PLEASE do more content like this--how did we learn X, how did we come to discover X, how did we figure out X. It is so good and it is a type of content I've been looking for for years
@@michaelmr101except they don't teach you that stuff. They only tell you definitions, give you formulas etc, but rarely will they give more details. Let's be real, it would take too long or to advanced for the students to learn at pre college level
Agree, it's actually hard to find condensed explanations like this that you could convey to someone else easily. Same with the flat earth thing, I don't actually bother debating those people, but it's actually surprisingly hard to cut through the crap they believe with some simple facts when you haven't got them at your fingertips.
All of CO2 only 2% is man made. About 0.04% of atmosphere CO2 and the man made. CO2 is 0.0000008% of atmosphere. CO2 LEVELS HAVE BEEN HIGHER IN PAST AMD IT WAS COLDER, BEFORE HISTOR OR MAN... SO WHAT...
Hoax because of the POLITICAL POLICIES and obfuscation, outright LIES. Yes CLIMATE is changing, always has always will. HOW MUCH IS DUE TO MAN? ??? 1% 2%. GIVE ME A NUMBER!!! HONEST SCIENTIST SAY WE DO NOT KNOW, NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION.
If no fossil fuels useful by man today. EXPERTS WITH MOR PHD's THAN YOU say yemps might drop 1 degree? Yawn. What is the IDEAL temp? WHY DO YOU NOT MENTION SOLAR ACTIVITY, PLANETARY ORBIT VARIATIONS THAT REALLY CHANGE TEMP??
A government manufactured crisis! To consolidate power and control and take the individuals ability to choose how to spend their money (relentless taxation)leaving fewer and fewer dollars in the hands of those who earned them and transferred to the government!
Sabine, I enjoy watching your channel and have learned much. Regarding heat (IR) absorption by C02 at 14.97um: It needs to be clarified that the absorption maximizes out, or is saturated, at low concentrations of C02 (< 100 ppm ) just a few meters from the Earth's surface. That means adding CO2, or 'carbon,' to the atmosphere is not going to increase the amount of heat that is absorbed at this wavelength. The greenhouse heat by CO2 is already fixed. Other CO2 absorption wavelengths such as near 2, 3, and 4um and the p and r 'sidebands' around the main 14.97 band have negligible contributions to absorption. This is Beer's - Lambert's law, and studies from about 50 years ago by H. Hug using FTIR characterize this effect. Also, Michel van Biezen has a good lecture series on UA-cam that provides detailed data and insights on this topic I am wondering why you or other global warming supporters skip this basic physics fact and proceed to discuss postulated back-end hypotheses that violate the basic premise? Sincerely, Don Kloos, retired chemist.
I too have the experience that it's not always easy to find satisfying answers to my questions on the internet. When it is about climate it is extra tricky because it is hard to tell opinions apart from facts.
It's hard to tell if alleged facts actually stand up to scrutiny. Anyone can show a graph, but how do we know its source evidence is accurate? What parameters are there to show its significance. Does a decline of 0.06 in the pH scale (at Hawaii, not elsewhere) mean anything? What factors are missing? Contrary to the impression given by UA-cam clips, science is complicated, and hard.
@@fredneecher1746 Good on you. Do not listen to the "I know more about climate change than you do. It's too complicated for your pea brain." Do your own research and if you can, read the reports and thesis yourself. I have read 28 of them and seen quite a few errors in them. Almost all ignore the #1 gas that effects global warming - water vapor. The oldest one I read says that the earth will fail because of all the coal being used and that if nothing is done within 20 years, it will be too late. Punch line? It was written several years before the Titanic sunk. Yeah, that Titanic.
I agree Frederick. Sabine approaches this as a case to make, rather than a question to answer. I would rather listen to a good scientist who thinks it through critically.@@fredneecher1746
I set this task to a group of my Level 3 BTEC Applied Science students, because I know that it is not as simple a question as the public believe. I reckon over 99% of people who vehemently believe in anthropogenic climate change, have absolutely no idea at all what the evidence is, they just know that all the experts are agreed. Not one single student came up with the evidence, even when later prompted as to what I was looking for. Rather they just came back with rising CO2 levels coinciding with increased industrial activity, and similar information to your initial searches.
You would have to conduct controlled prospective experiments on whole close Earth analog planets with large surface oceans to accurately determine the climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. The effects are highly dependent upon the initial conditions. If the initial mean surface temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration are suboptimal for plant growth, then raising them is actually beneficial.
@@johngeier8692 for plants yes but what about the unwanted consequences? I find it extremely ignorant for people to say in isolation that increasing CO2 is good for plants. They think they have a gotcha when they are only harping on one side of the story.
Except global warming is not relevant for overall trends toward cooling historically, which is a bigger threat than any warming ever would be. A single super volcano which we are overdue for would plunge us into global winter or a single large enough asteroid. We are concerned about the wrong things. A carbon tax is a ponzi scheme for rich elites and would od nothing but green washing. Electric vehicles do nothing to help green energy because of refusal to use nuclear energy, which is safe, reliable, and ultimate future of energy, but stopped by interest groups and environmental nut jobs.
0:39 the fact that we can’t get a straight answer on this issue without doing a tonne of digging is a problem in itself, especially for those who are on the fence or simply wanting more information to confirm the narrative about climate change. Unfortunately, we tend to get a lot of narrativeand ideology
My confidence in Hossenfelder has taken a huge hit with this video. She ignores all other forces of nature that have an effect on climate, and focuses only on carbon dioxide. Then, she notes that temperature increases over the last hundred fifty years have roughly coincided with CO2 increases. Conclusion: CO2 is the control dial for climate temperature. Too hard to explain away the centuries and millennia when temperature went up as CO2 declined, or down as CO2 increased, so she ignores that completely. Or the fact that water vapor is 75% to 95% of the total greenhouse effect, depending on how you factor for clouds, or that humans account for only 1/5th of atmospheric CO2. So, if you only consider one independent variable, ignoring all others, and don't care about when temperature and CO2 change opposite to the hypothesis, and only consider the last century or so when there is some correlation between temperature and CO2, then you can make a weak argument that humans are causing global warming. But, THAT IS NOT SCIENCE, HOSSENFELDER!!!
Except she "forgot" that the Milankovitch Cycles are the primary driver of the Earth's temperature changes, as agreed by Climatologists. One has to pretend they magically went away in order to blame man for the temp rise. "Scientific research to better understand the mechanisms that cause changes in Earth’s rotation and how specifically Milankovitch cycles combine to affect climate is ongoing. But the theory that they drive the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles is well accepted." science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
But my uncle sits at home on his couch sometimes and feels things. Are you sure we're not tunnel visioning on evidence and physics at the danger of disregarding the emotional outbursts of my uncle?
My uncles did their own "research" which involved: - Ignoring PhD's and other degreed persons as they were "brainwashed by the system". - Only accepting results that agreed with their preconceived ideas.
You address a real problem and I think it's a difficult one. I think it's human nature not to want to hear that we are causing a catastrophic problem and that we need to change our behavior. Also it unfortunately doesn't hurt that it makes people feel superior when they think they have the truth and the experts are all just lying to them. Honestly, I don't know how to get through to people like your uncle.
In that case just ask his wife, if she could do you a favor and talk to your uncle on any second day how these emotional outbursts hurt her feelings. She should mention that the stress is such high that she can't do the chores until she calms down and that include 2 hours of intensive talk about her feeling. It is just a shoot in the dark, but i guess it takes less then 14 days before the emotional outbreaks of your uncle disappear like magic.With good connection to the church they might even accept it as a wonder.
Next, I would like to see a video that looks at how and why and when the narrative changed over time. When I was young, we were all being warned of a coming ice age. Why was that? If if the scientists were wrong about that, why were they wrong, and how did they happen to incorrectly reach that consensus?
I remember this 30 years ago: The coming ice age then they switched to heating. As if they need a global catastroph to push through the world government..
The narrative never changed. This very idea that "the narrative changed" itself is a modern invention put out by climate change deniers to just discredit scientists and this so called "consensus" about global temperatures falling in the future was not a real thing at the time in the 60s-70s like these people say it was. The actual reality was that even in the 60s and 70s it was clear beyond dispute that greenhouse gases we emit will lead to global warming. This is was already well understood and accepted by the relevant scientists in the 60s. What happened is that there was a separate, unrelated question about the net global effects of putting so much aerosolized materials into the atmosphere and what effect this specific increase in aerosolized particles would cause. And, reasonably, it was thought that the net effect would be a cooling one as light from the sun is reflected away more by the increase in aerosolized particles in the atmosphere. And it was correct. But that was an entirely different question. Their was indeed a very small cooling effect, BUT that has nothing to do with the warming caused by the greenhouse effect, which obviously way way overwhelms any cooling effect so the net effect together is still perfectly consistent with temps rising overall. So there was no conflict, no "change of narrative". They were two related things, and scientists were correct about both... both in the 60s and now. There is no contradiction, no "change". You just heard that somewhere and so assumed it was true, because it's a common made up talking point made by people trying to discredit climate scientists. But it's based on nothing real. There was no "change in narrative". There was no change at all. Its been consistent the whole time. What you need to do now, is realize how many other climate change talking points you've just accepted just as easily are also based on nothing/misunderstandings/outright lies.
The scientific community intensely debated the issue of global warming with much back and forth for decades. Global warming caused by humans was accepted as an established fact by the scientific community in 1995.
"Scientists say what their bosses tell them to say." unironically this, idk why people think that scientists are immune to taking bribes and the scientists who actually do science stuff (not just make a paper based on what the real scientists said) are very few and easy to control groups for example think about the scientist who take ice core sample from Arctic, very few do it and its a group easy to control and bribe but we base a lot of stuff on their research
I don´t get a couple of things and hope you can clarify: 1. If we burn fossil fuels which shifts the C12/C13 ratio. Doesn´t that mean that we are restoring the ratio how it was in the past? 2. All graphs were from after the industrial revolution kickt off. Do you know where i can get pre "industrial revolution" graphs for CO2 levels in the athmosphere? 3. How many % of climate change can be attributed to human activity (Controlling the data for other variables like sun activity, measuring in urban vs rural areas ect)
What do you mean ratio as it was in the past? Which exactly moment in the past? It was changing many times over geologic history? Also, how would that make anything better?
@@KateeAngelhow are things worse? There's no real trend in extreme weather events, except for people not maintaining their damns and building more stuff in flood planes.
