There's a question no one seems to address: Yes, we are putting extra CO2 into the atmosphere, and the planet-warming effects of CO2 are well-documented, but is it the case that, as the Holocene ends, the changes of the Earth's tilt, precession, and eccentricity (as described by the Milankovitch cycles) completely overwhelms all the inadvertent efforts by humans to keep the planet warm? Anthropomorphic global-warming suggests the next glacial period has been put on hold indefinitely because of human activity. That certainly could be true - and a lot of scientists think it is true. You probably can't even get a grant to study climate change if you don't already think that global-warming is mostly caused by human activity. But two other outcomes are also possible: The first is that humans are adding just enough greenhouse gas to delay the next round of glaciation. The second is that glaciation is inevitable, and the amount of greenhouse gases added over the last 10,000 years is negligible with respect to the overwhelming cooling that will happen as the Holocene period ends. So there are three possible outcomes - and from what I've read, more open studies are needed to see which path we're really on. Unfortunately, the way science currently works, there is no funding to look into these alternative outcomes - which, of course, leaves scientists open to being completely surprised when things don't go the way they are predicting.
@ItsJustAstronomical
3 жыл бұрын
I think it's certainly true that humans have delayed the next glaciation. In the book "The Life and Death of Planet Earth", the authors say that in a few centuries we will have exhausted most of the world's fossil fuels and the glaciers will return. They don't give any specifics on when this will happen. But I think the reason this hasn't been studied so much is because this is so far into the future. Most scientists are more worried about the next few centuries than thousands of years from now. And if you want to think about the distant future, the book also explains that the Sun is very gradually getting brighter. In a billion years, it will be so hot that the oceans will boil away. But the big unknown in all of this is the advancement of human technology. Maybe we will have developed enough technology in thousands or millions of years to make planet-wide interventions. It's hard to know.
@mxbishop
3 жыл бұрын
@@ItsJustAstronomical All good points. All I'm really suggesting is a scientific study that asks if it possible to use CO2 to control the balance between entering glaciation, and staying just outside of it. Like a thermostat for a house, only use it for heating/cooling the whole planet - in an optimal sort of way. If such a thing were possible, we'd need a lot more information on how, when, and why glaciation begins. There are some studies we can use, but more could be done to explore this idea. There probably is an optimal amount of CO2 for planetary health. But what is that value, and how is it derived?
@ItsJustAstronomical
3 жыл бұрын
@@mxbishop A lot of scientists are interested in this kind of question and they're working on it. It's just a really hard problem. Given an amount of CO2, what will happen to the climate? Or just given our current level of CO2, what will happen to the climate? There are plenty of different climate models out there. But they disagree with one another and aren't known to be very accurate. It's really hard problem, but I think we're making progress on this. But the other part of the thermostat is missing too. Even modest changes to the world's CO2 production are hard for us to implement.
@praem9597
2 жыл бұрын
Co2 does not warm the clinate. This is Ipcc propaganda.
@abebuckingham8198
2 жыл бұрын
Given that fossil fuel companies funded countless studies to try and disprove climate change so you're wrong about the grants. The problem is that they've already been studied and they failed to explain what's happening without man-made climate change. I'm sure you'd have trouble getting a grant to try and disprove the existence of gravity too but that's not a bad thing.
@freeamerican2708
5 жыл бұрын
If CO2 gas is the reason why we are not cooling off then why does the temperature not follow the CO2 but instead follows the rise and fall of the intensity of the sun? Yes the sun does become brighter and dimmer, and historically temperatures follow this pattern the sun sets. In fact the research I've been looking at said that the sun has been increasing in intensity and all the planets and moons in our solar system has increased average temperature. If greenhouse gases are responsible for it who's making the greenhouse gas on Mars and the other planets? The fact is that research shows that CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels have gone up and down wildly when compared to temperature while light intensity and temperature move up and down the chart on the same path. While all these people are screaming about climate change are well-intentionedI I wish they would turn those intentions towards problems we can solve such as pollution in our air oceans and our Rivers. Our problem does not lie in climate change but instead in our abuse of the environment.
@freeamerican2708
5 жыл бұрын
And don't talk to me about CO2 being a pollutant when I'm talking about things that are not naturally found in our environment such as plastic and hazardous chemicals.
@hansproebsting7391
5 жыл бұрын
Were you not paying attention? Climate used to follow the sun, but now we have pumped so much carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere that it is following those gases instead of the sun.
@freeamerican2708
5 жыл бұрын
@@hansproebsting7391 did you not read what I wrote? Temperature still follows the intensity of the sun not CO2, this even continues today. There were times during the ice age that the CO2 levels were higher than they are now, yet they do not believe the average temperature increased with the CO2 levels. Nice try, do some research.
@JasonVectrex_187
5 жыл бұрын
@@hansproebsting7391 exactly
@mobilemarshall
5 жыл бұрын
@@freeamerican2708 If you do a quick google search for information about solar activity vs temperature, you'll find that the temperature levels have steadily been increasing with some small influence from the solar cycle, but continually rising quickly independent of the sun's activity. I'm guessing you're incapable of using google, since this is entirely obvious and readily available information. You can keep talking out of your ass if you want, but be aware this is a youtube comment area. If you really are so sure of yourself and you sound like you want to do the science, go and gather your own data and prove it. Spouting some dumb shit here isn't going to convince anyone.
@wayneleis6878
Жыл бұрын
And the more CO 2 we have the better off we will be. Unless you are wanting to depopulate the earth to save it from humans.
@Ukepa
14 сағат бұрын
yes, and Freeman Dyson noted that the Earth has never been greener!!!
@SapaHollidaySaparonia
3 жыл бұрын
I studied Ice Ages as part of my batchelors degree. The Sun also has cycles and the Sun cycle periodically coincides with increases in volcanism. Volcanoes produce particles that ascend to the upper atmosphere and it is this that creates a lower temperature because the Sun is blotted out. All Ice Ages are preceded by increased volcanism. The amount of CO2 is approximately 0.0391 parts per million. This is measured by the percentage present in water vapour.
@misterbulger
3 жыл бұрын
Did you find if the sun's cycles impact volcanism in any way?
@syedjazibhassan4855
3 жыл бұрын
That doesn't change that we should be in a mini ice age if it wasn't for our co2 production
@chrissmartin4137
3 жыл бұрын
Excuse me, but the amount of CO2 ist aproximately ... where? In the atmosphere it is arround 400 ppm or 0.04 %. Guess it is just a misleading typing error?
@jackculler1489
3 жыл бұрын
@@syedjazibhassan4855 we are still in an ice age. Polar ice caps = ice age
@Afreshio
2 жыл бұрын
@@jackculler1489 We should be in an mild ice age right NOW. But the facts is that the ice caps are melting like there is no tomorrow, thus heating the planet even more.
@mattmcclendon5425
4 жыл бұрын
Maybe I missed it, did the "little ice age" make it into that data set?
@ItsJustAstronomical
4 жыл бұрын
The little ice age is part of the temperature graph, but as the name suggests it was a small event in the grand scheme of things.
@Scott89878
4 жыл бұрын
There were lots of climate swings back and forth like that. Rome fell because of a colder period, the bronze age collapse was largely driven by a colder period. But none of those swings even compare to the shift from ice age to interglacial period.
@adriansandrigo7136
4 жыл бұрын
thats because the solar behaviour not milankovitch cycle
@jeffbenton6183
4 жыл бұрын
@Deimos Cain The Black Death has nothing to do with the little Ice Age. It happened near the close of the Medieval Warm Period. (Also called the Medieval Climate Anomaly, because certain tropical Pacific regions were cooler, even as the North Atlantic region was warmer)
@1450JackCade
4 жыл бұрын
@Deimos Cain I've a PhD, one of my specialties is Bubonic Plague in the Early Modern Period (1500-1800, roughly), Jeff is correct. The Bubonic Plague, that led to the pneumonic version that caused the Black Death or Second Pandemic. The Black Death was the second time Plague had come to Europe, the first was 600 years earlier, and neither outbreak had anything to do with cold, in fact, the plague thrives in WARM weather. It was so bad because Europe was modernizingish, and living in cities more and more. Both major plague appearances were a result of human forays into infested areas, destabilizing ecosystems of infected animals. That is all.
@baldieman64
4 жыл бұрын
So, what you're saying is that not only has farming and industry provided us with food and shelter, it's also prevented an ice age that would have killed millions through famine.
@ItsJustAstronomical
4 жыл бұрын
Yeah, something like that, but you can have too much of a good thing.
@baldieman64
4 жыл бұрын
Then clearly the only solution is the extermination of around 6 billion people and the reforestation of much of the planet. Hand on a second...... There are multiple global efforts all claiming to be planting millions/billions of trees. Is there something we're not being told?
@ItsJustAstronomical
4 жыл бұрын
@@baldieman64 That's obviously not the only solution.
@takeoffyourblinkers
4 жыл бұрын
@@baldieman64 Planting trees hasn't worked, but maybe this could. kzitem.info/news/bejne/16aKrp1tiGhno34
@happycamper3455
3 жыл бұрын
Here in Canada we had an iceage 12,000 years ago...co2 levels now are roughly 400ppm...65mil years ago co2 levels were at 2000ppm to 4000pm that gew giant plants and giant animals...the gradual increase in co2 is a good thing..better than living in a frozen waist land..
@chrisziogaming
3 жыл бұрын
We ARE in a mild ice age right now, the poles do have ice where they don't in warmer periods.
@grindupBaker
3 жыл бұрын
Yes. Formally when there's a sizeable permanent ice sheet on Earth its in an Ice Age. Antarctica & Greenland mean Earth is now in an Ice Age. Bods everywhere use "ice Age" colloquially to mean "glaciation period" because it's more understandable by the unwashed masses, which is almost everybody.
@richb2229
3 жыл бұрын
Technically, we are in a ice age. But really in an interglacial period (warm period) that has lasted about 10,000 years so far. And, we are the rising side of a peak in global temperature related to the Milinković cycles. For civilization, the end of this interglacial period is much more of a threat than the little bit of warming we might see over the next hundred years or so. Ice ages are very difficult to survive.
@andrejcerjak1790
2 жыл бұрын
@@richb2229 Exactly! We (human race and animals and plants) should be much more afraid of the ice ages than warm periods! This global warming fear is generated by rich elite who don't want to risk changes in which they would probably lose some of their influence (and their properties next to the beaches). . And those who oppose this theories are condemned to media silence, some even lose their jobs (many others are quiet because of their fear of losing their jobs) Even when sea levels do start to rise (which still isn't happening - 30 years or more after it was announced) it will not happen over night, it will be a very slow process instead unlike in those stupid movies supporting the fear of "Global Warming"!
