lay the danger.
We didn't regard ourselves as sanctimonious, but behind the facade of our niceness lurked a sanctimonious hubris, in that we regarded people other than ourselves as ignorant and in need of saving.
It began with a love of nature, not a bad thing to have, a dislike of pollution, desolation, and contamination. But contaminated we were, we took the CO2 global warming, climate crisis narrative, hook, line and sinker, with little question, or examination ! Yes the people selling the idea buried us in data, but we didn't choose to examine, or challenge them, we were the chosen, who were out to save the planet.
How many have rewatched Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth ? The first time I watched it I took it as truth, it spurred me on, confirming my belief and reinforcing my self image. Well it didn't stand the test of time, much like Greta's tweets, it's an embarrassment, the crisis failed to emerge.
CVD ! Thank you CVD for opening my eyes. You revealed yourself for what you are, ambitious totalitarian, authoritarian, Malthusians, who hate humanity ! There they all were, the philanthro capitalists who sold me “ Oil will make us boil “ pushing by every means bar physically holding me down, to put an experimental gene therapy into my body, into all our bodies ! You let the mask drop, and as a consequence, I rigorously examined everything you had ever told me and found it wanting !
There is always more than one way to approach a problem, so why not employ all of them ? The problem in your eyes is us, the useless eaters, so how do you reduce our numbers ? Well if you can get them to hate themselves, which a generation or more clearly does ! Get them to identify as a blight on the planet ? And then they might just volunteer, go quietly ? Slowly poisoned by novel “foods”, novel pharmaceuticals, particles sprayed into the air, starving as the politicians who claim to represent them attack the food supply, through austerity because the oil that fuels our prosperity is reduced and removed, or better still casualties to avoidable wars.
Well you misunderstood this former Green ! Yes I love nature, and I love the planet, but I love humanity too. And as for you Malthusians ? You are the problem seeking a solution, and people are starting to realise, so you’d better finish building your bunkers soon !
Well said, the Green movement is very much like a religion in it of itself. The part where you talked about the belief that you could "save" others and that they were viewed as the ignorant masses is spot on. It's how virtually every cult throughout history has operated, but the difference is these cults did not have government on their side (unless you consider the Catholic Church as a cult, which is certainly arguable, but I digress).
I have learned, if nothing else, in life to always be leery of those who come around with the magic advice or product that will "save" you. Whether it's Greenies, Jehovah's Witnesses, or snake oil salesman, it's all the same to me. Thank you for the perspective of someone who was there and part of that "side" themselves, it's very interesting and does not come as a big surprise to me.
All that matters, is global warming happening, yes or no. Most agree it is. The cause is irrelevant. The impact on humans could be catastrophic. All that matters is what we can do about it. How do we adapt as a civilization. Some people feel a natural cause is an excuse to do nothing. This could be a big mistake.
I am just a bit curious as to just how we as humans should adapt to help solve GCC (AGW)… all of humanity deciding to become hunter-gathers again? In that case, IIRC my studies in this area, the entire Earth could support about 10 million people just before the development of agriculture. A whole heck of a lot of us would have to assume the ambient temperature of the local surroundings…you going to volunteer to self-delete for the sake of the planetary environment?😂
Unfortunately, humans need a disaster to take action. The earth and universe don't care that humans exist. Self deletion won't be an issue. Everything we can do is better than just except our fate. Other countries are making changes - EVs, for example. Unfortunately, recent humans have never experienced a major climate change. There are no sure solutions. Our ancestors adapted by changing habits and locations. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't. Nevertheless, they tried. They did what they knew to do at any given moment.
@@josephhouser8188The process to mine the lithium to power the batteries in electric vehicles is as much or more polluting than the emissions from conventional internal combustion vehicles. And it's only going to get worse as lithium reserves are spent and we have to dig deeper to mine more if it. That's clearly not the savior people make it out to be. One of the biggest impacts on the planet is human agriculture. As the population grows, more people need food. So if we are going to be a planet of 8 billion, 10 billion, or more we are going to have to find a way to cope with it. The joke about "self deletion" really wasn't far off if reality. Unless we deleted half the population or more we aren't returning to pre industrial conditions. Obviously that's ludicrous to save people by wiping out others. I personally don't believe the condition is nealy as dire as it is made out to be. Don't forget, there are financial interests and governmental interests in keeping everyone scared and under control. That doesn't mean we should just scorch and salt the entire planet either. There should be a happy medium in everything. This planet is fully capable of accommodating many more than we have now, we just need to take care of it. Doesn't mean ending industry and agriculture, that's suicide. But it does mean not dumping waste everywhere, depleting all the resources, and covering the planet in plastics that will be there for millions of years.
Click bait title: spoiler alert: Warming is pretty much all the fault of humans.
That aside, Note:
* All the research on natural explanations for climate warming get nearly no funding compared to research proving (not really debating) human caused global warming.
* Tonga Eruption Blasted Unprecedented Amount of Water Into Stratosphere. So volcanoes can also push water (the biggest green house gas) into the atmosphere
* The Oceans hold 1000 times the solar energy held on earth than the atmosphere and land. OF COURSE oceans impact the climate, but are nearly totally ignored by climate research. If the oceans warmed or cooled by .0015 C, that would mean as much as the 1.5 C we claim the climate has warmed. And we have no data to measure the "global temperature" of the oceans.
