1:00 and pause. the top is temperature and the bottom is co2. note that co2 lags about 1k years behind temperature. Now, why would that be? As the ice melts, the ground releases co2. It is conceivable that increased co2 could affect temperature, but it seems to have been the other way around for hundreds of thousands of years. When I compared past temps with sunspot data, there seems to be an increase or reduction in the sunspots BEFORE the temperature change. So, first the sun goes through its cycle, then earth temps are affected, then co2 is released or locked away. I know atmospheric gasses can affect temperature, but by how much exactly? here is some links for you guys, look at the sources, not just the sites themselves. second chart has most recent period on the left, showing lowest levels of co2 in hundreds of millions of years, but the highest in the last 2 million years. The second chart tells me that life does great even with high levels of co2. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg --- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
remember folks, a chart doesn't always tell you the truth. It could have data conveniently cut off at a certain date, not letting you in on the whole story. I am an environmentalist. I am a liberal. I will believe science and data, not what someone tells me the data means. By the by, it looks like we are falling in to a glacial period, so get ready for a bunch of climate scientists to blame the cooling on the warming. Yes england will freeze if greenland melts and desalinates and cools the ocean currents. WHEN england freezes, ask yourself if they are testing the salination of the water. These first three years into our GRAND solar minimum are doozies, after that, you have a long wait for it to warm back up again. I included the word 'grand' because it seems all they want to talk about is the 11yr solar minimum. They like to leave out the grand part.
And that heat graph shows that there's a lot of fluctuations. It shows that it's not just going up. It also shows that we had much warmer periods than our current period.
@@larskarlsson1959 Yup. The main difference is that CO2 is not the driver of climate in the glacial cycles. This time it is the driver because of the high excess pumped out in the atmosphere.
Look closely- the chart shows the temperature rises happened before the carbon dioxide increases. So warming caused increase of gases. Not the other way.
Bull shit, Carbon and methane is the by product of life. Warmer climates equals more life more life equals more carbon and methane. The increase of carbon sense the industrial revolution has put more carbon in the atmosphere than ever before it is way higher I mean like really really high, yet temperature is lower than past high peaks. Bull shit carbon and methane does not increase temperature rather the opposite happens.
@@curtiswebber1220 I suggest you perhaps set aside the foul language and consider that warm temperatures, whatever the source, can lead to the release of CO2 that is held in various very natural places.
@@RnanknNope. That is 100% wrong. The temperature rises first and CO2 then follows. I appreciate you may not agree with me, but have a look at the graphs yourself and then decide for yourself. It is as clear as day.
It's not that simple. Temperature and CO2 are interrelated. Warming post ice age typically accelerates the release of CH4 and CO2 into the atmosphere, which drives warming, etc. Try not to apply simplistic analyses to complex systems. The underlying physics of global warming is thoroughly validated and the models based on our understanding of the climate have been good for decades and getting better every year.
Never do I hear about the obvious and profound effects of Solar Cycles or about abrupt and catastrofic climate changes that have in the past been initiated by objects from space colliding into the Earth. Don't let anyone tell you that such events happen only once every so many million years, because these things happen much more often.
Bull shit, Carbon and methane is the by product of life. Warmer climates equals more life more life equals more carbon and methane. The increase of carbon sense the industrial revolution has put more carbon in the atmosphere than ever before it is way higher I mean like really really high, yet temperature is lower than past high peaks. Bull shit carbon and methane does not increase temperature rather the opposite happens.
Perhaps you don't read enough. The solar cycles have been measured and studied in great detail. Bolide impacts have also received a lot of research attention. Neither can account for the current warming.
1) Il est possible que nous soyons à l'origine du changement climatique actuel mais sans preuve irréfutable. L'affirmation sans preuve irréfutable, cela s'appelle une doctrine ou une croyance si vous préférez. Pour moi ce n'est qu'une probabilité statistique comme une autre. 2) Les changements climatiques ont toujours été naturels sachant que l'être humain fait intégralement parti de la nature. 3) Pendant que nous nous laissons endoctrinés par la théorie du changement climatique d'origine humaine, nous ne parlons pas d'une catastrophe bien réelle et réellement provoquée par l'être humain : la pollution. Les pesticides tuent les abeilles et sans abeilles, pas de polinisation. Sans polinisation, plus de fruit et plus de légumes. 4) Voilà quel est le mobile du crime : les lobbies pollueurs
humor helps, right? thank goodness this video shows no 'climate effect' to SE Asia and India.... the monsoon cycle. that would involve 3 billion people... here we are only talking about a billion. plus food. and I'm so glad he didn't mention the 20 to 40 year latency between emissions and effect... and a couple of other things. you too?
The delay for the maximum effect is actually much shorter than 20 to 40 years; iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124002;jsessionid=BC6F9B408139804AB3587C183EE22AAC.c1.iopscience.cld.iop.org
He admits that rapid climate change has already happened several times in the past, long before man was even a factor, then says man might be contributing to our current situation, correlation is not causation.
