yet this is better than any show discovery channel did with their over reliance on using Neil De Grasse Tysona nd Michio Kakus trite simplification that disseminate incorrect information about how physics work.
*+Skinnymarks* It really is one of the best, if not _the_ best among the science channels. Superb production quality, no ADHD jump-cuts and truly challenging content for the scientifically literate layman. I hope the host gets lots of praise aside from the RUclips votes.
Adrian well, he is a PhD physicist. As for the content it's hard to say how many people's hands are in the production. But I'm loving PBS youtube programming.
+Skinnymarks Theoretical physicist! A mathemagician! Classical physics has nothing to do with computers being used to explain shit. Theoretical physics can prove that an elephant can hang from a cliff, with his tail tied to a daisy. Do you believe an elephant can do that just because math says so? Like black holes. Pure math. Explain how a theoretical object with an asymptotical curve, can interact with anything on the other side of the rubber spacetime sheet?...you know, the one that Michu uses gravity to explain gravity? If you want to embarrass a theoretical physicist, ask how a magnet works or how Einstein could remove the aether from Maxwell's equation without explaining? Have them explain what a point is. Fact is, kissing your professors ass while bowing to textbooks, doesn't make you smarter. It locks you into certainty and that is not science! It's culture. No wonder we've had only technological advances for the last 100 years.
i guess, but wouldn't it be funny if the term 'global warming' created a binary that never existed. Global.. it's implied that the globe is even the real plane we live upon. They've already got your mind at that point. I'm no flat earther, but the globe model is bs
Between cuts, he’s feverishly popping Claritin and sneezing. Poor man! Addiction is difficult, especially the “rubbing cats in my face, while having an allergy to cats” or “Meow” addiction. Just horrible.
@@mdbritton9424 The computer is doing all the work. Without the computer, this man will take probably another 2000 million years to come up with the same calculation Milankovitch did. Milankovitch discovered it, This guy simply copies it onto the computer.
Note that in the age when Dinosaurs roamed the Earth, there were no ice ages, and it lasted a LONG time. The current cycles of ice ages started when continental drift moved Antarctica to the south pole and isolated the North Pole from the oceans, allowing permanent ice to accumulate there and blocking ocean currents from moving warm water across the poles.
Most of your statement is correct a repeat of what he said until you get to the point of stating that the Continental drift allowed ice to form at the poles. The breaking up of Pangea did affect global temperatures but maybe you missed the part where Antarctica was a lush rainforest during the dinosaur era. The polar ice caps came later
@@nickisnyder3450 I didn't miss it. Antarctica was NOT at the South pole when it was a rainforest. Ever. It became an icecap when continental drift moved it from an equatorial latitude down to the south pole. Did I not make that part clear?
A bunch of children reading pre written garbage science off of a teleprompter is only impressive to children who have been taught to listen , repeat, and that have not been taught any form of critical thinking whatsoever. Thanks for nothing Propaganda Broadcasting System.
@@AboveandBeyond44 yes, he sucks big time, doesn't understand what he's saying, speaks much too fast with big words and tries to fool us by accenting speech with hand gestures..
Congrats on a well produced video. It's worth noting that the Holocene climate has had ~9 warm / cool periods within the Holocene Maximum occurring during the stone age. The last major cooling (mini Ice Age) lasted for 500 years with the climate starting to warm early in the nineteenth century. Volcanic activity is believed to be a major contributor to these temperature variations.
Four years later and I'm now seeing videos predicting blue ocean events in the Artic region and Russian strengthening it's military in the Arctic for new trade routes.
probably just a coincidence, remember that these events occur on a dozen thousand year cadence, so there's no way you would notice any significant change in just 4 years.
@@Tom-oz7iy ...which still happens over decades, so doubtful you'd be able to personally notice any difference directly attributed to this effect in just 4 years.
Wow! This means things are always different. It also makes the whole “how will I end up in the right place while time traveling if the earths position in space is always changing” thing waaaay more complicated
@@jimmyshrimbe9361 if you could turn back time, you would "turn back" space too ... so you would end up in the same spot you started your time travel from
United Nations Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns, mainly caused by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels. Which is why we must let those Marxist take over the world , we in the USA need to though them out and cut their funding!!!!
@@Rams495 fuck that. In winter you can just wear warmer clothes, what are you going to do in such warm Summers? When being nude doesn't help anymore? I prefer winter any time over summer
Strange we never hear of this on regular T.V. Then again there is very little actual science on T.V. as its purpose is entertainment. Yet people base life decisions based on what they hear on T.V.
United Nations Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns, mainly caused by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels. Which is why we must let those Marxist take over the world , we in the USA need to though them out and cut their funding!!!!
@@scottferguson866 Yep. Everybody thinks CO2 is the only determining factor for climate because they would rather vote for somebody else to “solve” a “problem” they have no understanding of.
Either I missed it or you did not mention another very important affecting climate. That being the Sun. Variations in solar output have significant impact on Earth's climate. And, then, there's the gaseous emissions of volcanoes, Yellow Stone super volcano...
Ok, not to be harsh, but the suns total energy output is very stable over any human conception of time. While it is a fact that its output has increased steadily from first fusion ignition, the change is imperceptible even one millennia to the next. The way earth absorbs the Sun's UV to radio frequencies (gamma and X-ray don't penetrate to the ground in any significant amount) and then re-emits it as infrared is the primary mechanism determining the energy input output balance on our planet. Reducing earth's albedo (reflective index) by melting ice, clearing forest, reducing cloud cover increases the energy not released back into space. How that energy then effects our atmosphere, oceans, and lands is very straightforward to understand: if more enters than leaves there is more energy in the system as time increases. The opposite is true too. The "volatility" of the sun is its ejecta of highly charged particles and plasmas when it's magnetic field becomes looped and twisted. This can have profound but very different consequences too.
@Fred brandon hehehe, probably not the best look to misspell "morons"! I'm not certain what you're objecting to, are you claiming the Sun has a variable energy output and that you can observations/measurements that demonstrate said b behavior? I see references to the Sun "getting brighter"/"It's energy is increasing"/"It can change over days/weeks/months" yet a mechanism or process and how much, how quickly, and who made these findings are NEVER offered in support. In order for such a thing to occur, the Sun would have to increase and decrease the rate at which hydrogen is fused into helium in its core. However, to be stable, a star must possess a balance, the explosive process of fusion is moderated by the immense gravity holding it together. We would, and have in other nearby stars (4-400 light years away) observed this, but in stars much more massive that are also bearing the end of their lives. I suggest the works of Carl Sagan (books not shows) on this and other topics, he is clear, concise and provides excellent visual aids as well as citations of the data used in analysis.
@Fred brandon Let me help you out: www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/solar-events-news/Does-the-Solar-Cycle-Affect-Earths-Climate.html Between the marvel movie reference and "stable doesn't mean no change or variation" which I never wrote, you don't provide any basis for claiming that solar activity, or it's cycles are a contributor to any changes in climate. Your body has a "stable" temperature, as an example. The process of homeostasis allows target values to oscillate around a mean and keep the body in a "stable" range. There's an analogous process in many natural systems including the Sun. If you want to argue against NASA's conclusions it's on your head. I'm also willing to be made aware of ALL new discoveries, but claims don't do it alone, if you can show me solid evidence to support the Sun increasing in output and in turn effecting our climate I will give it a fair read.
I read recently that illumination of our sun is increasing. In the article it was predicted that at the current rate of increase the earth will become uninhabitable by humans in 1.1billion years. I was surprised that the article did not attribute climate change to the sun. I thought maybe the flares brought heat closer to earth, increasing temperatures. That idea was dismissed.
@@skipperx5116 Main sequence stars, or at least those in the Sun's mass range do appear to get hotter and brighter as they age. I remember Carl Sagan had a chapter in the book version of Cosmos titled something like "The last perfect day on Earth" and discussed how it could proceed. I've heard a range from 250 million to 3 billion, but it seems like the projections are tightening around the 1 to 2 billion range as we learn more. I'm excited to see what Webb's observations reveal about this@
RUclips filters videos based on what it believes its viewers will like. Videos on unpopular or controversial topics (Such as climate change) will be automatically filtered out to avoid negative responses unless a viewer has shown a positive interest in that topic in the past. As such this video will not appear to in subscription boxes generally and will have to be sought out deliberately.
Glad to see there are not many climate change deniers here, but that's somewhat expected considering the content PBP Space Time delivers. Not going to be many people who deny science. Congratulations; you're audience is not totally inept, it took me scrolling down two hole pages before I saw a anthropogenic climate change denier, and even then they were not flat out denying that humans play a role.
Give a me a break, I have been drinking and I recently been at work for 10 hours. I think you can forgive someone who is dyslexic for a single typo under those circumstances. Although It does seem like I'm trying to lay it on too think there... But it's all true so w.e.
Booooring... nobody "denies" climate change, or that humans have some effect. Just that humans have an effect worth worrying about. This video actually supports the skeptics case without even trying to (climate change is almost entirely due to natural effects). It even shows the two graphs that indicate CO2 lags behind temperature changes (graphs that warming alarmists don't seem to use so much any more for some strange reason). Maybe you should stop treating science as a religious belief? Might be a start.
I doubt this will be only episode on the subject. This episode might have covered the natural aspect, but it wouldn't surprise me if next week's episode covers the human aspect
Can the current time and earth itself get anymore perfect for us? The planet is in the habitable zone of a medium sized star on the outskirts of a galaxy safely away from black holes or stars going supernova. And it also happens that we r lucky to have the current warmer climates. Really fascinating.
Almost, but not quite :) seems to make more sense that in all that space chances are that this would happen somehow, somewhere. I'm certain is has happened again elsewhere, and will happen again somewhere else.
@@humbledb4jesus No, not really. The only reason we're actually even here is because of those conditions. There is no luck or mythological deity involved - these are only the conditions in which life and intelligent life could have started from without interruption or catastrophe and with stability. Like saying a popcorn kernel popped in a microwave because the heat was part of its destiny.
Given we evolved in this temperature range, it is probably about as good for us as it can be. Of course, if you are a Swedish farmer, you might want more heat, and Africa might like the Mediterranean rain belt moved South over the Sahara again, just like during 20,000 BC, which requires less heat, so it might need work but it can probably be improved on the average.
And....not only that.. but allso...vulcans activitie.....and so much more.... We know something...but...it is so far for enough ore much.. So..all together, reminde me on tribes holy man....and shamans ...which know something....and far for all In short...we do not know enough...
@Nug U There are many cycles from short to long on the sun, we know of the 11 year minima and maxima, then there is the maunder minimums which happen about every 400 years, these bring substantial and dangerous cold, sunspots basically cease for about 30 years. Then there are large timescale cycles which are just discovering some solid evidence for, such as 12-14k years and even longer cycles of 27k or so where many things line up, such as earth pole reversals, possible large sun flaring which might be linked to earthquake activity and volcano eruption and many weather effects which are less understood but cause large scare cooling from cloud formation via increased cosmic ray nucleation in the atmosphere and other things. The science on this stuff is in it's very early stages but evidence is starting to stack up that the sun is one of the core drivers of weather and major natural disaster through history.
95TurboSol we and science like some degree of uniformity.if the meteorologists cant predict next weeks or even tomorows weather then surely they cant predict climate change.solar,vulcan,meteor impacts,earthquakes and effects on the ocean currents as well as chemicals that we inject into the air,all have an effect.so many different,well explained ideas on climate change.Randall Carlson seems quite sane and coherent and he believes that impact events throw things off so much and often that the other more constant and perhaps measureable factors influencing climate,just cant be depended upon to predict climate
Is this like the same ice age we were just a couple of decades away from in 1974? You know, when you've been around a while, you remember how many times they keep changing the bogey man.... until they wind up where they started.
lol hilarious. That said, there ARE folks who actually believe this... sigh. Truth is, there are VERY clear geological footprints (ie, solid evidence) of several recent ice ages - and ZERO evidence of a "biblical scale" flood. Myths of giant floods most probably stem from the huge local floods which occured while the most recent ice sheet was melting.. for example, one of these local floods may have refilled the Mediterranean Sea... VERY major flood, but very far from being worldwide.