Yes, we're digging up carbon that was once in the atmosphere. However, the change in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is unnaturally fast for the living to adapt to the changes. Also, 99% of the species that lived in the world is now extinct. So do you want us humans to go extinct too because it's natural? Or do we do our best to maintain Earth so that we can live longer in a better environment?
The timespan over which bio-organisms turn into now usable fossil fuel is much greater than the equivalent rate at which we are burning those. So yes, we are pumping CO2 back into the atmosphere, as in we are restoring the ratio ; except that we are much overdoing this, which actually imbalances said ratio the other way around. Basically, we are burning more fossil fuel than is able to naturally generate.
#3 is over 100% of warming is attributed to us releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere. If CO2 levels stayed at the 280ppm before the industrial revolution we would currently be in a period of cooling rather than warming.
Good job! You seem to be exactly the right person to make this video. I think it's astonishing that you have a bunch of people in the comments who identify themselves as 'that uncle', but instead of angry diatribes, I see people mostly exchanging opinions in a rather calm and civilized manner. With this topic and on this platform that is quite the acomplishment in itself!
These "uncles" gather at Sabine's channel because they, due to their issues, see her as "the one showing the finger to Them", which she isn't. The issues these people have are they are narcissistic and have low amount of knowledge, and that's a deadly combination behind so many antiscience movements today (antivaxxers, flatearth morons, chemtrail idiots, etc.).
He is right you only have to look at historical data from millions of years of CO2 levels and temperature and you will notice that they dont follow each other. You know when we had dinosaurs the temperature was way way warmer then now and the planet was much greener.
@@tomtetomtesson2477 yes, it probably was warmer. But the rate of change wasn't nearly as high as now. Also, why do you think a climate that's good for dinosaurs is good for humans? The whole point of action against climate change is to keep our atmosphere livable for humans, not dinosaurs. Also, the heat isn't gonna be the thing that kills us, the aftereffects will. And even then, not all of humanity will die, only the less fortunate.
@@jonnevaalanti4949 Did I say its good for the humans? We are no where near 12 degrees but telling the most adaptive primate on earth that we are doomed over a couple of degrees global warming (which we also aint nowhere near) is just fearmongering. History shows the opposite that when its warmer we thrive better and plants just love more CO2 also which actually has been dangerously low for plants recently but no one wants to tell us that. What scientists can do is to measure the temperature outside of city centers and the tell us how much the earths has become warmer before they start fearmongering. After around 30 wrongly predicted doomsday scenarios the last decades its getting tiresome to listen to another doomsday MODELLING scenario.
@@jonnevaalanti4949 You know that we are in a ice age period right now and no matter what we do we it will get warmer sooner or later anyway and telling us humans cant live under when temperature changes is like saying Africans cant live in colder countries. Colder climate has been proven to be more dangerous than warmer climate historically so why would it be any different now? Never trust a scammer who tries to silence opposite scientific views like the so called consensus on climate. They did the exactly same thing with Covid but they have been doing this for decades with climate. Every single scientist, media or politician who have accepted this kind of behaviour should be fired immediately. The thing with historical data is that it shows that temperature and CO2 level has not been correlating before but suddenly it does?
This is perfect. I've had that exact problem you described at the start of the video- finding the actual scientific evidence rather than just someone saying it's true.
@@jamesmcginn6291 If you're so sure that she is lying I'm certain you can easily point out which point or points that she mentioned are incorrect and I am sure you can also point us to the relevant scientific literature that supports your claims!
The problem is the underlying premises of: Warming is a threat to life. We can control the climate by controlling human behavior. The costs of controlling human behavior are worth the benefits. All false premises.
I hope, for your sake, that you realize that your observation there is absolutely irrelevant to the scientific finding that human actions - mostly our CO2 emissions - are causing a dramatic global warming. If you think you've produced a defeater of what climate science has found, then you aren't "thinking" at all.
And ironically -- in light of the overblown hysteria -- we currently live in an *_Ice Age,_* AND the Holocene is NOT the warmest interglacial of the Pleistocene. Gore's "inconvenient" film tricks many people with correlation but wrong causation. The lack of skyrocketing temperature -- CO2 leaving temperature far, far behind -- suggests that CO2 is wimpy, at best. 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
it's another inconvenient truth that more die from cold than from heat. And a further one that the 25,000 per day that die of starvation and its related diseases, is a far bigger number than even the worst AGW estimates predict, and could be solved with a far smaller budget..... not to mention that the increased CO2 increases crop yields... it is almost as though they want to end lives, not save them...
Carbon from plants going into the atmosphere is not solely from fossil fuels but also from soil carbon being lost due to forests and other land being cleared for farming. Still human caused but not just fossil fuels.
Since C14 is almost non-existent in fossil fuel given it's short half life, this alters the ratios significantly (though, the nuclear test stuff I hadn't heard of before) when it's being pumped into the atmosphere. I'm not sure what you mean by soil carbon lost - it shouldn't affect the levels of CO2 unless you mean via microbial action, but even then, when you consider the total biomass in a system and a relatively stable bio-decay rate, there shouldn't be a net increase in CO2 in the system. That said, as the temperature increases, the bio-decay rate will also increase. (I'm using "bio-decay" instead of "decay" to not confuse it with nuclear decay) When deforestation happens, it removes nature's natural CO2 absorbers, however, over a greater time span, there still won't be a net increase in CO2 from this (the wood from trees, eventually decays and any CO2 captured is re-released). The takeaway from this is to stop burning organic compounds trapped in the ground over geologic time scales.
@@davestorm6718the takeaway is more nuclear and to stop de forestation and plant trees. Net zero just seems tokenism while we are letting governments and corporations carry on doing this. The biggest countries who pump co2 into the air are China, Russia and America... China is trying to offset some of their emissions, but really fundamentally I don't see America or Russia giving a fk.
Good thinking, but i think the effect is minor, due to we burn way more fossil fuel than taken down trees. MinutePhysics video once talk about the carbon we throw into atmosphere per year is 100x of total mass in biosphere. ua-cam.com/video/SD9yVca6hHI/v-deo.html
@@fakestory1753 Sorry but that is not even close to being true. For the atmosphere: current CO2 = 3,200 gigatons approx. CO2 emitted by humans since 1850 = 2,400 gigatons approx. Emissions last year approx 40 gigatonnes. Biosphere breathing effect: 436 gigatonnes per year. I struggled to find a good source for total biosphere carbon but its enormous relative to above figures. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#:~:text=It%20has%20been%20estimated%20that,over%2040%20gigatons%20per%20year.
I am not sure about it. Is not the sun swallop up earth during it final stages? Than earth would not exist any more after such time. Than earth will never cool to absolute zero.
You should have an online discussion with physicist, Dr Bernhard Strehl. His arguments counter much of what you are saying. It would be very informative.
Hi, Uncle Skeptic here. Earth self-regulates its global temperature. This has been going on for millions of years. Any addition to an enclosed environment will be affected. The question should be is how that environment reacts and over time can it compensate for the intrusion? Now it's always about how soon are we going to die
Those who talk about the destruction of the human race are wrong and counterproductive. What they SHOULD be talking about is the destruction of an economy and infrastructure hard wired to the way the earth is right now. That in itself is huge and should not be ignored.
Global warming has killed many species and many going endangered cause of it, human don’t feel it much but if you care about biodiversity then you should wanna slow down the warming, we won’t survive without biodiversity ourselves in the long run. And yes economy will suffer too
@@allenchang6185 what percentage of the warming is due to the always existing natural cycles and what oercent is due to humanity? IOW, nature routinely kiss of a great many species, so how much of this would not happen of humanity never existed?
This point about the carbon isotope ratios was completely new to me - great information! I did not expect to really learn something new from the video but yet again I did.
Anyone realize global cooling is more a threat than warming? An ice age is easier and more likely than a runaway greenhouse effect. Historically, ice ages and global winters were more devastating than warming periods for life on earth aside from few notable exceptions. Cold is the enemy not warmth.
UC Davis has had posted on their University website for years a long article about nitrogen in Boreal Forests. They say that past rapid CO2 rises on Earth were sequestered by the Boreal Forests absorbing the CO2 into increased forest growth, naturally sequestered CO2! And the reason the Boreal Forests can do this is because they have excess nitrogen in their soils which the forests can absorb more rapidly than is normally thought to occur in nature and that this phenomenon deserves further study.
Observations show that ocean levels and climate change has fluctuated so much it is reliant on when we pick our climate change points on. Earth temps have changed since the beginning of time. There are far greater things to worry about such as tyrants and totalitarians. We have plenty of time to find alternative energy methods for transportation and manfacturing without shutting down and starving the population. Funny they never point to China's carbon production.
@@kellyfutrell6832 I mean yes tyrants are a problem, but the climate today has one large issue. Yes there are natural means of compensation. The issue is... humans. Do you want to give up your house to grow a forest there? Like yes vegetation will increase if CO2 levels rise and will absorb a lot of it. Unfortunately the forest area on earth is shrinking, not increasing. The planet can only compensate for the increased CO2 production of humans if we let it. On top of that most of those fluctuations where fairly slow. We currently see changes even just in decades. We do not really know if the mechanisms that worked in the past would be able to work here.
@@georgesimon1760 I think it is more appropriate to say: "there is a tree 60 miles ahead that I might run into in one hour of travel time. But there are massive sinkholes in the road immediately ahead of me that I should worry about first." Yes, taking care of our shared home (the planet) is an issue to address. But the time to real consequences of getting the climate problem wrong are on wildly different time scales than many of our other more present issues.
With all due respect, the concerns of 'sceptics' like Dr Steven Koonin and Dr Judith Curry have never been 'is climate change caused by humans?' but how much is caused by humans and what are the consequences. To answer the latter it is important to apply sensible projections of human emissions, which requires an understanding of what each representative concentration pathway (RCP) scenario represents, since some (e.g. RCP 8.5) are known to be so extreme as to be effectively impossible.
You might want to get up to speed on more recent research which is scarily beginning to make it look like RCP8.5 is far more possible. Climate sensitivity may have been underestimated...
Not only getting more likely but some, granted regional Data, one of our Profs showed us seemed to indicate that we are heading to a Scenario above the R 8.5. Meaning that the models possibly underestimate Climate Change. Not saying that will happen, because it could be an anomaly but the trend is scarry
I don't see how that's relevant. She didn't mention those people at all and she didn't mention their arguments either. You're just a bot getting upvoted by other bots and wasting people's time.
@@sntslilhlpr6601, sorry to disappoint you but I'm a human that has read the IPCC WG1 report, which presents no evidence to support extreme claims such as this.