Wow! The intellectual dishonesty is dense in this section. First off, even if our current warming wasn’t man made and influenced largely by natural forces, saying the the climate has changed rapidly several times in the past doesn’t diminish the potential impacts of our current climate change. Second, don’t pretend like abrupt climate change isn’t going cause HUGE disruptions to society just because it happen before in the past. Don’t forget, humans and civilization for that matter didn’t exist in past abrupt climate changes, so we have no idea,or to an extent, comprehension of the potential impacts abrupt climate change will pose in the in the future in context of civilization. Instead of making misleading statements that have already but refuted A THOUSAND TIMES already, why don’t you all go do some research. And when I say research I mean ACTUAL RESEARCH (Read scientific scholarly articles, journals, books, watch climate documentaries, etc), I guarantee that you haven’t done so AT ALL. Were past climate changes caused by completely natural forces, yes, though this current climate change is largely not caused by those, it mainly caused by us. STOP pretending that climate scientists are not aware of past climate changes or the nature forces behind them, they are the ones that discovered them after all.
how do you know man wasnt a factor in the past? we are still discovering more and more lost civlizations all over the world .. how much more we dont know about our past history, its time to stop being so much arogant and think our modern civlization is something special
@@per2 Do you think that human activity was warming the planet more than the sun itself? If yes, it's hot dude... Stop drinking the IPCC hoax Greta Thunberg style. Tell me why they also spray chemtrails as soon as the sun comes out and the sky is blue, only to end up with a saturated, milky sky and a sweltering atmosphere?
so would he rather go back to the coldest period of the holocene the era we are just coming out of , or back to the warmer times going back 6000 years .?that is what he shows on his ice core video anyway . warmth for most of the last 8000 years ; then precipitous cooling in the last 500 years .
The Ice core video is an excerpt from "Doomsday Called Off", a climate change critical documentary from 2004. Jørgen has expressed support for climate activism since then, which leads me to believe that clip with the ice cores is taken out of context.
Well 3C then 4C then no food production then ? The science does not care about our denial and fears! There is no stopping this train. Plus we are racing to the precipice.
His statements are: The more typical condition of climate is instability. We are lucky to live in a post ice age period of relative stability Don't fxxck with that stability by emitting CO2 like crazy, you don't know how the climate is going to react
Yes I’m not sold on the gas bubbles in these ice cores giving us an accurate reading of ancient atmosphere gases unlike dendrochronology in trees and past rainfalls
what if Jorgen? We have changed the the flow of all the River systems so dramatically that the flow of cooler water into the oceans is affecting things.. What if? The water that is entering the oceanic systems via farming run off has way too much herbicides, pesticides and organic matter.. Or what if? the fact that 7 billion people or living in concentrated areas across the globe , instead of being evenly spread out... My point is, this situation is not happening because of just one thing that we Humans do, ie. carbon output.. It is a combination of a planet struggling to cope with a massively quick population growth.. I bet if you look at the Human population growth against this data many question may be resolved..
@@bjorneriksson6480 They do to an extent. Data from ice cores contribute to our understanding of how CO2 contributes to global temperatures and they show how humans have significantly increased atmospheric C02.
@@QT5656 yes, and ice cores show climate was at its coldest in 1870-ish for the past 10000 years. Thats is ideal climate according to the ipcc. Also ice cores proves climate was 2 deg C warmer than today 7000 years ago. Nothing bad happen.
The fact that it appears we do not know the effect of CO2 and that we are coming to the end of a warming period. The speculation that what we are doing by burning fossile fuels is detrimental to the extent that we can alter the global climate in 100years? The greater threat is pollution and ecosystems we directly affect. By deconstructing our economy which is based on fissile fuels will reduce our ability to research solutions,alternatives and therefore our ability to adapt?
plz tell me how their has been warming and cooling for 13 billion year and CO2 and methane lvls have been larger in some of the warming cycles then we have now
The climate, in the very long term, is mainly determined by the configuration of the continents (which influence the circulation patterns in the oceans and the air and allow or disallow the formation of ice caps), the output of the sun (which increases in luminosity by 1% per 100 million years) and the level of greenhouse gases (mainly CO2, as it is pretty much the only stable greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, methane oxidizes and water vapor rains out). The continental drift and the sun are external factors, but the greenhouse gas concentration both acts upon the climate, as well as is influenced by it. It is both a climate forcing and a feedback. Also, the earth has only existed for 4.5 billion years.
Look at the graph at 1:00 and pause it there. There is a lot of detail here, but look at the onset of the temperature rises (about 375, 245, 140 and 20 on the x axis, on the left of the drak shaded columns). Squint your eyes a little. CO2 is at its lowest THEN temperature starts to rise. So a literal interpretation of this graph is that low CO2 causes temperatures to subsequently rise. The 100% exact opposite of what the climate warming folks will tell you. We might also point out that CO2 lags temperature by some 1000 years. Look at the left hand side of each of the dark shaed regions and you can see it by eye. So temperature controlls CO2, not the other way around. I quite understand that you may not agree with me, so look at it yourself and make up your own mind. My 2p on the matter : AGW is BS and that's all there is to it. But, please make up your own mind. The message from the Prof. is still valid though. The climate does show sudden shifts up and down, without the help of humanity. We might be living in a sudden uptick, but it has nothing much to do with AGW. Cheers, A.