You were on the right track talking malankovich cycles, but it has way more to do with the sun & what it's doing. We're along for the ride, plain & simple
He touched on it in the end with the permanent greenhouse effect. But before that I was very curious about what it would mean for the planet as a whole to stop entering into periodic ice ages. Surely it's necessary to some degree?
Until about 2 - 3 million years ago, ice ages were not periodic. Ice ages only became periodic in the Pleistocene epoch. He touched on this at 0:32. You can also see it in the graph at 6:00, where after about 3 million years ago, the periodic fluctuations gradually increased in magnitude. Before that, the fluctuations, though still present, were rather minor, not significant enough to trigger periodic ice ages. When considering the entire history of the Earth, ice ages were the exception rather than the norm (only 15-20% of its history). The most recent ice age prior to the Cenozoic ended in the Permian period, 255 million years ago. EDIT: "Periodic ice age" is an incorrect term. "Glacial period" is the proper term, itself a characteristic feature of an "ice age" / "icehouse period". Icehouse periods consist of alternating glacial and interglacial periods. We are currently in the Holocene interglacial period (began ~11,700 years ago) within the Quaternary glaciation phase (began 2.58 million years ago) of the Late Cenozoic icehouse period (began 34 million years ago, when ice sheets appeared on Antarctica). See the following Wikipedia articles for more info: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation
The next necessity step for the evolution of man is for the earth to not have a Atmosphere , Man would then have to survive more on using technologies and resources of the earth and would be good training for future colonization of space. A organism survives and adepts to overcomes challenges of the environment to survive and reproduce, to easy and the organism could devolve or become lesser. Man has been devolving for a long while.
Did anyone notice, or, better, did anyone know that in that chart he showed around 11:00 you can fairly clearly see that the temperature rise actually preceeds the CO2 rise by a few hundred years? Think about it.
I have to say that I'm not an expert, just someone that has done a lot of research, if anyone knows better or has an explanation, you're welcome to explain
thats false, CO2 followed temperature in the past by about couple of hundred years. because first the ocean heated and than they exhaled CO2. if we really stopped the next ice age it would be the best we did in human history. next ice age die 6 billion people because of cold and starvation
Only politicians put fear, drama and emotion into science… it’s a sales tactic. Don’t buy it! My dad was a scientist, and he never had any fear over human cause climate change, because there’s nothing to fear about it. Warm is overall good for us!
Really interesting and very well explained for the ordinary person like me, who finds this really interesting but requires good explanation.... You tick the box... Thanks
I took some historical geology classes back around 1992 and was told the opposite...we had come out of a mini ice age by 1980 and temps were spiking higher per year than at any time in "meteorological" history.
@@vchism712 Personally, I think everyone who thinks they know is full of sh*t. It's all so politically driven with so many variables, some of which don't even exist yet, that climate science is still more religion than data-driven. For example, climate is very much affected by life on Earth besides our own, and how species will evolve is one such factor. What people will invent. Will we get hit by an asteroid first? Will there be a major volcanic eruption? Will we have a massive nuclear war? Is the footage recently released of a UFO captured by the Navy actually aliens who plan to help a brother out? Or wipe him out? Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Something almost nobody thinks about or neglects to think about or acknowledge is that we are still in a ice age there is still permanent ice on the planet so we are still in the ice age 10,500 BC was the beginning of the end of the last ice age that we are currently still in just thought I'd throw that out there
Almost correct. 14k years ago a glacial ended(i exclude the younger dryas from the glacial.) Currently we are in a interglacial wich will end soon. Gradually we will see glacial conditions again. But we are still in an ice age for almost 3 milion years.
@@ariearie3543 you are correct and 14,000 years ago is 10,500 BC roughly but there is still permanent ice on this planet we are still in the ice age we won't be out of the ice age until all of the ice is melted not just half of it. I guess you could call that an interglacial period and you're correct about it being almost over. Right now the ice in Greenland is growing parts of Antarctica the ice is growing not by a lot mind you but growing nonetheless
Our current inter glacial will not end soon. We should enjoy another 40k years. Thx to a very low eccentricity. We are lucky. Well, I mean if we do not self destruct soon.
My understanding of the Younger-Drayus is that it defines a sudden period of increased cooling that occurred as the last ice age was ending. The effect was to reverse the meltdown that had already begun, and extend the ice age 1to 2,000 years longer. Some speculate that it was the result of a cosmic impact event that plunged the Earth into a global winter, but that's just theoretical. But no other theory of it's cause seems to be better. Some think this was the actual cause of most of North America"s mega mammals at the end of the last ice age, as the return to bitter cold collapsed the ecology. But again, this is only a proposed theory and isn't accepted. And of course, I could be wrong about all of this!! ☺️😉😁
@@mobiusII As I understand it, a proposed theory is a hypo - thesis. Consider the Greek root of theory, hypo thesis, and hypo thetical. A Younger-Drayus impact is a theory as it has been presented with supporting evidences. That this caused the extinction of the N. American mega mammals is a hypothesis, as it is speculative and lacks supporting evidences. But one again
And, once again, I could be wrong about all of this. Also, it's been stated that the southern extension of the Hudson Bay is a n impact crater. But I have no idea how old it is. Does anyone have a reference on that? I have also heard that there's supposed to be an impact crater under the ice sheet on Greenland. But I have no reference's, or idea on what this claim is based. Anyone??
I'd like to see this video redone and including the sun's cycles (Sun spots and activity), and the other green house gasses (water vapor, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, Ozone) included. a more in depth video. one that has some fun math equations.
This is a decent explanation of Millanchovich cycles, as do some of the IPCC models, but I didn't find any consideration of sunspot cycles and their inclusion into the models.John L. Casey's book"Dark Winter" does present a good argument for this data to be included in all future models. It bases its conclusions on sunspot numbers for the past 400 years and their correlation with climate changes. It's real data is available and I checked a single data point that I experienced in the 1986-89 time frame. Florida had a several freezes then and when I looked up the sunspot data, they were at a minimum. Being a long term systems engineering data analyst , my conclusion was the same as Casey's. Checking additional data samples provided more confirming data points. Higher sunspot counts gave higher temperatures. lower sunspot activity gave cooler/lower temperatures. If the IPCC uses this data/ methodology in their models, maybe we'll see different conclusions. So far, if you want grant money you must support the political payroll's position. Just wait a couple of years and see if we need to buy insulation stocks instead of carbon credits. Even Al Gore has changed his song. I don't know what his new title might be, but "baby it's cold outside" might be accurately appropriate. Follow the money, and what answer do you want are not good engineering procedures, although I have seen it done before. No examples due to legal vulnerability. Anyone who thinks this is valid or not, let me know in the comments. I am also posting this to my Facebook page
What they always fail to mention is how insanely powerful albedo feedback is. The total variation of CO2 (assuming we actually have the real variation in the ice cores) would lead to maybe 2 watts per square meter. Albedo feedback is about 20X stronger. Vast ice sheets extend all the way into what are now temperate zones while simultaneously more land is exposed for ice to form on because sea levels drop a hundred meters. Greens today whine about the loss of the trivial amounts of sea ice. But today's sea ice reflects less light than you think in summer (meltwater ponds) and it reflects NO light for about half the year. By comparison, the sea ice during the glacial period extends to within 50 degrees of the equator...which means it provided far more albedo feedback even in the depths of winter than the sea ice we have now does in the summer. And of course the problem with CO2 forcing is that you can't really prove that it does anything. As he described it you'll notice that, human interference or massive eruptions aside, CO2 is in fact a proxy of ocean temperature. Whenever someone says "see, CO2 and temperature match" that's because it's temperature DRIVEN. And the messed up thing is, it doesn't matter if CO2 is contributing or if it did the opposite and magically dampened the changes somehow...since it is temperature driven, so long as the temperature changed in the same way, the CO2 levels would look the same. And...side note...the event that appears to have triggered the unstable climate is the formation of the isthmus of panama, which racially changed ocean circulation.
@Richard Porter OMG WILL YOU GO AWAY DENIER?!? You know damned well we only have 37 days left until we meet global disaster of epic proportions that we will never return from!!!! We know this because 97 percent of scientists AGREED in our shitty survey along time ago.
@@henrikgiese6316 Nope, they are not accounted for, along with other variables. 2 years ago, new data sets have been published which take into account EVERYTHING, and to this day, no study has confirmed man made global warming, using those new criteria. Media chooses not to talk about this, but its happening and they cant run from the truth forever. Check out suspiciousObserver and see for yourself. He links sources in his vid and talks about the subject in great detail and understanding. The subject is far more complex that what the medias simplified, dumb down junk science explanation would lead you to believe.
@@korosensei4384 Checked out the video you appear to reference, looked over the papers. Nothing new there, the papers don't actually support the video. As I expected, given that I've read articles about the effect of solar and interstellar radiation on climate since the '90s. Maybe there is some specific paper you want me to look at? Please provide a link.
I'm starting to notice a rather Pavlovian response in my body to the mere introduction of these vids!😁 I hear the intro...my brain starts to water in anticipation of the intelligent nourishment abt 2b tossed my way. Thanks!😄
@@Gobrech People who developed views based on what they want to think or what they think is appropriate to their political opinions, rather than ones who base their views on the best info available.
It has been flagged as containing topics unlikely to appeal to general audience. (Climate change for one.) It thus gets automatically filtered from most user's lists as youtube assumes you don't want to see it.
Anything that goes against the global warming BS gets censored. This is even happening in school books in Portland. I encourage all Americans to look into the massive amount of low temperature records being registered in the US. The amount of global volcanic activity isn't a coincidence either, it's the ringing bell of an impending Ice Age and one of the effects of the Earth's magnetosphere shutting down. Our magnetosphere is generated by the solar winds...it's shutting down because the sun is 'going to sleep' for about 40/50 years, just like in the 17th century...
Recently watched a documentary, narrated by Leonard Nimoy, filmed in 1978, about the eminent onset of a new ice age, and record low temperatures, snowfalls and glaciation. Got a lot of comments to this, actually I just thought it was funny, or ironic, or short slighted, given the reality of today’s climate. Not pushing this old video as accurate.
@@akossandor469 it's how the data is interpreted. Sea ice today is melting more than twice as fast as was predicted in 2010, how large would the error be at 40 years? That's the point.
@Srewolf wow, are you confused! The data is the data, no one is disputing that. What you are displaying is denial. 98% of world climate scientists agree that man caused climate change is happening and will get worse. Stay in your safe place. When the whole world says you're wrong, maybe you need to rethink your position.
@Srewolf keep digging, denier. You just look really stooopid now. Run along, and let adults deal with what you can't even understand. Sorry you're angry. Ok, no I'm not.
The mountains aren't getting smaller, and the plates move slow, it takes some time for a water planet change temps, solar intensity has a larger than apparent effect within evaporation zones, so it will start to show localization then spread, the ice age will return, but we might be able to slow it even more. The planet gets cold now, you can see it in Asia's topography.
Cycles in climate change that last thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.Yet only in the last 30 years have we collected truly accurate satellite information measuring temp and gases on a global scale.Pretty much nothing for the previous hundred years before that,except from a few scattered weather stations.Before that a few ice and seabed samples that take data from only a couple of specific points on the globe.How can you possibly say man is destroying the climate with such massive margins of error due to timescales involved astronomically, and the way we collect data.
are you suggesting that satellite's didn't exist prior to 1990? or that the data collected was flawed in some way? i agree that human activity can't possibly prevent the next ice age. i'm sceptical if we are even able to slow it down..
@@sixmax11 I think that it is very likely that the next age could be delayed, but given that the narrator states that it may be a 10,000 years at least for two of the three M Cycles to align it may be a moot point. With CO2 rapidly approaching 450ppm and even the possibiility of methane taking off from a massive release from the methane hydrates it would be hundreds of years before a peak level was reached then hundreds if not thousands more years before it cools down. That could still be before those two M Cycles align. Personally I can't wait to see how it plays out!