@michaeldeierhoi4096
2 жыл бұрын
@@andrejcerjak1790 The global warming fear is absolutely NOT generated by the global elite. Global Warming science is well established by the climate scientists who study it. Saying that we have more to fear from a global ice age is pure hubris. There is no imminent ice age in the foreseeable future. We are however seeing the direct effects of global warming right now!! There is increasing drought, heat waves, floods going on right now. Forest fires are larger and moving much faster because exceptional drought and increasing temperatures. The Arctic Ice Cap is retreating in thickness and area at a record rate. The list goes on as the catastrophic effects of global warming intensify.
@saschaesken5524
Жыл бұрын
CO2 is the least counting faktor to climate change.
@rossstotz775
4 жыл бұрын
Something to keep in mind: Milankovich cycles don't directly cause ice ages or warming periods, they influence feedback cycles of heating and cooling. It's a slow, subtle process and it doesn't take much to be disturbed.
@flatsville1
4 жыл бұрын
Yes. Volcanic eruption for example.
@InitiativetHH
4 жыл бұрын
@@flatsville1 Still emissions from volcanos is less than one percent of what we release by burning fossil fuels.
@paulscottfilms
4 жыл бұрын
Yeah righto.You know it's good enough for many of us to realise that the further away from the sun you are the less heat.
@InitiativetHH
3 жыл бұрын
@sciphynuts So than you might be able to give me some reliable references for that?
@CarlosAM1
3 жыл бұрын
@sciphynuts problem is you are completely wrong here, give me a source for the bs you just said.
@terrytaylor2825
Жыл бұрын
Cherry-picked that time frame nicely... curiously no mention of the epochs in history when the CO2 levels were many, many times current levels, but also the most rampant exploding-with-life-forms, and not much warmer. Or how those variations in CO2/methane (negligible effect that methane has, due to its reactivity) may or may not correlate or correspond with the Milankovitch cycles. How can you ascribe the changes to human activity when there are known human-less periods (without farming and petroleum-use) in the past eras that had more extreme amounts of what you claim are causing the climate change (or lack of it, since you say we should be in a 'mild ice-age' whatever that really means?)
@marcinc378
Жыл бұрын
Terry make an effort and look for explanations for other warming periods (e.g. PETM). It is not so difficult.
@thoutube9522
Жыл бұрын
I WON'T believe it. I won't'I won't. So there. Evidence? Who needs evidence?
@thedeathwobblechannel6539
Жыл бұрын
What about the effect of volcanoes on these emissions? And just to throw it out there 10 years of electric vehicles from Tesla is not going to change anything luxury vehicles are not going to change the world.
@thoutube9522
Жыл бұрын
I assume you mean the Cambrian Explosion. "At this time the average temperature may have exceeded 120 degrees Fahrenheit, even near the poles. Eighty-five percent of the earth was covered with water (compared to 70 percent today...the average temperature of these vast seas may have been in the range of 100 to 110 degrees Fahrenheit." Or to put it another way. Yes, there have been times when CO2 is higher. and yes it was hotter and yes the sea level was massively higher. In other words, EXACTLY the conditions we're hoping to avoid.
@ThatGuyz82
Жыл бұрын
@@thoutube9522 there have been many periods since the Cambrian explosion. Why are you picking the furthest back example?
@Jammyhorse
5 жыл бұрын
And the sun? I'm afraid your explanation is far too simplistic.
@andrewbeattieRAB
5 жыл бұрын
JB DAMN STRAIGHT
@freeamerican2708
5 жыл бұрын
They keep it simplistic because they think we're simpletons.
@hansproebsting7391
5 жыл бұрын
@@freeamerican2708 - It's kept simple because it is important that it be understood.
@freeamerican2708
5 жыл бұрын
@@hansproebsting7391 they keep it simple because when they get into the details their theories fall apart and people who don't do their own research just believe them. In the scientific method first you see if your theory can be easily disproved. Then you see if your evidence fits better into another theory then it does in yours. Then you invite other people's criticism of your theory, and try to prove their criticism correct. (Yes you try to disprove your own theory) Before you have done these things you really haven't proven anything. You can do an experiment and get the same results over and over, but that doesn't mean you analyzed the data correctly just that you repeated the experiment with the same results.
@hansproebsting7391
5 жыл бұрын
@@freeamerican2708 - and yet, I am reminded of the words of Albert Einstein: "If you can't explain something simply, then you don't understand it."
@andrewbeattieRAB
5 жыл бұрын
NONSENSE THIS IS JUNK SCIENCE How do you explain the earth having a mini Ice Age every 400 years without discussing the grand solar minimum????
@ItsJustAstronomical
5 жыл бұрын
Not sure how's that relevant to the main argument. Cyclical variation in solar activity can't explain what the Earth's has stayed warm and hasn't been following the Milankovitch cycle the past 9,000 years.
@freeamerican2708
5 жыл бұрын
@@ItsJustAstronomical To keep it simple so other people who might not understand what we're talkin about; The brightness of the sun cycles up and down which increases the amount of warmth we get from the sun or decreases depending on whether it's getting brighter or dimer. The sun is actually the biggest factor for warmth in this solar system, not CO2. The Earth has flourished with the CO2 content much higher than it is today. CO2 maybe a factor but the sun is the biggest factor in this solar system. But once you factor the sun intensity into this suddenly CO2 becomes a minor player in global warming. It's not that your information is not correct, but it is incomplete.
@freeamerican2708
5 жыл бұрын
@@ItsJustAstronomical On a personal note I did not subscribe to this channel because I thought you were always correct, but instead because you challenge my views at times and forced me to look at my views from a different point. And that is the nature of science itself.
@ItsJustAstronomical
5 жыл бұрын
@@freeamerican2708 I agree with many of your points. Yes, life flourished when CO2 was much higher than today. The question is which is more important variations in the Sun's activity or changes in CO2 levels. From the available evidence I see that CO2 is more important. We have detailed records of CO2 levels going back millions of years and we can see a close relationship with temperature. The rise of CO2 levels does explain why the earth's temperature has stayed warm when the Milankovitch cycle predicts it should have dropped and it makes sense why CO2 levels rose when they did. It's more complicated to talk about solar activity because we don't have a good way of measuring this going back long periods of time. Our records of sunspots only goes back a few hundred years. We don't have evidence that solar activity has been rising over the past 9,000 years. We don't know what happened. And the timing is also consistent with the rise of farming. We wouldn't expect that to related to solar activity. I'm open to disagreement and a friendly exchange of ideas. The original comment saying this "JUNK SCIENCE" is unfair.
@freeamerican2708
5 жыл бұрын
@@ItsJustAstronomical I do agree with you about the junk science comment being uncalled for, but that's the nature of the internet. I personally do not consider it junk science until I hear the phrase "it's not up for debate, it's a proven fact.' All science is up for debate, even well established ones, as we gain more information. When it's no longer up for debate it's called faith, and faith is religion not science. But I do appreciate the way you invite criticism, give it proper consideration and not just dismiss it without a thought. I look forward to going through your catalog as I've only recently discovered your channel, but I'm already recommending it to other people who like me appreciate considering other people's theories to see if our beliefs need to change.
@Ozzyfrog78
4 жыл бұрын
Haha as soon as I watched the previous video I wondered where we're at in the cycle, and then I see this video, nice!
@michealnagy6173
3 жыл бұрын
Actually you are on the correct idea! There is a lot to know about weather than previously understood! The more we learn the more we realize we have much more to learn.
@michealnagy6173
3 жыл бұрын
What is also a factor now is the earth is wobbly! Just like a top on a table does so does Earth! How does that now effect earths weather is only speculation but it is a factor.
@arnehofoss9109
4 жыл бұрын
First video was ok. This is worthless.
@amacuro
4 жыл бұрын
In the future people are gonna look back to see who were the idiots who ruined the planet
@snuffeldjuret
4 жыл бұрын
because it doesn't agree with your predetermined opinion?
@LongToad
4 жыл бұрын
@@amacuro Yeah, I'm hoping when people scan every comment on youtube within a few nanoseconds that they can see there's at least a couple of us fighting for their existence. Wave to them! They're watching us even now!
@amacuro
4 жыл бұрын
@@LongToad Hehe yeah kids on primary school in the year 2120 will be studying how the catastrophe of the 20th/21st centuries killed most of the animal species, depleted resources, flooded all coastlines plus whatever unexpected consequences we haven't found out yet.
@poncholarpez6233
4 жыл бұрын
We are in a mild ice age! Theres ice on the poles
@QuizmasterLaw
4 жыл бұрын
historically, is non-ice age = polar zones free of ice?
@QuizmasterLaw
4 жыл бұрын
@Melissa Sullivan i do believe an ice age is defined by the presence of ice caps. however it is a hell of a difference between ice caps around labrador (like my childhood) versus ice caps at NYC let alone all the way to the southern U.S.A. Without a) farming and b) cars and factories NYC would likely be glaciated if my understanding of the contemporary projections from past history is other than wrong. Anyway for sure Newfoundland should be glaciated were it not for cars and farms.
@QuizmasterLaw
4 жыл бұрын
@Melissa Sullivan around 1000 a.d. there was a serious temperature drop. This dropping stopped by 1400. By 2000 it had reversed, if I am not mistaken.
@MrTryAnotherOne
4 жыл бұрын
Not enough it seems.
@ATLparanormalOG
4 жыл бұрын
@@QuizmasterLaw Not quite, but close. Napolean's conquest of Russia was largely halted by a particularly harsh period of a mini ice age which all told, lasted from around 1250 to the early 1900s. The peak cold periods were in the 1600s followed by another dip almost as cold in the early 1800s, which is when he got his butt handed to him both by the Russians and the precipitous dip in winter conditions.
@carcarjinks1430
4 жыл бұрын
you totally left out the effect of solar activity cycles on the other cycles. i don't buy the CO2 argument for one minute. solar activity lines up directly with the maunder minimum, the dalton minimum, and other known historical warm/cool cycles
@snuffeldjuret
4 жыл бұрын
then why was it so hot e.g. 550 million years ago, when the sun was about 4,3% cooler?
@carcarjinks1430
4 жыл бұрын
@@snuffeldjuret - the atmosphere was a WHOLE LOT denser then. heat retention and transference is more than just about the composition of the air. it's also a function of density. global warming proponents like to point to the fact that venus' atmosphere is mostly CO2, claiming that is the sole reason for its heat. what they don't tell you is that venus' atmosphere is 90 times denser than earth's atmosphere. haven't you ever wondered why you can survive walking outside on a 110 degree day in texas, but if you stick your hand in 110 degree water, it will scald you and send you to the hospital with severe burns? or why the thermosphere would be freezing to exposed skin, even though that layer is usually over a thousand degrees F?