There seem to be some crucial gaps in your knowledge. e.g. 1. On plots such as these 0 often refers to 1950 and therefore don't include the recent warming. If you look up current warming and current CO2 levels the last 70 years do indeed appear to be cut off from the plot. Both are higher today according to ground stations and satellites. 2. Humans have released 2.5 trillion tons of CO2. After absorption by the ocean (and measurable ocean acidification) the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 1.1 trillion tons (after being relatively stable for millennia). 3. The relationship between CO2 and global temperature has been known for over 100 years. Projections made by climate models from the 1970s (including those of Exxon) match current observations very well. The models that don't generally don't because they underestimated green energy contributions and reductions of CO2. 4. The plot for temperature is NOT global, it is just Greenland, so using it alone you cannot infer that CO2 follows temperature. The ground does release CO2 when ice melts and in some regions increases in CO2 may lag temperature rise. However, on a global scale the available evidence suggests and the lag has been overhyped and misrepresented. Please read the actual science not second hand information on blogs, e.g. - Bartoli, G., Hönisch, B. and Zeebe, R.E., 2011. Atmospheric CO2 decline during the Pliocene intensification of Northern Hemisphere glaciations. Paleoceanography, 26(4). - Willeit, M., Ganopolski, A., Calov, R., Robinson, A. and Maslin, M., 2015. The role of CO2 decline for the onset of Northern Hemisphere glaciation. Quaternary Science Reviews, 119, pp.22-34. - Lunt, D.J., Foster, G.L., Haywood, A.M. and Stone, E.J., 2008. Late Pliocene Greenland glaciation controlled by a decline in atmospheric CO2 levels. Nature, 454(7208), pp.1102-1105.
@@QT5656 . Hi thanks for that. For points 1,2,3 I didn't make any comment on such matters. Indeed humans have released a lot of CO2, but on the graph at 1:00 this is not plotted and my comments were related to the historical trends that are plotted there. Certainly on these plots CO2 does lag temperature somewhat obviously. For point 4 I will go and have a read of these papers, thank you for the references. They might be quite illuminating. Cheers, A.
@@andrewbrass5476 The glacial cycles were likely triggered by orbital forcing (the Earth wobbling) and therefore evidence for some lag. However, CO2 release was then quickly important for applifying increases in temperature until processes removed CO2. The current warming cannot be attributed to the Earth wobbling. It's being driven by the extra CO2 from humans.
@@QT5656 Hi, I am still reading the papers. In the meantime I did a back-of-envelope calculation to see what temperature would actually do to the CO2 atmospheric concentration. If we start from the fact that CO2 has a solubility of about 4% per K in sea water and exiting the last ice age warmed us by maybe 8C (vostock core data) then we would expect a 32% shift in solubility. Applying Henrys law this equates to a 32% shift in CO2 levels. Then starting from an ice age level of maybe 210ppm (vostok again) we get an increase to (210*1.32) = 277ppm, pretty close to the pre-industrial 280ppm and no overshoot to be seen. So that looks like the vast majority of CO2 increase is just simple outgassing as T rises and the oceans warm. Did I miss something there? I appreciate the world is much more complex, but it looks pretty close to me. Thanks, A.
@@andrewbrass5476 So what do you think has happened to all of the CO2 that has been released by burning fossils fuels? How do you account for the significant shift towards atmospheric CO2 high in C12?
Listen to the *'Tony Heller'* channel, he proves that climate alarmism is a scam to promote UN Agenda 21. Don't be indoctrinated, avoid the controlled media. Older people know that there have been five fake crises promoted by the globalist controlled media, 1. global cooling scare 2. acid rain scare 3. ozone hole scare 4. global warming scare and now the 5. climate change scare. View *'Tony Heller',* on RUclips, he gives evidence for it being a scam.
much evidence suggests that the atmosphere needs more CO2 for life to prosper. Nature has been removing CO2 from the atmosphere for millions of years. Solar energy is used by plants and plankton, when these lifeforms die they can become trapped under layers of sediment and become coal and oil. Using (burning) these 'fossil fuels' releases a small portion of the stored solar energy and releases the CO2 that the plants and plankton have taken out of the atmosphere. Most of this stored CO2 will never be accessible. All this is explained in simple terms in the video, *'Dr. Patrick Moore - A Dearth of Carbon?'.*
Better start looking to the sun for answers . Look at past climate and past solar projections for correlations in data . We might be about due for a micro nova event .
I gave this one a thumbdowny because of the appallingly-poor quality with some continuous plonking noise while I tried to listen to the scientist bloke informing something, so I gave up. It seemed tentatively that the scientist bloke had something quite interesting to me to say but I'll never know because of the appallingly-poor audio quality. You'll find over the years that poor quality video/audio is the hallmark of an actual good legitimate scientist talk, unfortunately.
@@floroy9265 Possibly my ears amplify the higher frequencies too much. I might be too young, and you're not. All I heard was a continuous, massively annoying, plonking noise. I don't hear that plonking noise at all during my everyday activities so I won't waste my money on a hearing aid.
"We don't know," "could be" or "maybe", that's what I heard him say. The earth is a set of nonlinear systems that change in unpredictable ways. So increased CO2 may help or hinder human life... we just don't know! That is this videos message.
He's just talking exactly how scientists are trained to talk. If you want absolutes you should listen to morons like Steven Crowder. The relationship between CO2 and global temperature has been known for over 100 years. Projections made by climate models from the 1970s (including those of Exxon) match current observations very well. The models that don't generally don't because they underestimated green energy contributions and reductions of CO2.