@@ianmearsphoto, I'd be interested to read this new evidence, especially if it's in peer reviewed journals, as it seems to contradict current IPCC thinking.
The ideal temperature is whatever the existing ecosystems and societies have adapted to. Ecosystems and human civilization can adapt to changes in climate. But our CO2 emissions are warming the planet about 10-20x faster than natural variations. We've already got a lot of political instability, and this is only going to make it worse, as massive numbers of refugees move away from places that become uninhabitable, huge swaths of farmland become arid, and so on. I'm in Canada, and naively I might say, "well, more of Canada will become farmable, so that's good for Canada!" Except no, as soon as land in Canada becomes valuable, Russia, China and the US are not going to let us just have it. Russia and China are already getting ready to take over the arctic part of Canada as it becomes possible for ships to navigate through it. The point is that minimizing our dependency on fossil fuels seems to be far less expensive than dealing with the consequences of global warming. But since the former is a cost that has to be paid up front, we'd much rather let future generations pay the huge cost than pay a relatively minor cost ourselves.
@@liquidmagma You're right, I'm sorry. It's actually more like 100x. I said 10x-20x because I wanted to compare to periods of maximum natural variation, not average natural variation.
It's easy to demonstrate that CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by humans burning fossil fuels does in fact warm the planet. However, it's harder to say by how much exactly since estimating the influence of climate feedbacks is difficult. I would love to see you go into detail about Climate Sensitivity, how it is calculated, and some of the current estimates for its value.
This is where looking at stratospheric cooling comes into play - this effect seems to only be the result of CO2 and we can measure it as a point of comparison.
@@robnotwicz7002 "this effect only SEEMS to be the result of CO2" -trust us bros, because we really need that to be true so only certain people can drive cars and fly on private jets
there is no such a thing as "normal CO2 levels", it changed widely throughout earth's history. the problem is that we adapted to the earth we live right now, and changing it, specially this fast, could have dire consequences.
I think Sabine did a good job demonstrating that the measured increase in CO2 is from fossil fuels and so caused by humans. Did she address the connection between CO2 and climate change? I'm not sure she did. It may be true sea water acidification is an effect of increasing CO2 levels. But its connection to climate change? Drawing correlations to CO2 levels (acidification) does not draw the same correlation to earth temp. increase. Increase in sea level? That is very difficult to measure in part because of the accuracy and precision of the measurement required but also because of the lack of a real baseline. Extreme weather events? I'm not sure about this one but I suspect the correlation between extreme weather and CO2 increase is primarily supported by atmospheric modeling. I don't know, have any of these computer models been validated? Say, by using historical data to predict the present state of the atmosphere? Again, very difficult and a question that should be asked. We do know and have measured with great accuracy and precision the interaction of CO2 and radiation across a broad frequency range in the laboratory. I guess that is a start but I doubt it is the end of the story.
She did though, the evidence pointed out here was Stratospheric cooling, which exactly fits the models of what CO2 does in the upper atmosphere, which suggests the model's predicted effects in the lower atmosphere - which is more complicated to entangle due to it being much more chaotic - are correct. Given the short-form video, you can't really expect more to presented on that, but there's plenty of such evidence. Effects like the strengthening of El Nino/La Nina and other such weather oscillations driven by temperature have been well documented, as well as comparisons to historical and geological records of extreme weather events. By the way, sea level and global surface temperature measurements have improved enough with satellite technology that the effects are *very* evident even in the short period we have been able to measure them with that level of precision.
@@tomfeng5645It wasn’t a good video, nothing in here would convince a sceptic uncle. Most of the stuff she says here is more like “trust me, bro”, rather than clear, evidence based cause and effect.
@@tomfeng5645It wasn’t a good video, nothing in here would convince a sceptic uncle. Most of the stuff she says here is more like “trust me, bro”, rather than clear, evidence based cause and effect.
Explanation for science illiterates. In science nothing is PROVEN. It's either supported or not supported. There's no "trust me bro" nonsense here. She just presented supporting evidence (as opposed to the crap climate deniers come up with). In that respect, it did what it was supposed to do.
Thanks, Sabine. I believe in taking care of our planet.that said, over the past twenty years, I periodically see things in the news such as email leaks documenting data falsification, or articles about improper measurement methods, or government scientists refusing executive orders to release their data for public scrutiny, and I get angry and suspicious. Second, I see valid questions getting asked (some of which you answered in this video), and the response has (until today) been howling accusations of being "science deniers" and bigots and worse; further, I've seen scientists who asked valid questions get mobbed out of their jobs by their peers for simply asking some of these same questions. On top of that, when the only actions recommended by the politicians are to actively decrease the population, limit access to fuels that keep the poor alive, strip people of their civil liberties, and line the pockets of the politicians, I become very suspicious that any good science being carried out is being perverted for money and power by political schemers. Providing clear answers to direct questions is something Western civilization is not good at. And then we wonder why our society is polarizing. If we had more people like you, we might have less bickering. That said, I still have skepticism for academics,scientists on the government payroll, the politicians that sign their paychecks, the activist groups that push the political campaigns, and the "news" groups that spin the events. I very much appreciate your contribution to clarity and honest diallogue.
Can we ignore other factors (big and small) such as Milankovitch Cycles, Solar Cycles, Ice Ages - Interglacials ... is the science " settled " concerning Oceans, constantly changing Water vapor in the atmosphere ... what about predicting modeling ...
@FernandoWINSANTO the Milankovitch Cycles show the Earth would be warming right now even if humans never exist. They also show that CO2 level changes have always been a result of temp changes and never a cause. She ignored them due to them not helping her "prove" her predetermined outcome.
@@cybrsageMilankovitch cycles don’t disprove man-made climate change. The whole point of this video is that different drivers of climate change leave different finger prints and that’s where you may want to focus. It feels like you’re looking for an easy out.
@@Danimalpm1 nope, she did by saying "climate change is man made". That is like saying a pie is home made because you dethawed what you bought in the store. You just "forgot" to mention the store bought part. No deception by you, right? You did not lie by omitting a huge chunk of truth to make people think something untrue, right? She did not mention the natural warming at all, whilr saying the warming is man made. We know it is a combo of both, yet she "forgot" to mention nature at all. She took the easy, and untruthful, way out, lying by omission. I want the hard work, the "how much is caused by man and how much by nature" that no one seems to want to tell us all. We know the Earth would be warming right now even if humans never existed. People then say man is making it hotter. How much hotter? 1% hotter? 99% hotter? It makes a big difference and is important. Why is it purposely not told to everyone? Why keep it hidden?
I don't understand why no one talks about all the trees that have been cut down for shopping centers, more housing, and parking lots. Growing up I lived an area with lots and lots of trees. We had lots of undeveloped land with trees. I still live in the same area but more than 80% of the trees are gone. They have been replaced with abandoned shopping centers. They build a shopping center and then a few years later they build a new shopping center nearby. The merchants abandoned the old shopping center in favor of the nearby new one and the cycle continues. They don't go back to the abandoned areas and redo them, instead they just devour untouched land. This has also caused flooding as the water they used to go into the ground must now be handled by the sewer system which was never designed for the increased load. I have kept the trees in the back of my house but in many of the houses in my area they have taken down the trees because the people under 40 do not like to rake leaves in the fall. No trees = No leaves to deal with. Unless I have been liked to all the years in school, trees used to take in CO2 and give off O2. I say take down some of those abandoned shopping centers and plant trees there instead.
Yeah. Where I live in the Northeast US, the region has over 95% reforested in the 100 years. This is largely the result of farms leaving for the Midwest.
Not so fast Sabine. If you want an excellent summary of the earth's increase in CO2 concentration and how we can prove, with direct measurement, that the increase in CO2 comes from the burning of fossil fuels then this is your video. However Sabine, you very much did a wave of the hand of "How do we know climate change is caused by humans" or more specifically how do we know increased CO2 concentration causes global warming. A few sentences concluding stratospheric cooling is the simple explanation of why increased CO2 increases the earth's temperature doesn't answer with any specificity the relationship between CO2 and global temperature. The prediction of stratospheric cooling in the 1960s done by Manabe & Wertherald is a mathematical model and not a direct measurement. You can watch your previous video on the Green House Effect to get your detailed explanation of stratospheric cooling but there is plenty to debate when you examine the details of stratospheric cooling and the impact of CO2 concentration on global temperature. My point is not to prove or disprove that increased CO2 causes global warming. My point is you described "How we know CO2 change is caused by humans" and not "how we know climate change is caused by humans".
Yup, well said. Catastrophics is not a branch of real science; just ask John Kerry while having dinner with him at Davos. That is, if Bill, George and Klaus will let you get a word in.
There are additional CO2 fingerprints in the warming. Nighttime temps are increasing faster than daytime temps consistent with additional retention of heat, but not increasing inputs. Increasing ground level IR in the bands CO2 absorbs, with decreasing IR in those bands observed escaping to space by satellite. These were predicted based on the physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas prior to being observed. The physics of co2 as a greenhouse gas was worked out through observation 150+ years ago. By Tyndall, Arrhenius, and others. We also have 50 year old predictions for today's global average temps based on the CO2 emissions scenario as it played out which proves correct, but they didn't just predict THAT it would warm. They predicted precisely how much it would warm. To put that into context Earth hasn't been this warm in 125,000 years. Clearly one of the greatest predictions in the history of earth sciences.
@@IAMACollectivist What does that have to do with you giving evidence that dead animals make oil? You politicize science. I did not bring up worldviews. I asked for evidence that petroleum can be made from dead animals. Why can you not defend the WEF myth that you advance? Who's payroll are you on?
Climate is clearly changing but an additional question that needs to be addressed is the actual effect of CO2 on warming. I think all agree that it does absorb heat as Sabine describes, but I have also heard arguments that it isn't a major driver in warming. These claims are that other molecular content like changing water vapor ( & other) content in our atmosphere have much more impact which still confuses our ability to conclude that the changing weather is human-caused. These changes could still largely be due to natural processes. While it is becoming apparent that we are contributing to rising CO2 levels, is there a way to further prove what is actually the cause of warming? Because of the behavior of our politicians, I have zero trust in their policies. If they truly believed that this is a near-term existential threat as they claim, we would be seeing many different (& more effective) actions. Instead, they talk a lot, push EVs but then go about things in their normal way. If they were being honest, why aren't we seeing all options being pursued - like also working on adaptation to changing climate? Adaptation would have much lower impact on the poverty stricken countries while also being a much more effective way to minimize impact of changing climate on humans. All I can really conclude is that we are spending a LOT of money (and who is profiting?) with almost no guarantee that there will be any impact on global warming.