+lex Tr3, it's not a "cooling cycle" of the sun, it's a solar minimum in solar wind output. The light varies very little. Solar wind, however, varies greatly causing minimums like the one we're currently entering, and like the Maunder Minimum which coincided with the Little Ice Age. That coincidence was more cause and effect than accident. Solar wind minimums allow more cosmic rays to hit Earth, allowing for greater creation of clouds which cool down the planet. We live in a period of CO2 starvation. We almost lost all C3 species (85% of all plants, and 99% of all food crops) when CO2 came within 30 ppm of Lovelock's "Red Line" of extinction (Ref: "Red Line - Carbon Dioxide"). That was 15,000 BC. Humans saved all life on Earth by burning fossil fuels. And life prefers warmth. Just look at the population gradient from poles to equator. The rich, fat cat globalists don't want population to boom all the way to the poles. Good management and compassion could give us several hundred billion people living on Earth. But I doubt it'll ever get that high. Prosperity tends to reduce population growth toward zero. Japan even has negative growth.
In my previous reactions I stayed very businesslike. But really what you are writing here is, well... how to say it politely... I have to think about politeness for a moment... yeah Rubbish will do.
Rod Martin Jr: Don't we have global shortage of drinking water? That would be the factor limiting the population size. Desalination of ocean water is not possible b/c of the pollution. Look at the Pacific, contaminated with Fukushima radiation which causes cancer! Would you want to drink that water? Some radioactive particles stay in the environment for thousands of years!
Many years ago (70', 80's and 90's blur) I watched a college channel lecture about how we were heading into an ice age and he kinda laughed and chanted "global warming, global warming!!" Still watch those channels and a few years ago I caught a much newer lecture by same guy.. He talked about how the models that had been the concensus then had changed and that new observations due to new technologies painted a different picture. There is no coming ice age that would offset the warming trend that has been accelerated and although we can't stop the trend, we can reduce our impact.
gustavo lemos GRAND solor min ice age has STARTED all down hill till 2050s volcanoes and earthquakes will go mad weather summer's hot winter's down down until ice cream sandwich
Dude sounds like you want a frozen world where everything dies instead of a greenhouse world where you could grow plenty of food world wide.. People build small greenhouses in frigid enviorments imagine if they didnt have too. There was tropical forests full of life world wide way back in the day.. But i get it global warming fanatics want the world to freeze and die like their hearts and souls...
Nordic NIGHTMARE. Very funny but you will probably be able to buy a diary in time for the start of another Mini Ice Age, a VERY few years hence, if the current Sunspot Minimum of Cycle 24 which we entered somewhere between 2017 and 2018 , turns out to be a Grand Minimum ie. the complete failure of Cycle 25 to start up. If it doesn't emerge, temps. won't drop like a stone there and then but severe winters will be approaching for a long while and to an alarming degree. Look up Mini Ice age and The Maunder Minimum Real Science and SOUND Global historical evidence is a better bet than half baked, self-appointed, IPCC bribed dabblers with their the programmes and projections. The computer formula for performance is GARBAGE IN = GARBAGE OUT. Asshole Gore predicted the elimination of al polar ice and massive rises in sea level within 7 years..................16years ago. I'm still waiting. He's quite happy to build one of his energy guzzling mansions on the edge of the ocean at sea-level. He knows it's a bloody hoax! He's one nasty piece of work.
MauriatOttolink Hey to you and go check out a channel in here called "Adapt2020"...they are saying essentially what you just said abput the new/modern Maunder Minimum... Also check out the main thread comment I just made right above the comment you replied to in here about the present orbits of all the other planets in the solar system now (I think ALL of the planets have been in the same quadrant for about the last 2 months and it's supposed to continue for the next 2 months or so)...and...hmmm...with all of this gravity coming from just the one quadrant in the sky now...AND how it's been setting this alignment up for however long before about 2 months ago...we've been hearing about a LOT of volcanic activity in the last year or so too hmmm...? Oh and...p.s.: the way you ragged on the "pop star idol" of tree huggers everywhere (Al Gore...ugh)...let me guess...you also agree with how I sometimes like to end my comments and replies with "MAGA 2020"...?
archive.org/details/changeinclimatei00marrrich The change in the climate and its cause, giving the date of the last ice age based on a recent astronomical discovery and geological research : Marriott, R. A. (Reginald Adams), 1857. | we will get warmer winters from now (1857) from 2295 we go to over minimum to next ice age, depending on axis tilt. And they (green maffia) wants us to forget all science & research before they declared CO2 the culprit.
Osama Number5 - Wow, scary stuff. You seem to know a lot about the subject. So the atmospheric temperature will keep rising without pause, untill the temperature becomes deadly? And CO2 is the main driver of climate?
Osama Number5 - So, CO2 control the climate because the global temperature follow the rise in CO2. That is what all scientists believe, anyways. What if we suddenly had a 3 - 4 year periode of global atmospheric temperature drop, at lets say 0,5 degree celsius, even though CO2 was still rising. Would this mean that CO2 does not have a big effect on climate after all?
There is much incertainity, that period is between 25750 years and 25920 years. Astrologically it is 12 x 2150 years, as calculated several millenia ago.
Thank you excellent video I'll have to watch a few more times to try to understand all the different Cycles and shifts that our planet goes through best video thank you so much have a nice day.
It's happened many, many times that CO2 has rapidly risen. He just conveniently ignores all of those times and hopes we don't know about it. The peak reached 7,000 ppm during the Cambrian, but hey let's pretend that didn't happen.
@@joevenuti1201 that was half a billion years ago and you cant really compare it to todays co2 levels easily because the sun was also a lot less intense back then. Co2 concentration didnt even get close to that in the last 500million years.
It's missing that the Carbon released in the atmosphere is being absorbed by plants both in the land and in the oceans. And that more plants means more food from crops to humans and more wild vegetation to feed the wildlife.
In Brazil we are going through a nasty cold winter. If only there was a way of exchanging air masses. Think of an orbital huge air corridor linking regions of the globe. We can dream.
Are we coming into a period of a Grand Solar Minimum plus the effects of Milankovitch Cycle? 2024 Milankovitch center point and then the GSM MIGHT start around 2030? The combined effects leading, not necessarily to ice age glaciation, but to REALLY cold Winters in the Northern Hemisphere. As well as more storms because of the temperature differential between Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
Here are the main influencer in climate: (you got it right focusing on Solar!) #1 Sunlight and that light actually reaching the ground also(not reflected by clouds or dust like from volcanoes or worse) #2 Water Vapor - Primary greenhouse gas forcing warming of tens of degrees next warming #3 Thickness of atmosphere making the surface temperature livable due to pressure and dry adiabatic lapse rate being just right.
Let's just ignore those who do climate shit for a living and put our trust towards the Holy fossil fuel empires and their Madison Avenue spinsters. Hey, have a smoke! For your health! :p
@@b1aflatoxin yes believe everything your science gods tell you and you will be just fine because they are never wrong or and they don't get paid to tell you that.
@@jakedavid557 Wow ok, so you're talking "conspiracy" now? A grand conspiracy where scientist lash their whips at the largest cash rich industries on Earth, ...for research grant money. Because people only get into science because of cushy grants, and not for the "data" or the advancement of human knowledge. Because those corporations WOULD NEVER bend data, or put Dark Money into politics for the sake of their corporate or national enrichment. DERRP! :p
?????? Loner Well here’s the thing, those who know how to survive in arctic/subzero climates can and will much like the Eskimo. There will be chaos and death but only the strong and knowledgeable will make it. Stay warm and I recommend keeping a homemade survival kit just in case, keep spare clothes in it for both cold and warm weather (wool is best but can get heavy) but this depends what you prepare for and your region, pack it with gear you’re familiar with and know how to use. Try to keep it practical and minimal if you can. Mine weighs a bit with my extra items on my person but wearing the winter clothes will Reduce the weight more.
Awesome video. The presentation style is phenomenal. I think it's important to stress one point however, that while our effect is well understood on the surface (CO2 allows light from the sun to pass through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the Earth, which radiates away some of that energy as a longer wavelength IR radiation which CO2 molecules absorb and reradiate out in random directions some of which returns to earth) the overall climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling in the atmosphere is much less certain. Net feedbacks could even be negative, which wouldn't result in much warming. That is where the real question is, what is the net of all feedbacks?
I was pretty sure the bulk of research points to the net feedback being positive, not negative. The big ones are the ice-albedo and oceanic-CO2 feedbacks, which are both positive. There's tons of others, all with varying levels of study and confidence to them. The most significant one with the most significant uncertainties is the overall cloud feedback, but the sum is still positive, and yields an equilibrium climate sensitivity of about +2 to +5 degrees C.
watsisname Going simply by observed temperatures, actual data, I can't see how the net feedbacks could be high, we simply aren't seeing temperatures to match that assertion. So far, we're seeing a centennial trend of about 1.2 C (UAH satellite data V6.0) to 1.8 C at the most (NOAA adjusted ground temperatures).
That's an interesting and tricky area. For one thing 'could be' is not 'will be' and banking on our ignorance as hiding good news is not the best strategy. For another feedbacks could also be much worse. As things sit currently it seems we're still in the driver's seat, our own actions causing the bulk of change, which is a good thing since it means if we stop, warming will.
Gareth Dean Well, that is the other side of the coin, I hope that net feedbacks are low, because if they aren't, we would be in big trouble. Why? China, India and Russia will continue to burn coal and oil for energy. No stopping it. Even Germany is building more coal powered plants. Whatever we do in the USA won't matter. The rest of the world will continue to use cheap energy. If that turns out to be a net positive for humans, awesome, if not...well like I said, I hope that isn't the case, because one way or another, CO2 will increase. Likely doubling towards the end of the century. Time will tell.
Net feedback is obviously always negative, otherwise there would be endless warming until we all burn to crisp. The question is at what temperature the new equilibrium will set in. The US still makes up 16% of global greenhouse emissions, more than Russia and India combined. On a per capita basis the US releases carbon more than 4 times that of China and twice that of EU, so it matters *a lot* what Americans do.
The most recent climate pattern is evidenced in the Vostok Ice Core data covering the last 420k years. If we take this pattern and extend it (a reasonable assumption), the current warm period is due to end, and we'll be thrust into another 90k-year-long ice age. Land suitable for agriculture will be limited to areas nearer the equator, and control of those areas and whatever produces energy could mean wars and would most certainly mean the death of millions or even billions of persons. Recognition of this might soften the misery in the coming centuries, but I rather doubt that will occur. Power will be the dominate goal of those who lack compassion, humility, and vision for our future.
You should have given credits to Dr. Valentina Zharkova for her excellent work She has been explaining this with increasingly accurate data for over a decade
What about the solar activity? It's predicted by NASA that between the years of 2020 and 2025 the sun will undergo the cycle known as solar minimum and it caused the Dalton minimum back in the 1800's where global temperatures dropped globally and they had a year they called "the year without summer". Winter might be coming sooner than we thought
Sam Stark I thought the Year without Summer was attributed to a bunch of fresh water being introduced into the Atlantic from the Canadian Shield and this froze the defrost-like nature of the Atlantic. Essentially, that much fresh water froze its currents temporarily and thus the oceanic breeze wasn’t able to thaw anything.
well with a rise in temperature, you have a rise in humidity caused by the increased amount of water being evaporated and turned into gas, filling the air. this is why i laugh when people freak out and say the planet will become a desert, because it more likely will not be much different than it is now, only about 20-30 degrees warmer with about 40-50% more rainforests, jungles, grass plains, and wetlands. something pretty similar to the Eocene. when it comes to the earth which is if my memory serves me correctly about 75-80% water, warmer is wetter.
co2 has been much higher in history and it's misleading to say that we are in 'uncharted territory'. We have had periods of lush and warm climate with around 1000 ppm and now it's approach 400 ppm. Plants love CO2 of course and an increasing levels of CO2 has benefits including global greening. The other observation is that the time period to the next period of glaciation is a lot closer than stated and that's tied in to Solar activity - something not mentioned in the presentation.