Guy didnt tell you that the EARTH is currently 3 million miles closer to the SUN during Northern Winter (Lookup precession and milankovitch cycles , it's all a big cycle .. and yeah Planet Earth's climate history is largely unstable and most the time you cant do the kind of farming we do that supplied carbohydrates to feed humanity) BUT keep in mind the Opossum has been around for 450 million years
He said himself that inter glacials last approx 10000 years ours started approx 10 -12,ooo years ago so we better hope that man has increased global warming or we are all in BIG trouble| many more will die from a glaciation event than if the climte gets warmer we are talking billions more people dieing if we enter a full on glaciation event
So there has been archeological record of the Sahara dessert hosting ancient fish and even whale bones suggesting environment change to desert this is why I’m not sold on this climate change thing yet.
The "stable period" is credited with humans developing agriculture and civilization. I contend that there is a strong feedback between human activity and climate. So, it was largely human agriculture and civilization, particularly industrial civilization which altered and stabilized the climate. Until it didn't.
There wasn't then but there is now. You have to consider the impact of the 'recent' human population explosion coupled with industrialisation - Population was just 610 thousand in 1700 and now we're over 8 billion!
His education is in economics and law ...NOT science. Thanks, but I'll go with the people who know what they're talking about, not the University of RUclips.
His logic is really flawed and he attempts to conflate the financial crisis in 2008 with CO2 which is a ridiculous comparison! If we've spent most of the time inside ice ages then it seems to me that adding CO2 'might' help prevent another ice age, not precipitate some runaway global warming scenario.
Bull shit, Carbon and methane is the by product of life. Warmer climates equals more life more life equals more carbon and methane. The increase of carbon sense the industrial revolution has put more carbon in the atmosphere than ever before it is way higher I mean like really really high, yet temperature is lower than past high peaks. Bull shit carbon and methane does not increase temperature rather the opposite happens.
@@urbansoundscapes7734 Those who claim the oceans are rising are buying beachfront properties and own many mansions their carbon footprint is 1000% time my footprint. You are so full of BS so many holes in your argument you can not prove anything correctly you ignore never address the Malkovich solar cycle whereas every 100,000 years this same rise in temp peaks occurs and you do not know but the science community knows all of them know not one of them not know we are still lower than past increase know temp has to continue rising. If man did not exist temp would be the same as it is now and increasing just like it has always. You not that smart. 420 ppm is not harmful to humans. I hope you went to college because in your class room the air is 1000 ppm and in a ship below deck 2000 ppm plants thrive like motherfucker 3000 ppm and barley need water they can sustain a brutal drought. I learn this in high school 1974. Piss off
0:20 The increase in temperature you speak of is not in the unmanipulated record and depends in large part on positive forcing feedback from water vapor which is totally unproven and in real science appears negative. The changes in ice caps and Greenland have no correlation with the rise in man-made CO2.
temp increase is unequivocal, and appears in every data set, as well in thousands of indicators in the natural world, sea level, animal migration, glacier retreat,shrubbification of arctic, loss of arctic sea ice, mass loss in Greenland and Antarctica. see more www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080514/ All data is freely available on line and has been for decades, you can download and play with all you like.
"The changes in ice caps and Greenland have no correlation with the rise in man-made CO2." Not sure what you are trying to argue here. No one said the changes he was talking about had anything to do with human activity. If you are taking about present changes.... no one (also not science in general) claims that any specific natural measure you make is tightly correlated to the Keeling curve. There's way to much noise and inertia for that to be the case. Presenting such an argument is either a misunderstanding of the science, or a deliberate strawman.
For the man-made climate change scammers (Guy McPherson, Bill Nye, Neil Tyson to name some), ;hot, cold, wet, dry anywhere on the planet, there is the proof. You can be sure that if the Arctic and Greenland had more melt this year than average they would be shouting it from the rooftops.
Here you go - how NASA and NOAA were turned into propaganda tools by the Obama administration: @ruclips.net/video/Xpx27-00NgE/видео.html The US Temperature Record : NASA And NOAA Cooking The Books At :35 James Hansen in 1999 laments that the U.S. was not warming even though the U.S. temperature record is reliable and the rest of the world is not At 5:20… NASA changes the good U,S. data record to match the garbage world temperature record At 7:55 January 1989: US Data Since 1895 Fail to Show Warming Trend At 9:35 Measure vs Reported. The BLUE line vs the RED line. At 10:14 the alterations made. At 10:54 adjustments made to exactly match increase in CO2. At 11:30 data from stations is fabricated by NOAA
1:00 and pause. the top is temperature and the bottom is co2. note that co2 lags about 1k years behind temperature. Now, why would that be? As the ice melts, the ground releases co2. It is conceivable that increased co2 could affect temperature, but it seems to have been the other way around for hundreds of thousands of years. When I compared past temps with sunspot data, there seems to be an increase or reduction in the sunspots BEFORE the temperature change. So, first the sun goes through its cycle, then earth temps are affected, then co2 is released or locked away. I know atmospheric gasses can affect temperature, but by how much exactly? here is some links for you guys, look at the sources, not just the sites themselves. second chart has most recent period on the left, showing lowest levels of co2 in hundreds of millions of years, but the highest in the last 2 million years. The second chart tells me that life does great even with high levels of co2. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg --- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
remember folks, a chart doesn't always tell you the truth. It could have data conveniently cut off at a certain date, not letting you in on the whole story. I am an environmentalist. I am a liberal. I will believe science and data, not what someone tells me the data means. By the by, it looks like we are falling in to a glacial period, so get ready for a bunch of climate scientists to blame the cooling on the warming. Yes england will freeze if greenland melts and desalinates and cools the ocean currents. WHEN england freezes, ask yourself if they are testing the salination of the water. These first three years into our GRAND solar minimum are doozies, after that, you have a long wait for it to warm back up again. I included the word 'grand' because it seems all they want to talk about is the 11yr solar minimum. They like to leave out the grand part.
ruclips.net/video/jc8mUI_cMKk/видео.html
And that heat graph shows that there's a lot of fluctuations. It shows that it's not just going up.