* Stomata proxies do not average Temperature/CO2 levels the same way that ice cores, ocean sediments do. Tree ring data is very unreliable (there are many reasons rings are smaller or larger other than temperatures and CO2 levels. Even within the same tree). Stomata proxies show spikes in temperature and CO2 levels that the other proxies do not, but compare with current observations. Note that climate science almost totally ignores Stomata proxies.
All in all, the video is pretty much a propaganda piece, down playing what we know about natural warming and playing up climate models to support a anthropological global warming (AGW) theory that in fact has no data to support it.
No, warming is not the fault of us humans.
Natural cycles and solar maximum approaching
School boy stuff
@@trapeye0
What does "school boy stuff" even mean?
That scientists that study the sun, volcanoes, cycles in paleo climate, carbon cycles, methane cycles, etc. are all wasting their time because they should know everything by the 6th grade?
@@paulsnow which scientists are you referring to? The new age Muslim scientists that control the narrative, the oil and the universities?
Its the RATE OF CHANGE, of "normal Phenomena" hat has increased by human behavior, Article is misleading
Not true
How exactly?? Back up your claim
Article seems to be working as designed.
Humans are definitely a factor tho
we did this for sure. Once we have totally messed things up the planet will bounce back. The trees will come back and perhaps new animals will begin. Humans are going to decline. Sadly this appears to be our future
The latest studies show that since the last ice age, more or less 20,000 years ago, the global temperature has slowly increased to the level prior to the industrial age. With the onset of the industrial age, the temperature has spiked considerably and shows no sign of abating - that increase is directly laid at the feet of human interactions brought on by that age as nothing based on nature alone is significantly different than before that time.
You can play all the games one likes, but that is how it is...
Welp, some nobody in RUclips comments has spoken, so that settles it! 😂
@@100percentSNAFU Yes - it does...
"since the last ice age" Briefly described in the video, but to be clear: Ice ages are long periods of time when ice persists at the Earth's poles. We're in an ice age now. Humanity has always existed in an ice age, as the current ice age is about two and a half million years old. What you mean is "the last glaciation".
As some in these comments have pointed out, the Earth is definitely cooler now than at various points in the past. That isn't an excuse, though, as humanity is a product of, is adapted to, and has no prior experience of a warmer Earth.
Based on the Milankovich cycles, the earth should be cooling.
@@christinearmington Those cycles are just a part of the equation...
There are just 8 billion of us (and counting) eager to feast on this blue ball in space.
It was life itself that created the oxygen rich atmosphere we breath, the fossil fuels we use.
That took millions of years.
We’re consuming, harvesting and destroying the limited resources in a blink of the eye. Thus changing the atmosphere and inducting climate change.
Our impact is huge. Let’s face the truth!
I see you paid no attention here
Are you in need for a lullaby, a fools story or the full story? There is nothing new in this video but it’s biased.
@@bertkok2400 I agree with you, In just 400 Years, out of 2 Billion+ Earth History, We are destroying everything fast ! And in the worst way ! + 8 Billion people on Earth !
@@brandi7986 that’s not true either and I see just your opinion with no arguments. So it’s suggestive
"Brought to you buy the people who make money from oil"
SovietBelka THANK YOU for saying so.
Wow, they even EXPLAINED it to you using easily confirmed facts.
Science deniers, smdh
Man made climate change brought to you by scientists, politicians and con artists like Al Gore making money from it
🤯☠️🐑
Do we make things hotter ? Maybe but are we the primary cause ? I don’t think so. It’s just life and the world is fine. We can always keep trying to do better and we should but the world will last longer than us of that I’m sure. As I’m sure the world is warming on its own. It’s human arrogance to assume what happens in the world begins and ends with us alone.
First you all deny it's happening, now that you cannot deny it anymore, you just claim it's natural. LOL Do you hear yourselves???
We aren't causing it, but we're certainly accelerating it.
By the time anything serious happens, humans will be extinct lol
- We live in the same climate as it was 5 million years ago -
I have an explanation regarding the cause of the climate change and global warming, it is the travel of the universe to the deep past since May 10, 2010.
Each day starting May 10, 2010 takes us 1000 years to the past of the universe.
Today July 03, 2024 the position of our universe is the same as it was 5 million and 168 thousand years ago.
On october 13, 2026 the position of our universe will be at the point 6 million years in the past.
On june 04, 2051 the position of our universe will be at the point 15 million years in the past.
On june 28, 2092 the position of our universe will be at the point 30 million years in the past.
On april 02, 2147 the position of our universe will be at the point 50 million years in the past.
The result is that the universe is heading back to the point where it started and today we live in the same climate as it was 5 million years ago.
Mohamed BOUHAMIDA, teacher of mathematics and a researcher in number theory.
ruclips.net/video/ZFXRGfMENek/видео.html
Anything but CO2, right? Anything but what we have mountains of empirical evidence to prove beyond all doubt? Anything but what 99.9% of all publishing scientists agree on? Ignore all the evidence and invent some pseudoscientific quackery. Is that what you're proposing here?