CO2 does not absorb "heat". CO2 has a very high emisivity to IR. That is why it is the most widely used industrial coolant in the world. And you cannot "trap"" "heat". Heat is not a "thing" that you can trap, it is a result of the state of energy and vibrational state of molecules. Further, no gas can "cause" warming, just like pouring 140F coffee into your cup, no matter how much coffee you add you can never get above 140F. "Heat" cannot "pile".
I don't understand your comment. We know for a fact that big companies in industries that contribute to CO2 levels have, by their own admission, tried to steer the narrative about climate change using propaganda for decades. Those same companies are leading the charge right now to influence politicians to deny the existence of climate change (see: project 2025's backers and its goals). And yet, you think that looking for sustainable energy is a world-wide conspiracy that other countries outside the United States (like China) invest heavily in? I agree that there are people pushing a narrative for profit. But it's way simpler than you think it is, and it's not the people who advocate for planting trees, creating better public infrastructure, or trying to preserve the environment.
@@BrinJay-s4v - not possible. CO2 has absolutely NO warming "affect" whatsoever. In order to make warmer, you need more energy. Where does the extra energy come from? .. Pouring more 140F degree coffee into your cup will NEVER get your coffee more than 140F, no matter how much you pour in. The other question you need to ask yourself is, why is CO2 the most widely used industrial COOLANT in the world? .. Why do ice-skating rinks use CO2 to freeze their rinks? (spoiler: to save 60-70% in energy to do so). The bottom line, you cannot, under ANY circumstances, violate the Laws of Thermodynamics. The entire premise of a "greenhouse effect" absolutely violates the Laws of Thermodynamics. No gas in our universe can cause atmospheric warming, no matter the concentration.
To assess whether or not we are being indoctrinated by the global warming alarmists, I only need to look at the way data is presented: 1) The graphs shown all magically start around the 1980s.. as if no prior data was available. 2) The graphs' vertical scale (atmospheric CO2, C12 vs C12 ratio etc..) vs horizontal scale (years). 3) The selectivity of the data presented.. eg: as if Mauna Loa observations can be extrapolated to the whole planet.. without question. If it has feathers, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
-Ask for actual, empirical data that ANY of the supposed " fixes" can , will, or have had, any effect at all, let alone the desired one , on "the climate". It doesnt really matter how" real" the problem is - if you can't prove your " solution" to address it will work- and so far, there is ZERO data that any of it will have ANY effect.No data , no facts, just "theory" and "hypothetical models".Science is about FACTS ,and they've not got any .
1.) There’s plenty of studies with graphs out there that extend much further back. Conclusions are the same. 2.) The scaling of the graphs is meant to demonstrate a point that the statistics are making. The conclusions are backed by rigorous statistics, not just the graphs. 3.) There have been countless studies of climate change exploring many different lines of evidence. This video may not be comprehensive, but research on this largely is. If you feel that a crucial piece of evidence is missing from the literature, help us out and publish research on it. I appreciate your skepticism, but your criticisms are pretty underwhelming. If you want to appear as a data-driven skeptic, at least honestly engage with the data.
@@afraidofmoths6547 Lets see your hard data that proves any of the implemented or proposed " fixes" have had, or will have, the desired effect. THAT is the data that matters no one ever produces- it doesnt matter HOW real a problem is, if you can not demonstrate reliably you can do a damn thing about it.And I've yet to see ANY scientific data to prove ANY of the current proposals have, or will, work.Since you appear to be Mr Master of Graphs, go find THAT data , and THOSE graphs.
@@mikebryant614 this is not what the original post was talking about. On this topic, we absolutely agree. Most politicians are absolutely incapable of proposing a decent solution and I believe most of the ones currently being enacted are half baked and not enough to make a change we need to see. that being said, your brain also seems to half baked if you can’t understand how reducing CO2 in the atmosphere will slow climate change. I suggest you also engage with the data, lol.
I seem to remember you did another video on why CO2 causes heat trapping, and how it's really quite a non-trivial reason. It might be a good idea to put a link to that video in the info beneath this video, because it goes into a bit more detail on the radiation and trapping.
Yes that video put a whole new meaning to what we are doing. In other words what is really needed is depopulation. If done in a responsible way which means some will lose out on reproducing then so be it.
@@Vile_Entity_3545 Why do you believe depopulation is a responsible way to counter climate change? I would like to understand your logic behind it. You do know people are a form of carbon sink, don't you? Where would those carbon go if people are depopulated?
@@SabineHossenfeldercarbon is more reflective. Venus has a 90% reflection rate and is internally heated. Your thinking of carbon monoxide. Also needs to transfer heat or else it would make things cooler
A good summary Sabine. All of this is uncontroversial i.e. most skeptics agree that CO2 is rising and the additional CO2 derives from fossil fuels. The controversy is about what happens in the future. How much temperature rise would a doubling of CO2 cause and how does this factor alongside the natural temperature cycles? Would this on balance be a bad thing or a good thing and what we should do to mitigate any negative effects? It’s about feedbacks, particularly whether the CO2 rise drives an increase in water vapour in the atmosphere and whether or not the models provide a reliable forecast of future temperatures. This is a lot more complex.
definitely a bad thing ... seen the floods ? then there are increased temperatures when its not raining .Then you can also get steam bath conditions . If the temperature reaches 35C and 100% humidity then humans cannot ..repeat .. cannot survive ...because we cannot release body heat and so like a car engine without a radiator we overheat and die . A medical FACT not a climate science fact . And that has nearly happened a few times recently ..This is why there are climate refugees ...even internally displaced climate refugees
Ugh, just stop. You guys were wrong before about climate change not happening, and you’re wrong now about it being a good thing or stopping it being impractical or whatever flavor of denialism you prefer. Don’t you guys ever get tired of being wrong? I’m gonna drop a fat “i told you so” now, and maybe in another ten years I’ll see you in the comments again and I can drop another one. Lying stupid assholes who aren’t willing to make any sacrifice for the greater good. Ten years dude 👀🫵
water vapor concentration in the atmosphere is directly related to temperature, so while other greenhouse gases have a much smaller impact, they increase the concentration of water vapor, accelerating the warming effect. other greenhouse gases removed, water vapor would be stable.
The issue is CO2's saturation point doesn't allow any more heating once it's reached. And we've already pretty much reached CO2s max saturation point when it comes to heating. As it stands, we're much closer to having too little CO2 than too much.
Why did you skip a step between explaining that the internet doesn’t readily show the causality of climate change, and then explaining how we’re tracking CO2 without defining the significance of CO2 in relation to other possible causes?
I'm just a trade worker, not a scientist and I gave up studying the sciences when I ran into some personal life difficulties that forced me out of college some years ago but your informative and fun videos have made me fall in love with science again. Even though it pains me greatly that I'll likely never be a scientist myself or contribute anything to research I can still enjoy catching up on the progress made by others.
I was a machinist. During my career I invented a modification of the Boeing 777 that made it the safest airliner in history. 1800 flying. No mass fatality accidents in 30 years. An acrylic submarine nose I made is in the opening credits of Star Trek Enterprise. The Atlantis resort is made of many acrylic aquarium panels, and tubes I made. I made the heart of the Large Hadron Collider. Made it 10 times better than expected, and was thanked personally by the engineers. I was told because of my work it effectively increased the power 10 times. Instead of expecting up to 100 years to find the first evidence for the Higgs boson it was expected to take as little as 10 years. It took 8. In my free time I solved dark matter. It's ordinary matter. I solved global warming. It's not caused by fossil fuel. invented a widely popular 3d stereograph pinup collection. I invented a flying car system in conjunction with a city architectural technology never seen before. Buildings, and cars float in an oxygen, and Sulphur hexafluoride gas mix in a domed city. I designed a electric catapult space launcher that's much more practical, and economical to build, and operate than any other design, and I solved the landing problem of SpaceX. Increase roll authority to minimize roll. Eliminated nearly all crashing, reduced fuel required, and increased payload by several hundred pounds. You can still contribute. There's a lot of low hanging fruit of problems to be solved, and inventions needed to solve them.
I have doubts about how accurately we can measure temperature and 'extreme weather events' from 500, 1000, 5000 years ago. Even if we are one or two degrees off, it changes everything by an order of magnitude. I'm sure we can get a 'reasonable' idea but we've only been measuring weather quite recently. Also, many have criticized how many temperatures are taken in cities instead of the countryside - where cities are usually a degree or two warmer due to concrete, etc. I'm not saying cliimate change isn't real or isn't caused by humans, but I really question how accurate we can get with this.
"I have doubts about how accurately we can measure temperature and 'extreme weather events' from 500, 1000, 5000 years ..." == Did you watch the video? Which part you didn't understand?
@@allgoo196 It is established science that the Milankovitch cycles are currently warming the Earth regardless of the existance of humanity. So that brings in the only question that really matters. What percentage of the warming is caused by humans and what percentage by the Milankovitch cycles? Is it 1%, in which nothing we do will matter? Or is it 99% in which even small changes will make a big difference? This is something no one seems to be able to figure out, yet it is the most important part.