It also shows that we had much warmer periods than our current period.
During the glacial cycles, CO2 is a feedback that enhances the warming and cooling caused by orbital variations and the changes of the NH ice sheets.
@@larskarlsson1959 Yup. The main difference is that CO2 is not the driver of climate in the glacial cycles. This time it is the driver because of the high excess pumped out in the atmosphere.
Brilliant. More from Mr Steffensen, please.
Look closely- the chart shows the temperature rises happened before the carbon dioxide increases. So warming caused increase of gases. Not the other way.
Bull shit, Carbon and methane is the by product of life. Warmer climates equals more life more life equals more carbon and methane. The increase of carbon sense the industrial revolution has put more carbon in the atmosphere than ever before it is way higher I mean like really really high, yet temperature is lower than past high peaks. Bull shit carbon and methane does not increase temperature rather the opposite happens.
@@curtiswebber1220 I suggest you perhaps set aside the foul language and consider that warm temperatures, whatever the source, can lead to the release of CO2 that is held in various very natural places.
Warming starts GHG release which provokes further heating. It’s a feedback.
@@RnanknNope. That is 100% wrong. The temperature rises first and CO2 then follows. I appreciate you may not agree with me, but have a look at the graphs yourself and then decide for yourself. It is as clear as day.
It's not that simple. Temperature and CO2 are interrelated. Warming post ice age typically accelerates the release of CH4 and CO2 into the atmosphere, which drives warming, etc. Try not to apply simplistic analyses to complex systems. The underlying physics of global warming is thoroughly validated and the models based on our understanding of the climate have been good for decades and getting better every year.
Never do I hear about the obvious and profound effects of Solar Cycles or about abrupt and catastrofic climate changes that have in the past been initiated by objects from space colliding into the Earth. Don't let anyone tell you that such events happen only once every so many million years, because these things happen much more often.
Bull shit, Carbon and methane is the by product of life. Warmer climates equals more life more life equals more carbon and methane. The increase of carbon sense the industrial revolution has put more carbon in the atmosphere than ever before it is way higher I mean like really really high, yet temperature is lower than past high peaks. Bull shit carbon and methane does not increase temperature rather the opposite happens.
Perhaps you don't read enough. The solar cycles have been measured and studied in great detail. Bolide impacts have also received a lot of research attention. Neither can account for the current warming.
1) Il est possible que nous soyons à l'origine du changement climatique actuel mais sans preuve irréfutable. L'affirmation sans preuve irréfutable, cela s'appelle une doctrine ou une croyance si vous préférez. Pour moi ce n'est qu'une probabilité statistique comme une autre.
2) Les changements climatiques ont toujours été naturels sachant que l'être humain fait intégralement parti de la nature.
3) Pendant que nous nous laissons endoctrinés par la théorie du changement climatique d'origine humaine, nous ne parlons pas d'une catastrophe bien réelle et réellement provoquée par l'être humain : la pollution. Les pesticides tuent les abeilles et sans abeilles, pas de polinisation. Sans polinisation, plus de fruit et plus de légumes.
4) Voilà quel est le mobile du crime : les lobbies pollueurs
humor helps, right? thank goodness this video shows no 'climate effect' to SE Asia and India.... the monsoon cycle. that would involve 3 billion people... here we are only talking about a billion. plus food. and I'm so glad he didn't mention the 20 to 40 year latency between emissions and effect... and a couple of other things. you too?
The delay for the maximum effect is actually much shorter than 20 to 40 years; iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124002;jsessionid=BC6F9B408139804AB3587C183EE22AAC.c1.iopscience.cld.iop.org
why the piano music? It is very irritating. I want to hear the Prof. talk.
He admits that rapid climate change has already happened several times in the past, long before man was even a factor, then says man might be contributing to our current situation, correlation is not causation.
Yup. And he doesn't show any linkage to CO2 content. The Grant money must be great.
He says that during the glacial periods, but during the present interglacial.
Wow! The intellectual dishonesty is dense in this section. First off, even if our current warming wasn’t man made and influenced largely by natural forces, saying the the climate has changed rapidly several times in the past doesn’t diminish the potential impacts of our current climate change. Second, don’t pretend like abrupt climate change isn’t going cause HUGE disruptions to society just because it happen before in the past. Don’t forget, humans and civilization for that matter didn’t exist in past abrupt climate changes, so we have no idea,or to an extent, comprehension of the potential impacts abrupt climate change will pose in the in the future in context of civilization. Instead of making misleading statements that have already but refuted A THOUSAND TIMES already, why don’t you all go do some research. And when I say research I mean ACTUAL RESEARCH (Read scientific scholarly articles, journals, books, watch climate documentaries, etc), I guarantee that you haven’t done so AT ALL. Were past climate changes caused by completely natural forces, yes, though this current climate change is largely not caused by those, it mainly caused by us. STOP pretending that climate scientists are not aware of past climate changes or the nature forces behind them, they are the ones that discovered them after all.
how do you know man wasnt a factor in the past? we are still discovering more and more lost civlizations all over the world .. how much more we dont know about our past history, its time to stop being so much arogant and think our modern civlization is something special
@@per2 Do you think that human activity was warming the planet more than the sun itself? If yes, it's hot dude... Stop drinking the IPCC hoax Greta Thunberg style.