@snuffeldjuret
4 жыл бұрын
@@carcarjinks1430 how much denser was it back then? I have never heard that claim before, so I wonder what there is to back up that claim. Maybe you should focus on backing up your claims instead of talking about basic physics.
@carcarjinks1430
4 жыл бұрын
@@snuffeldjuret - earth's atmosphere has changed many times over its history. the biggest change of all was caused by the KT event of 65mya - the same event that killed off the dinosaurs, and marks the break between the cretaceous and paleogene periods - believed to be caused by a meteor impact on the yucatan peninsula. although ice core samples only go back about 200K years, there are plenty of other sources of information about the ancient atmosphere, such as air bubbles trapped in amber from over 100mya, which indicate much higher levels of oxygen and CO2 -- 31-35% oxygen, compared to 21% today. fossilized plants and animals also provide proof of not only higher O and CO2, but higher density - estimated to be anywhere from 2 to 5 times current pressure. such an atmosphere is the only explanation for the giant plants and insects from that period, which would need a hyperbaric atmosphere to grow to that size. insects breathe through their exoskeletons, which limits the size an insect can grow, because volume increases at a faster rate relative to surface area. dragonflies with 3 foot wing spans would not live in today's atmosphere. higher oxygen alone is not enough to explain the size difference before the KT event. higher pressure would be needed to saturate the blood of a dinosaur, with its limited lung capacity. earth is constantly losing a portion of its atmosphere to space. this loss is in the hundreds of tons per day. some of the causes are solar wind, thermal expansion, and open magnetic field lines near the poles that allow ions to exhaust into space. but by far the largest known loss of atmosphere was ejecta from the KT event.
@snuffeldjuret
4 жыл бұрын
@@carcarjinks1430 can you quantify the effect of "density - estimated to be anywhere from 2 to 5 times current pressure"? How does the calculation look like that makes you think it is the key to understanding earth temperature?
@gregoryroberts3583
2 жыл бұрын
I get it! I also get reduction of greenhouse gases devices.... but why are we not super focused on re forestations?
@hater_apologist645
2 жыл бұрын
Because the rich buy all the land so they can get richer 🥺
@xaviermaster1
Жыл бұрын
There are 8 billion people and everyone need house, like it or not we need to cut trees
@redlemon5594
4 жыл бұрын
Even today only about 12% of the earths surface is used for agriculture and much of that was never forest, it was prairie grass. Before the discovery of iron it would be pretty difficult to deforest what wasn't already deforested. I would really like to see your data on deforestation by human activity over the 9000 years you are referring to. Even 5000 years ago the human population has been estimated at only 14 million. Deforestation by humans increased greatly in the last 300 years or so but you have a lot of explaining to do for the other 8700 years. The main thing to keep in mind is that more than two thirds of the earth is covered in water and it's the photo synthetic bacteria and many other micro organisms in the vast oceans and lakes that generate and exchange the great majority of atmospheric gases. So any additional CO2 generated as you say from conversion of forest to agriculture would face the vast oceans to absorb and convert it. Being land animals and very egocentric ones at that, we like to think it's the beautiful forests on land that are the "lungs of the earth" but in truth it's the slimy bacteria and fungi that are doing the majority of the work generating most of the atmospheric oxygen, virtually all of the nitrogen and reducing most of the CO2 down to just a few hundred parts per million.
@ItsJustAstronomical
4 жыл бұрын
For the data on deforestation I would suggest looking at these papers: Kaplan, J. O., K. M. Krumhardt, and N. Zimmerman (2009), The prehistoric and preindustrial deforestation of Europe, Quat. Sci. Rev., 28, 3016-3034 Ruddiman, Fuller, Kutzbach, Tzedakis, Kaplan, Ellis, Vavrus, Roberts, Fyfe, He, Lemmen, Woodbridge. (2015). Late Holocene Climate: Natural or Anthropogenic?. Reviews of Geophysics. 54. They argue that there was much more deforestation per person when farming was getting started. Also, I slightly oversimplified the mechanism for deforestation in the video. Much of the deforestation was actually caused by domesticated sheep, goats, and pigs. They eat the young shoots of trees and over decades deforest vast tracks of land. Most of the sheep pastures of England were once oak forests before sheep.
@praem9597
2 жыл бұрын
@@ItsJustAstronomical Your video seems like propaganda for the climate change fraud.
@vanbatim5906
2 жыл бұрын
@@praem9597 That's because you can't follow science when it is put in its simplest form. It's not propaganda, it's your inability to comprehend. Or you're gullible.
@kevinturner7509
2 жыл бұрын
@@vanbatim5906 Those imbeciles will mistake anything that goes against their pridefully held confirmation bias as "propaganda." When they're presented with inconvenient scientific consensus, they merely dismiss it as the opinion of an opposing tribe much like their own conspiracy theorist group. They are largely beyond help or reason.
@Tucker93669
2 жыл бұрын
@@ItsJustAstronomical so they can't prove it, it's just an argument? Yet you claim it as fact?
@isctony
2 жыл бұрын
Interesting, so humans saved themselves from an Ice Age without even knowing it. We must be thankful to our forefathers!
@FootLettuce
2 жыл бұрын
But they have created something worse: A Warm Age.
@Siddhartha040107
2 жыл бұрын
A warm age in a supposed cold age. That might mean that when the warm age comes, it will be hell.
@xaviermaster1
Жыл бұрын
@@Siddhartha040107 yeah but it still a long time right?
@thoutube9522
Жыл бұрын
I'm assuming you live in a cold or temperate country well above sea level. That's great. For YOU. Some people live areas where it's already unbearably hot. Think about that for ten seconds.
@DipaTarigan
Жыл бұрын
@@thoutube9522I live in equator area, and I'm fine, thanks
@Dudanation12
2 жыл бұрын
So Earth became just warm enough to enable us to successfully farm and the positive feedback caused by farming kept us just warm enough to evade going back into iceage hell. I think we're still quite far away from the Earth being a maximum habitable and comfortable place overall so it's refreshing to know that we're currently in a low period on the Milankovitch cycle and should see warmer times ahead in the distant future.
@Khadgars123
Жыл бұрын
We are not in a "low point" in the Milankovitch cycle, this channel has it backwards. We just passed the local maximum, meaning hottest period of the current inter glacial. We are not set on a slow turn towards being colder with a new ice age expected in 50,000 years.
@thoutube9522
Жыл бұрын
Well, maybe it depends a little on where you live. If you're in Canada, that's great. If you live in India, not so good. Or if you live close to sea level. Luckily, people LOVE refugees. In the UK , excited crowds rush to the Kent coast to welcome the people arriving in small boats, hugging them warmly and inviting them to share their homes. No country in the world sees refugees as a problem. So if people start flooding north into the USA, for example, it will be fine. They can just make their homes in Florida, where Governor de Santis will give generous grants to newcomers. Refugees have never been an issue in the Southern USA.
@marcwinkler
Жыл бұрын
@@Khadgars123 of course you know about The Little Ice Age
@mountainflyhigh
Жыл бұрын
Current population is at least 4x what Earth can sustain long-term, no matter what cycle we're in.
@thoutube9522
Жыл бұрын
@@marcwinkler That's exciting news. So the fact that it used to be cold hundreds of years ago means that it's not going to get hot now. That's such a relief. You are so right. This is genius.
@William-B
4 жыл бұрын
4:02 “This released a lot of CO2” *First car you see is a Tesla*
@captTed
4 жыл бұрын
Yeah, as if Tesla cars need only hopes and dreams to produce. P.S. i do know they are probably better than the coal burning diesel cars
@laturista1000
4 жыл бұрын
@@captTed Tesla cars are only zero carbon emissions while driving, if and only if, the driver is charging at a station that gets electricity from the sun or other renewable sources. Sadly, most Tesla Supercharging stations are connected to an electrical grid that is powered by COAL! So electric cars are not really that eco friendly. They are better than a traditional combustion engine. Saves more money to the consumer and is easier to maintain an electric car, no oil changes.
@19thewanderer
4 жыл бұрын
@@captTed But do you know how much Co2 was produced making a Tesla car?? And did you know you can't make a Tesla car without using coal. google to find out.
@1queijocas
4 жыл бұрын
@@19thewanderer Well electric cars are only part of the solution, the next step will be solar roofs and electric mining machines (which Tesla is planning on making).
@jeffbenton6183
4 жыл бұрын
@@captTed diesel, like gasoline, is a petroleum product. It comes from oil, not coal.
@carl-bb4vd
2 жыл бұрын
Why was the co2 graph only taken back 10,000 years shouldn't it have been extended back as far as the milankovitch graph for a more balanced comparison over such a long period
@abebuckingham8198
2 жыл бұрын
So that you can see what's happening. If you add another 100,000 years for an additional carbon cycle it obscures the effect because the periods of the two cycles are so different. What I can tell you for certain is that there has never been a point in the last 2 million years where we had over 300ppm atmosphere CO2 until humans arrived. It would go from a little under 200ppm and back up to a little under 300ppm and that pattern has been steady for at least the last 800,000 years. So the entire cycle had an impact of about 100ppm. Currently we're over 400ppm and all of that extra growth came in the last 150 years. It was terribly bad luck that we industrialized right at the peak of the natural cycle.
@Jacob011
5 жыл бұрын
Anybody and everybody who produces a study about climate, it's evolution or any kind of prognosis should be forced to open source every ounce of data and source code that led to his conclusions. In addition, every single assumption in the study should be explicitly stated. Anything less is completely unacceptable. Don't hold your breath, though!
@tbdcreations5370
4 жыл бұрын
Uh, what? Data in scientific studies is sourced, and the whole thing is usually peer reviewed (the good studies anyway).
@Jacob011
4 жыл бұрын
@@tbdcreations5370 OK, so you're obviously not a software developer. Open sourcing means releasing the dataset and all the code that was used to produce every table and figure in the study. On top of that every assumption made should be explicitly stated and every funding acknowledged.
@tbdcreations5370
4 жыл бұрын
Jacob011 I’m fully aware of the concept of “open-source”. During the peer review process the raw data is submitted. It may not end up getting published along with the paper or article or whatever, mostly because the average reader isn’t going to go through and check for mistakes (that’s the point of peer review). But what if they did publish it? It seems your hyper-criticism on climate-related research (I’m curious as to why you’re only concerned about this type of research) would likely find another nit to pick, even when all of the data checked out. As for funding? It’s 2019. A few minutes on Google will find out where the research money is coming from.
@takeoffyourblinkers
4 жыл бұрын
@@tbdcreations5370 Peer reviewed means nothing when you have biased peers reviewing it. This is why nutritional science is so flawed. I would gather the same goes here, this is why you can get two polar opposite findings, depending who funds such studies...