You are out of date, warming stopped 18 years ago , we are currently in a Maunder minimum, with low solar activity thats why we are experiencing long cold winters and cool wet summers , despite the fiddled data coming from NOAA and the British Met office , low solar activity allows cosmic rays to penetrate our atmosphere which helps cloud formation and in the last 2 years we have had plenty of cloud cover and as I look out my window today the 3rd of July there is a thick blanket of cloud cover .You should also note that yes we are in a warm period of earth's cycle but its the coldest warm period for 18,000 years and the warm periods since then have been steadily decreasing . The earth is due in the next 2,000 years for another glaciation and the climate trend is for cooling with possibly another mini ice age in between. There is no published evidence that co2 , a minor greenhouse gas has any effect on climate or temperature change. The main GHG which no one talks about is water vapour which is about 2% of the atmosphere. C02 is about 0.04% , of which 97% comes from earth's natural sources . Less than 3% comes from human activity
Warming didn't stop 18 years ago. See NASA GLOBAL TEMPERATURE. Cosmic rays reaching earth increased over the last fifty years, which according to contrarian scientists should have caused global COOLING. We've experienced exactly the opposite. The GCR measurements from the 2019-2020 solar minimum actually BROKE 1997'S RECORD BY 25% and were at the highest levels ever recorded.
Cosmic rays and significant climate change have no backing in the scientific data, although Svensmark and others have tried. An increase in clouds both cool the planet by reflecting more sunlight and warm it by trapping more heat. So far in the scientific data, it's a wash. A warming climate results in FEWER clouds, not more, according to the data.
As an aside this will be the last time I will click on any video by Insane Curiosity.
Numerous studies carried out 25-30 years ago clearly showed that CO2 follows temperature. Since CO2 follows temperature it obviously does not control temperature. This video is barking up the wrong tree.
@@craiglowen1470 CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it traps heat, not allowing heat to be released out from the planet thus, raises temperatures, duh
They follow each other. Higher heat thaws permafrost, burns trees, etc. which releases CO2, which prevents more heat from escaping into space, and so on.
@@craiglowen1470 Mr. Einstein here lol. You couldn’t be more wrong.
@@craiglowen1470 CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat and prevents it from escaping into space, heats up the earth, resulting melting, humans injecting more CO2 into the atmosphere from fossil fuels, etc etc, list goes on, leading to more CO2 in the atmosphere increasing temperatures more, creating a runaway effect.
@@marchosiasdiesel5010, it is established that CO2 traps heat. That much is not in question. The more CO2, the more heat. There's no way around that.
it *IS* our fault! CO2-level has increased by over 50% and methane (CH4) has massively increased, compared to pre-industrial times (even N2O is a factor)
we „anti-terraformed“ our homeworld
Yes, and the video admits that in the end, after lying to you with its clickbait title.
Tell yourself that all you want. whether it’s our fault or not It’s still happening and we still have to deal with it. These things are not mutually exclusive.
Oh, it's definitely happening, and the parts that are meaningful are our fault. I'm also pretty confident that we'll do nothing. The greenhouse gas being belched into the atmosphere today will take centuries to have its full effect as the atmosphere, oceans, and even surface will take that long time to reach equilibrium. In the meantime, we can expect far more to be pumped into the atmosphere while Senators promote denial by saying, "Look at the snowball!".
What If a Super-Earth replaced Mars and a Sub-Earth replaced Venus
So what happens to Uranus? 😂
(sry, I just had to say that).
@@mickgatz214 We didnt plan-et yet.
Thank you, Insane Curiosity, for highlighting the true causes of global climate variability even in this age of ever-increasing greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, or at least for the first four out of five factors. I personally think that the last factor is overrated, and there are many more natural factors at play than are discussed in this video.
Also worth pointing out that the eruption of the mainly submarine Hunga Tonga volcano in early 2022 released prodigious amounts of water vapour (by far the most powerful greenhouse gas), warming the atmosphere even to this day. (It didn't release an especially large amount of sulfur dioxide, which leads to global cooling - unlike Pinatubo, Krakatoa, or certainly Tambora.)
Human beings are sadly underinformed.
its just like the movie idiocracy
Humanity is responsible for the changing climate.
So.one would think we could just stop it from happening.
But, we won't...too much money on the table.
There will never be a time when we value anything over money.
Glad to be an older person.
You're asking the wrong question. By tying global warming to human activity, you create a 'them vs us' mindset, allowing 'them' who disagree to argue that it is 'natural' and simply ignore the problem. Of course this is preposterous ... because 'natural' does not mean benign. And of course it is 'mostly' human caused, but rather than blaming each other, we should all concentrate on mitigations and solutions we can all live with. For example, rather than demonizing oil companies, we should hold our noses and work to help them transition to sustainable, yet profitable alternatives.
In the case of a volcanoes and asteroids, which are 'clearly' natural, and definitely not our fault ... we'd all want to find a solution. Global warming should be seen exactly the same way. It doesn't make any difference if it is our fault or a natural cycle ... we still need to figure out what is causing the problem, find a solution, and fix it, because our very existence depends upon getting this done.