Tell me why they also spray chemtrails as soon as the sun comes out and the sky is blue, only to end up with a saturated, milky sky and a sweltering atmosphere?
so would he rather go back to the coldest period of the holocene the era we are just coming out of , or back to the warmer times going back 6000 years .?that is what he shows on his ice core video anyway . warmth for most of the last 8000 years ; then precipitous cooling in the last 500 years .
The Ice core video is an excerpt from "Doomsday Called Off", a climate change critical documentary from 2004. Jørgen has expressed support for climate activism since then, which leads me to believe that clip with the ice cores is taken out of context.
@@fywq1649 you can’t get funded unless you support alarmism
Well 3C then 4C then no food production then ? The science does not care about our denial and fears! There is no stopping this train. Plus we are racing to the precipice.
BS , these climate change Carbon taxer fascists never want to talk about Desert farming when we have the tech to do so) They are scammers
pfft, we'll be able to grow food, calm down.
His statements are:
The more typical condition of climate is instability.
We are lucky to live in a post ice age period of relative stability
Don't fxxck with that stability by emitting CO2 like crazy, you don't know how the climate is going to react
Yes I’m not sold on the gas bubbles in these ice cores giving us an accurate reading of ancient atmosphere gases unlike dendrochronology in trees and past rainfalls
what if Jorgen? We have changed the the flow of all the River systems so dramatically that the flow of cooler water into the oceans is affecting things.. What if? The water that is entering the oceanic systems via farming run off has way too much herbicides, pesticides and organic matter.. Or what if? the fact that 7 billion people or living in concentrated areas across the globe , instead of being evenly spread out... My point is, this situation is not happening because of just one thing that we Humans do, ie. carbon output.. It is a combination of a planet struggling to cope with a massively quick population growth.. I bet if you look at the Human population growth against this data many question may be resolved..
"Climate is an ill-tempered beast, and we are poking it with sticks" Wally Broecker
climate is a slow moving ocean, and we are poking it with sticks
@@bjorneriksson6480 😂 Your opinion is not supported by evidence. All you have is desperate wishful thinking.
@@QT5656 ice cores tell the tale
@@bjorneriksson6480 They do to an extent. Data from ice cores contribute to our understanding of how CO2 contributes to global temperatures and they show how humans have significantly increased atmospheric C02.
@@QT5656 yes, and ice cores show climate was at its coldest in 1870-ish for the past 10000 years. Thats is ideal climate according to the ipcc. Also ice cores proves climate was 2 deg C warmer than today 7000 years ago. Nothing bad happen.
The fact that it appears we do not know the effect of CO2 and that we are coming to the end of a warming period. The speculation that what we are doing by burning fossile fuels is detrimental to the extent that we can alter the global climate in 100years? The greater threat is pollution and ecosystems we directly affect. By deconstructing our economy which is based on fissile fuels will reduce our ability to research solutions,alternatives and therefore our ability to adapt?
Nope, wrong.
plz tell me how their has been warming and cooling for 13 billion year and CO2 and methane lvls have been larger in some of the warming cycles then we have now
The climate, in the very long term, is mainly determined by the configuration of the continents (which influence the circulation patterns in the oceans and the air and allow or disallow the formation of ice caps), the output of the sun (which increases in luminosity by 1% per 100 million years) and the level of greenhouse gases (mainly CO2, as it is pretty much the only stable greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, methane oxidizes and water vapor rains out).
The continental drift and the sun are external factors, but the greenhouse gas concentration both acts upon the climate, as well as is influenced by it. It is both a climate forcing and a feedback.
Also, the earth has only existed for 4.5 billion years.
Look at the graph at 1:00 and pause it there. There is a lot of detail here, but look at the onset of the temperature rises (about 375, 245, 140 and 20 on the x axis, on the left of the drak shaded columns). Squint your eyes a little. CO2 is at its lowest THEN temperature starts to rise. So a literal interpretation of this graph is that low CO2 causes temperatures to subsequently rise. The 100% exact opposite of what the climate warming folks will tell you. We might also point out that CO2 lags temperature by some 1000 years. Look at the left hand side of each of the dark shaed regions and you can see it by eye. So temperature controlls CO2, not the other way around.
I quite understand that you may not agree with me, so look at it yourself and make up your own mind. My 2p on the matter : AGW is BS and that's all there is to it. But, please make up your own mind.
The message from the Prof. is still valid though. The climate does show sudden shifts up and down, without the help of humanity. We might be living in a sudden uptick, but it has nothing much to do with AGW.
Cheers,
A.
There seem to be some crucial gaps in your knowledge. e.g.
1. On plots such as these 0 often refers to 1950 and therefore don't include the recent warming. If you look up current warming and current CO2 levels the last 70 years do indeed appear to be cut off from the plot. Both are higher today according to ground stations and satellites.