@tbdcreations5370
4 жыл бұрын
Take Off Your Blinkers I know nothing about nutritional “science”, but the problem with your assertion is there are not “two polar opposite findings”. There is one common finding. So, either all climate scientists are biased only one way (incredibly unlikely), or there is some truth to their research. That is the only possibility when you think about it- if there were two groups of biased scientists publishing research and peer reviewing one another, you would not end up with two polar opposite findings on a subject, you would end up with a bunch of refuted research because no one would agree. That is why peer review is so effective. Everyone is biased, therefore when you do get a group of scientists to agree on something it has some meaning.
@richardbennett4365
Жыл бұрын
We are still in an Ice Age. It's just that we are in an interglacial period of the current Ice Age.
@bobleclair5665
4 жыл бұрын
have you noticed that they don’t bring up Milankovitch cycles when they’re talking about magnetic pole reversal,what effect the wobble might have on the inner liquids of the planet
@u.p.woodtick3296
4 жыл бұрын
Bob Le Clair good point, never considered it myself
@lewisyaxley
4 жыл бұрын
No it’s green house gasses Dame it. Shame on you for buying a car.
@paulscottfilms
4 жыл бұрын
Paul Scott 1 second ago No Social scientists say it's all Carbon. He is sorry for saying that the sun is hot.
@abebuckingham8198
2 жыл бұрын
Magnetic pole reversals are not cyclic and the internals of the planet move independently of the surface. Those two factors make it extremely unlikely that they're related.
@loshan1212
2 жыл бұрын
Because the magnetic pole and the earth's physical rotation across its pole are two different things? one is caused by the hot and high pressure material inside the earth (magnetic pole) and the actual rotation of the Earth is caused by gravitional means (the solar system's sun, earth's moon, other planets). The magnetic pole doesn't affect the movement of the Earth, so there's not going to be anymore or less sunlight, which causes Ice Ages and Greenhouse ages, as explained in the previous video.
@Goodcatt
2 жыл бұрын
Would be fascinating to understand the interaction of this theory with John L Casey’s Relational Cycle theory on the bicentennial cycle of sun activity’s influence on earth
@juliusapriadi
2 жыл бұрын
I guess it depends how strong these sun activity cycles are in comparison to the forces described in the video. If the sun activity's effect is relatively marginal, it won't change much - otherwise it adds another beautiful layer of complexity.
@lindaostrom570
Жыл бұрын
so many factors to consider besides " carbon is bad". carbon keeps us warm and the crops growing. no carbon no plant life. earths tilt, cme's, solar flares and gases, poles in flux, ozone depletion, solar maximums and minimums.....all are part of what we refer to as climate. climate is not static and never has been. so sorry for the inconvienience, but why dont you go out and march, throw soup on paintings, glue yourself to the road lmao, block roads and bridges. the natural forces at work will surely change just for you and your ill informed passions.
@dovlacro6382
Жыл бұрын
So, pollution saved us from ice age
@javonjohnson4394
Жыл бұрын
Yup, basically! But the cold will win out eventually.
@H00tel
4 жыл бұрын
Aren't we coming out of the last ice-age? Aren't we in an interglacial period? Isnt that supposed to be a warm/warming period? Doesn't current data show a cooling trend the past 2-3 years due to the onset of a grand solar minimum? So its supposed to get warm, its normal to get warmer, but the Sun just threw a wrench at that by going quiet so we could expect some cooling in the next couple of years. Great nobody can figure twat whats going on so blame man and CO2.
@LarsFerdinand
4 жыл бұрын
Some are born with a brain. Others are still wondering if they have one, like you, hence those silly questions.
@Phoenix-bn5ec
2 жыл бұрын
@@LarsFerdinand They only way for people to learn is by asking questions... dont be rude. How else are we supposed to better ourselves and open our minds more?
@sinephase
3 жыл бұрын
Thanks, Exactly what I was looking for! :D I laughed when you zoomed in to where we are now LOL
@djg585
3 жыл бұрын
Above video: "Farming increased green house gases enough to keep earth warm." Well then let's all give a loud hip hip hooray for farming! And a second though more restrained hip hip hooray for the industrial revolution that has also contributed to the life-supporting CO2 increase. And BTW, the small ice age we would have been in now (were it not for farming) would have proceeded into a full-blown ice age. And maybe it still will, no matter how much CO2 man is able to continue pumping into the atmosphere. Will the anti-global warming crowd rejoice to see mile-high glaciers again covering America's Midwest? No, civilization will be gone. Continental glaciation is very bad for humanity.
@gohrt9139
2 жыл бұрын
Spot on we would be in Arctic igloos by now and many would not of survived
@adamappell1212
2 жыл бұрын
Let's try to figure out exactly how much GHG's are needed and the exact composition of them to keep our planet at exactly 80° mean so we never have an Ice Age again. We still have to figure out how to stop that damn ring of fire from activating though lol.
@praem9597
2 жыл бұрын
Co2 does not keep the planet warm. Please stop the propaganda. Please check Willie Soon videos to know the truth about the climate change fraud.
@djg585
2 жыл бұрын
@@praem9597 I agree. I was trying to help the alarmists see a different perspective.
@qubes8728
2 жыл бұрын
Make hay while the sun shines.
@siriusfeline
9 күн бұрын
Wrong. CO2 is a trace atmospheric gas and trace gases have very little, if any effect on the broader cycles and changes in climate. There were long periods on Earth where the CO2 levels were 5000 - 7000 ppm (vs. 400 ppm today) and the planet was covered in jungle. You're pronouncing 'Milankovich' incorrectly as well.
@syncmaster915n
2 жыл бұрын
I've heard of these cycles before but didn't know the names. The way you explain things even my grandma can understand. Thanx
@whatabouttheearth
2 жыл бұрын
For the length of time of the cycles from shortest to longest remember POE: Precession (shortest) Obliquity Eccentricity (longest)
@TalkingGIJoe
Жыл бұрын
he is wrong... kzitem.info/news/bejne/xW6szXWlrZujmX4
@rogueriderhood1862
Жыл бұрын
Are you saying your grandma isn't very bright? That's not very nice, is it?
@gordanagarment
Жыл бұрын
@@rogueriderhood1862 BE NICE , Thank you.
@whatabouttheearth
2 жыл бұрын
But the difference is that farming releases C14 isotopes and fossil fuels do not, and what we're seeing from the 1800s to now is a dramatic increase in C12 and C13 in the same ratio as in plants, but not a proportional increase in C14, demonstrating that the main modern GHG emissions are from fossil fuels specifically.
@wayward03
3 жыл бұрын
It's been cooling slowly since just after exiting the last glaciation within this ice age. Both the medieval and roman warm periods were warmer than it is today. The coldest time since being somewhat recent during the little ice age. The current warming is not particularly fast or warm and we should hope our effects are as strong as the politicians claim. Why? Because cold is much harder to adapt to and is in our future.
@oldcountryman2795
2 жыл бұрын
Spot on. Warming is good.
@TankUni
2 жыл бұрын
@@oldcountryman2795 Have you forgotten that there's ~8 billion people on the planet now, who depend on a stable climate and biosphere for food, fresh water and land that doesn't flood? Just look at the disruption a relatively mild pandemic has caused.
@oldcountryman2795
2 жыл бұрын
@@TankUni The “biosphere” is just fine sweetie. The tiny and gradual warming that we’re supposedly experiencing is a good thing, if real.
@TankUni
2 жыл бұрын
@@oldcountryman2795 Ok cupcake. But I think I'll give more credence to the scientific community though, who definitely don't share your casual attitude.
@oldcountryman2795
2 жыл бұрын
@@TankUni I don’t care who you “give credence to.” Just like “global warming” it doesn’t affect me.
@earlwarner4404
4 жыл бұрын
Interesting how you have mentioned the knowledge we received from ice cores and such on the previous video and then totally ignore the CO2 levels in geological history in this one. Just in case you missed it... I just accused you of being intellectually dishonest, intentionally.
@ItsJustAstronomical
4 жыл бұрын
Sorry, I missed it. I'm not following you. The ice core data backs up what I'm saying.
@earlwarner4404
4 жыл бұрын
@@ItsJustAstronomical You are not following me? I don't see how "CO2 levels in geological history" is hard to follow. Especially with the vast amounts of data available to you on the internet.
@ItsJustAstronomical
4 жыл бұрын
@@earlwarner4404 Yes, I thought you were going to explain how I was being intellectually dishonest. I've looked at the CO2 data. When there's more CO2, the planet has been warmer which is what I say in the video.
@earlwarner4404
4 жыл бұрын
@@ItsJustAstronomical I see. You are just one of very many that think CO2 is the cause of heat instead of the result of it. How people come to that conclusion when it always follows temperature is insane to me but... whatever. Go ahead and put the cart before the horse.
@ItsJustAstronomical
4 жыл бұрын
@@earlwarner4404 You're quite right that geologically speaking (i.e. >10,000 years ago) that CO2 would lag behind temperature. This issue is quite complicated because temperature and CO2 both play off of each other. As ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. On the other hand, CO2 causes an increase in temperature through the greenhouse effect. So a rise in temperature can cause a rise in CO2 and a rise in CO2 can cause a rise in temperature. As I explain in my video, the Milankovitch cycle has been causing the temperature to change over millions of years. I did not say as you claim that "CO2 was the cause of this heat". CO2 still plays a role as it amplifies changes initially caused by the Milankovitch cycle. What this video is talking about is the past 10,000 years. The Milankovitch cycle would predict that temperatures should be declining, but that's not what is happening because of human generated CO2.
@FrankJensen68
5 жыл бұрын
So what happens when this is combined with the solar cycle GSM....?
@saurabhsalunkhe2417
5 жыл бұрын
Whats that ?
@joep9617
5 жыл бұрын
@@saurabhsalunkhe2417 Grand Solar Maximum or Minimum. Natural Solar Cycles (there are longer and shorter cycles)
@dickfitswell3437
4 жыл бұрын
@JST Inceptions I concur
@paulscottfilms
4 жыл бұрын
No you have to forget the sun now, KZitem told him so. Its co2 that causes heat.
@antred11
3 жыл бұрын
@JST Inceptions "Exactly! The IPCC, MSM and the extremists have long ignored the Sun." No, they absolutely haven't. But it's cute watching your squirm and pretend that they had just so you can hold on to your prefabricated notions.
@MrChosenmarine
4 жыл бұрын
Not sure what carbon has to to do with the Milankovitch cycles. The reason it's "so warm" is because we're in an inter-glacial period, and yes, we are in an ice age
@ItsJustAstronomical
4 жыл бұрын
The question is why is this interglacial period is lasting so much longer than normal.