It is true co2 levels were higher during the Mesozoic, just like the man said, which was probably caused by the breakup of Pangaea alongside extreme volcanic activity over thousands of years. Sea levels back then were hundreds of feet higher than today, and half of North America was underwater. Furthermore, over the time-scale of millions of years, the change in solar intensity is a critical factor influencing climate. However, "changes in the rate of solar heating over the last century cannot account for the magnitude of the rise in global mean temperature since the late 1970s." ~www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/effect-of-sun-on-climate-faq.html "Prof. Kießling says, the temperate increase over the Permian-Triassic boundary was no different to current climate change in terms of speed. The increase in temperature during this event is associated with a mass extinction event during which 90 percent of marine animals died out." ~phys.org/news/2015-11-global-fast-today.html
@@Jason918114 - Well, everything I said is absolutely verifiable to the point that it's common knowledge - or should be. Google still works although their algorithms tend to promote the official narrative at the expense of hard science. The higher CO2 levels in the past are easily verifiable as totally factual. The idea that plants thrive on CO2 is also easily verifiable - you should be able to find companies that sell CO2 generating machines to raise CO2 in greenhouses because it significantly increases the rate of growth and ultimate size of the plants in question. The Earth has also witnessed extra greening as a result of higher CO2 in recent years. As for the relative closeness of the next period of glaciation and the fact that the Earth has mostly been periods of ice age with relatively short respites of warmer inter-glacial periods is also 100% fact and easily verifiable. Solar activity and varying distance from the Sun in terms of orbital eccentricity as well as the Earth obliquity are also absolutely verifiable as being by far the most significant factor in Earth's climate - it's rather obvious when we think about it! Here are a few links I can share... pastebin.com/x3qmbBKr
maybe u are just stuck in her cold zone. have u tried repositioning and rotating her? I have seen external stimuli applied along certain areas really have a tremendous effect on thermal output.
Des Troya - It is true. As far as I know the solar activity effect dominate the melankovic effect. The real big question is: What is the climate sensitivity to CO2. He does not say anything about all this and that is very strange.
@@wilmahestepigen8340 "What is the climate sensitivity to CO2. He does not say anything about all this" Huh. He certainly does. Go and watch from 10:56 "CO2 may offset glaciation by 10,000 years" etc
Espiner and Taylor, if you hadn't noticed the record breaking temperatures of the past two decades, despite having moved towards the grand solar minimum that we're in right now, you must have been living under a rock with no TV.
10, 10 000 or 10 trillion years. No difference, since when they're gone you still die. Only eternal life makes a difference, but the fate of the universe doesn't have that on offer so a standard human lifespan is as good as any.
I disagree. If you're talking about the meaning of life and making this very existential then arguing is pointless. If you're talking about a longer life being useless then I totally disagree. If Einstein had 10,000 years to work or Madam Curie or any great thinkers, builders, leaders .. how much more could they accomplish? What about artists, musicians and other creative types? Yes I know a short life is a motivation for some to accomplish more but for those who just have a passion in life ours can be way too short.
Longevity may very well be much closer than many people think. However, I'm not sure we're quite ready for it -- as writers like Simone de Beauvoir and Michael Moorcock have speculated. But then again, when we get longevity into place, we may also have started a fast new evolution, producing from ourselves, through genetic manipulation, a new species much better adapted to the new lifestyle.
If climate change is more than enough to counter the climate cycle and swing the trend upwards, how far can it go? Is there a critical point where the level of CO2 is enough to create a runaway greenhouse effect?
nope negative feedbacks, kick in then, and no it can't become Venus that is total BS you need to thicken the atmosphere to get that >_>, also everything has its saturation point co2 is every increase in temperature takes a doubling of concentration to get the same increase in temperature again
Based on Matts closing comments he indicates correctly that no one knows the answer to that question. The recent changes have no parallel in the geological record, so it could go either way.
3:28 *I remember when I were a 'lad' we 'ad proper winters and had to dig outa 12' snow drift evry moning, afore we could go scool. Used to spend 'appy 'ours playing on sledg and skatin' on local pond that were a foot thick ice. We 'ad to cut down trees fur miles around to lite a miserable fire to stop uselves freezing solid. Each mornin' there were lovely pattern on winders, just like Jack Frost 'ad bin. Tell that kid's turday and they wud stab yer to deth.*
@@redgriffin3923 *Lucky - Global Pandemic with Millions Dying and in the UK the Coldest April on Record - however after lockdown easing are allowed to Drink/Eat Outdoors - Yea Right my Scampi & Chips cold in 4 Minutes and my Pint of xxxxx already Ice Cold I had to eat with a knife & fork.*
The sun is in a solar minimum and has been for several decades. And yet the last five years have been the warmest on record. Thus the sun doesn't explain the current warming.
The "sun simulator" you mean... think on that one for a min and the explanation will come to you. Just sayin' It's hard to wrap your head around at first until you really take a good look around and open your mind to the possibility that technology may be so much more advanced than they will let the general public know.
@@averyhakes7729 Oh, I see! The sun simulator as in accumulating green house gases leading to a gradual warming of the atmosphere making record high temps, drought and flooding all more likely!
Is an Ice Age Coming? | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios 2148pm 29.12.22 i have never had anything like this described before other than a brief nod via the sky at night etc etc.... it's worth listening to as one plays online chess or on-line pool...
The discovery channel style shows of my youth have found new life on RUclips and I'm so into it.
Iuui8i8uui7i7ii8888878887887878888uj8
yet this is better than any show discovery channel did with their over reliance on using Neil De Grasse Tysona nd Michio Kakus trite simplification that disseminate incorrect information about how physics work.
I miss “beyond 2000”
PBS.....always has quality accurate science shows. Not everything on the Discovery Channel was the quality of p b s
I'm glad PBS adapted where other networks refuse to
I've never had Ice Ages and Milankovitch cycles described so interestingly before. Space Time is amazing.
Yes! I love this channel so much.
Like Wise. Climate science meets Astro physics. Very cool.
*+Skinnymarks* It really is one of the best, if not _the_ best among the science channels. Superb production quality, no ADHD jump-cuts and truly challenging content for the scientifically literate layman. I hope the host gets lots of praise aside from the RUclips votes.
Adrian well, he is a PhD physicist. As for the content it's hard to say how many people's hands are in the production.
But I'm loving PBS youtube programming.
+Skinnymarks
Theoretical physicist! A mathemagician!
Classical physics has nothing to do with computers being used to explain shit. Theoretical physics can prove that an elephant can hang from a cliff, with his tail tied to a daisy.
Do you believe an elephant can do that just because math says so?
Like black holes. Pure math. Explain how a theoretical object with an asymptotical curve, can interact with anything on the other side of the rubber spacetime sheet?...you know, the one that Michu uses gravity to explain gravity?
If you want to embarrass a theoretical physicist, ask how a magnet works or how Einstein could remove the aether from Maxwell's equation without explaining? Have them explain what a point is.
Fact is, kissing your professors ass while bowing to textbooks, doesn't make you smarter. It locks you into certainty and that is not science!
It's culture. No wonder we've had only technological advances for the last 100 years.
wouldn't it be funny if in the future we promote global warming to fight off an ice age
We do. It’s called stratospheric arisol injections it’s just said sparsely and half assed. So no one noticed the Un-natural clouds above their heads.
"aerosol"
Altair thank you! Feel like a dip stick. I tried to spell it 4 different ways and it didn’t look ok.
i guess, but wouldn't it be funny if the term 'global warming' created a binary that never existed. Global.. it's implied that the globe is even the real plane we live upon. They've already got your mind at that point. I'm no flat earther, but the globe model is bs
now I'm imagining people in the future protesting in support of snowball earth because "It's natural"
He always has the look of “I’m allergic to cats, I Can’t stop rubbing cats in my face”
Between cuts, he’s feverishly popping Claritin and sneezing. Poor man! Addiction is difficult, especially the “rubbing cats in my face, while having an allergy to cats” or “Meow” addiction.
Just horrible.
Milankovitch spent THOUSANDS OF HOURS doing his calculations by hand. I could duplicate his calculations in a few minutes on my computer. Amazing!
@Chris Manzi When he did his calculations, there was NOT ONE SINGLE COMPUTER ANYWHERE on Planet Earth. His achievement was truly remarkable.
So happy for you
@@mdbritton9424 The computer is doing all the work. Without the computer, this man will take probably another 2000 million years to come up with the same calculation Milankovitch did. Milankovitch discovered it, This guy simply copies it onto the computer.
Try to explain this to someone who has never spent any time in academic pursuit, or tell your cat.
Milankovic cycles mean the Southern Hemisphere is in it's Ice Age presently.
Oops!
Note that in the age when Dinosaurs roamed the Earth, there were no ice ages, and it lasted a LONG time. The current cycles of ice ages started when continental drift moved Antarctica to the south pole and isolated the North Pole from the oceans, allowing permanent ice to accumulate there and blocking ocean currents from moving warm water across the poles.
There's been lots of "ice ages" long ones and short ones , check your geology history !! They usually run after periods of high sun activity !!
Most of your statement is correct a repeat of what he said until you get to the point of stating that the Continental drift allowed ice to form at the poles. The breaking up of Pangea did affect global temperatures but maybe you missed the part where Antarctica was a lush rainforest during the dinosaur era. The polar ice caps came later
@@nickisnyder3450 I didn't miss it. Antarctica was NOT at the South pole when it was a rainforest. Ever. It became an icecap when continental drift moved it from an equatorial latitude down to the south pole. Did I not make that part clear?
@@lildeli3rddimention Maybe half a dozen at most. The last one was 300 000 000 years ago.
@Oh My Oh my Care to document that? I'm pretty sure Amerigo Vespucci (After whom North America was named) Wasn't born yet.
Spoiler: When winter coming, it will only last 3 episodes.
A bunch of children reading pre written garbage science off of a teleprompter is only impressive to children who have been taught to listen , repeat, and that have not been taught any form of critical thinking whatsoever. Thanks for nothing Propaganda Broadcasting System.
3 episodes is 66,000 years
@@AboveandBeyond44 well shiiit nigga
@@AboveandBeyond44 yes, he sucks big time, doesn't understand what he's saying, speaks much too fast with big words and tries to fool us by accenting speech with hand gestures..
Meh. Most world Cities would be buried under 800 meters of solid Ice, so it's not like anyone will be around there to worry about it.
Congrats on a well produced video. It's worth noting that the Holocene climate has had ~9 warm / cool periods within the Holocene Maximum occurring during the stone age. The last major cooling (mini Ice Age) lasted for 500 years with the climate starting to warm early in the nineteenth century. Volcanic activity is believed to be a major contributor to these temperature variations.
How does this help ? Can it stop the criminal activities of Big Pharma?
It started in Europe around 1345-50.
Four years later and I'm now seeing videos predicting blue ocean events in the Artic region and Russian strengthening it's military in the Arctic for new trade routes.
Imagine all the natural resources the elite are eyeing 🧐
Yep, unfortunately that’s what an sea ice free Arctic would do
probably just a coincidence, remember that these events occur on a dozen thousand year cadence, so there's no way you would notice any significant change in just 4 years.
@@BattousaiHBr You are skipping over the affect of CO2 on the entire cycle.
@@Tom-oz7iy ...which still happens over decades, so doubtful you'd be able to personally notice any difference directly attributed to this effect in just 4 years.
Whew! I was worried until I found out I had 10-12 thousand years before I need to keep my winter clothes out all year.
Wow! This means things are always different. It also makes the whole “how will I end up in the right place while time traveling if the earths position in space is always changing” thing waaaay more complicated
space and time are inseparable, no worries
@@ejpmooB how does that fix the problem? Unless you're saying time travel is impossible?
@@jimmyshrimbe9361 if you could turn back time, you would "turn back" space too ... so you would end up in the same spot you started your time travel from
United Nations
Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns, mainly caused by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels. Which is why we must let those Marxist take over the world , we in the USA need to though them out and cut their funding!!!!
In other words, fossil fuels are postponing and reducing the inevitable destruction of the next ice age!
Burn baby, burn!
I don't understand majority of the videos from PBS in depth, don't know much about science, i love the videos and enjoy listening them.
...like leaving the radio on for a dog.
Arf!
During the dinosaur Jurassic period (200 million to 145 million years ago) the CO2 level was 5 times higher than it is now.
Toasty ! and very very green
@@SeaJay_Oceans and big ass insects..
Yeah exactly! I think that would be preferable to 2 miles of ice on Manhattan.
@@Rams495 I've been to Manhattan a few times and I'm not so sure I agree.
@@Rams495 fuck that. In winter you can just wear warmer clothes, what are you going to do in such warm Summers? When being nude doesn't help anymore?
I prefer winter any time over summer
Very informative video! I had no idea there were so many complex cycles affecting the climate. Thank you for explaining it so well.
Strange we never hear of this on regular T.V. Then again there is very little actual science on T.V. as its purpose is entertainment. Yet people base life decisions based on what they hear on T.V.