2. Humans have released 2.5 trillion tons of CO2. After absorption by the ocean (and measurable ocean acidification) the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 1.1 trillion tons (after being relatively stable for millennia).
3. The relationship between CO2 and global temperature has been known for over 100 years. Projections made by climate models from the 1970s (including those of Exxon) match current observations very well. The models that don't generally don't because they underestimated green energy contributions and reductions of CO2.
4. The plot for temperature is NOT global, it is just Greenland, so using it alone you cannot infer that CO2 follows temperature. The ground does release CO2 when ice melts and in some regions increases in CO2 may lag temperature rise. However, on a global scale the available evidence suggests and the lag has been overhyped and misrepresented. Please read the actual science not second hand information on blogs, e.g.
- Bartoli, G., Hönisch, B. and Zeebe, R.E., 2011. Atmospheric CO2 decline during the Pliocene intensification of Northern Hemisphere glaciations. Paleoceanography, 26(4).
- Willeit, M., Ganopolski, A., Calov, R., Robinson, A. and Maslin, M., 2015. The role of CO2 decline for the onset of Northern Hemisphere glaciation. Quaternary Science Reviews, 119, pp.22-34.
- Lunt, D.J., Foster, G.L., Haywood, A.M. and Stone, E.J., 2008. Late Pliocene Greenland glaciation controlled by a decline in atmospheric CO2 levels. Nature, 454(7208), pp.1102-1105.
@@QT5656 . Hi thanks for that.
For points 1,2,3 I didn't make any comment on such matters. Indeed humans have released a lot of CO2, but on the graph at 1:00 this is not plotted and my comments were related to the historical trends that are plotted there. Certainly on these plots CO2 does lag temperature somewhat obviously.
For point 4 I will go and have a read of these papers, thank you for the references. They might be quite illuminating.
Cheers,
A.
@@andrewbrass5476 The glacial cycles were likely triggered by orbital forcing (the Earth wobbling) and therefore evidence for some lag. However, CO2 release was then quickly important for applifying increases in temperature until processes removed CO2. The current warming cannot be attributed to the Earth wobbling. It's being driven by the extra CO2 from humans.
@@QT5656 Hi, I am still reading the papers.
In the meantime I did a back-of-envelope calculation to see what temperature would actually do to the CO2 atmospheric concentration. If we start from the fact that CO2 has a solubility of about 4% per K in sea water and exiting the last ice age warmed us by maybe 8C (vostock core data) then we would expect a 32% shift in solubility. Applying Henrys law this equates to a 32% shift in CO2 levels. Then starting from an ice age level of maybe 210ppm (vostok again) we get an increase to (210*1.32) = 277ppm, pretty close to the pre-industrial 280ppm and no overshoot to be seen.
So that looks like the vast majority of CO2 increase is just simple outgassing as T rises and the oceans warm. Did I miss something there? I appreciate the world is much more complex, but it looks pretty close to me.
Thanks, A.
@@andrewbrass5476 So what do you think has happened to all of the CO2 that has been released by burning fossils fuels? How do you account for the significant shift towards atmospheric CO2 high in C12?
Yes we do know. Read Ruddiman's book, Plows, Plagues and pertroleum
Listen to the *'Tony Heller'* channel, he proves that climate alarmism is a scam to promote UN Agenda 21. Don't be indoctrinated, avoid the controlled media. Older people know that there have been five fake crises promoted by the globalist controlled media, 1. global cooling scare 2. acid rain scare 3. ozone hole scare 4. global warming scare and now the 5. climate change scare. View *'Tony Heller',* on RUclips, he gives evidence for it being a scam.
The science is as plain as your mind and face. Such is fate.
much evidence suggests that the atmosphere needs more CO2 for life to prosper. Nature has been removing CO2 from the atmosphere for millions of years. Solar energy is used by plants and plankton, when these lifeforms die they can become trapped under layers of sediment and become coal and oil. Using (burning) these 'fossil fuels' releases a small portion of the stored solar energy and releases the CO2 that the plants and plankton have taken out of the atmosphere. Most of this stored CO2 will never be accessible.
All this is explained in simple terms in the video, *'Dr. Patrick Moore - A Dearth of Carbon?'.*
Better start looking to the sun for answers . Look at past climate and past solar projections for correlations in data . We might be about due for a micro nova event .
Scientists have. It's not the Sun. It's CO2.
I gave this one a thumbdowny because of the appallingly-poor quality with some continuous plonking noise while I tried to listen to the scientist bloke informing something, so I gave up. It seemed tentatively that the scientist bloke had something quite interesting to me to say but I'll never know because of the appallingly-poor audio quality. You'll find over the years that poor quality video/audio is the hallmark of an actual good legitimate scientist talk, unfortunately.
No disrespect intended,but , you might consider hearing aids, I wear them, I heard his presentation quite well.
@@floroy9265 Possibly my ears amplify the higher frequencies too much. I might be too young, and you're not. All I heard was a continuous, massively annoying, plonking noise. I don't hear that plonking noise at all during my everyday activities so I won't waste my money on a hearing aid.