@r.lindoncoutts1897
3 жыл бұрын
@@ItsJustAstronomical... normal? you're welcome to kid yourself but leave us out. BTW about half of the "carbon" stays in the soil and half is respirered as CO2 by the decomposition process ... I know, details, details but a couple extra words or using the wrong ones change the entire conversation from mostly truthful to deliberately misleading.
@klokoloko2114
3 жыл бұрын
Because more CO2 in air do not let planet to cool down so fast. Please learn how greenhouse gas effect works www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-2/how-greenhouse-effect-works.php
@paterater6196
3 жыл бұрын
Your video completely omits the fact, that the earth is greening. Now large parts of the Sahara are greening as well, because of co2.
@abebuckingham8198
2 жыл бұрын
That's because it has exactly nothing to do with the topic discussed in this video.
@paterater6196
2 жыл бұрын
@@abebuckingham8198 .../sigh...watch the video again, like from 2:00 ...
@AORD72
6 ай бұрын
It also misses the fact I have run out of toilet paper.
@QT5656
2 ай бұрын
You clearly haven't read the latest research. In many regions the greening is turning to browning.
@octagonalbagel4824
4 жыл бұрын
Great video but terrible comment section
@jamesgreig5168
Жыл бұрын
Excellent video, but isn't it strange how the conclusion can be negative rather than positive. It just shows how, if graph scales are manipulated sufficiently, you can alter the conclusions with simply changing the scales on axes. I agree with everything in the first 90% of the video and strongly disagree with the last 10%.
@daman7129
3 жыл бұрын
Why was the eemian interglacial far warmer than our interglacial yet co2 was much lower during the eemian? And sea level was around 6 metres higher across the planet, scary stuff!
@grindupBaker
3 жыл бұрын
I don't remember the detail on that one but I think the scientist said it was because the glaciation period (colloquial "ice age") before the Eemian interglacial was longer than the one before the present Holocene that made the Eemian a "short & sharp" one with a higher peak than pre-industrial . The main thing is that Milankovitch Cycles are a total Dog's Breakfast because the 3 of them don't ever line up perfectly and the orbital one has cycles outside its cycles (very similar to the Leap Year type of thing) so the SUMMER sunshine at specifically latitude 65N and latitudes near that (where ice can form in vast enough quantities on mountains) is a total Dog's Breakfast over a million years or so. You can even clearly see the 2 unsuccessful attempts at de-glaciation during the last "ice age" in the ice core proxies where latitude 65N got more SUMMER sunshine and the glaciers retreated but it wasn't enough (the 3 Milankovitch Cycles didn't align quite enough) and then the glaciers crept south again. You can easily find on the internet a plot of SUMMER sunshine at specifically latitude 65N because scientists understand it. That's what you really need rather than looking at the individual 3+ Milankovitch Cycles and trying to combine them all together yourself.
@abebuckingham8198
2 жыл бұрын
It's actually because of the topic of this video, the Milankovitch cycles. I
@daman7129
Жыл бұрын
#orbital forcing.
@enachelucianadrian
4 жыл бұрын
I dont want to see the opposite of ice ige if we are in ice ige right now😑
@lotusfrucht111
3 жыл бұрын
For now I'd call it lucky. Since the Cold is devestating for humans. But I guess we'll see how hot it'll get. We're at an average temperature of 15° currently and in most historic warm phases it was at 30°.
@luigi2k
3 жыл бұрын
From climate records the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has no correlation to global temperatures. The increasing trace amount of CO2 follows the increasing amount of Earth's biomass. Below 150 ppm of CO2 all plant life dies. The increase in CO2 from human activity has had the effect of unintentionally saving Earth's plant life and by extension all life on the planet. The Carboniferous (450,000,000 BC) and the Ordovician (300,000,000 BC) were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the late Ordovician Period was an Ice Age and CO2 concentrations were 11 times higher than today - 4400 ppm. In the words of Patrick Moore, “This climate change thing is the worst thing to happen to science and the enlightenment since Galileo.” Enjoy his keynote address to the 2019 Economic Education Association of Alberta's 6th annual "Freedom School" conference. kzitem.info/news/bejne/to2Xzn9_gGZzeGk
@joejazz86
4 жыл бұрын
Dude you caved. We are headed into a warming period others are trying to profit from and you should Have included that coercion in you analysis.
@magnusorn7313
4 жыл бұрын
" We are headed into a warming period " yea? just as he said? did you watch the video?
@Trainwhrek
4 жыл бұрын
:Insert "Scientists Say" Comment Here
@humboldthammer
7 ай бұрын
Scientists say, "We are immature, animal-origin, evolutionary creatures, naturally bellicose and quarrelsome -- still largely subject to stimulus and response -- until we evolve further. Our immediate supervisors await the day that we take that next HUGE evolutionary step. There will be an Epochal Eclipse a CROSS North America on April 8th 2024, when MORE shall be revealed to those with "eyes and ears." The rest will see only an eclipse. Don't stare at the sun: Matthew 16: 4 Jonah 3: 5, 8 Jonah 4: 11."
@SteveGarai
Жыл бұрын
In terms of the reference to C02, near the end of the video: the geological time frame under consideration is much too short. If you look at the last 600,000,000 years you will see that C02 levels have been much higher than today, (we are in C02 famine today, as opposed to what the IPCC will try to tell you, that "there has never been so much C02 in the atmosphere as today!") in fact there were ice ages where C02 levels were in the thousands of parts per million - ppm (it is about 400 ppm today), so greenhouse gases do not explain temperature. Yes C02 is a trace gas, and does have important vital greenhouse qualities, (unfortunately unfairly demonized) but then so does Water Vapour, which is the largest greenhouse gas, and never "popularly" mentioned, yet has far reaching impact on earth's climate. Then there is correlation, which shows that C02 levels actually follow the change of temperature, NOT causing temperature, in other words the climate is far too complex for simplistic explanations. Mathematical climate models don't account for the "shoreline measurement" paradox, which take into consideration irrational numbers, (where very small rounding, swell to gargantuan changes in measurements over long time series analysis, hence garbage in garbage out.....for an excellent impartial source of information, (which also explains the brilliant Milankovitch cycles) see Jerome Corsi's (Ph.D) educational book; "The Truth About Energy, Global Warming, and Climate Change". Release date: 05-07-22.
@grindupBaker
2 жыл бұрын
The underlying heat-adjustment effect works like this: --------- "GREENHOUSE EFFECT", TRYING TO WARM IF THE QUANTITY INCREASES - The "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere operates like this: Some of the "LWR" aka "infrared" radiation heading up gets absorbed into cloud above instead of going to space so that's the "heat trapping" effect of a cloud. The top portion of the cloud radiates up some of the LWR radiation that's manufactured inside the cloud but it's less amount than the LWR that was absorbed into the bottom of the cloud because the cloud top is colder than below the cloud and colder things radiate less than warmer things. That is PRECISELY the "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere. It's the "greenhouse effect" of liquid "water" and solid "ice" in that example. You can see that "greenhouse effect" of liquid "water" and solid "ice" for all the various places on Earth from CERES satellite instrument at kzitem.info/news/bejne/zHtnvHZ5rWp4f5g at 7:50. It's the pink one labelled "Longwave....26.2 w / m**2" so cloud globally has a "greenhouse effect" of 26.2 w / m**2. - Solids in the troposphere have the exact same effect as the "cloud greenhouse effect" above for the exact same reason. - Infrared-active gases in the troposphere (H2O gas, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs) have the exact same effect as the "cloud greenhouse effect" above for the exact same reason. Non infrared-active gases in the troposphere (N2, O2, Ar) have no "greenhouse effect" because their molecule is too simple to get the vibrational energy. The "greenhouse effect" really is that simple, and it's utterly 100% certain. --------- SUNSHINE REFLECTION EFFECT, TRYING TO COOL IF THE QUANTITY INCREASES - Clouds (liquid "water" and solid "ice") absorb & reflect some sunlight and the "reflect" part has an attempt-to-cool effect, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the "greenhouse effect". You can see that "sunlight reflection attempt-to-cool effect" of liquid "water" and solid "ice" for all the various places on Earth from CERES satellite instrument at kzitem.info/news/bejne/zHtnvHZ5rWp4f5g at 7:50. It's the blue one labelled "Shortwave....-47.3 w / m**2" so cloud globally has a sunshine reflection effect of 47.3 w / m**2. - Solids in the troposphere absorb & reflect some sunlight and the "reflect" part has an attempt-to-cool effect, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the "greenhouse effect". - Infrared-active gases in the troposphere (H2O gas, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs) do not absorb or reflect any sunlight (minor note: except a tiny portion in the high-frequency ultraviolet where O2 & O3 has absorbed most of it already in the stratosphere above the troposphere). --------- NET EFFECT OF THE 2 ENTIRELY-DIFFERENT EFFECTS DESCRIBED ABOVE - The net result of the 2 entirely-different "cloud" effects is that clouds have a net cooling effect of 21.1 w / m**2 as seen in the blue-hues pictorial at left on screen at either of my 2 GooglesTubes links above. - The net result for solids in the troposphere is a net cooling effect because the change in this effect by humans is the "global dimming" atmospheric aerosols air pollution effect and that's a cooling effect (separate from its cloud change effect). - The net result for infrared-active gases in the troposphere (H2O gas, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs) is a warming effect because their 2nd effect above is negligible, essentially zero.
@romeawde8276
3 жыл бұрын
Something to remember. If we did not create a world where we have high Co2 and we were actually in the ice age now, most of the worlds people and animals would perish. Living things thrive much more in warmer climates than Ice ages. So would we all be here to comment on a KZitem video, No.
@mothmansavedme
4 жыл бұрын
Can you do a video of the evolution of humans and show where in the milankovitch cycle points of note are? Early migration, introduction of neanderthals/denisovans, Atlantis sinking (or at least when it's written abkut) etc. Is a timeline of Earth in general too much to ask? Like pangea splitting and stuff?
@AlwaysHereAndNow
3 жыл бұрын
Yes I want to see that too.
@abebuckingham8198
2 жыл бұрын
Humans have only been around for one and a half Milankovitch cycles. If we restrict ourselves to the period where we have reliable records we haven't even traversed 20% of a cycle.
@timberrr1126
2 жыл бұрын
We are at the top of a 10,000 year warming cycle. For the next 1,000 years we will flat line then drop into a 90,000 year ice age where temps will drop by 15 degrees. I think there is political pressure to keep everyone in fear. So, real figures cannot be presented. This guy says Milankoviich Cycles are not the major cause at the end of the video. Scientists have to obey the party line otherwise their funding will be cut off. So, persue looking for 2 million year graphs for Malankovich cycles yourself.