@@allgoo1990 Yeppers, here you go, from NASA. I have also linked to a simplified graph showing that CO2 increases have always lagged temperature increases. Forgive the extra writing on it, I could not find one stretched out wide enough to show that on increase in CO2 is due to warming of the Earth, and that a cooling of the Earth always preceded a decrease in CO2. The orbit and rotation of the Earth are primary drivers in the temp of the Earth which is the primary driver of the Earth releasing CO2 when it gets hotter and absorbing it when it gets cooler. jimdo-storage.freetls.fastly.net/image/272748462/2ad28bb9-bea9-401f-865b-730f7e68e06c.jpg From NASA " In 1976, a study in the journal Science by Hays et al. using deep-sea sediment cores found that Milankovitch cycles correspond with periods of major climate change over the past 450,000 years, with Ice Ages occurring when Earth was undergoing different stages of orbital variation. Several other projects and studies have also upheld the validity of Milankovitch’s work, including research using data from ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica that has provided strong evidence of Milankovitch cycles going back many hundreds of thousands of years. In addition, his work has been embraced by the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Scientific research to better understand the mechanisms that cause changes in Earth’s rotation and how specifically Milankovitch cycles combine to affect climate is ongoing. But the theory that they drive the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles is well accepted." science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
IPCC AR6 was released in 2021 and the following are classified as "low confidence" that they have changed significantly in the "modern era" which means from 1850. "Low confidence" means there is little or no evidence they have changed. The AR6 reference is Table 12.12 regarding “Climate Impact Drivers (CIDs)” from Chapter 12 of Working Group 1 of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions) Aridity Avalanche (snow) Average rain Average Wind Speed Coastal Flood Drought Affecting Crops (agricultural drought) Drought From Lack Of Rain (hydrological drought) Erosion of Coastlines Fire Weather (hot and windy) Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods) Frost Hail Heavy Rain Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms Landslides Marine Heatwaves Ocean Alkalinity Radiation at the Earth’s Surface River/Lake Floods Sand and Dust Storms Sea Level Severe Wind Storms Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets Tropical Cyclones This is directly from IPCC AR6, and so Sabine many of the things you say proves climate change are contradicted by AR6. Remember this is not my opinion, it is from hundreds of IPCC authors. However, the summary for policy makers also contradicts much of the above. 120,000 years ago global temperature was 2-4C hotter than today and seas 5-7 Metres higher than today. There was no Arctic ice for at least 1000 years and somehow the planet didt incinerate and polar bears become extinct. In the dinosaur era, CO2 was 4 times higher than today but the oceans didnt turn into a seathing cauldron of acid. 1000 years ago Vikings farmed parts of Greenland that are permafrost today so we know for a fact it was hotter than today. From 1300 until the late 1800's was the Little Ice Age which was the coldest period in the last 8,000 years. So our current warming cycle is just the planet bouncing out of the LIA and past interglacials show this is perfectly normal. Global sea level has risen 130 metres since the last ice age 20,000 years ago and tidal gauges with histories of 100 years or more show that sea level has been rising steadily at about 2mm/year and this was recorded as early as 1810 which was before AGC could have made the slightest difference. The Central England Temperature database started in 1659 and shows that from 1690 to 1730 temperature rose an astounding 1.2C, then dropped and has been been rising sporadically ever since. Glaciers which had advanced at a rapid rate during the LIA started receding around 1750 which was well before anthopogenic warming could have had the slightest difference. So Sabine, just parrotting climate cult propaganda is contradicted by history and IPCC AR6.
@@hrlincoln9873 Maybe not laughably????? From: GROK: @grok 120,000 years ago, during the last interglacial period known as the Eemian, the global temperature was warmer than it is now. The exact temperature difference is difficult to determine precisely due to the limitations of paleoclimate data, but it is estimated that the average global temperature was around 1 to 2 degrees Celsius (1.8 to 3.6 Fahrenheit) higher than it is today. This warmer climate resulted in sea levels being 4 to 8 meters (13 to 26 feet) higher than present-day levels due to the melting of ice sheets. It is important to note that this period was characterized by a different distribution of solar insolation due to orbital variations, which played a significant role in driving the warmer temperatures. Quote
Why are you only looking at the data from 1960 forward, if you go back to 1880 when we started recording temperature data accurately it shows we are in a long term cooling trend. Where are you getting your info on more storms and more intense storms? They have actually decreased. Please state your sources.
On temperature, look at NASA website (The Raw Truth on Global Temperature Records). This has a temperature record from 1880. Not sure I can see a cooling period since the 1920s? Am I reading this incorrectly?
You missed the blatantly provided sources for literally every single plot. If that is any indication of your cognitive capabilities then I do not think you have anything of value to provide to intellectual conversations. Too bad you will never realize this for the same reasons.
@@elliotn7578 There were no sources provided, either for or against. It is clear that you do not have the intellect to discuss rationally. You would be better directing him to Chapter 11 of Ipcc ap6 report, Which claims that this is the case and new research proves it. Of course, the IPCC is not a scientific body and cherry-picks data. Other new research seems to indicate that Te cRED dataset of natural disasters shows a downward trend, The problem is that for any extreme weather situation, the data is not consistent according to reports. One will find it increasing and another will find it static or decreasing. Just like whether islands are actually being submerged, some are, some are rising and some no change.
First, the data don’t show a cooling trend from 1880 onward, they show the exact opposite. That exact chart is online in many places. Look it up. Secondly, I’m guessing you don’t live in the tropics. Stronger and more frequent hurricanes are real and as I live in Florida, it’s hard to miss. Yesterday’s news was that Hurricane Beryl is now the earliest cat 5 hurricane on record and that comes on the heels of forecasts that this year will be one of the most active hurricane seasons on record. The sources are everywhere. Do your own work and stop copying off everyone else.
This was quite interesting for such a short video. I was aware we could tell the CO2 was from burning fossil fuels, but I didn't know exactly why. Also hadn't heard of Stratospheric Cooling
didnt you learn in school that CO2 is plant food ? essential for photosynthesis? earth at its greenest was above 2000 ppm right now its 400 ppm ,Dunning Kruger cant science
@@kenwoodburn7438 or stratospheric aerosol injection ?these folks will limit their breathing to save themselves from dangerous CO2 😂 the same CO2 thats pumped into greenhouses to maximise yields and save water .These people forgot what they were taught school that CO2 is essential for photosynthesis.
@@kenwoodburn7438- Geoengineering has been used for decades to create weather extremes that can then be falsely ascribed to fossil fuel emissions. The agenda behind the weaponization of geoengineering is as obvious as it is frightning, and of course Sabine doesn't have a clue about it, being the poorly informed climate alarmist that she has become. It's really disappointing that she seems so ignorant about the sinister climate change agenda and its well-documented history. I guess it is time for me to unsubscribe from this channel.
It's like the masks: the holes are too big, but if you didn't wear one anyway... Come to think of it, that'll probably be up next: "Wear a mask to contain your expelled carbon dioxide! Nevermind how big the molecules are! Just do it or you're a denier!"
It isn't "big" per se its a few kelvin difference, but it makes a very noticeable impact. And about the 0.04% do not have an impact.. you think drinking a 0.04% solution hydrocyanic acid would have no impact on your health?
Fun fact: In 1976 Vangelis released the album Albedo 0.39. The albedo is the fraction of light that a surface reflects, and back then that's what the earth's albedo was. As of today, that figure has fallen to about 0.30 which is a pretty big change in less than 50 years!
Didn’t realize that albedo had changed that much in 40 years. Now I have to check on the other terms. What’s going on with the obliquity of the ecliptic?
@@Milan_Openfeint it really is a bad measurement, from what I can find online, albedo has decreased by around 0.05 since 1850, and only about 0.02 since the 80's with more accurate measurements, maybe the 0.39 comes from a different way of taking measurements that have not been accordingly modified
This will be the last time I watch one of your videos, Sabine. My confidence in your "expertise" has been waning for a while. Now it has evaporated completely.
If we wait long enough and take zero precautions (which we aren't), it'll certainly be. Like it's starting to That is, if you somehow think preventable deaths from disasters, extreme weather, resurfacing diseases and population displacements to not be emergencies that can lead up to Anarchy.
I that’s a ridiculous bar. It’s not gonna kill us all but it’s making millions of lives worse and killing enough already. Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and Floridians (to name a few) are going to have a hell of time in the coming decades, because flooding is going to continue to get worse, and so much will be destroyed. In western Canada, we used to only have to worry about dangerously smoky conditions a few days a year at most. Now it can be WEEKS. It’s not acutely life-threatening, but breathing ASH is absolutely horrible for your cardiovascular system
That's the heart of the issue, is it actually an " existential level" event or happening? Absolutely not , and anyone who says it is , is lying to you. As an aside, our collective Govts have failed horribly at combating hunger, homelessness, and drug abuse, problems FAR simpler than changing a planets climate - what exact part of that fact would lead anyone to believe they can successfully do that? I can not think of a single Govt program that has been so wildly successful that I'd even begin to entertain they can "alter the planets climate".
More accurate to say that humanity is influencing climate change that changes with and without us over centuries and millenia. We are nowhere near the hottest or coldest or stormiest weather that previouly existed on earth. I agree that we are now a new player in the 100 factors that impact weather.
Most studies say that we have been slowly warming over the last few thousand years and are still at the tail end of the last glaciation. I did not say that we are not an influencer, just that lots of factors influence global weather. One could also blame grazing mammals for a huge increase in greenhouse gasses. I am more concerned with the dramatic rise in human population over the past 100 years. If not stopped we'll soon hit an unsustainable need for food. @@Richard482
Would it be getting warmer even if humams didn't exist? Yes. Is it better for life if it gets warmer or colder? Warmer. The question is, what percentage of the warming are we causing.
The question has been answered, for the changes since 1980.. almost all human, because the things happening without humans doesnt happen within 40 years but within many hundrets of years.
@@georgelionon9050 it's gotten on average 1 degree warmer over the course of 100 years while in an interglacial warming period. We are in an Ice Age. The Altlantic ocean is widening due to continental drift faster than the oceans are rising.
Is there good evidence to support the idea that the majority of oil is fossil fuels? I am not asking disingenuously. A long time ago I went on a geology trip across the US where we visited oil refineries, and I know that there is indeed oil that comes from fossils from various time periods (especially in the US). However, I have also heard of the Russians having a theory that (some? most? I don't know) oil comes from deeper in the Earth's crust and is the result of some unknown production process deep inside of the Earth (i.e., not from plants). They came to this conclusion after revisiting old oil fields that had mysteriously refilled themselves. Not necessarily good evidence of oil not being a fossil fuel on its own, but it did plant a seed of doubt for me... do we actually know that all or most of our oil *is* a fossil fuel, or is that an assumption we have made because we've definitively proven that some oil comes from fossils, and made an assumption that this is the case for all oil everywhere? Not that it changes the climate change debate any, but if oil is a fossil fuel, it is finite, and we have even more reason to switch away from it. If it comes from deep within the Earth, however, that leaves the question of "how much oil remains" open.
If the Russians do have that theory, then that would be a massive insult to Russian science. As for why an oil field might "refill itself," they are not like giant fuel tanks that we fully explore, they are holes deep in the ground that liquid comes out of until it stops coming out. We mostly have to guess at the actual structures in there, but there could easily be a case where a pocket of oil exists, and they empty out that pocket to the point that it no longer flows smoothly, and declare it "empty," but there is another pocket of oil nearby that slowly seeps into that now empty cavern, slowly refilling it, and allowing it to flow again. This is not an infinite process though, it's just one finite reservoir refilling another, until both are depleted. Besides which, "whether oil is finite or not" isn't the actual problem, the problem is the harm caused by burning it, and that would exist even if oil were somehow infinite.
Oil deposits do not refill, they can just draw from other wells elsewhere. They are not a spherical, self contained bubble, they are a network of caves filled with a liquid, and you can drain all the liquid that is easily available, and declare a well "empty," but then a separate cave nearby can slowly trickle into it, refilling it. This does not mean that the oil is unlimited, it just means that you have multiple finite reservoirs.