"We don't know," "could be" or "maybe", that's what I heard him say. The earth is a set of nonlinear systems that change in unpredictable ways. So increased CO2 may help or hinder human life... we just don't know! That is this videos message.
he also said we are rats in a experiment
He's just talking exactly how scientists are trained to talk. If you want absolutes you should listen to morons like Steven Crowder. The relationship between CO2 and global temperature has been known for over 100 years. Projections made by climate models from the 1970s (including those of Exxon) match current observations very well. The models that don't generally don't because they underestimated green energy contributions and reductions of CO2.
What if what if. It haplened in the past and its happenig now. My rolling coal truck has nothing to do with this
Guy didnt tell you that the EARTH is currently 3 million miles closer to the SUN during Northern Winter (Lookup precession and milankovitch cycles , it's all a big cycle .. and yeah Planet Earth's climate history is largely unstable and most the time you cant do the kind of farming we do that supplied carbohydrates to feed humanity) BUT keep in mind the Opossum has been around for 450 million years
He said himself that inter glacials last approx 10000 years ours started approx 10 -12,ooo years ago so we better hope that man has increased global warming or we are all in BIG trouble| many more will die from a glaciation event than if the climte gets warmer we are talking billions more people dieing if we enter a full on glaciation event
So there has been archeological record of the Sahara dessert hosting ancient fish and even whale bones suggesting environment change to desert this is why I’m not sold on this climate change thing yet.
The "stable period" is credited with humans developing agriculture and civilization. I contend that there is a strong feedback between human activity and climate. So, it was largely human agriculture and civilization, particularly industrial civilization which altered and stabilized the climate. Until it didn't.
There wasn't then but there is now. You have to consider the impact of the 'recent' human population explosion coupled with industrialisation - Population was just 610 thousand in 1700 and now we're over 8 billion!
Check out Dr. Ben Davidson if you want to know where we are headed . Spoiler :: it is not going to be getting hotter .
His education is in economics and law ...NOT science. Thanks, but I'll go with the people who know what they're talking about, not the University of RUclips.
His logic is really flawed and he attempts to conflate the financial crisis in 2008 with CO2 which is a ridiculous comparison! If we've spent most of the time inside ice ages then it seems to me that adding CO2 'might' help prevent another ice age, not precipitate some runaway global warming scenario.
Bull shit, Carbon and methane is the by product of life. Warmer climates equals more life more life equals more carbon and methane. The increase of carbon sense the industrial revolution has put more carbon in the atmosphere than ever before it is way higher I mean like really really high, yet temperature is lower than past high peaks. Bull shit carbon and methane does not increase temperature rather the opposite happens.
That's a great insight, maybe you should put yourself forward for a Nobel Prize in climate science?
@@urbansoundscapes7734 Those who claim the oceans are rising are buying beachfront properties and own many mansions their carbon footprint is 1000% time my footprint. You are so full of BS so many holes in your argument you can not prove anything correctly you ignore never address the Malkovich solar cycle whereas every 100,000 years this same rise in temp peaks occurs and you do not know but the science community knows all of them know not one of them not know we are still lower than past increase know temp has to continue rising. If man did not exist temp would be the same as it is now and increasing just like it has always. You not that smart. 420 ppm is not harmful to humans. I hope you went to college because in your class room the air is 1000 ppm and in a ship below deck 2000 ppm plants thrive like motherfucker 3000 ppm and barley need water they can sustain a brutal drought. I learn this in high school 1974. Piss off
0:20 The increase in temperature you speak of is not in the unmanipulated record and depends in large part on positive forcing feedback from water vapor which is totally unproven and in real science appears negative.
The changes in ice caps and Greenland have no correlation with the rise in man-made CO2.
temp increase is unequivocal, and appears in every data set, as well in thousands of indicators in the natural world, sea level, animal migration, glacier retreat,shrubbification of arctic, loss of arctic sea ice, mass loss in Greenland and Antarctica. see more www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080514/
All data is freely available on line and has been for decades, you can download and play with all you like.
"The changes in ice caps and Greenland have no correlation with the rise in man-made CO2."
Not sure what you are trying to argue here.
No one said the changes he was talking about had anything to do with human activity.
If you are taking about present changes.... no one (also not science in general) claims that any specific natural measure you make is tightly correlated to the Keeling curve. There's way to much noise and inertia for that to be the case. Presenting such an argument is either a misunderstanding of the science, or a deliberate strawman.
For the man-made climate change scammers (Guy McPherson, Bill Nye, Neil Tyson to name some), ;hot, cold, wet, dry anywhere on the planet, there is the proof. You can be sure that if the Arctic and Greenland had more melt this year than average they would be shouting it from the rooftops.
so you have no data, no reference, no sources, no foundation - just your half baked notions. Thanks for playing.
Here you go - how NASA and NOAA were turned into propaganda tools by the Obama administration:
@ruclips.net/video/Xpx27-00NgE/видео.html
The US Temperature Record : NASA And NOAA Cooking The Books
At :35 James Hansen in 1999 laments that the U.S. was not warming even though the U.S. temperature record is reliable and the rest of the world is not
At 5:20… NASA changes the good U,S. data record to match the garbage world temperature record
At 7:55 January 1989: US Data Since 1895 Fail to Show Warming Trend
At 9:35 Measure vs Reported. The BLUE line vs the RED line.
At 10:14 the alterations made. At 10:54 adjustments made to exactly match increase in CO2.
At 11:30 data from stations is fabricated by NOAA
This man is an ICE HOLE!!