@charlesdarwin4780
4 жыл бұрын
Well. It's a really good thing that the Earth has a reboot function then huh? Once so much of the fresh water in the poles melts into the oceans, it will saturate the oceanic currents which bring hot water from the equator to the north. With the northern hemisphere getting colder and colder the ice sheets will have a massive resurgence, and we'll pretty much be screwed... Hope it's not for awhile...
@tokos4273
4 жыл бұрын
How dare you?!
@anonymeroverlord
2 жыл бұрын
I found your channel due to your videos about the Milankovitch cycles, love all your content. Keep up the good work. So many conspiracy theorists in the comments though, very amusing.
@ItsJustAstronomical
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks, yeah, I don't know what to do about those comments.
@edwardmacnab354
2 жыл бұрын
@@ItsJustAstronomical all comments are food for thought
@Tucker93669
2 жыл бұрын
well it's hard to claim a theory as fact, but this video did exactly that...
@QT5656
20 күн бұрын
@@ItsJustAstronomical Unfortunately many people are so ignorant of science they don't realise how ignorant of science they are. They claim scientist are just guessing at the physical properties of CO2 despite the 200 years of research, successful predictions (e.g. nights warming faster than days, stratospheric cooling) and practical outcomes such as heat seeking missiles.
@QT5656
20 күн бұрын
@@edwardmacnab354 No, unfortunately many comments are laughable nonsense that parrot myths which have been debunked countless times previously.
@karolokuniewicz9705
Жыл бұрын
Farming increased the CO2 level? Funny enough cos the CO2 level was the same over last 10 thousand years no matter how much we farmed. That is a bit far fetched hypothesis. The notable increase happened over the last 200 years. The Milankovitch cycles last from 20 k to 400k years so they cannot be used by denialists for explanation why the temperature is getting hotter by the decade. Earth's temperature has risen by an average of 0.08° Celsius per decade since 1880, while Milankovitch make the same difference by a thousand years.
@grindupBaker
Жыл бұрын
Starting 6k years ago CO2 didn't drop like it did for a half dozen previous inter-glacials. This one really stands out, it was supposed to be keep cooling with CO2 & CH4 dropping like the other half dozen but instead it all stabilized, doesn't match the orbit & tilt Forcings.
@sosscarz
Жыл бұрын
Can the sun cycles have an impact on earths climate? From what I have read so far is yes.
@jefflaporte2598
4 жыл бұрын
Better to be in a warming period than an ice age.
@OmegaTI
2 жыл бұрын
You left out one of the most important items, that being the solar cycles.
@dreddredd7137
3 жыл бұрын
The position of earth within the Milankovitch cycles wil have an effect when also an Grand Solar Minimum and a Geomagnetic Excursion Event takes place , it seems very likely that this takes place right now .
@rootsmanuva82
2 жыл бұрын
My take away: Human induced global warming is good because it's staved off another ice age which would've been very detrimental to civilization and farming.
@abebuckingham8198
2 жыл бұрын
It's good for the plants but it's not so great for warm-blooded animals like humans. They do better in cooler temperatures as it avoids overheating.
@jeromejarboe6944
12 күн бұрын
Based on your cherry picking of the data, your saying that we successfully released CO2 so that we did not freeze to death! Yay us!
@clarkkent4683
2 жыл бұрын
What happens when the cycle takes us back to a warm cycle and we are still farming? Even if we made all other practices carbon neutral farming alone according to how this info is presented here will fry us all… Alternately what if we counter the carbon situation and we enter a full ice age?
@abebuckingham8198
2 жыл бұрын
The industrial revolution happened at the peak of the warm cycle. It was incredibly bad timing.
@haven216
2 жыл бұрын
@@abebuckingham8198 ??
@stevecarich7678
4 жыл бұрын
What about all the volcanism with the Milankovitch cycles!!
@SCOTTBULGRIN
Жыл бұрын
But Al Gore, The High Priest of The Church of Climatology said we would never see snow ever again and that the Obumers ivory tower at Martha's Vineyard would be under the ocean by now.
@rogergeyer9851
17 күн бұрын
Your ilk makes flat earthers look fairly intelligent.
@unclecarl309
3 жыл бұрын
I worked in an industry that handles co2, so I have had access to co2 meters. The numbers change minutely, hourly, seasonally. I live in northern Canada,we can use the heat, it will lower our emmisions that we need to heat our homes. I have planted a lot of trees in my yard so from 650 ppm in the mornig it drops to 350 in the mid afternoon. So when they say 50 ppm are terrrible it makes me wonder who takes the readings , when, where. Satalite info has proven to be manipulated to fit political intrerests. PS in no way have we had record warming as predicted, Aug 22, 7 am was 6 degrees
@abebuckingham8198
2 жыл бұрын
The temperature and density of CO2 from place to place tells us exactly nothing about global climate. You're making an incredibly common mistake of confusing weather with climate. They're not the same thing.
@briansmith7256
Жыл бұрын
This is truly Eye opening. So the earth's axis change and eccentricity of the orbit around the sun is completely over compensated for by mankind's carbon emissions! I totally get it now! Thank you so much! I am off to scrap my car, sell my house and go and live in a cave. 👍
@snuffeldjuret
4 жыл бұрын
All the downvotes from angry AGW-"skeptics" who thought the first video supported their fantasy are hilarious :).
@cherokeestormchaser3259
5 жыл бұрын
The 2010 magnitude-8.8 Chile earthquake shortened the day by about 1.26 µs and shifted earth's figure axis by about 8 cm. And the 2004 magnitude-9.2 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake moved the figure axis by about 7 cm. We will have another ice age if this happens again.
@wallaroo1295
4 жыл бұрын
Makes you wonder how much the Younger Dryas Impact altered the axial tilt - that was quite a wallop, right at the northern axis. I don't think it was much, maybe none - but one thing of absolute certainty: After the Younger Dryas was over, Earth's climate radically stabilized - comparatively speaking.
@dg-vg9di
Жыл бұрын
But they keep saying we’re in global warming. The ice caps are going to melt anytime and we’re doomed! I think it’s all hogwash. Earth goes thru cycles and there are many different ones.
@cherokeestormchaser3259
Жыл бұрын
@@dg-vg9di yeah I don't buy that shit either
@changeminds2736
Жыл бұрын
*_Sorry,_** Earth's axis doesn't shift from earthquakes, neither does your axis shift when falling and trying to jump.*
@paulgreen6980
3 жыл бұрын
So you were back pedalling on your first program on the milankovitch which layed out the planatry sistem very well. At no point have you shown that co2 has incrased the temp of the planet only NASA can do that in it's fiddling of the temperature charts whitch have been changed over the last 20years slowly over the years a little at a time so as not to be found out this change has helped NASA keep it's funding has this filp flop helped you keep yours?
@ItsJustAstronomical
3 жыл бұрын
There was no backpetalling. People misinterpreted the video. It had little to do with the global warming debate. This didn't help me keep my funding. I'm not funded. It's just important to me to get the science right.
@praem9597
2 жыл бұрын
@@ItsJustAstronomical Your video is fake science.
@hunkarun
3 жыл бұрын
So, essentially the increase in CO2 slightly slowed down the imminent cooling which now is apparent as the last few years there has not been increase but rather drop in overall global temperature. Moreover, despite the fact CO2 has been high in the past, much higher than today's levels, ICE ages still continued to happen nevertheless. C02 has never been the primary greenhouse gas as WATER vapour is the main greenhouse gas, having at least 70-80% effect. C02 can slightly accentuate the effects but definitely not the level contributed by man which is merely 3-5% of the overall carbon cycle. The effect is negligible even if any actually existed in the first place. That's the gist of it right?
@abebuckingham8198
2 жыл бұрын
That's definitely wrong. Firstly 9 of the 10 hottest years on record have been in the last 10 years so whoever told you that it was cooling recently lied to you. Secondly the last time CO2 levels were this high was 14 million years ago, about 11 million years before the modern cycle quaternary glaciation began. No ice age has ever occurred with over 250ppm atmospheric CO2. While water vapor is a greenhouse gas the atmosphere hold more as the temperature increases. This means it will amplify any warming or cooling effects rather than regulating it by itself. This is not the case for CO2 as temperature changes do not effect its concentration in the atmosphere. Finally, the evidence of man-made climate change is overwhelming. If you aren't aware of it then you either haven't looked at the evidence, are incredibly stupid, or lying intentionally. It seems obvious you haven't looked at the evidence since you got essentially all the facts wrong but at the same time being so consistently wrong typically takes effort so you could be lying intentionally too. I guess you're the only one who knows which applies to you.
@hunkarun
2 жыл бұрын
@@abebuckingham8198 Overall global temperature average from 2015 to 2021(last 7 years) show a -0.88°C, in a downward trend over a century and -0.09°C over a decade, as per Official NOAA records. Where's the warming? Just in case you didn't know, carbon dioxide is known as the Gas of Life, as it plays a crucial role in sustaining life on Earth for millenia.
@hunkarun
2 жыл бұрын
@@abebuckingham8198 BTW, more than 95% of the last 10,000 years recorded warmer temperatures than the temperatures recorded in the last 20 years. So I'm not sure what you mean by 9 out 10 years have been hottest years? Hottest in comparison to what?
@QT5656
20 күн бұрын
Water is condensable. Hence, it is an amplifier not a driver of climate change. CO2 is noncondensable and that's why it is a key driver.
@sumerbc7409
3 жыл бұрын
Ok. The warm period before the last Ice Age lasted 12,000-15,000 years. Then the last Ice Age which lasted 100,000 years (the last 4 have lasted 100,000y each) Then it got warm again 11,700 bc with temps being what they are today by 9,700 bc.. So it's been warm for about 12,000 years. That's the same time it was warm the last time before a Ice Age hit... we are due anytime for another Ice Age. In fact all the last 4 interglacial warm periods are a blip on the chart compared to all the long 100,000 y Ice Ages. In other words when earth gets warm it's only for a very short time 12-15k y.But the Ice ages last 100,000 y. So it's been warm for that blip already....
@Afreshio
2 жыл бұрын
You are not getting it. That's why he shows the past's interglacial periods CO2, methane and temperature levels vs those same metrics of today/recent times. This is were our case deviates from those previous periouds.
@trkandras7225
18 күн бұрын
at least you should learn how to pronounce Milankovitch. not Mooakovitch
@scottrose3771
2 жыл бұрын
Eccentricity is still getting more circular. That’s putting the northern hemisphere summer closer to the sun and extending the interglacial. The albedo of the northern hemisphere drives the climate. Also of note, the sun itself has been especially active. The last hundred years. A grand maximum in fact. Man made gas is for sure contributing, but embracing the 400 year cycle, 60 year cycle, helps to explain why models are consistently wrong about how much warming we will see.
@CanadianPrepper
Жыл бұрын
This needs to be taught along with all the usual climate stuff. This makes global warming far more dire if we are supposed to be in a cooling period.