Not a bad presentation.At least some of the many factors influencing earth’s atmosphere were discussed, but the interaction between all of these factors are handled in a way that might lead one to conclude that each one was an individual contributor, and there was no potentially complicated interaction between them all. Maybe that was outside of the scope of this particular short piece.Possibly a discussion of the “greenhouse effect” and the contribution of various gases at various concentrations could be done at a different time. If you have a working knowledge of physics, you can further understand the “greenhouse effect “by referring to a paper written about 120 years ago by Max Planck and Karl Swarz child in their study of black body radiation. The greenhouse effect is discussed and the relative contributions of the various greenhouse components is discussed in detail. If you’re able to study this, you will find that CO2’s contribution to warming is logarithmic and much more limited than hypothesized by The current catastrophic anthropogenic CO2 mediated climate change narrative.
Not a bad presentation.At least some of the many factors influencing earth’s atmosphere were discussed, but the interaction between all of these factors are handled in a way that might lead one to conclude that each one was an individual contributor, and there was no potentially complicated interaction between them all. Maybe that was outside of the scope of this particular short piece.Possibly a discussion of the “greenhouse effect” and the contribution of various gases at various concentrations could be done at a different time. If you have a working knowledge of physics, you can further understand the “greenhouse effect “by referring to a paper written about 120 years ago by Max Planck and Karl Swarz child in their study of black body radiation. The greenhouse effect is discussed and the relative contributions of the various greenhouse components is discussed in detail. If you’re able to study this, you will find that CO2’s contribution to warming is logarithmic and much more limited than hypothesized by The current catastrophic anthropogenic CO2 mediated climate change narrative.
We keep hearing abouy how humam activity is.mainly responsible, But it isn't cars or any individual. The reality is we need to shift the reponsibility back to the corperations. Becaude they are the manufacturer's. But manufactuers want to blame individuals. So, as a group we can buy less things. Make our own supplies and drive less, but it is such a drop in the bucket of what is really being manufactuered for governments.
Be that as it may this is the way I see it: Wondering if human beings have reached a point if they can be considered a force of nature? Take a look at the feed from ISS while on the night side. One can clearly see that we shoved nature in the tiny unlit spots which do not allow a sustainable ecosystem existence, we created huge highways in the way of great migrations effectively interrupting them. With most of the world "still to develop" ecosystems don't stand a chance and that's our biggest problem. Furthermore, if the summer is unbearable, there's solid science on the fact that putting an extra layer or a blanket will not be beneficial...
Considering all other planets in the solar system are going through environmental changes similar to the Earth, it's more likely to believe that there are external forces at play.
Correlation does not equal Causation. Also, not a single model has ever been completed that took into account all environmental aspects, synchronicities, and perturbations. They all omit one or more critical datasets to suit the benefactor of the study.
Now, if we talk about ecosystem destruction, the chemicals in our water, the land killed by pesticides, the waste we've allowed due to greed, then I'm all for saying that Humans caused all of that, but in no way have we changed the climate, and even if we had an impact it would be quite small compared to other larger factors, like the SUN and the fact that the Earths' protective magnetic field is collapsing, which allows more solar radiation to enter our atmosphere, causing more storms, adverse weather, change in climate patterns, polar vortices, atmospheric rivers, and pretty much everything else we've been experiencing.
Climate alarmists have been around since the science has been invented, and they've all been wrong.
I think we can positively affect anything we choose to. We just need information that we can use to develop methods and means by which we can take action. However, 10,000 years is a fairly miniscule sample. Im pretty sure we can delve back more than 2 million years and see more of the picture. Undeniably, we do contribute to climate change and changes in everything else on the planet. We need to be cautious and judicious. We also need to be reasonable and patient. We are working on solutions and we need more data to make more accurate predictions for how well and enduring our efforts will be. We also need to develop solutions for scaling things back when we need to. I'm hopeful for the future. 😊
Undeniably, both natural and human influences are at play. The key, is both the actual changes, and the rate of those changes. The greatest disadvantage that the majority of people have, is that the individual human lifetime is not even a proverbial wink of an eye, compared to the geological time-scale. A mini example of this is Mount Etna. We know from what are actually recent eruptions that there have been catastrophic events, yet the 6 million humans living close, are largely oblivious to this.
You simply can't force developing nations to stop doing exactly what we did to get to where we are today. They want what we have and darn the consequences to get there. As Greta would say... HOW DARE YOU! Don't sit on your high horse and tell others they can't want to do better for themselves.
I'm gonna be real Simplistic nature wants to do away with Mankind it can be done easily. Yes, we just went through a pandemic. We are frail creatures. So basically the planet is warming.
And I just say enjoy the ride there's not much we can do about it. But I also believe we must be better stewards to our world.
What effects does man have on the natural climate control by putting out all the fires caused by lightning strikes, which could potentially burn for weeks, months or longer. Would that not also warm up then cool the planet. We have sped up the inevitable but we need to adapt not blame. For with out the industrial revolution (which goes back to the first blacksmith) our existence, knowledge and technology would not be possible
Want some peace of mind just try and learn all you can of human history. Learn in all sources you can find. This will help you understand that people create a lot of needless crazy shit in their heads that result in anxiety and violent behavior. Basically most of our problems throughout history started by random crazy bullshit in our own heads. So just relax and enjoy your damn life’s, it’s the only one you have.
it's not about opinion. Calculating the effect suffices. the additional greenhouse gases are solely responsible. The earth would slightly cool because of the milancovic cycles. That's very well understood and would be reflected by measurements right now, if only we didn't release the stored carbon from millions of years.