@@scottferguson866 What the hell is TV? Is that something like my streaming service?
@@Jonbug1 TV is that mind numbing crap, to numb crappy minds;)
United Nations
Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns, mainly caused by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels. Which is why we must let those Marxist take over the world , we in the USA need to though them out and cut their funding!!!!
@@scottferguson866 Yep. Everybody thinks CO2 is the only determining factor for climate because they would rather vote for somebody else to “solve” a “problem” they have no understanding of.
Either I missed it or you did not mention another very important affecting climate. That being the Sun. Variations in solar output have significant impact on Earth's climate. And, then, there's the gaseous emissions of volcanoes, Yellow Stone super volcano...
Ok, not to be harsh, but the suns total energy output is very stable over any human conception of time. While it is a fact that its output has increased steadily from first fusion ignition, the change is imperceptible even one millennia to the next. The way earth absorbs the Sun's UV to radio frequencies (gamma and X-ray don't penetrate to the ground in any significant amount) and then re-emits it as infrared is the primary mechanism determining the energy input output balance on our planet. Reducing earth's albedo (reflective index) by melting ice, clearing forest, reducing cloud cover increases the energy not released back into space. How that energy then effects our atmosphere, oceans, and lands is very straightforward to understand: if more enters than leaves there is more energy in the system as time increases. The opposite is true too. The "volatility" of the sun is its ejecta of highly charged particles and plasmas when it's magnetic field becomes looped and twisted. This can have profound but very different consequences too.
@Fred brandon hehehe, probably not the best look to misspell "morons"! I'm not certain what you're objecting to, are you claiming the Sun has a variable energy output and that you can observations/measurements that demonstrate said b behavior? I see references to the Sun "getting brighter"/"It's energy is increasing"/"It can change over days/weeks/months" yet a mechanism or process and how much, how quickly, and who made these findings are NEVER offered in support. In order for such a thing to occur, the Sun would have to increase and decrease the rate at which hydrogen is fused into helium in its core. However, to be stable, a star must possess a balance, the explosive process of fusion is moderated by the immense gravity holding it together. We would, and have in other nearby stars (4-400 light years away) observed this, but in stars much more massive that are also bearing the end of their lives. I suggest the works of Carl Sagan (books not shows) on this and other topics, he is clear, concise and provides excellent visual aids as well as citations of the data used in analysis.
@Fred brandon Let me help you out: www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/solar-events-news/Does-the-Solar-Cycle-Affect-Earths-Climate.html
Between the marvel movie reference and "stable doesn't mean no change or variation" which I never wrote, you don't provide any basis for claiming that solar activity, or it's cycles are a contributor to any changes in climate. Your body has a "stable" temperature, as an example. The process of homeostasis allows target values to oscillate around a mean and keep the body in a "stable" range. There's an analogous process in many natural systems including the Sun. If you want to argue against NASA's conclusions it's on your head. I'm also willing to be made aware of ALL new discoveries, but claims don't do it alone, if you can show me solid evidence to support the Sun increasing in output and in turn effecting our climate I will give it a fair read.
I read recently that illumination of our sun is increasing. In the article it was predicted that at the current rate of increase the earth will become uninhabitable by humans in 1.1billion years. I was surprised that the article did not attribute climate change to the sun. I thought maybe the flares brought heat closer to earth, increasing temperatures. That idea was dismissed.
@@skipperx5116 Main sequence stars, or at least those in the Sun's mass range do appear to get hotter and brighter as they age. I remember Carl Sagan had a chapter in the book version of Cosmos titled something like "The last perfect day on Earth" and discussed how it could proceed. I've heard a range from 250 million to 3 billion, but it seems like the projections are tightening around the 1 to 2 billion range as we learn more. I'm excited to see what Webb's observations reveal about this@
...in Saskatchewan Canada, it feels like the ice age 7 months of the year.
Not much time to play Golf there then
Same in new Zealand
@@DALKINION ha ha ha
@@johnbroomhead1039 new Zealand is warm lol.
@@johonanandrewgomes7593 well one month of the year it is
Lol, this hasn't appeared in my subscription list but I accidentally clicked on it in the recommended list
same here, quite strange.
ditto
same here aswell..idk why it hasn't shown yrtt
RUclips filters videos based on what it believes its viewers will like.
Videos on unpopular or controversial topics (Such as climate change)
will be automatically filtered out to avoid negative responses unless a
viewer has shown a positive interest in that topic in the past. As such
this video will not appear to in subscription boxes generally and will
have to be sought out deliberately.
They might have accidently unchecked the norify subscribers box. it happened to me too.
Glad to see there are not many climate change deniers here, but that's somewhat expected considering the content PBP Space Time delivers. Not going to be many people who deny science.
Congratulations; you're audience is not totally inept, it took me scrolling down two hole pages before I saw a anthropogenic climate change denier, and even then they were not flat out denying that humans play a role.
By "climate change denier" I think what you really mean is "global warming Al Gore doomsday denier" ...
Etheoma, you had a great point, but then you ruined it by using "roll" instead of "role"
Give a me a break, I have been drinking and I recently been at work for 10 hours. I think you can forgive someone who is dyslexic for a single typo under those circumstances.
Although It does seem like I'm trying to lay it on too think there... But it's all true so w.e.
Booooring... nobody "denies" climate change, or that humans have some effect. Just that humans have an effect worth worrying about.
This video actually supports the skeptics case without even trying to (climate change is almost entirely due to natural effects). It even shows the two graphs that indicate CO2 lags behind temperature changes (graphs that warming alarmists don't seem to use so much any more for some strange reason). Maybe you should stop treating science as a religious belief? Might be a start.
I doubt this will be only episode on the subject. This episode might have covered the natural aspect, but it wouldn't surprise me if next week's episode covers the human aspect
Can the current time and earth itself get anymore perfect for us? The planet is in the habitable zone of a medium sized star on the outskirts of a galaxy safely away from black holes or stars going supernova. And it also happens that we r lucky to have the current warmer climates. Really fascinating.
Almost, but not quite :) seems to make more sense that in all that space chances are that this would happen somehow, somewhere. I'm certain is has happened again elsewhere, and will happen again somewhere else.
@@das_schnitzel great rational answer
@@humbledb4jesus more like we became because of it
@@humbledb4jesus No, not really. The only reason we're actually even here is because of those conditions. There is no luck or mythological deity involved - these are only the conditions in which life and intelligent life could have started from without interruption or catastrophe and with stability. Like saying a popcorn kernel popped in a microwave because the heat was part of its destiny.
Given we evolved in this temperature range, it is probably about as good for us as it can be. Of course, if you are a Swedish farmer, you might want more heat, and Africa might like the Mediterranean rain belt moved South over the Sahara again, just like during 20,000 BC, which requires less heat, so it might need work but it can probably be improved on the average.
A clear and detailed account of a very complex topic in geology. Hats off to you.
They left out the effects of sun activity.
That would upset their carefully planned running of our lives.
EXACTLY
And....not only that.. but allso...vulcans activitie.....and so much more....
We know something...but...it is so far for enough ore much..
So..all together, reminde me on tribes holy man....and shamans ...which know something....and far for all
In short...we do not know enough...
@Nug U There are many cycles from short to long on the sun, we know of the 11 year minima and maxima, then there is the maunder minimums which happen about every 400 years, these bring substantial and dangerous cold, sunspots basically cease for about 30 years. Then there are large timescale cycles which are just discovering some solid evidence for, such as 12-14k years and even longer cycles of 27k or so where many things line up, such as earth pole reversals, possible large sun flaring which might be linked to earthquake activity and volcano eruption and many weather effects which are less understood but cause large scare cooling from cloud formation via increased cosmic ray nucleation in the atmosphere and other things. The science on this stuff is in it's very early stages but evidence is starting to stack up that the sun is one of the core drivers of weather and major natural disaster through history.
95TurboSol we and science like some degree of uniformity.if the meteorologists cant predict next weeks or even tomorows weather then surely they cant predict climate change.solar,vulcan,meteor impacts,earthquakes and effects on the ocean currents as well as chemicals that we inject into the air,all have an effect.so many different,well explained ideas on climate change.Randall Carlson seems quite sane and coherent and he believes that impact events throw things off so much and often that the other more constant and perhaps measureable factors influencing climate,just cant be depended upon to predict climate
Is this like the same ice age we were just a couple of decades away from in 1974? You know, when you've been around a while, you remember how many times they keep changing the bogey man.... until they wind up where they started.
Of course its coming! Its coming this year!
I can't wait to watch Ice Age 5: Collision Course!!!
Are you excited as well?
😂😂👏👏
😂😂😂
ahahahahahahhaha!!! CRAZY PERSON!!!!
Brookie idiot
lol hilarious. That said, there ARE folks who actually believe this... sigh. Truth is, there are VERY clear geological footprints (ie, solid evidence) of several recent ice ages - and ZERO evidence of a "biblical scale" flood. Myths of giant floods most probably stem from the huge local floods which occured while the most recent ice sheet was melting.. for example, one of these local floods may have refilled the Mediterranean Sea... VERY major flood, but very far from being worldwide.
Just give me one of those mall style maps that says "you are here".
😂
You were on the right track talking malankovich cycles, but it has way more to do with the sun & what it's doing. We're along for the ride, plain & simple
He touched on it in the end with the permanent greenhouse effect. But before that I was very curious about what it would mean for the planet as a whole to stop entering into periodic ice ages. Surely it's necessary to some degree?
The age of dinosaurs didn't have ice ages. Antarctica didn't get an ice sheet until about 30 million years ago.
Until about 2 - 3 million years ago, ice ages were not periodic. Ice ages only became periodic in the Pleistocene epoch. He touched on this at 0:32. You can also see it in the graph at 6:00, where after about 3 million years ago, the periodic fluctuations gradually increased in magnitude. Before that, the fluctuations, though still present, were rather minor, not significant enough to trigger periodic ice ages.
When considering the entire history of the Earth, ice ages were the exception rather than the norm (only 15-20% of its history). The most recent ice age prior to the Cenozoic ended in the Permian period, 255 million years ago.
EDIT: "Periodic ice age" is an incorrect term. "Glacial period" is the proper term, itself a characteristic feature of an "ice age" / "icehouse period". Icehouse periods consist of alternating glacial and interglacial periods. We are currently in the Holocene interglacial period (began ~11,700 years ago) within the Quaternary glaciation phase (began 2.58 million years ago) of the Late Cenozoic icehouse period (began 34 million years ago, when ice sheets appeared on Antarctica).
See the following Wikipedia articles for more info:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation
This is very worrying, what happens if the bees freeze
The next necessity step for the evolution of man is for the earth to not have a Atmosphere , Man would then have to survive more on using technologies and resources of the earth and would be good training for future colonization of space. A organism survives and adepts to overcomes challenges of the environment to survive and reproduce, to easy and the organism could devolve or become lesser. Man has been devolving for a long while.
@@lee7701 Goodbye food.
Yes a mini ice age is inevitable.
not for a long while though
Did anyone notice, or, better, did anyone know that in that chart he showed around 11:00 you can fairly clearly see that the temperature rise actually preceeds the CO2 rise by a few hundred years? Think about it.
I have to say that I'm not an expert, just someone that has done a lot of research, if anyone knows better or has an explanation, you're welcome to explain
Well spotted sir😁 that's exactly as we should expect. I also am no scientist but very interested in this subject and the general global alarmism.
thats false, CO2 followed temperature in the past by about couple of hundred years. because first the ocean heated and than they exhaled CO2. if we really stopped the next ice age it would be the best we did in human history. next ice age die 6 billion people because of cold and starvation
@@panikaffe what? Could you write in a proper way? Are you even supporting or not my thesis?
your theory/summary does justice when you include the Milanovich cycle; thank you for not putting drama or emotion in this!
Only politicians put fear, drama and emotion into science… it’s a sales tactic. Don’t buy it! My dad was a scientist, and he never had any fear over human cause climate change, because there’s nothing to fear about it. Warm is overall good for us!
how dare you, you stole my childhood
WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!
‘’How dare you! I should be across the ocean, in school!!!”
Yes curtisgreta, you should. You're better than this D- You really are.
Are you paid to spread this kind of stuff, or did you miss the part where he says human influence on the climate is enormous?