@alanbrown1345
Жыл бұрын
Whilst we are all aware that some gases make a small difference to the amount of energy able to leave our planet, it never ceases to amaze me that there is never any talk of water vapour as a “ greenhouse gas” it is the most relevant insulator. Yet nobody suggested that we get rid of water🤷🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️
@ShobeirSheida
3 жыл бұрын
You explained it really well in the simplest possible way, thanks!
@praem9597
2 жыл бұрын
Except it is lies. Please check Willie Soon videos for the truth on the climate change fraud.
@ShobeirSheida
2 жыл бұрын
@@praem9597 I'm very well informed about the desperate efforts of your clients to cast doubt in the public minds about the fact of the man made climate change. So, no. I won't waste any more of my time, not more than what I have already wasted replying to your pitiful comment. 👎
@praem9597
2 жыл бұрын
@@ShobeirSheida My clients? What are you talking about? You are talking nonsense not only about climate but also about other things. You are very weird. Please check Willie Soon videos about the truth on the climate change fraud.
@ShobeirSheida
2 жыл бұрын
@@praem9597 Nope.
@user-vp1sc7tt4m
2 жыл бұрын
@@praem9597 Humans tend to believe what we want to believe. We gather evidence and then choose. Some are more flexible than others and may be more diligent in their research. An open mind can learn to see through the fog of evidence supporting all sides of a subject but only if the mind is willing to remain curious and keep looking. Take what I said here and do with it what you choose.
@larky368
4 жыл бұрын
Baloney! CO2 is about as low as you can get. It's been much higher in the past and yet the climate keeps changing. CO2 is insignificant. It is a weak, trace gas and our contribution is minimal. H2O is the important greenhouse gas.
@ItsJustAstronomical
4 жыл бұрын
CO2 was higher in the distant past, but the climate was also warmer. There were no ice caps at that time. Water vapor is constantly evaporating and precipitating. It never stays in the atmosphere long. Higher levels of CO2 cause there to be more water vapor. This article explains more: skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
@CarlosAM1
3 жыл бұрын
This guy: talks about ice ages People: This is proof global warming is fake This guy: Explains how its not People: How much did they pay you? disliked.
@AdelindeVanDerHaar99
4 жыл бұрын
Plants (agriculture) also transforms CO2 in O2. In fact, grass transforms way more co2 in o2 than trees per square foot. It shouldn't make a difference
@hosnimubarak8869
4 жыл бұрын
Currently, about half of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels remains in the atmosphere and is not absorbed by vegetation and the oceans.
@AdelindeVanDerHaar99
4 жыл бұрын
@@hosnimubarak8869 okay, but that doesn't change the fact that plants instead of trees is not the problem. Your argument is a fallacy.
@danaldtrampf6717
4 жыл бұрын
@@AdelindeVanDerHaar99 It's not about output of O2 and absorbtion of Co2. Plants break around even with their output of 02 compared to what they consume themselves. It's about forests and other vegetation "storing" carbon as plant matter. Wild vegetation is often much more rich in plant matter than agricultural areas, so if you get rid of wild vegetation to plant crops you'll release the stored Co2 of the wild plants into the athmosphere
@AdelindeVanDerHaar99
4 жыл бұрын
@@danaldtrampf6717 Yupp. And then these crops will grow very well due to the high amount of co2 in the air which they'll transform into o2. It's basic chemistry. Wild vegetation or crops, it shouldn't make a difference. Obviously, there are other arguments why deforestation is not a good idea, but it's definitely not this one...
@yakoobski
4 жыл бұрын
@@AdelindeVanDerHaar99 You don't seem to understand what's the deal here. Numbers are made up just to visualize the difference. Let's take a 10 m^2 area. Lets have there a lawn of grass that weights lets say 100 kg. In the same 10 m^2 there could be growing a 1 ton tree. 10x more CO2 absorbet in the plant itelf as it is built out of carbon which it takes from the CO2 in the atmosphere. It's not about which plants breathes more or less CO2. It's about which ones stores/traps more carbon mass per area used. There's another problem with your grass. During fall/winter time most of the grass mass rotts out, only roots survive to regrow in the spring. The huge 1 ton tree will lose substantioaly less mass as it only drops the leaves and keeps the whole core of the tree during the winer. And conifer trees don't drop the "leaves" so they keep even more carbon trapped in them during the winter time.
@shekharmodi
3 жыл бұрын
Great video! Great explanation! Great graphics! Wonder why we never learnt about the Milankovitch cycles in our school geography! Please also make a video on how the situation on earth was (life forms, species, civilizations, etc) during the last ice age.
@ronnieriveros6067
2 жыл бұрын
how can they teach u the trick ? u need to continue blving the magician.
@segalaeksey
2 жыл бұрын
@@ronnieriveros6067 you need to take a spelling class from 2nd grade .
@KM-nj3cm
Жыл бұрын
Maybe if they change the curriculum and stop teaching about sex, LGBTQPIAB2... They might be able to fit in real scholastic subjects.
@joebrooks4448
Жыл бұрын
Sorry to hear that. In 1960s USA, we were taught about The Milankovitch Cycles in grade school, middle school and high school.
@joebrooks4448
Жыл бұрын
@Veljko Tekelerović Starting in 1970, US schools began a major decline. I was in 11th grade, and that year some classes were introduced designed to move away from real education to propaganda. It became obvious to many, that the revised aspects of Science, Economics and History, would have to be taught at home. As of 2012, The Milankovitch Cycles were still not being taught. I have not looked, since. I live within 5 miles of the Northern American continent Glacial Moraine. This area had glaciers recur during the last 20,000 years of warming, at about 12,000 years ago. A mile thick. Something happened, some think the earth was struck by several objects. Regardless, ignoring the massive weather control efforts globally, especially China's, California's and many others, pretty much negates the Climate Change crowd. What effect has that had on The Milankovitch Cycles? The current small bump in the waveform may be delayed or altered by these massive weather efforts.
@tedclapham4833
Жыл бұрын
Still there is no need for panic, the CO2 level had been dropping for 540 million years and during the last glaciation had dropped to about 180 ppm, when the warming started it jumped to 280 ppm due to CO2 being released from the oceans. Remember most plats start dieing at about 150 ppm and if the plants die everything dies. The CO2 levels started dropping when single celled plants and animals in the oceans started to use the carbon in the dissolved CO2 to make calcium carbonate body armour and they are still there in the oceans today. Projecting forward a few cycles and the planet would have died. However mankind had the Industrial Revolution and started putting CO2 back in the atmosphere and actually saved the planet. Unfortunately CO2 is still very much in short supply for plant food and the greening of the planet; we need 4 to 6 times the current levels to do so. Currently the planet is about as cold as it ever has been in an inter-glacial period and as mankind is a tropical animal a few degrees warmer is a good thing. Remember we are still living in an ice age, just not a period of glaciation. The green house gasses include more than CO2 which is currently in saturation, the most important green house gas is H2O, followed by CO2, NO2 and CH4. Doubling or even quadrupling the CO2 level will cause very little temperature rise as it is already in saturation, there is no reason to panic the only reason to panic is not getting more CO2 to green the planet!
@clemfandango5908
4 жыл бұрын
So where does cement an asphalt fit into this. I’ve heard that these materials retain heat for a longer period than just plain old dirt, meaning they don’t really cool much at night ... I read It’s why cities stay hot and just keep getting hotter and hotter in the summer months. I would think this contributes to hotter summers and have little effect in winters. Does this effect the overall global temperature? Or an I misinformed ?
@T3hJimmer
4 жыл бұрын
It's a local effect. Cities become "heat islands", but it doesn't have a large effect on overall climate.
@richarddobreny6664
5 жыл бұрын
So you’re saying CO2 is a good thing? And the medieval warm period?
@ItsJustAstronomical
5 жыл бұрын
Yes, CO2 has been a good thing for us historically. The medieval warm period was a period of economic growth. But you can have too much of a good thing. What's worrying is how quickly it's rising. It's not that CO2 is inherently bad.
@WCMurphy19
5 жыл бұрын
It was a good thing until it wasn’t, like now with the emerging global heating... likely to be beyond anything our civilization is set up to handle.
@fordtechchris
5 жыл бұрын
@@WCMurphy19 meh, we have air conditioning.... I run mine with the windows open to help slow the warming.
@TotalSinging
5 жыл бұрын
Michael Mann erased the Medieval Warm Period - didn't you hear? That is the problem with blaming CO2 for warm trends. The planet has seen very warm periods and very cold periods with much lower and much higher CO2 levels than today. They are not tied together. CO2 was chosen as the enemy by the UN to control population growth and keep poor countries poor.
@hawklord100
Жыл бұрын
The Milankovitch Cycle's are consistent and are not properly understood as too which combinations of other things are creating this pattern of warming and cooling. But we do know they are reasonably recent in the history of the Earth starting only a few million years ago. Some have speculated that it may relate to the fact that the Sun has entered the 'local' bubble in space, changing the amount of galactic radiation or cosmic radiation, recent science shows that cosmic radiation has an impact on weather as it makes it rain, cooling the earth as there is less moisture in the atmosphere to hold on to warmth over night. Others say the Milankovitch Cycle may be hightened due to Iceland blocking and slowing down the Gulf stream which once may have gone over the N. Pole into the Pacific but now sinks and returns south due to the mechanisim in place.
@michaelhamilton-piercy6703
4 жыл бұрын
Could trees and plants be growing larger with more CO2 in the atmosphere? Kind of like how dinosaurs were huge because there was more O2 in the atmosphere?
@CarlosAM1
3 жыл бұрын
no and yes because the extreme change in temperature would kill many of them.
@abebuckingham8198
2 жыл бұрын
There seems to be no change in size but they grow and die faster with more CO2.
@ands246
2 жыл бұрын
Not really. It makes sense to say that because trees need carbon from the atmosphere to grow, but they also need water, and other micronutrients. Those other needs turn out to be limiting factors, so the increase in CO2 doesnt really help plants grow faster. There was plenty of carbon to photosynthesis’s with prior to humans dumping tons of the stuff in the atmosphere, so it really hasn’t helped plants out
@whatabouttheearth
2 жыл бұрын
Even though that is often repeated there was not more oxygen in the Mesozoic era, but there was more in the Carboniferous era before the Mesozoic I suggest Dr. Christopher Whites historical geology videos on the eras (further down the list past Aron Ra's 'Systematic Classification of Life') with the blueish thumbnails: kzitem.info/door/PLgRoK-eyLjomaNEGNHjb1r8YWbUzVIskd
@whatabouttheearth
2 жыл бұрын
And no, it would drastically wear trees down. Keep in mind that trees basically respire just like us at night, at night they output CO2 in cellular respiration like we do, they do photosynthesis, the opposite, in the day time.