@@levyroth It's bizarre that I can read your comment and the original poster's comment, yet my comment and another person's comment is hidden. Maybe YT doesn't like the idea that complex hydrocarbons are found on a moon where there has never been life ?
Accepting what you say which I definitely do, how then do we account for climate change in the past - i.e. since the end of the Younger Dryas and the beginning of our 'civilistation'? Glaciologists, dendrologists, geographers, historians, archaelogists, etc all concur in there being quite significant variations - for example, the so-called "Medieval Warm Period' or the 'Little Ice Agent' which followed it. I have never heard an explanation of why these past variations have happened.....it would be great if you could explain! I have total faith in you Sabine to explain all things scientific that interest me.......if only you had been around when I was a kid!
Unfortunately Dr. H., whine I love dearly, neglected to address other factors that can contribute to warming of the lower troposphere and cooling of the upper atmosphere: 1) increased water vapor, which has an even greater effect than CO2, 2) changes in global cloud cover, 3) changes in solar activity, meaning sunspot and coronal mass ejection activity, not solar irradiance, 4) natural cyclic fluctuations in ocean currents having periods from decadal, to multi-decadal, to century, and even millennium and longer, 5) and even changes in cosmic radiation. The UN IPCC’s climate model regime has been repeatedly falsified; repeatedly shown to run to warm, about double what has been credibly observed (you know, actual science). The good doctor is out of her wheelhouse. Climate is a massively complex chaotic system. It’s not enough to show that hydrocarbon fuels are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere; one must also show that the extra 0.0001 portion by volume of CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of not just warming, but dangerous warming. The best measure of reality is to look as changes in sea level as registered by paleo geological science and by tide gage records. Do not make the mistake of combining or concatenation either with satellite derived sea level. They are not the same measurement, and the satellite derived data is HIGHLY manipulated, unlike paleo geology and tide gage records. When you do that, you’ll find no acceleration or unusual rate of increase in sea level. You can also observe the polar ice, both ocean and land borne. We have written records going back over a century for that. And we have ice core proxy records from both a Greenland/Arctic’s glacier, and an Antarctic glacier What we’ve observed recently is nothing new. The data doesn’t lie, but government bureaucratic scientists do.
we do have a pretty good idea what caused some of those climate events, the problem is, as always, there are too many variables, and one or all of them could be the responsible for those events. the difference with anthropogenic climate change is that we have a pretty good idea of all the other variables for global average temperature increase, and the only one that aligns neatly is the CO2 released by humans.
One volcano eruption in Iceland in 1997 issued more carbone dioxide into the atmosphere than 50 years of cars and industiries combined. Somehow this data is no longer available.
The uncertainty is the part you glossed over. How much influence does an increase of CO2 have on global temperatures. If its small, then wasting trillions on it could be better used elsewhere. If its large, it's a serious problem. The reality is that the IPCC has a huge error range on this and there are studies showing it could be a lot lower than consensus. Additionally, the predictions are entirely modelling based which has its own sets of predictability issues. Additionally, there are also many positives in a higher CO2 world which are totally ignored in this debate. It's really an issue about people denying the reality that CO2 affects temperature, its about the size of the effect.
My goto response is a chart from over 10 years ago that shows atmospheric CO2 levels for the past 15 million years, and at around WW2 the line stops looking like a line and more like a spiky cliff. The prehistoric data comes from layers in sediment and ice caps.
Your chart is nonsense. Atmospheric CO2 levels have varied considerably over the last 15 million years rather being a "straight line". And so, more importantly, have temperatures. At various points in the last 15 million years it has been both colder and hotter than it is at present.
Today a lot of people think the weather is crazy but they haven't been alive for the storms we had in 1938 and in the early 1950s. The weather moderated after 1980 and it's been relatively calm since.
Interesting. I live on by Nepean River and there has been this historical sign from 1921 about a giant flood that reach the level of the sign. It's so far up the bank I would think it's impossible for the water to reach so far, it would flood half, if not all the city. Anyway that flood was 100 years ago and the river level has never been near it since.... Then between 2018 and 2022 that sign has been under water 3 times. Once in 100 year floods became almost annual events.
or the great Dust Bowl. Some estimates find that weather in US was most extreme in the 1930's. And how can we measure 'extreme weather' from 1000 years ago?
Your quizzes are perfect. I often want to relay your information to friends and family, and with other channels I'll be like "Uuuh, wait well... just watch the video". But when I take your quiz it forces me to make a hard memory about the topic points, and gets me to rewatch certain sections. Then when I'm transcribing from memory, I'm representing the information accurately :)
She still did not prove it was man made. My goodness science is so political these day believing the results of any testing is an exercise in futility.
I'm the uncle you refer to. Thanks for a great video. Now if they could just come up with a workable solution to it that doesn't cause more harm than GW I am all ears.
I am also not opposing change in energy production. But the funny thing is that we will not stop using old and gas for a very long time. Oil and gas are used for many things, not just as an energy source. And I strongly oppose the super expensive, super wasteful, super polluting, poor performing/unreliable draconian approaches taken today! It just needs to stop before it kills half mankind.
@@fischersfritz468 You need to go out more, windmills and solar panels everywhere. That is fine on roofs and such, but the big installations on Sea and near towns are really problematic. Besides, they are far more costly to keep operational and so they never truly pay for themselves. Huge upfront costs and energy waste and little benefit.
If atmospheric CO2 levels are driving warming, shouldn't we have seen an increase in Arctic sea ice melting over the last eleven years? But we haven't. Arctic sea ice at minimum extent 2012 was 3.3 million square kilometers. Over the last three years it's averaged almost 4.6. As per nsidc.
For what it’s worth, here’s ChatGPT4’s answer: According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), Arctic sea ice extent has been declining over the past four decades, with the 14 lowest extents in the satellite record occurring since 2007.
@@bishopdredd5349A good demonstration of the limitations of ChatGPT. Unable to do any analysis it misses the fact that there's been no increase in the amount of melting since 2012.
The average Arctic sea ice minimum extent 2007 through 2012 was 4.3 million square kilometers. For 2013 through 2023 it is 4.5 million. Sea ice actually increasing.
@@zstopperuno bullshit. Picking and choosing short snippets like that is dishonest. There are always dips and rises, but stats covering 43 years show what the trend actually is. Average December sea ice extent has gone down from about 13.6 million km² in 1980 to 12 million km² in 2023, and even dipped to 11.5 million km² in 2016. You're trying to sell us mouldy bread by pointing at the small remaining section not covered by green fuzz.
@@JuusoAlasuutari All the Arctic sea ice loss occurred between 1996 ( 7.6 million square kilometers at minimum extent) through 2012 ( 3.3 million). No increase in melting during the eleven years since then ( as per nsidc data).
Funny how the weather is so much more destructive on the telly screen these days but is exactly the same in my yard as it has been my entire life. Take a walk, people; trust your own senses. The box on the wall is not a faithful representation of reality.
This is so incredibly clear. Thanks Sabine. It's sad that this is probably only going to be watched by people who already know this (albeit maybe without this clarity).
Low lying islands are experiencing sea level rise. The Maldives is now almost out of local fresh water, see also Kiribati which is the first island that will disappear. Much of the sea level rise is caused by thermal expansion of ocean water, not by melting ice.
@@edwardmclaughlin7935 When the sea water rises, it starts to contaminate low laying fresh water reserves with salt water. Is it really that hard to see the cause and effect?
@@edwardmclaughlin7935I will take this opportunity to introduce you to an educational tool that lets you find these things very quickly. Its called google, and it is free
Nice and clear. Never really doubted it. But that doesn't mean that warming and ALL it's associated consequences is such a bad outcome. Also doesn't mean our reaction shouldn't be simply to adapt to the fact like we adapt to other and more drastic changes in the world (population increase, etc...)
I don't think you have done enough research on the effects then. The issue is not humans surviving. The issue is other animals and plants not being able to adapt like humans can. And that eventually leads to hunger of humans.
@@philosophist9562 And of course, sure, people in the US or Europe will probably be able to deal with it - with more intensive agriculture etc. But the vast majority of the world's population doesn't have the same options (not to mention that they will tend to further accelerate climate change, of course). Humans will survive... but it's also likely a whole load of humans will die and there will be tons of conflict as people are forced north.
TBH I never heard that carbon isotope explanation before, and this is both a great scientific evidence and a easy one to understand. Thanks Sabine for exposing it in such a didactic way.
John replied about how the isotope correlation is unsubstantiated. Which is correct but I dont think is helpful So let me try to explain C12 is the Carbon in the CO2 we exhale, as well as the CO2 that plants use, and that fossil fuels produce. C14 is radioactive and there are small amounts of it on the planet which lest us do carbon dating of ancient items. C13 was produced by the testing and use of atomic weapons 80 to 90 years ago. We dont know if there was a baseline of C13 before that so it could have been 0 before we started using atomic weapons. Measurements of the ratio of C12 and C13 in CO2 show C13 declining over the last 50 years. This could be because we are producing more CO2 or it could be because it was created 80 to 90 years ago and is slowly working its way out of the atmosphere. We don't know for sure.
@@GrandpasPlace further to that plants do use C13, the utilisation differs whether it is a C3 (wet and cool type plant) or a C4 (are dry hot climate type plant). This is well known even in anthropology where they test ancient collagen for what types of plants the creatures ate or in the case of carnivores what the animals they ate did eat. A decline could be described as going down if plants of the type most likely to take in C13 also increase as was shown by NASA satellites showing a vast greening of the planet.... largely by C4 types of plants. The acidification aspect was equally dismal. You have three states, Acidic (Below 7) Neutral (7) and Alkaline (above 7) so if you move from one state towards the other without crossing Neutral it is Neutralisation. Seawater is generally around 8.1ph (alkaline) and the amount of CO2 to neutralise it from 8.1 to 8 is staggeringly large and with each subsequent change is larger than the last meaning it is logarithmic (about 10 times) so to change from 8.1 to 7.8 would be about 110 times more than 8.1 to 8.0 and we are taking about changes in the error bands here so nothing to see with this anyway. Another aspect is that the ocean is outgassing CO2 meaning there is less because temperature also plays a part in this, the ph can change purely from temperature in this case. Also if CO2 was the driver it would not follow the temperature record by 800-1200 years in the proxy records...
in the late 1700's adventurous souls were all over the planet in their state of the art wooden sailing ships .. they noticed that the ice sheets & glaciers were melting .. signalling the end of the 500 year cold spell that started in 1300
And to this date, still no one knows why the 500 year cold spell ended. Because it wasn't CO2, it must have been natural processes. Which means no one knows whether or to what extent those natural processes are still active.