Well hop in a canoe and paddle back across the pond. BTW, watch out for icebergs, you would not want a titanic disaster. Lol.☺
The environmental religion does not allow humor.
Really interesting and very well explained for the ordinary person like me, who finds this really interesting but requires good explanation.... You tick the box... Thanks
Let’s not forget when our super volcano goes off more than likely it will trigger an ice age
I took a lot of geology and meteorology classes and we were told we were heading right into an ice age. And that was 20 years ago!
That may as well have been 1 second ago on the time scales we're seeing in this video.
I took some historical geology classes back around 1992 and was told the opposite...we had come out of a mini ice age by 1980 and temps were spiking higher per year than at any time in "meteorological" history.
@@vchism712 Personally, I think everyone who thinks they know is full of sh*t. It's all so politically driven with so many variables, some of which don't even exist yet, that climate science is still more religion than data-driven. For example, climate is very much affected by life on Earth besides our own, and how species will evolve is one such factor. What people will invent. Will we get hit by an asteroid first? Will there be a major volcanic eruption? Will we have a massive nuclear war? Is the footage recently released of a UFO captured by the Navy actually aliens who plan to help a brother out? Or wipe him out? Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Earth has been in an ice age for millions of years. Currently it is in an interglacial which is defined by warmer than average temperature.
@@keyofg2020 ; 20 years means nothing in Earth climate cycles
A meteor strike can ruin everything.
Or fix everything, depending on one's viewpoint.
SafeSpace2018 edgy
Meteor? Nah... do you like a bat soup?
Can ruin everything? It has... many times.
Zardoz4441 Not at least the Soufflee
Something almost nobody thinks about or neglects to think about or acknowledge is that we are still in a ice age there is still permanent ice on the planet so we are still in the ice age 10,500 BC was the beginning of the end of the last ice age that we are currently still in just thought I'd throw that out there
Almost correct. 14k years ago a glacial ended(i exclude the younger dryas from the glacial.) Currently we are in a interglacial wich will end soon. Gradually we will see glacial conditions again. But we are still in an ice age for almost 3 milion years.
@@ariearie3543 you are correct and 14,000 years ago is 10,500 BC roughly but there is still permanent ice on this planet we are still in the ice age we won't be out of the ice age until all of the ice is melted not just half of it. I guess you could call that an interglacial period and you're correct about it being almost over. Right now the ice in Greenland is growing parts of Antarctica the ice is growing not by a lot mind you but growing nonetheless
Our current inter glacial will not end soon. We should enjoy another 40k years. Thx to a very low eccentricity.
We are lucky.
Well, I mean if we do not self destruct soon.
Did the younger Dryas impact event stop last ice age and give us the window of prosperity we have now?
My understanding of the Younger-Drayus is that it defines a sudden period of increased cooling that occurred as the last ice age was ending. The effect was to reverse the meltdown that had already begun, and extend the ice age 1to 2,000 years longer. Some speculate that it was the result of a cosmic impact event that plunged the Earth into a global winter, but that's just theoretical. But no other theory of it's cause seems to be better. Some think this was the actual cause of most of North America"s mega mammals at the end of the last ice age, as the return to bitter cold collapsed the ecology. But again, this is only a proposed theory and isn't accepted.
And of course, I could be wrong about all of this!! ☺️😉😁
P.S.
I meant mega mammals Going Extinct. My bad.
@@jackreisewitz7219 If it isn't accepted, it's a hypothesis, not a theory. The evidence supporting that hypothesis is growing each year.
@@mobiusII As I understand it, a proposed theory is a hypo - thesis. Consider the Greek root of theory, hypo thesis, and hypo thetical.
A Younger-Drayus impact is a theory as it has been presented with supporting evidences. That this caused the extinction of the N. American mega mammals is a hypothesis, as it is speculative and lacks supporting evidences. But one again
And, once again, I could be wrong about all of this.
Also, it's been stated that the southern extension of the Hudson Bay is a n impact crater. But I have no idea how old it is. Does anyone have a reference on that?
I have also heard that there's supposed to be an impact crater under the ice sheet on Greenland. But I have no reference's, or idea on what this claim is based. Anyone??
We can fix all this by banning plastic straws right?
I hate those paper straws. They always end up soggy and slimy. Yuk.
no, its the whales we must ban...esp if they wont pay for 2 seats at the theater or on an airline
@Mark P. So if someone lives "off the grid", they have less rights and freedom than you?? Now your thinkin.. lol
Na use plastic straws to test drinks for roofies
@@leweezo33 - Your comment makes no sense, and is totally irrelevant to the comment you replied to.
I'd like to see this video redone and including the sun's cycles (Sun spots and activity), and the other green house gasses (water vapor, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, Ozone) included.
a more in depth video. one that has some fun math equations.
This is a decent explanation of Millanchovich cycles, as do some of the IPCC models, but I didn't find any consideration of sunspot cycles and their inclusion into the models.John L. Casey's book"Dark Winter" does present a good argument for this data to be included in all future models. It bases its conclusions on sunspot numbers for the past 400 years and their correlation with climate changes. It's real data is available and I checked a single data point that I experienced in the 1986-89 time frame. Florida had a several freezes then and when I looked up the sunspot data, they were at a minimum. Being a long term systems engineering data analyst , my conclusion was the same as Casey's. Checking additional data samples provided more confirming data points. Higher sunspot counts gave higher temperatures. lower sunspot activity gave cooler/lower temperatures. If the IPCC uses this data/ methodology in their models, maybe we'll see different conclusions. So far, if you want grant money you must support the political payroll's position. Just wait a couple of years and see if we need to buy insulation stocks instead of carbon credits. Even Al Gore has changed his song. I don't know what his new title might be, but "baby it's cold outside" might be accurately appropriate.
Follow the money, and what answer do you want are not good engineering procedures, although I have seen it done before. No examples due to legal vulnerability.
Anyone who thinks this is valid or not, let me know in the comments. I am also posting this to my Facebook page
I would like to add polarity flipping and the weakening of the magnetosphere
What they always fail to mention is how insanely powerful albedo feedback is. The total variation of CO2 (assuming we actually have the real variation in the ice cores) would lead to maybe 2 watts per square meter. Albedo feedback is about 20X stronger. Vast ice sheets extend all the way into what are now temperate zones while simultaneously more land is exposed for ice to form on because sea levels drop a hundred meters. Greens today whine about the loss of the trivial amounts of sea ice. But today's sea ice reflects less light than you think in summer (meltwater ponds) and it reflects NO light for about half the year. By comparison, the sea ice during the glacial period extends to within 50 degrees of the equator...which means it provided far more albedo feedback even in the depths of winter than the sea ice we have now does in the summer.
And of course the problem with CO2 forcing is that you can't really prove that it does anything. As he described it you'll notice that, human interference or massive eruptions aside, CO2 is in fact a proxy of ocean temperature. Whenever someone says "see, CO2 and temperature match" that's because it's temperature DRIVEN. And the messed up thing is, it doesn't matter if CO2 is contributing or if it did the opposite and magically dampened the changes somehow...since it is temperature driven, so long as the temperature changed in the same way, the CO2 levels would look the same.
And...side note...the event that appears to have triggered the unstable climate is the formation of the isthmus of panama, which racially changed ocean circulation.
@@poitsplace What does race have to do with the isthmus of Panama?
Thanks. One of the best Science video on RUclips.
why not mention grand solar minimum with extended low energy out put from our sun and how that affects climate also
Because it's largely inconsequential. The variability is low and any variations are relatively short compared to the Milankovitch Cycle.
@Richard Porter OMG WILL YOU GO AWAY DENIER?!? You know damned well we only have 37 days left until we meet global disaster of epic proportions that we will never return from!!!! We know this because 97 percent of scientists AGREED in our shitty survey along time ago.
@Richard Porter The effects last, at most, a few years. They are completely expected and accounted for in all serious models.
@@henrikgiese6316 Nope, they are not accounted for, along with other variables. 2 years ago, new data sets have been published which take into account EVERYTHING, and to this day, no study has confirmed man made global warming, using those new criteria. Media chooses not to talk about this, but its happening and they cant run from the truth forever.
Check out suspiciousObserver and see for yourself. He links sources in his vid and talks about the subject in great detail and understanding. The subject is far more complex that what the medias simplified, dumb down junk science explanation would lead you to believe.
@@korosensei4384 Checked out the video you appear to reference, looked over the papers. Nothing new there, the papers don't actually support the video. As I expected, given that I've read articles about the effect of solar and interstellar radiation on climate since the '90s.
Maybe there is some specific paper you want me to look at? Please provide a link.
Don't forget about the inevitable earth magnetic pole flip.
I'm starting to notice a rather Pavlovian response in my body to the mere introduction of these vids!😁 I hear the intro...my brain starts to water in anticipation of the intelligent nourishment abt 2b tossed my way. Thanks!😄
Are you a member of Suspicious 0bservers?
Concise scientific explanation that will go right over the heads or be ignored by the people who need to hear it most.
@@Gobrech People who developed views based on what they want to think or what they think is appropriate to their political opinions, rather than ones who base their views on the best info available.
Great explanation of the cycles!
i believe this video isn't getting sent to the sub boxes.
Yeah same issue, I saw it pop up in the recommended section though nothing in my sub list.
It has been flagged as containing topics unlikely to appeal to general audience. (Climate change for one.) It thus gets automatically filtered from most user's lists as youtube assumes you don't want to see it.
Anything that goes against the global warming BS gets censored. This is even happening in school books in Portland. I encourage all Americans to look into the massive amount of low temperature records being registered in the US. The amount of global volcanic activity isn't a coincidence either, it's the ringing bell of an impending Ice Age and one of the effects of the Earth's magnetosphere shutting down. Our magnetosphere is generated by the solar winds...it's shutting down because the sun is 'going to sleep' for about 40/50 years, just like in the 17th century...
***** weird, why is that though? i mean, it's science, not opinions...
iota-09 if you wanted the truth you'd look for it. I guess some people are just lazy, like your reply.
Recently watched a documentary, narrated by Leonard Nimoy, filmed in 1978, about the eminent onset of a new ice age, and record low temperatures, snowfalls and glaciation. Got a lot of comments to this, actually I just thought it was funny, or ironic, or short slighted, given the reality of today’s climate. Not pushing this old video as accurate.
Now, that's modern science, 1978... VHS tapes, cars with carbereutors, asbestos insulation, commodore 64 computers...
Seen the video I guess the Ice core samples and sea floor core samples are all wrong because they only had comodore 64'and vhs back ?
@@akossandor469 it's how the data is interpreted. Sea ice today is melting more than twice as fast as was predicted in 2010, how large would the error be at 40 years?
That's the point.
@Srewolf wow, are you confused! The data is the data, no one is disputing that. What you are displaying is denial. 98% of world climate scientists agree that man caused climate change is happening and will get worse. Stay in your safe place. When the whole world says you're wrong, maybe you need to rethink your position.
@Srewolf keep digging, denier. You just look really stooopid now. Run along, and let adults deal with what you can't even understand.
Sorry you're angry. Ok, no I'm not.
The mountains aren't getting smaller, and the plates move slow, it takes some time for a water planet change temps, solar intensity has a larger than apparent effect within evaporation zones, so it will start to show localization then spread, the ice age will return, but we might be able to slow it even more. The planet gets cold now, you can see it in Asia's topography.
6 seasons and the winter has still not come.
911gp come in canada where we got some -35 and come say after that winter is not coming goofy
I never knew Tyrion Scienster was so tall. Good presentations.
This video needs an update with more geological facts of the Younger Dryas/Bølling-Allerød periods that have recently come to light.
Boiling allerod?
@@piereb1748 Mu bad, mispelled that. I meant Bølling-Allerød.
We are still technically in an ice age
Thaw cycle or Glacier Lakes would still be glaciers & so on
when you show temperatures like the "Obliquiy 22.1°" around 9:10, can you please write down if you mean °C or °F? or just always use °C :P
That was 22.1° as angles. Not temperature.
👏
I honestly can't tell if you're being serious or not. You are either a genius or incredibly ignorant.
nice bait
Not temperature degrees, geometric degrees, like how 360 degrees is a circle.