@nkristianschmidt
4 жыл бұрын
Can you illustrate how a climate model is normally built?
@paulscottfilms
4 жыл бұрын
Carbon dioxide , according to this zombie he's been told what to say and write.
@mcloathin9684
2 жыл бұрын
@@paulscottfilms carbon dioxide leads to life, and they lie.
@savery1967
2 жыл бұрын
Incorrect. Temperatures have been falling for the last 9 thousand years in accordance with the milankovitch cycles; search for the Holocene temperature record. Your argument might be true for the last 150 years.
@williampartridge7307
4 жыл бұрын
extra CO2 can not and does not cause run away warming .The absorption spectra for CO2 is already almost fully saturated
@snuffeldjuret
4 жыл бұрын
CO2 is not the only thing that affects climate though. If CO2 increase the temperature, that would lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere which leads to higher temperature, which again lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere etc.
@aufsesserpremium
4 жыл бұрын
The Saturation at 15 Mikrometer is not getting deeper but the flanks getting wider, so the effect is sublogarithmic and flattening but always positiv...
@williampartridge7307
4 жыл бұрын
@@aufsesserpremium Yes .That is likely correct .Will Happer thinks a 1 degree c. rise if CO2 is doubbled to 800 ppm. So nothing to worry about.At present there is no clearor measurable certainty that extra CO2 has caused any of the warming seen in the last 150 years
@aufsesserpremium
4 жыл бұрын
@@williampartridge7307 tricky...what I remember, the isolated CO2 effect would be + 1.2 by doubling, the point is the albedo/ice feedback + additional feedback factors. The milankovitch cycles itself would not have any effect at an icefree earth, the change in radiative force is small and would only lead to a change of ~0.5 C ...without any albedo/ice feedback ! An earth with 2 glaciated Poles is a sensitive system, any change in radiative force is amplified in both directions via this strong feedback loop. The enhanced radiative force from CO2 and other greenhousegases is indead measured with fouriertransform IR Spektrometers, the earliest Diagram I saw was a Satelite Diagram from 1969...don't remember the numbers, something like a + 1,5 Watts/m2 from ~ 70`s to mid 90`s The big picture is something nobody talks about....the far more danger would a next coldage in the overall iceage, the last 1 Million years the coldages did last ~ 100000 years against short interglacials, in a condition like before 20000 ...95% of human would die.... earthhistorical wie saw record low levels of CO2 with 200 - 280 ppm...the glaciation of antarctica started before ~ 34 mill y. with a drop unter 500 ppm, the further drop to the ~250 ppm started the glaciation of arctica...so I have no doubt we will have an icefree earth in about 3- 5000 years again...the melding needs time...the sight of the next 20000`s to millions of years is a CO2 deficiant age...various reasons...adapted plancton and other...in the longer run humans have to look for Strategies to keep the planet warm...like keep the fossile carbon for the time we will need it...
@williampartridge7307
4 жыл бұрын
@@aufsesserpremium Back in 1971 Rasool and Schneider said ''There is no Danger of run away warming from extra CO2 .Because the absorption spectra for CO2 is already almost fully saturated'' Will Happer recently said ''It is like painting a barn red .The first coat makes it redbut some old colour shows through. the second coat makes it red [like the lid on the can] extra coats make no difference .itis a red barn. There is no signature that extra CO2 is causing ''run away warming '' indeed the warming we have seen since 1850 ties in with the sun spot activity observed over that period
@Obeeewaan
3 жыл бұрын
I think I prefer slightly warm vs under a few hundred meters of ice... my house is where the last ice sheet ended more or less....
@keithbelcher6352
5 ай бұрын
I just had Mexican food and became major green house gas contributor. Sorry
@pascalraskal9347
4 жыл бұрын
The first Was great thanks for a follow up
@TimZoet
2 жыл бұрын
Imagine, with our current CO2 and methane output, we keep it up and we'll go into a warm peak on the Milankovich cycle... now that's scary.
@wmgthilgen
Жыл бұрын
Now that you stated all that, bring in a bit of Magnetic Pole changes. And then you could throw in a ever so wee bit of Plate Tectonics. But, just a wee bit.
@wolfancap6897
4 жыл бұрын
So mechanically speaking its all about the plants. Cutting down trees released their trapped carbon, and later burning them released even more carbon. Even later we started "freeing" the ancient carbon that was stuck in coal and oil. Nuclear power suddenly seems so inviting now doesnt it?
@InitiativetHH
4 жыл бұрын
Thank you for a very informative video!
@bearup1612
2 жыл бұрын
Interesting from your point you are saying that global warming is due to human interaction with the planet. You also pointed out that Jupiter and Saturn affect the earths orbit. I agree with most of your talk regarding the earths orbit and the tilt and rotation but have to disagree with the point where the earth is farthest from the sun and closest as when I was at school 1964 > 1975 my science teacher explained alot about the way the seasons and orbital rotation of the poles and orbit of the sun. in conclusion the earth is closest to the sun when both Saturn and Jupiter are opposite to the sun from the earth and the earth is furthest from the sun when again Saturn and Jupiter are on the same side of the sun
@TWOCOWS1
4 жыл бұрын
do you remember the Little Ice age? Man was doing all the farming and all the animal rearing, and yet it kept getting colder. Mister, you need to think more logically than listening to the modern climate culties. Otherwise, you mar your science with politics and render it worthless
@snuffeldjuret
4 жыл бұрын
there is more than one thing that affects climate.
@mirhasanoddname
4 жыл бұрын
That was because increased volcanic activity. You are the one mixing science with politics to fit you agenda and rendering your whole comment worthless. Embarrassing.
@TWOCOWS1
4 жыл бұрын
@@mirhasanoddname and what makes you think that the Milankovitch oscillation, combined with prescession and the polar drift, never mind the increased volcanic activity since Tambora and Krakatoa.... are not the cause? Or does your leftish "bible" won't allow you think in fear of losing you to logic?
@TWOCOWS1
4 жыл бұрын
@@snuffeldjuret Very true
@ufewl
4 жыл бұрын
Pity there are no timescales on the cycles given. Looking at past temperature it looks like we should be a lot colder than we are. It looks like man's CO2 is holding off an ace age. Say what you lilke about warming but compared to cooling it is picnic. We need to get a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere imo.
@ItsJustAstronomical
4 жыл бұрын
Since I didn't include a timescale on all my graphs, here's a link with more info, note that it is showing kiloyears so the time scale is pretty long: what-when-how.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/tmpE47.jpg
@granitfog
2 жыл бұрын
My only complaint is that the host spent a few minutes on the fact that farming rose atmospheric CO2 levels from about 250-280 PPM over a thousand plus years, but only a few seconds on the fact that modern fossil fuel burning rose CO2 levels from 280 to over 400 PPM in only 120 years.
@jb-xc4oh
2 жыл бұрын
Also forgot to mention that millions of years ago CO2 concentrations were in the 800 PPM range and life went on its merry way.
@santaclaws1501
2 жыл бұрын
@@jb-xc4oh you forgot to mention or understand that life at that time had adapted to 800ppm of CO2 and its effects.
@granitfog
2 жыл бұрын
@@jb-xc4oh Perhaps you didn't notice, but 800 million years ago, there were no millions of people living along the coasts, there were no farms to feed millions of people, (just for starters) I give the poorly informed two chances to get educated, but your statement is so off base, this is the only one I will write.
@jb-xc4oh
2 жыл бұрын
@@granitfog If you care to reread what I wrote you will notice I said life went merrily on its way. Are you so educated to believe there was no life on this planet when CO2 concentrations were 800PPM......I did not say human life, I said life. Human life is just a drop in the bucket compared to plant life, bacterial life, mammals, reptiles and insects.
@jb-xc4oh
2 жыл бұрын
@@santaclaws1501 Crocodiles have been around basically unchanged for 240 million years and still breathe the same air as humans today. Even humans suffer no effects from 800 PPM concentrations of CO2. However at CO2 concentrations of 150 PPM all plant life will die and so will humanity. Low CO2 levels are not a good thing.
@MrSaunamies95
2 жыл бұрын
Sounds like we prevented new ice age (although tiny one). I guess the real öroblem is, can we cool it down before next really warm cycle comes.
@not_really_asl
2 жыл бұрын
No, but it doesn't matter because I won't be alive by then.
@nationfly096
2 жыл бұрын
@@not_really_asl everyone currently watching or commenting wont be alive lol
@Tucker93669
2 жыл бұрын
you want warmer cycles than colder cycles...
@GlobalDesignHD
2 жыл бұрын
@@not_really_asl yeah I agree I try to output as much co2 as possible to rise the temperature
@rjones6219
2 жыл бұрын
This explanation of the cycles does not explain temperature or climate. What it shows is the position in a complex set of cycles. In fact, using the three parameters to show the overall cycle system, is a classical example of amplitude modulation. As any engineer or physicist will tell you, there are two sidebands to the cycles. In one sideband, the changes are slow, and in the other the changes are faster. What the impact of those cycles are will be too complex to predict. Funny, how when we experience cataclysmic events, such as storms etc. we are awed at the power of nature, and told how puny we earthlings are in comparison. Yet when it comes to climate changes, all of a sudden, we're almighty powerful, in influencing the climate of a massive planet.
@oobrocks
3 жыл бұрын
Sorry trumpers; the truth hurts
@pfwag
3 жыл бұрын
Today in Denver, the high will be 9F. Tomorrow 5F, and Monday will start out at -10F. Please cut down some more forests and make more rice paddies. I'll take global warming over global cooling any day.
@aaronjennings8385
3 жыл бұрын
Hot is the new cold.
@Im_Not_From_Around_Here
3 жыл бұрын
Great video but flawed, you forgot to account for the ocean's ability to absorb co2. I was curious on how you would end it and wasn't disappointed but saddened that a youtuber would fall for the political climate narrative but it's not your fault. Many have fallen for the lie. Your first video was great btw.
@shanejones578
3 жыл бұрын
Or that volcanoes put out just as much c02 as us and methane from cow shit. But hey ya know young dumb and stupid that’s the way they want the people
@Dish.Washer
3 жыл бұрын
@@shanejones578 1) Volcanoes do not emit as much CO2 as we do. Find me a source that says that. 2) Methane from cows isn't adding any new greenhouse gases into the environment because cows produce methane from carbon in plant food and plants get their carbon from the air, so the methane returns to where it came from
@Sapwolf
3 жыл бұрын
@@Dish.Washer So did all those millions of bison before the 1800's just NOT poop at all? Or, did they just sweat the waste off. People act like herd animals in large numbers only existed in the last two human generations.
Пікірлер: 3,2 М.