Has any one researched or considered the effects man is having on the earth's magnetic field, with all our power grids and now with all the electric vehicles and equipment society is now using and will increase the use of over the next several years (till we find a problem with that). If I'm not mistaken the majority of which is concentrated in the northern hemisphere. Could it not cause an imbalance to the geomagnetic field of some form.?
Even as temperatures increase, burying one's head in the sand on how to deal with it does no good. If you also contribute to it, you're not helping yourself, you're helping the temperature increase. So laying faults aside, realize that if the video says the temperature will continue to increase but you're happy to say its not our fault and thumb your nose at the climate change folks, you're still in the same hot water, so enjoy silently boiling about that.
Maybe sea mounds saturate the local areas with co2 etc more than expected being transported in currents to the surface where pressure releases it into air currents. Particulate matter and surface charge do their thing harder while excited every time our star belches energy our way , ozone loss and particulate matter while doped up on star sauce breeds hurricanes and tornadoes as ferrel air currents dive south and mash around. A tragic hoolahoop ride around a galaxy washed this way and that like a drunkard may have percentiles of ownership as well .😊 Random thoughts eh
Next video from “insane curiously” will be called “Earth is actually flat”. What a pile of bs and disinformation. Unsubscribed and disliked.
History shows life on earth does better during warm periods. Plant life does better with more CO2. Better to accept the extra warmth and work to mitigate any negative effects on infrastructure.
The Earth's distance from the Sun determines the Earth's temperature. Our planet is a living breathing entity full of life. We the human race can observe what our planet does to control climate and assist it in its task.
base on your explanation I believe that human consumption on energy isn't cause global warning, but position of solar system in the milky way caused fluctuation in radiation received from neutron belt
Total dishonest clickbait. The title suggests we're not causing today's climate change but the video itself ends up saying that we most certainly are. Yellow journalism at its finest.
“Variations in solar activity can influence earth ‘s climate in several ways, however the direct impact of solar radiation is relatively small compared to other factors such as greenhouse gas emissions…”
Probably the dumbest statement attempting to sound smart ever uttered.
Solar radiation is the ONLY reason the earth is warm. A good example of variation in solar radiation is according to latitude. Does solar radiation at the equator have a greater effect on temperature than at the North Pole? Or does CO2?
If the CO2 levels were 20 times higher than they are today, and the sun did not exist, how much temperature variation would the earth experience?
All the other planets in the solar system have been experiencing higher temperatures for at least a decade. The solar variations at some of the outer planets is minuscule to the point it is difficult to measure- so what next is warming them up? Greenhouse gases ?
It sounds dumb to you but just think about Mercury and Venus. Mercury gets roughly four times the solar radiation that Venus gets but yet Venus is hotter than Mercury. And on Venus, both day and night ate equally hot.
Does it matter if we are at fault or are we going exterminate people to lower the temperatures. If we do the rich should be the first to go as they contribute the most pollution and they have the biggest carbon footprint. But that won’t happen. So let’s just adapt like we have in the past .
Wait a minute, that's not what Al Gore told us. Should he give back the Oscar?
So apparently you didn't watch the video to the end. They pulled the wool over your eyes with their clickbait title. The video simply demonstrates how nature can warm the planet in various ways but then admits that today's climate change is simply man-made.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 simply man made? We've hit the "Override" button?
@@2006gtobob Eleven separate studies confirm the scientific consensus on climate change. Look them up by lead author on Google Scholar: Oreskes, 2004; Doran, 2009; Anderegg, 2010; Cook, 2013; Verheggan, 2014; Stenhouse, 2014; Carlton, 2015; Consensus on Consensus (multiple); 2016; Powell, 2018; Myers, 2020; Lynas/Houlton, 2021.
In 2021, Cornell University surveyed the over 88000 climate studies published from 2012-2020 and tallied a 99.9% consensus that human activity, not nature, is driving today's climate change. Even Exxon's own scientists in leaked memos have acknowledged that combusted fossil fuels are warming the planet to a damaging degree.
Over 80 academies of science and every scientific institution on earth, from NASA to NOAA to the World Meteorological Organization to the over 50,000 physicists in the American Physical Society publicly endorse the consensus position, which is precisely why every nation on earth is a card-carrying member of the IPCC.
See ANALYSIS: WHY SCIENTISTS THINK 100% OF GLOBAL WARMING IS DUE TO HUMANS
@@2006gtobob We didn't hit the override button. Natural warming phases are ushered in by Milankovitch Cycles. All three of those cycles are in COOLING phases now and have nothing to do with today's warming.
For all who want to stop climate change
...
Get a one-way ticket to the moon. That is the only place Im aware of where the climate does not change.
Humans are speeding up the natural process of Global Warming due to an increase in carbon emissions. It may be a small % but it’s still adding to the process.
Ok but by how much faster?
Continue doing this kind of reporting until heatwave temperatures is 60c globally and sea meter rise at least a meter. Then wonder if internet will even still exist.
Not the fault of humans (i.e “not the fault of oil companies”. They can’t deny it anymore, so now they had already come up with this!
Or tax the sunlight to fix it
Were as I do agree with global warming being more natural than Man made, I can't stop thinking about all the A bombs that were tested in the stratosphere back in the 50s,
Why don't anyone mention them when it comes to global warming?