Cycles in climate change that last thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.Yet only in the last 30 years have we collected truly accurate satellite information measuring temp and gases on a global scale.Pretty much nothing for the previous hundred years before that,except from a few scattered weather stations.Before that a few ice and seabed samples that take data from only a couple of specific points on the globe.How can you possibly say man is destroying the climate with such massive margins of error due to timescales involved astronomically, and the way we collect data.
William Noah-Mates ruclips.net/video/hC3VTgIPoGU/видео.html
William Noah-Mates ruclips.net/video/v67nPTG3Pno/видео.html we can also make storms :/
are you suggesting that satellite's didn't exist prior to 1990? or that the data collected was flawed in some way?
i agree that human activity can't possibly prevent the next ice age. i'm sceptical if we are even able to slow it down..
Look up the thermodynamic law of mixing. That's what affects the whole earth's atmosphere and climate.
@@sixmax11 I think that it is very likely that the next age could be delayed, but given that the narrator states that it may be a 10,000 years at least for two of the three M Cycles to align it may be a moot point. With CO2 rapidly approaching 450ppm and even the possibiility of methane taking off from a massive release from the methane hydrates it would be hundreds of years before a peak level was reached then hundreds if not thousands more years before it cools down. That could still be before those two M Cycles align. Personally I can't wait to see how it plays out!
And what about the sun cooling cycle doesn't it have effects too?
+lex Tr3, it's not a "cooling cycle" of the sun, it's a solar minimum in solar wind output. The light varies very little. Solar wind, however, varies greatly causing minimums like the one we're currently entering, and like the Maunder Minimum which coincided with the Little Ice Age. That coincidence was more cause and effect than accident. Solar wind minimums allow more cosmic rays to hit Earth, allowing for greater creation of clouds which cool down the planet.
We live in a period of CO2 starvation. We almost lost all C3 species (85% of all plants, and 99% of all food crops) when CO2 came within 30 ppm of Lovelock's "Red Line" of extinction (Ref: "Red Line - Carbon Dioxide"). That was 15,000 BC. Humans saved all life on Earth by burning fossil fuels.
And life prefers warmth. Just look at the population gradient from poles to equator. The rich, fat cat globalists don't want population to boom all the way to the poles. Good management and compassion could give us several hundred billion people living on Earth. But I doubt it'll ever get that high. Prosperity tends to reduce population growth toward zero. Japan even has negative growth.
In my previous reactions I stayed very businesslike. But really what you are writing here is, well... how to say it politely... I have to think about politeness for a moment... yeah Rubbish will do.
Rod Martin Jr: Don't we have global shortage of drinking water? That would be the factor limiting the population size. Desalination of ocean water is not possible b/c of the pollution. Look at the Pacific, contaminated with Fukushima radiation which causes cancer! Would you want to drink that water? Some radioactive particles stay in the environment for thousands of years!
Rod Martin, Jr. thx for the input and info :) lets burn fossil fuel then hehe
@ronald, I don't see any counterpoints or any attempt to debate. If you simply disagree then downvote and move on.
Many years ago (70', 80's and 90's blur) I watched a college channel lecture about how we were heading into an ice age and he kinda laughed and chanted "global warming, global warming!!"
Still watch those channels and a few years ago I caught a much newer lecture by same guy..
He talked about how the models that had been the concensus then had changed and that new observations due to new technologies painted a different picture.
There is no coming ice age that would offset the warming trend that has been accelerated and although we can't stop the trend, we can reduce our impact.
this is not showin in my "subscriptions"
Same! +PBS Space Time NOTICE THIS
same here!
+Dylan T same
gustavo lemos GRAND solor min ice age has STARTED all down hill till 2050s volcanoes and earthquakes will go mad weather summer's hot winter's down down until ice cream sandwich
Can you say micro nova? Sun cycles? Magnetic fields? Polar shift? Cyclical cataclysm?
Dumpster Dan - Those words are not a part of his vocabulary.
Elliptical orbit
🤔 Palm trees surrounding Lake Michigan?
I vote YES!
PBS Space Time: Is another ice age coming?
Global warming: am I a joke to you
Global warming has been disproven since at least 2013. Wake up.
@@favourites144 don't be an idiot.
Dude sounds like you want a frozen world where everything dies instead of a greenhouse world where you could grow plenty of food world wide.. People build small greenhouses in frigid enviorments imagine if they didnt have too. There was tropical forests full of life world wide way back in the day.. But i get it global warming fanatics want the world to freeze and die like their hearts and souls...
@@c-rock3659 it was a joke but okay
@@basicroots8278 ha! I know im just trying to trigger some global warming people.
So what i got out of that is ice age in 10,000 years?
Ill have to mark it on my callendar.
Lol
Nordic NIGHTMARE.
Very funny but you will probably be able to buy a diary in time for the start of another Mini Ice Age, a VERY few years hence, if the current Sunspot Minimum of Cycle 24 which we entered somewhere between 2017 and 2018 , turns out to be a Grand Minimum ie. the complete failure of Cycle 25 to start up.
If it doesn't emerge, temps. won't drop like a stone there and then but severe winters will be approaching for a long while and to an alarming degree.
Look up Mini Ice age and The Maunder Minimum
Real Science and SOUND Global historical evidence is a better bet than half baked, self-appointed, IPCC bribed dabblers with their the programmes and projections.
The computer formula for performance is GARBAGE IN = GARBAGE OUT.
Asshole Gore predicted the elimination of al polar ice and massive rises in sea level within 7 years..................16years ago. I'm still waiting.
He's quite happy to build one of his energy guzzling mansions on the edge of the ocean at sea-level. He knows it's a bloody hoax!
He's one nasty piece of work.
no the tipping point will be in 2295 based on axis tilt the minimum and then we go to maxium and that can be reached in 1500 years after
MauriatOttolink Hey to you and go check out a channel in here called "Adapt2020"...they are saying essentially what you just said abput the new/modern Maunder Minimum...
Also check out the main thread comment I just made right above the comment you replied to in here about the present orbits of all the other planets in the solar system now (I think ALL of the planets have been in the same quadrant for about the last 2 months and it's supposed to continue for the next 2 months or so)...and...hmmm...with all of this gravity coming from just the one quadrant in the sky now...AND how it's been setting this alignment up for however long before about 2 months ago...we've been hearing about a LOT of volcanic activity in the last year or so too hmmm...?
Oh and...p.s.: the way you ragged on the "pop star idol" of tree huggers everywhere (Al Gore...ugh)...let me guess...you also agree with how I sometimes like to end my comments and replies with "MAGA 2020"...?
archive.org/details/changeinclimatei00marrrich The change in the climate and its cause, giving the date of the last ice age based on a recent astronomical discovery and geological research : Marriott, R. A. (Reginald Adams), 1857. | we will get warmer winters from now (1857) from 2295 we go to over minimum to next ice age, depending on axis tilt. And they (green maffia) wants us to forget all science & research before they declared CO2 the culprit.
I think there isn't enough talk about the sun and its effect.
Osama Number5 - So, even though the sun is producing a lower energy output, the Earth will still be warming?
Osama Number5 - Wow, scary stuff. You seem to know a lot about the subject. So the atmospheric temperature will keep rising without pause, untill the temperature becomes deadly? And CO2 is the main driver of climate?
Osama Number5 - So, CO2 control the climate because the global temperature follow the rise in CO2. That is what all scientists believe, anyways.
What if we suddenly had a 3 - 4 year periode of global atmospheric temperature drop, at lets say 0,5 degree celsius, even though CO2 was still rising.
Would this mean that CO2 does not have a big effect on climate after all?
@@wilmahestepigen8340 No it is not.
@@wilmahestepigen8340 It does not.
Lotta experts in here. Y'all need to be fixing the problem since everyone here has all the answers 😂😂
Legalize weed, which cures cancer and once nobody dies anymore they will all vote for Biden forever
3:58 Precession of the Equinoxes is 25,920 years, not a 21,000 year cycle.
There is much incertainity, that period is between 25750 years and 25920 years.
Astrologically it is 12 x 2150 years, as calculated several millenia ago.
Thank you excellent video I'll have to watch a few more times to try to understand all the different Cycles and shifts that our planet goes through best video thank you so much have a nice day.
Never had co2 levels this fast? What, I'd say it's happened thousands of times with volcanoes.
look for the graphs, it isnt close in speed not by chance
It's happened many, many times that CO2 has rapidly risen. He just conveniently ignores all of those times and hopes we don't know about it. The peak reached 7,000 ppm during the Cambrian, but hey let's pretend that didn't happen.
@@joevenuti1201 that was half a billion years ago and you cant really compare it to todays co2 levels easily because the sun was also a lot less intense back then. Co2 concentration didnt even get close to that in the last 500million years.
@@joevenuti1201 Cambrian climate, huh? Sounds fun.
It's missing that the Carbon released in the atmosphere is being absorbed by plants both in the land and in the oceans. And that more plants means more food from crops to humans and more wild vegetation to feed the wildlife.
I want ice age
It's 50 in india
In Brazil we are going through a nasty cold winter.
If only there was a way of exchanging air masses. Think of an orbital huge air corridor linking regions of the globe. We can dream.
33 is too damn hot for me
@@kamerad_marzuki3631 20 is too hot for me
So sorry for the extreme weather you are experiencing. I don't know how you do it w/o AC.
@@mikeoxsmal8022 At that temp i'm wearing jacket
He's talking about an 'imminent' frozen death but his voice is so relaxing I found my inner peace.
hypothermia is a painless way to go lol
@@robnoregon Unlikely to happen. If it's that cold people will be fighting over food and possibly even resorting to cannibalism. Keep your powder dry.
Are we coming into a period of a Grand Solar Minimum plus the effects of Milankovitch Cycle? 2024 Milankovitch center point and then the GSM MIGHT start around 2030? The combined effects leading, not necessarily to ice age glaciation, but to REALLY cold Winters in the Northern Hemisphere. As well as more storms because of the temperature differential between Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
Here are the main influencer in climate: (you got it right focusing on Solar!)
#1 Sunlight and that light actually reaching the ground also(not reflected by clouds or dust like from volcanoes or worse)
#2 Water Vapor - Primary greenhouse gas forcing warming of tens of degrees next warming
#3 Thickness of atmosphere making the surface temperature livable due to pressure and dry adiabatic lapse rate being just right.
Let's just ignore those who do climate shit for a living and put our trust towards the Holy fossil fuel empires and their Madison Avenue spinsters.
Hey, have a smoke! For your health! :p
@@b1aflatoxin yes believe everything your science gods tell you and you will be just fine because they are never wrong or and they don't get paid to tell you that.
Gsm is an 11 year cycle. The Milankovitch cycle would state we should already be in a process of cooling.
Save your pseudointellectual bs.
@@jakedavid557 Wow ok, so you're talking "conspiracy" now? A grand conspiracy where scientist lash their whips at the largest cash rich industries on Earth, ...for research grant money. Because people only get into science because of cushy grants, and not for the "data" or the advancement of human knowledge.
Because those corporations WOULD NEVER bend data, or put Dark Money into politics for the sake of their corporate or national enrichment.
DERRP! :p
I saw the title of this PBS Space Time video and thought, “Hey, I bet I can follow the science in this channel for once.” I couldn’t.
So if it does happen, are we all dead? Just asking just asking....😱
Food shortage, violence everywhere, starvation..... Eventually death everywhere...
Well, I can say one thing for sure. We can survive a hotter planet easier than a cold one.
?????? Loner
Well here’s the thing, those who know how to survive in arctic/subzero climates can and will much like the Eskimo. There will be chaos and death but only the strong and knowledgeable will make it. Stay warm and I recommend keeping a homemade survival kit just in case, keep spare clothes in it for both cold and warm weather (wool is best but can get heavy) but this depends what you prepare for and your region, pack it with gear you’re familiar with and know how to use. Try to keep it practical and minimal if you can.
Mine weighs a bit with my extra items on my person but wearing the winter clothes will Reduce the weight more.
We thrive in warm, opposite in cold. See Meadville optimal, man thrived where it warmed up.
Awesome video. The presentation style is phenomenal.
I think it's important to stress one point however, that while our effect is well understood on the surface (CO2 allows light from the sun to pass through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the Earth, which radiates away some of that energy as a longer wavelength IR radiation which CO2 molecules absorb and reradiate out in random directions some of which returns to earth) the overall climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling in the atmosphere is much less certain.