@@definitlynotbenlente7671 Do you understand English? English is my 2nd language and I completely understood what Mike wanted to say. And, do you live in our world or under a stone? It's a common habit to turn off comments when it comes to topics that only allow for "one correct" opinion. And this topic is such one.
@@bjornna7767 she almost never disables the coments on there video and mabey hard for you to understand but not every thing you dislike is propaganda to controll you
This lady seems genuine, but she should be reminded that correlation is not causation. If someone is looking to doubt we are exclusively causing this temperature swing, you need not look very far in climate historical proxies to realize we just have not been taking measurements long enough for our data to mean anything yet. She should also be reminded that a warmer planet isn’t necessarily a bad thing --it changes things--but that’s been going on in various extremes for as long as this planet has existed. Turning it into a catastrophe or a crisis is an attempt for some people to assert control over other people. Since modern science is closer to a religion in many fields I doubt the real scientists are going to stick their heads up long enough to cast doubt on the assertion. “We’re all going to burn to death in 100 years” if they are no longer going to be funded for the real science, they’re doing.
You nailed it. Funding. Whatever your field of research is today, if you sprinkle a bit of climate change over it, you'll get the funding. This is how you breed and groom a generation of docile, ideologically oriented scientists.
"She should also be reminded that a warmer planet isn’t necessarily a bad thing " This is the stupidest thing I have ever read! First of all - if we continue to burn fossil fuel the planet doesn't only get warmer - it gets hotter and hotter! And it is already a very bad thing!! Secondly - who with a working brain puts our habitat on jeopardy with uncontrolled terraforming???🤯 seriously, you don't get the scale of the issue, do you?
@@dervideominister I wonder what's the best temperature for life on planet earth. Here at the coast we have 10°C in winter and 20 in summer on average which is not bad although there are a few nights in winter when we go a few degrees below zero and some rare days in summer when we reach up to 40, but I wouldn't mind if temperature where ALWAYS a little higher. I would ask for 15 on average in winter and 25 during the summertime. All plants and animals including humans would be happier with 5 extra degrees all the time night and day all year long.
@@josemariatrueba4568 there is no best temperature for life, since life and the whole ecosystem adopted to it. Ask an ice bear, what temperature he needs, and the seals he hunts. Besides that, he needs the arctic ice to get to his prey. Even with humans it's hard to determine: almost all old civilizations developed in tempered zones, while it seems that innovation and the ability to think forward was more rewarded in slightly colder regions (for obvious reasons). And now think again: if the temperature rises on the whole planet, there are no more comfort zones. They just move more to the north, while former tempered zones will turn to deserts.... So you rather have less zones that are comfortable
@dervideominister You are right but only up to a certain extent. I still think that a slightly higher temperature would be very beneficial fot all life on earth, because we do have enough information that colder climate has been terrible, and warmer climate has been great, in the past. Too many people, animals and plants, suffered during the middle ages around the 6th century, and very much the same happened at the end of the 17th century. Today, the average temperature above the surface is 14.5°C. A couple of extra degrees would be very beneficial, like it was when Roman's had an empire 20 centuries ago or Danish sailors went to Greenland 10 centuries ago. See the history. There's more than enough information from the last 50 centuries to confirm that 2 extra degrees would be good. Probably 4 extra degrees would be even better. There must be an ideal temperature for the vast majority of the existing life on planet Earth. I wouldn't be surprised if it were 5°C more than now, let's say 20°C on average all over the world instead of 14.5, because that's what me, and my cats and plants, prefer. Indoeuropean migrations occurred in prehistoric ages after some changes in temperature after the last glaciar period that suddenly ended around 120 centuries ago. My vote for three or five extra degrees, please!
I see a lot of complaints about "smoothed" observation data. Maybe a video comparing raw to adjusted data and discussing the adjustments would be helpful. BTW this was a great summary without a wasted word.
Smoothing is just taking a moving average, isn't it? Perhaps you're talking about homogenisation. The placement of meteorological stations isn't the same over time, some are shut down, and some new ones are installed. So a continuous curve has to merge time series.
What percent of global warming is caused by human activity? Couldn’t it be that global warming is caused by both human and natural causes? How can one be confident that the majority of warming is caused by fossil fuels?
@@stuartkim4857 That has been quantified to between 80% and 120% of the warming since the last half of the 19th century, if I remember correctly. I don't have the reference in my head, but I remember Simon Clark discussing such a quantification or attribution in one of his videos.
An interesting theme occurs in these graphs and charts and numbers. Climate (temp) is usually measured with the GMT30, "Global mean temperature 30 year average". However, repeatedly we are shown graphs which barely cover 30 years and are asked to interrupt the data 'within' it. If you use the data within the 30year period, you are not longer working with "climate", but seasonal and yearly variations. The same variations that using the 30year average is mean to stop miss interruption from. I know you can plot "years" on a 30 year average, however with a ratio of 30:1 in the intented accuracy and the "point value" ... not much should be taken from it. Yet, why do the media and even Sabine (although at least hers' has units!), keep showing us 30 year average data over less than 30 years. It's dishonest.
My uncle is greatly relieved that the USA has rejoined the Paris Climate Accord. He’s been able to get off his blood pressure and sleep aide medication since we did. Prior to that he was so stressed out that the world was going to end in 12 years. He’s resting easy now! He also is doing his part by becoming a vegetarian to cut down on cattle flatulence and the damage its methane is causing throughout the globe.
@@JeffBetkerThank you, appreciate it! We at least can find some comfort in knowing my uncle feels better, since anyone who really knows what’s in the climate accord would realize the world isn’t getting anything else out of it!!
The problem is the actual recorded temperatures from the 1930-1980's have been "adjusted" to show those temperatures as being 5 degrees F lower than they actually were. This is because the NASA people and NOAA people think all the people worldwide didn't read their thermometers correctly. Look at the actual temps from any city in the US and compare it to what NASA or NOAA says it was. Even the four recording stations in Africa have been given this treatment by the "scientists" today. No one on any continent could apparently read a thermometer.
@@GregQchi Instead of making a personal attack on me why not investigate it yourself? Bring up any US city during the 1930's and look for yourself at what the temperatures were. Read the newspaper accounts of the time about the heat.
they have been adjusting the data gradually on a regular basis. the adjustments are always cooling the past and warming recent measurements. these adjustments perfectly match the rise in co2. it looks like fraud. there is no downward adjustment for urban heat island effects which is a substantial heating effect during the 20th century and nothing to do with global warming. The mann vs steyn court case has just started and is revealing quite a lot (climate change on trial podcast).
NASA also says that planetary warming can be seen in EVERY planet in our solar system, except for Mercury, which is too close to notice any changes....so how does human generated CO2 affect all the other planets?!
There were some studies from the early 2000's that claimed to identify evidence of climate change on Mars, however they were found to be localized weather events. Since that point no evidence has come to light that Mars is in a warming cycle. I tried to identify any other evidnce that you claim about every other planet, but haven't been able to find any studies or even random reports about this claim. If you have another source that purports this, I would love to see it.
Climate is probably the most complex phenomenon we study outside of biology - although in some aspects you could argue it is even more complicated than biology. The only thing that is certain is we don’t know much about what’s happening with the climate and why. Anyone who tells you we understand it or says the science is settled has certainly bought into an ideology.
Yes, science is never settled. However, it can make predictions to test hypothesis and if 2+2=4 then that is more useful than contrarian rhetoric or better science that has not refuted the overall understanding we have of climate.
@@ricinro Well that’s just the point. Our climate models are trash at making useful predictions about the climate. Check out John Christy’s work at Alabama, Huntsville.
The earth has warmed because the adding of CO2 to the atmosphere changes the thermal equilibrium point between the planet's climate system and space. "Returning" the system to equilibrium manifests as global warming.
They mostly dont come up with gotchas as finding errors in her arguments.. they come up with totally unrelated denial theories..the only thing .. and here I have to agree, is the argument she proofed that CO2 is human made, but not that this CO2 is what has been warming the planet. (it does, but she didnt proof it here)
Isn´t it fun? I´m sure, she reckoned that, these guys are like flies being attracted to a heap of shit. She announced a long video about the topic today, and this one is not so bad: 14thousand likes, 14hundred dislikes, and I hope, some of the smarter ones get convinced by this vid.
How did previous ice ages end? Did temperatures increase linearly over time, or did jump up and down due to other events, like volcanic eruptions or maybe excessive vegetation growth etc?
Your first pieces of evidence could also be applied to water vapor or methane no ? It’s like looking for the murderer in a room filled with people but ignoring everyone except your suspect exists
I liked the quiz at the end which was made available. Neat feature. I'd like someday to see a short video talking more about the stratospheric cooling effect. If you really want to drive the point home, I'd suggest explaining it. People who are hard-core skeptics on global warming's cause by human activity are going to point at this and claim that it doesn't make sense. They'll say "If CO2 absorbs sunlight and traps it as heat, why does it only do that near the surface of the Earth and not up higher. Sounds like some made-up mumbo-jumbo to support their claims to me!" (and it kinda does) So I think that'd be a neat supplementary video to be made someday.
This is a bit sad in fact. The "deniers" actually have quite sophisticated arguments and measurments, too. It is a complex debate, form the deniers point of view at least, which Sabine does not know much about, apparently. If she completely ignores what they say and present a symplistic version of the story of the other side, which the deniers mostly know well, she is not convincing the deniers, but only helping people already convinced to label the deniers as stupid, by creating a false impression that they don't accept oversimplified "facts". That's not constructive. If you really want to convince the deniers, you should engage with their arguments (starting with googling them up). It is actually a bit funny, since her story sounds like, I believed something, and I googled until I found nice arguments that align with my belief :).
Most people don't even grasp what temperature really is: the average kinetic energy of molecules! It's the vibrations of the molecules that we feel as temperature. And they also do not grasp that WHY CO2 or other greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation: the specific configuration of the molecule which allows them to vibrate thereby storing energy in form of vibrations, just like guitar strings. If I flick a guitar string (i.e. I inject outside energy into it), it vibrates for a while (i.e., it stores this energy for a while). This is how greenhouse gas molecules are - you flick them (via sunlight) and they vibrate - for a long time - and it's to do with their molecular structure and the tightness/looseness of the chemical bonds.