I am a simple person and don't know much, so please prove me wrong on this
We have overwhelming evidence that proves today's climate change is being driven by our CO2 emissions. The consensus among publishing climate scientists is now 99.9%.
Thanks for this comprehensive overview. In summary: climate does change naturally, however the fast and strong current temperature increase is attributable to human activities (GHG emissions).
My view is here: It is scientifically proven that it is indeed human activities through their GHG (greenhouse gases) emissions that disrupt the climate, there is a scientific consensus (more than 99% of published climate studies confirm this), see this study : (pdf doc to download) "Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature", Mark Lynas et al.
Also the IPCC (whose role is to summarize the findings on climate change through checking the various peer-reviewed articles) fully confirms this (to people commenting: please spare us the usual denialist BS on IPCC: this is not because you dislike the findings that it proves the messenger is unfit).
As for thinking for yourself (a classic among “skeptics” of all kinds), here are my thoughts:
1- We know that the temperature is rising (+1.2°C since the start of the industrial era), although it has been generally stable for 10,000 years (with only slight fluctuations).
2- we have known the GHG mechanism for 2 centuries (Fourier, 1824)
3- we know that CO2 is a GHG
4- we measure that the CO2 content is rising (280ppm before the industrial era, now 420ppm) while the other important GHG, water, has a stable content, and more GHG means more heat
5- we know that we emit billions of tonnes of CO2 annually (transport, heating, industry, etc.)
6- we measure that the C14 content of atmospheric CO2 decreases, which confirms that the excess CO2 is fossil carbon (therefore added by man, since the other possible source of fossil carbon, volcanism, emits 100 times less CO2 than human activities).
7- we know that, while the ground temperature rises, the upper layers of the atmosphere (the stratosphere) have been cooling for several decades, which confirms that this is not a warming that comes from the sun or other radiation (otherwise the stratosphere would also heat up) but the effect of GHGs (publication by Syukuro Manabe, Nobel Prize winner in Physics).
8- we have measurements by the Nimbus satellites of the terrestrial radiation, which therefore make it possible to see the radiation that the Earth sends back to space, in relation to the radiation from the terrestrial ground (the difference between the two is therefore what is absorbed by the atmosphere): we can see the bands absorbed by the various GHGs, and especially the absorption by CO2. The shape of the spectrum observed around wavelengths of 15µm (main absorption of CO2 in the infrared) corresponds very well to what the theory of GHGs indicated
9- the climate change deniers, after more than 40 years of in-depth research on the climate (Charney report in 1979 which raised the alarm and prompted numerous studies on the climate) have NO OTHER scientifically plausible explanation other than CO2. For example, “climate cycles” (Milankovic) indicate that we are in an interglacial period with a very stable climate for 11,000 years (end of the last glaciation, the next one is expected in around 50,000 years), or also “cosmic rays” (Svensmark) hypothesis which has been shown to be false.
Thanks for your detailed comment. You make some excellent points backed by scientific research. It's clear that while climate does change naturally, the rapid increase in temperatures we see now is largely due to human activities, especially greenhouse gas emissions.
I didn't think you mentioned anything about the 5 atomic bombs worth of heat equivalent to Hiroshima and nakasaki that human civilization adds to the atmosphere per second?
Maybe I missed that.
Yes, humans, as well as all warm blooded organisms give off heat. So let's kill ourselves to save ourselves 😂
I’m a fan of your documentaries - they’re informative, engaging, and packed with fascinating insights. However, after watching this; Are humans are to blame. I believe, No..but, it’s important to consider a broader spectrum of data that challenges.
Historical data shows that Earth's temperature and CO2 levels have fluctuated naturally over millions of years. The average CO2 level over the last 600 million years was about 2,600 ppm-nearly seven times higher than today’s 400 ppm. CO2 is a natural part of Earth’s cycle and not solely a pollutant.
The sun’s energy output has varied over centuries, significantly impacting Earth’s climate. Increased solar activity has correlated with higher global temperatures, suggesting the sun plays a major role in climate change.
Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows no increase in hurricanes or cyclones over the past 50 years. There’s also been no increase in major tornadoes since 1954, and forest fires have not increased since 1970. Over the past 135 years, droughts have not increased, and water vapor, which makes up 95% of greenhouse gases, plays a more significant role in climate regulation than CO2, which is under 4%.
While the push for net-zero and green technology is well-intentioned, it has drawbacks. Mining for essential minerals is environmentally damaging and relies heavily on fossil fuels. The carbon footprint of electric vehicles is substantial when considering the entire lifecycle.
The drive towards net-zero carbon emissions often overlooks broader factors. Implementing net-zero policies could lead to unintended consequences like energy crises and economic instability. For instance, Germany reverted to coal due to unreliable wind energy, and Sri Lanka faced bankruptcy partly due to environmental policies banning chemical fertilizers.
Humans undoubtedly impact the environment, but attributing climate change solely to human-produced CO2 is an oversimplification. CO2’s modest warming effect and its role as plant food suggest it is only one factor among many influencing our climate.
Let’s continue to explore these complexities in your documentaries. I love the work you do, and adding more diverse perspectives will only enrich the conversation and understanding of our planet’s climate dynamics.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
dont bother with this video, nothing burger, the whole reason ocean temps are increasing is that they are obsorbing more heat by man made emmissions, this video is so stupid!