Net feedbacks could even be negative, which wouldn't result in much warming. That is where the real question is, what is the net of all feedbacks?
I was pretty sure the bulk of research points to the net feedback being positive, not negative. The big ones are the ice-albedo and oceanic-CO2 feedbacks, which are both positive. There's tons of others, all with varying levels of study and confidence to them. The most significant one with the most significant uncertainties is the overall cloud feedback, but the sum is still positive, and yields an equilibrium climate sensitivity of about +2 to +5 degrees C.
watsisname Going simply by observed temperatures, actual data, I can't see how the net feedbacks could be high, we simply aren't seeing temperatures to match that assertion.
So far, we're seeing a centennial trend of about 1.2 C (UAH satellite data V6.0) to 1.8 C at the most (NOAA adjusted ground temperatures).
That's an interesting and tricky area. For one thing 'could be' is not 'will be' and banking on our ignorance as hiding good news is not the best strategy. For another feedbacks could also be much worse. As things sit currently it seems we're still in the driver's seat, our own actions causing the bulk of change, which is a good thing since it means if we stop, warming will.
Gareth Dean Well, that is the other side of the coin, I hope that net feedbacks are low, because if they aren't, we would be in big trouble.
Why?
China, India and Russia will continue to burn coal and oil for energy. No stopping it. Even Germany is building more coal powered plants.
Whatever we do in the USA won't matter. The rest of the world will continue to use cheap energy. If that turns out to be a net positive for humans, awesome, if not...well like I said, I hope that isn't the case, because one way or another, CO2 will increase. Likely doubling towards the end of the century.
Time will tell.
Net feedback is obviously always negative, otherwise there would be endless warming until we all burn to crisp. The question is at what temperature the new equilibrium will set in. The US still makes up 16% of global greenhouse emissions, more than Russia and India combined. On a per capita basis the US releases carbon more than 4 times that of China and twice that of EU, so it matters *a lot* what Americans do.
The most recent climate pattern is evidenced in the Vostok Ice Core data covering the last 420k years. If we take this pattern and extend it (a reasonable assumption), the current warm period is due to end, and we'll be thrust into another 90k-year-long ice age. Land suitable for agriculture will be limited to areas nearer the equator, and control of those areas and whatever produces energy could mean wars and would most certainly mean the death of millions or even billions of persons. Recognition of this might soften the misery in the coming centuries, but I rather doubt that will occur. Power will be the dominate goal of those who lack compassion, humility, and vision for our future.
you missed part of the lecture .. 10k years before the big cooling.
You should have given credits to Dr. Valentina Zharkova for her excellent work
She has been explaining this with increasingly accurate data for over a decade
See "Why Zharkova is Wrong" ruclips.net/video/NYN0meLWJLg/видео.html
I'm sure it was only done to pander to the toxic masculine suppressive movement going on in America right now
I'm waiting for it to get even warmer so the dinosaurs will come back! Wouldn't that be fun!
What about the solar activity? It's predicted by NASA that between the years of 2020 and 2025 the sun will undergo the cycle known as solar minimum and it caused the Dalton minimum back in the 1800's where global temperatures dropped globally and they had a year they called "the year without summer". Winter might be coming sooner than we thought
Sam Stark I thought the Year without Summer was attributed to a bunch of fresh water being introduced into the Atlantic from the Canadian Shield and this froze the defrost-like nature of the Atlantic. Essentially, that much fresh water froze its currents temporarily and thus the oceanic breeze wasn’t able to thaw anything.
The "year without a summer" was 1816 and primarily caused by a massive eruption in 1815 by Mt. Tambora in Indonesia.
@@TheKenadkins but they relate the eruptions to the reduced activity of the sun
FatalFist Has
The best channel for this information is called The Oppenheimer Ranch Project. He is a paleoclimitologist
also ice age farmer and adapt2030
Howbout those sea levels being lower than they were 100 years ago? More ice, or is it all melting?
well with a rise in temperature, you have a rise in humidity caused by the increased amount of water being evaporated and turned into gas, filling the air.
this is why i laugh when people freak out and say the planet will become a desert, because it more likely will not be much different than it is now, only about 20-30 degrees warmer with about 40-50% more rainforests, jungles, grass plains, and wetlands. something pretty similar to the Eocene.
when it comes to the earth which is if my memory serves me correctly about 75-80% water, warmer is wetter.
co2 has been much higher in history and it's misleading to say that we are in 'uncharted territory'. We have had periods of lush and warm climate with around 1000 ppm and now it's approach 400 ppm. Plants love CO2 of course and an increasing levels of CO2 has benefits including global greening. The other observation is that the time period to the next period of glaciation is a lot closer than stated and that's tied in to Solar activity - something not mentioned in the presentation.
Any citations?
It is true co2 levels were higher during the Mesozoic, just like the man said, which was probably caused by the breakup of Pangaea alongside extreme volcanic activity over thousands of years. Sea levels back then were hundreds of feet higher than today, and half of North America was underwater.
Furthermore, over the time-scale of millions of years, the change in solar intensity is a critical factor influencing climate. However, "changes in the rate of solar heating over the last century cannot account for the magnitude of the rise in global mean temperature since the late 1970s." ~www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/effect-of-sun-on-climate-faq.html
"Prof. Kießling says, the temperate increase over the Permian-Triassic boundary was no different to current climate change in terms of speed. The increase in temperature during this event is associated with a mass extinction event during which 90 percent of marine animals died out." ~phys.org/news/2015-11-global-fast-today.html
@@Jason918114 - Well, everything I said is absolutely verifiable to the point that it's common knowledge - or should be. Google still works although their algorithms tend to promote the official narrative at the expense of hard science. The higher CO2 levels in the past are easily verifiable as totally factual. The idea that plants thrive on CO2 is also easily verifiable - you should be able to find companies that sell CO2 generating machines to raise CO2 in greenhouses because it significantly increases the rate of growth and ultimate size of the plants in question. The Earth has also witnessed extra greening as a result of higher CO2 in recent years. As for the relative closeness of the next period of glaciation and the fact that the Earth has mostly been periods of ice age with relatively short respites of warmer inter-glacial periods is also 100% fact and easily verifiable. Solar activity and varying distance from the Sun in terms of orbital eccentricity as well as the Earth obliquity are also absolutely verifiable as being by far the most significant factor in Earth's climate - it's rather obvious when we think about it! Here are a few links I can share...
pastebin.com/x3qmbBKr
And I had to derive this my self last year. And they ridiculed my treatise.
my albedo comes and goes, but my wife stays locked in an ice age...damn....
maybe u are just stuck in her cold zone. have u tried repositioning and rotating her? I have seen external stimuli applied along certain areas really have a tremendous effect on thermal output.
I'm not worried technology will be so advanced by the next ice age we can do whatever we need to do .
You forgot to mention solar activity (the Maunder Minimum), and magnetic pole shifts. Will be a curve ball
Elite this elite that ... the question isn't whether ur right or not - question s/b, at this point n w/ 'them' controlling AI, does it matter anymore
Des Troya - It is true. As far as I know the solar activity effect dominate the melankovic effect. The real big question is: What is the climate sensitivity to CO2. He does not say anything about all this and that is very strange.
@@wilmahestepigen8340 "What is the climate sensitivity to CO2. He does not say anything about all this"
Huh. He certainly does. Go and watch from 10:56 "CO2 may offset glaciation by 10,000 years" etc
Ray Watson - climate sensitivity is a number, not some bla bla bla. A number explaining the degree of warming caused by doubling CO2 ppm.
@@wilmahestepigen8340 Its only a short video about one topic mate, there are plenty of other sources for the whole CO2 effect.
Ive seen Ice Age, but not Global Warmimg. When was it released?
Adam Espiner All in heads of the climate change goons !
Adam Espiner ruclips.net/video/hC3VTgIPoGU/видео.html
Look at the Skyline and the plant's that didn't as they should be. It's all around you choosing not to know, as many,
Espiner and Taylor, if you hadn't noticed the record breaking temperatures of the past two decades, despite having moved towards the grand solar minimum that we're in right now, you must have been living under a rock with no TV.
@@MrMezmerized records are made to be broken.😄
The sound effects you use sure says a lot about one of your interest!
Dam i really wanted to see the world freeze
it's sad we can't live 10 000 years
Yeah, it would be so much easier to keep the Beer cold.
*yet :)
10, 10 000 or 10 trillion years. No difference, since when they're gone you still die. Only eternal life makes a difference, but the fate of the universe doesn't have that on offer so a standard human lifespan is as good as any.
I disagree. If you're talking about the meaning of life and making this very existential then arguing is pointless. If you're talking about a longer life being useless then I totally disagree. If Einstein had 10,000 years to work or Madam Curie or any great thinkers, builders, leaders .. how much more could they accomplish? What about artists, musicians and other creative types? Yes I know a short life is a motivation for some to accomplish more but for those who just have a passion in life ours can be way too short.
Longevity may very well be much closer than many people think. However, I'm not sure we're quite ready for it -- as writers like Simone de Beauvoir and Michael Moorcock have speculated. But then again, when we get longevity into place, we may also have started a fast new evolution, producing from ourselves, through genetic manipulation, a new species much better adapted to the new lifestyle.
If climate change is more than enough to counter the climate cycle and swing the trend upwards, how far can it go? Is there a critical point where the level of CO2 is enough to create a runaway greenhouse effect?
That's basically bogus - the runaway effect is alarmist fear mongering.
nope negative feedbacks, kick in then, and no it can't become Venus that is total BS you need to thicken the atmosphere to get that >_>, also everything has its saturation point co2 is every increase in temperature takes a doubling of concentration to get the same increase in temperature again
Based on Matts closing comments he indicates correctly that no one knows the answer to that question. The recent changes have no parallel in the geological record, so it could go either way.
And how do the pole shifts figure into this?
3:28 *I remember when I were a 'lad' we 'ad proper winters and had to dig outa 12' snow drift evry moning, afore we could go scool. Used to spend 'appy 'ours playing on sledg and skatin' on local pond that were a foot thick ice. We 'ad to cut down trees fur miles around to lite a miserable fire to stop uselves freezing solid. Each mornin' there were lovely pattern on winders, just like Jack Frost 'ad bin. Tell that kid's turday and they wud stab yer to deth.*
You were lucky.......
@@redgriffin3923 *Lucky - Global Pandemic with Millions Dying and in the UK the Coldest April on Record - however after lockdown easing are allowed to Drink/Eat Outdoors - Yea Right my Scampi & Chips cold in 4 Minutes and my Pint of xxxxx already Ice Cold I had to eat with a knife & fork.*
Great prediction!!! Tired of shoveling snow every single day in August in Phoenix.
Cold hard facts is you missed Solar Cycles, Sellout
The solar cycle doesn't ship carbon dioxide into the Earth's atmosphere
The Sun is in it's Minimum Solar State. Turn off the Sun Simulator, the Ice age has already begun.
Ahh, the moment when you realize that we're all living in a computer program titled: Ancestor simulation... fictional reality. Wow!
@@averyhakes7729
Right Said.
The sun is in a solar minimum and has been for several decades. And yet the last five years have been the warmest on record. Thus the sun doesn't explain the current warming.
The "sun simulator" you mean... think on that one for a min and the explanation will come to you. Just sayin' It's hard to wrap your head around at first until you really take a good look around and open your mind to the possibility that technology may be so much more advanced than they will let the general public know.
@@averyhakes7729 Oh, I see! The sun simulator as in accumulating green house gases leading to a gradual warming of the atmosphere making record high temps, drought and flooding all more likely!
Math predicts the measurements that we make from reference points that we decide on.
That is bullshit trying to sound smart.
Is an Ice Age Coming? | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios 2148pm 29.12.22 i have never had anything like this described before other than a brief nod via the sky at night etc etc.... it's worth listening to as one plays online chess or on-line pool...
What is all the background music used in this video.
Ice age? That's so 1970's.
Sure.... nothing to worry about - it's never happened before. ruclips.net/video/ZOFf1wyx91M/видео.html Oh, wait...
You folks are enjoying a [very] stable period in Earths history.
Very stable.
Enjoy it while it lasts.
We must introduce a tax to tackle global cooling