Relax…fresh water from the melting ice will eventually halt oceanic circulation and vuela…now I’m too cold ..
Do we know the location, quantity and real time thermal output of every hydrothermal vent in the oceans? Is the activity of the Earth's core and what's beneath our feet beyond 6 KM visually proven and known fact as opposed to observed by instrument and based on physics theory? Do we know from observable fact why the magnetic north pole is migrating or why there is the South Atlantic Anomaly? If the World is a patient.....the junior Doctor has done his rounds and he has suggested to the patient with Ebola that they stop smoking, drinking, cut down on sugar and get more exercise then the Ebola will be cured.
We haven't found a cure for cancer but in the space of 200 years we have apparently both caused climate change and diagnosed that we've caused climate change. The Keeling Curve for "1700 - Present" (whilst only recorded in detail since 1958) show an oddly plateaued period during the second world war when factories were working 24/7 on war production and all the activities of war from "leaded" petrol consuming vehicles that were not efficient, all the steam ships and steam trains moving men and equipment around and all that concrete that Nazi Germany poured on countless defences and bunkers etc and then the atomic bombs at the end of WW2, people still burning coal as their main source of home heating resulting in the London smogs followed by loads of global aerial nuclear tests, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the space race etc......but the Keeling Curve only really starts to climb from 1970 onwards and then the climb is surprisingly linear.
As always all the "solutions" involve me replacing existing perfectly good technology (gas boiler, ICE car) with new technology that is much more expensive and often doesn't work as well or breaks down more and all this new technology will invariably have a shorter lifespan than my current technology because it will all have firmware that can't be updated after a couple of years because the manufacturer doesn't exist (or some similar reason) and all of this based on a science that can't even accurately tell me what the weather will do in two weeks time.
IF the carbon dioxide is OUR fault then waiting for us to change to EV's and adopt a carbon neutral way of life is stupid because we should be actively removing carbon from the atmosphere already, not generating a bigger carbon footprint by replacing all the technology so that we can make a theoretical saving in the future. If you pay attention to the people pushing the green agenda you will discover that they don't really want carbon capture or removal technology because the don't want people to hang on to the old technology even if keeping it is a smaller carbon footprint than replacing it. The fact that there are many countries that pollute more than the ones that are switching to more expensive "free energy" renewables, who aren't going to change seems to be lost on the likes of "Just Stop Oil". The fact that there are many regions on this planet where EV's just won't be viable seems to be ignored. The fact that the War in Ukraine has generated absolute tons of carbon that didn't exist before and the World's military can switch to carbon neutral technology will also be ignored...............NOPE............the solution can only be for regular people to spend more money replacing perfectly good technology with more expensive crap so that the Green Agenda can pretend how much better everything is and the Government get fresh income streams from all the new crap technology.
You answered your own question. The exponential rise in pollution from WWII and the reconstruction and baby boom that followed filled the atmosphere with sulfate aerosols, which reflect sunlight and act to cool the planet. During this smoggy period, the aerosols overpowered our CO2. That is, until 1970 when the U.S. passed the Clean Air Act and cleaned up those sun-reflecting emissions. (Other countries adopted their own clean air policies). According to the EPA, clearing the air ended up saving the U.S. alone over $22 trillion in health care costs. Most notably, the clearing allowed CO2 to resume as the dominant pollutant and to rewarm the planet again, just as most scientists predicted it would.
Scientists really aren't quite as dumb as fossil fuel industry propaganda likes to portray them. The problem is that the larger part of our lay audience is missing the complete picture of scientfifc information, making them easy marks for propaganda and disinformation.
global warming tax's & etc... while there is poor people around, the rich will continue to be unaffected...
Somehow this video managed to piss off both proponents and opponents of AGW theory. Well done sir, well done. 😂
As you stated, we have contributed to and possibly accelerated it but it was already happening and would be happening without us. How much we contribute is also a question as while we accelerate it, the question is by how much and when alarmists make predictions that fail or state things then proven false, how can we know to trust our own judgment. Examine using lithium batteries with all their weaknesses catching fire, exploding, vulnerability to cold, the materials they're made from being relatively rare and then all that energy that will be needed to power them up requiring massive levels of solar panels, wind turbines and other energy sources that aren't able to provide for the needs we will have so that some level of fossil fuels will be needed to guarantee we'll have the energy we need. Nuclear is an option but then we don't want a Chernyobl of what happened in Japan happening more regularly because we vastly increase the number of nuclear facilities and we still haven't even figured out the best way to deal with the waste from the ones we have. Solar panels are made from some of the deadliest materials on the planet and wind turbines chop up our birds and tend to explode so they're unsafe and don't tell me they don't chop up birds as we'll have these damn things all over the place and then our governments will start admitting it was true all along.
And what about the trade offs as when the ice thaws, that's more land for us to settle on and, in fact, many of these areas were ice free just a thousand years ago and as the ice melts we are finding proof of human settlements there. More than that, the Viking invasions were made necessary by the northlands they lived on experiencing the Little Ice Age that the climate change alarmists refuse to speak about where their lands began to freeze over because the Winters grew longer and more severe.
The people who gave us the theory of Global Warming also largely turned against it because of how it was being exploited to manipulate people. They told us first about Global Cooling and how man made pollution was causing it. They also said that if we reduced pollution that it would naturally begin to warm again because the end of the Little Ice Age was causing the planet to warm before we entered the period of the World Wars where man made pollution exploded to all time highs. And isn't it funny that as environmentalists began winning their battles by the early to mid 1970s that this is when we saw temperatures begin to rise again... exactly as the founders of the Global Cooling/Global Warming theories told us would happen. And the reason they turned against Global Warming was how politicians and special interests with no idea what they were talking about were making the science look ignorant and the people who believed in it look like fools. Yes, Global Warming was happening and it still is but human activity was never "causing" it as these idiots claimed, it was accelerating it as you and the founders of the theory claimed. It was happening anyway and had man made pollution during the World War period not risen so high that it blocked the suns rays from reaching the planet as they should have, the warming period would have continued unabated.
The reality is we will run out of fossil fuels one day so we need to create alternative energy sources. But we also need to learn to evolve to the changing planet instead of doing what we're doing trying to change the planet instead. Talking about drilling into volcanoes and so forth are insane and yet, some alarmists are trying to get world governments to do just that. We evolved our current way of living during a colder time and what's needed now is evolving more for a warmer climate which we're not doing. We say sea levels will rise and we'll lose coastlands... life migrates and the new unfrozen lands will be where it migrates to. And then we have Antarctice which, as it thaws out, will be habitable for life again where we've only know a relatively dead continent devoid of most life when we know it was was covered by it.
Then we have other revelations such as how during the age of dinosaurs it was up to 20 degrees warmer and there was more carbon in the atmosphere yet they fearmongered about 2% rising of temperatures would burn the planet to a crisp. Truth is that America's corn fields produce more oxygen than all the worlds rainforests combined and where Europe condemns the America's for our environmental problems such as how we cut forests, the US has more trees now than when Columbus arrived and if environmentalists would just step back, we could make the entire Southwest bloom like much of California that was desert until humans brought water there to make them bloom in the 19th century no less. Flooding in the East and drought in the West... geez, sounds like we need a national water pipeline to remove excess water from the regions that flood to the regions experiencing drought and those pipelines could be rigged to generate energy from the water flowing through them.
People concerned about the environment rarely educate themselves and they listen to reactionaries rather than thinkers as we have the ability to deal with these things by acting as stewards of the world if only we let intellects willing to admit what's wrong and then to address it as global warming only started increasing again when the environmentalists began winning their battles and pollution, even for an almost threefold increase in human populations, is actually less in many areas now than in 1970. It's a good thing to care and be concerned, but you cannot just blindly support people with political and financial reasons to push climate change because they will mislead you. And when intellectuals think they know something and the science is firm, if they're wrong it can take a century for all of them to die off so new scientists can replace them. How long did it take for science to accept that birds were avian dinosaurs and dinosaurs had feathers when we had the proof as far back as the 19th century? It got rooted that birds were not dinos but a form of reptile and fossil evidence proving they had feathers was actually hidden from us. Only the internet and the fact scientists who knew the truth could bypass the scientific establishment finally got these facts accepted as truth by bringing their evidence straight to us.
What predictions made by a consensus of mainstream climate scientists have failed to come true? Crackpots and outliers are not the mainstream, by the way. Super important to recognize the difference and the credibidlity gap between them.
Insane Curiosity, for the size of audience you have, doing thorough research prior to making these videos should be top priority. Everything you stated has been proven many times over to not be the cause, at this such drastic rate.
As a long time follower and earth system climate scientist, do your research prior to making a video that thousands will see, overshadowing the work of thousands of quiet scientists around the globe.
Did you watch the video all the way to the end? Despite their grossly misleading title (clickbait), they ended up saying exactly as you did about our culpability and the rate of warming. I saw nothing else dishonest in the video; just the disingenuous title.
I believe that our weakening magnetic field is letting more solar activity through therefore warming up the earth less solar weather is making more issues it is also solar maximum 25 so that's why things are getting a little sketchy, the induction of solar radiation into the earth also causes our earth to react with earthquakes /volcanoes and extreme weather conditions all part of the great universal cycles ✌️💚🍀🙏to all
There is no evidence to support any of this as a driver of today's climate change while there is a mountain of evidence to support a strengthening greenhouse effect from our CO2 emissions.
Humans do affect, but it's just a cherry atop the cake... even if we stopped and evn captured our CO² back, it wouldnt change much, the world would still keep warming
Not true. All three Milankovitch Cycles are in cooling phases now. We're supposed to be cooling now, by about a degree every thousand years.
We had the little ice age and the maunder minimum and then the planets temperature starts to rise. The industrial revolution started at the end of the maunder minimum. Man made global warming is insignificant to NATURAL patterns. Don't worry about it.
The consensus that human activity is increasing the greenhouse effect and in turn is melting the icecaps, raising sea levels, expanding wildfire seasons, intensifying hurricanes, and increasing heatwaves, marine heatwaves, extreme precipitation events, droughts and tick-and-mosquito-borne diseases is now 99.9%, according to the latest survey of the scientific literature by Cornell University. All of these effects will cost the world trillions annually going forward, making any natural climate change in earth's past completely irrelevant.
I think it's a natural fenomenomm of the cycle of the universe and humans have added to the heating.