I had understood it actually, but NOW I want to know: How is CO2 different when it's composed of C12 or C13? Because all these experts, only until recently have been making a big deal about CO2. Supposedly that's all we needed to know. If they were SUCH experts, why have they bored down on this SPECIFIC detail only now as opposed to explaining it to us earlier on? Are they just upping their game in the face of challenges, or were/are they merely still pontificating?
You could show an experiment do It with atmospheric gasses (CO2 at 0.2 ppm)and and the same with CO2 at 0.4, and then lets see what happen with the temperature a long the time
Rising temperatures: In some places. Increasing sea level: Slightly, and in some places. It's actually decreasing at Seattle. Ocean acidification: It's still alkaline, actually. The measured change is minuscule if even detectable. Declining ice cover: Hooray. Nothing like Earth totally covered in ice to be Very Bad. More extreme weather: If you say so. Maybe the USA will have another dust bowl like in the 1930's.
@@ubertrashcat "You sound like a guy..." Whereas you sound like a woman that believes every scary story and is easily fleeced because of it. I've been looking for close to 20 years for conclusive evidence that (1) a catastrophe is coming and (2) humans cause it. Well, there IS a catastrophe coming, and humans are causing it, and it will be called World War 3.
@@thomasmaughan4798 It's okay. I understand you're trying to cope. You don't need to convince yourself that it'll be okay. It won't change the way things are. It's okay to be worried.
@@ubertrashcat "You don't need to convince yourself that it'll be okay." I do not understand "okay" in this context but THANK YOU for spelling out "okay".
There’s a small error in the section about upper atmosphere. A more insulating atmosphere means energy takes longer to escape to space. The upper atmosphere cools (until energy balance is in equilibrium again), but it’s not because “CO2 in upper atmosphere makes it more effective at shedding heat” as Sabine put it.
PLEASE do more content like this--how did we learn X, how did we come to discover X, how did we figure out X. It is so good and it is a type of content I've been looking for for years
or maybe you should go to school
@@michaelmr101except they don't teach you that stuff. They only tell you definitions, give you formulas etc, but rarely will they give more details. Let's be real, it would take too long or to advanced for the students to learn at pre college level
Agree, it's actually hard to find condensed explanations like this that you could convey to someone else easily. Same with the flat earth thing, I don't actually bother debating those people, but it's actually surprisingly hard to cut through the crap they believe with some simple facts when you haven't got them at your fingertips.
solve for X
What's causing global warming? Explained in less than two minutes.
ua-cam.com/video/sKDWW9WlPSc/v-deo.html&ab_channel=CarbonBrief
I have heard the phrase "carbon dating" for YEARS and never once made it into a pun. I feel ashamed and bow at the snarky genius of Sabine.
There's a radio ad in GTA San Andreas that's based on this pun, so the idea is definitely not new.
What is the IDEAL TEMP? What is IDEAL CO2 level? What is biggest green house gas? WATER VAPOR by many factors greater than CO2.
All of CO2 only 2% is man made. About 0.04% of atmosphere CO2 and the man made. CO2 is 0.0000008% of atmosphere. CO2 LEVELS HAVE BEEN HIGHER IN PAST AMD IT WAS COLDER, BEFORE HISTOR OR MAN... SO WHAT...
Hoax because of the POLITICAL POLICIES and obfuscation, outright LIES. Yes CLIMATE is changing, always has always will. HOW MUCH IS DUE TO MAN? ??? 1% 2%. GIVE ME A NUMBER!!! HONEST SCIENTIST SAY WE DO NOT KNOW, NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION.
If no fossil fuels useful by man today. EXPERTS WITH MOR PHD's THAN YOU say yemps might drop 1 degree? Yawn. What is the IDEAL temp? WHY DO YOU NOT MENTION SOLAR ACTIVITY, PLANETARY ORBIT VARIATIONS THAT REALLY CHANGE TEMP??
Never let a crisis go to waste is what you need to know.
Well summed up.
A government manufactured crisis!
To consolidate power and control and take the individuals ability to choose how to spend their money (relentless taxation)leaving fewer and fewer dollars in the hands of those who earned them and transferred to the government!
@@ArcanePath360 Arguments are just removed not repudiated.
Sabine, I enjoy watching your channel and have learned much. Regarding heat (IR) absorption by C02 at 14.97um: It needs to be clarified that the absorption maximizes out, or is saturated, at low concentrations of C02 (< 100 ppm ) just a few meters from the Earth's surface. That means adding CO2, or 'carbon,' to the atmosphere is not going to increase the amount of heat that is absorbed at this wavelength. The greenhouse heat by CO2 is already fixed. Other CO2 absorption wavelengths such as near 2, 3, and 4um and the p and r 'sidebands' around the main 14.97 band have negligible contributions to absorption. This is Beer's - Lambert's law, and studies from about 50 years ago by H. Hug using FTIR characterize this effect. Also, Michel van Biezen has a good lecture series on UA-cam that provides detailed data and insights on this topic I am wondering why you or other global warming supporters skip this basic physics fact and proceed to discuss postulated back-end hypotheses that violate the basic premise? Sincerely, Don Kloos, retired chemist.
This inconvenient fact does seem to get overlooked by the castastrophists.
@@bobtodd9590 Yes, fellow lemmings, the earth is flat and the sky is falling! Ignore the very basics and follow the piper over the cliff.
Should be no shocker you have no answer yet... and I doubt you'll get one from Der Propagandist.
Thanks for your comment. Helpful.
Still waiting for Sabine’s answer.
"[carbon 14] is really good for dating organic stuff, tho I'd recommend you leave it at home for the first dinner"
that's hilarious 😂
two (or even three) jokes in one, that's genius! :D
It's not even remotely funny.
@@hime273they are bots trying to legitimise the agenda😂
Dammit. It flew right over my head.
@@DCM8828 I still don't get it
I too have the experience that it's not always easy to find satisfying answers to my questions on the internet. When it is about climate it is extra tricky because it is hard to tell opinions apart from facts.
It's hard to tell if alleged facts actually stand up to scrutiny. Anyone can show a graph, but how do we know its source evidence is accurate? What parameters are there to show its significance. Does a decline of 0.06 in the pH scale (at Hawaii, not elsewhere) mean anything? What factors are missing? Contrary to the impression given by UA-cam clips, science is complicated, and hard.
@@fredneecher1746 Good on you. Do not listen to the "I know more about climate change than you do. It's too complicated for your pea brain." Do your own research and if you can, read the reports and thesis yourself. I have read 28 of them and seen quite a few errors in them. Almost all ignore the #1 gas that effects global warming - water vapor. The oldest one I read says that the earth will fail because of all the coal being used and that if nothing is done within 20 years, it will be too late. Punch line? It was written several years before the Titanic sunk. Yeah, that Titanic.
You should become familiar with Steve Koonin.
I agree Frederick. Sabine approaches this as a case to make, rather than a question to answer. I would rather listen to a good scientist who thinks it through critically.@@fredneecher1746
@@christopheryellman533 Steve Koonin - "Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters"? Got it in my library.
I set this task to a group of my Level 3 BTEC Applied Science students, because I know that it is not as simple a question as the public believe. I reckon over 99% of people who vehemently believe in anthropogenic climate change, have absolutely no idea at all what the evidence is, they just know that all the experts are agreed. Not one single student came up with the evidence, even when later prompted as to what I was looking for. Rather they just came back with rising CO2 levels coinciding with increased industrial activity, and similar information to your initial searches.
Except… all the “experts” absolutely do not agree.
@@chingron Just the ones who aren't paid off by big carbon.
You would have to conduct controlled prospective experiments on whole close Earth analog planets with large surface oceans to accurately determine the climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. The effects are highly dependent upon the initial conditions. If the initial mean surface temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration are suboptimal for plant growth, then raising them is actually beneficial.
@@johngeier8692 for plants yes but what about the unwanted consequences? I find it extremely ignorant for people to say in isolation that increasing CO2 is good for plants. They think they have a gotcha when they are only harping on one side of the story.
Except global warming is not relevant for overall trends toward cooling historically, which is a bigger threat than any warming ever would be. A single super volcano which we are overdue for would plunge us into global winter or a single large enough asteroid. We are concerned about the wrong things. A carbon tax is a ponzi scheme for rich elites and would od nothing but green washing. Electric vehicles do nothing to help green energy because of refusal to use nuclear energy, which is safe, reliable, and ultimate future of energy, but stopped by interest groups and environmental nut jobs.
0:39 the fact that we can’t get a straight answer on this issue without doing a tonne of digging is a problem in itself, especially for those who are on the fence or simply wanting more information to confirm the narrative about climate change. Unfortunately, we tend to get a lot of narrativeand ideology
Starting at 1.22:
1. CO2 absorption spectrum
2. Atmospheric CO2 level
3. Ocean acidification
4. Carbon isotope ratios
5. Stratospheric cooling
And then y'all just lean to "well I guess it's not real!"
My confidence in Hossenfelder has taken a huge hit with this video.
She ignores all other forces of nature that have an effect on climate, and focuses only on carbon dioxide. Then, she notes that temperature increases over the last hundred fifty years have roughly coincided with CO2 increases. Conclusion: CO2 is the control dial for climate temperature.
Too hard to explain away the centuries and millennia when temperature went up as CO2 declined, or down as CO2 increased, so she ignores that completely. Or the fact that water vapor is 75% to 95% of the total greenhouse effect, depending on how you factor for clouds, or that humans account for only 1/5th of atmospheric CO2.
So, if you only consider one independent variable, ignoring all others, and don't care about when temperature and CO2 change opposite to the hypothesis, and only consider the last century or so when there is some correlation between temperature and CO2, then you can make a weak argument that humans are causing global warming.
But, THAT IS NOT SCIENCE, HOSSENFELDER!!!
spot on
true!
Fantastic synopsis. Extra credit for not making it 20 minutes longer than needed or ranting and postulating. Much appreciated.
Except she "forgot" that the Milankovitch Cycles are the primary driver of the Earth's temperature changes, as agreed by Climatologists. One has to pretend they magically went away in order to blame man for the temp rise.
"Scientific research to better understand the mechanisms that cause changes in Earth’s rotation and how specifically Milankovitch cycles combine to affect climate is ongoing. But the theory that they drive the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles is well accepted."
science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
But my uncle sits at home on his couch sometimes and feels things. Are you sure we're not tunnel visioning on evidence and physics at the danger of disregarding the emotional outbursts of my uncle?
My uncles did their own "research" which involved:
- Ignoring PhD's and other degreed persons as they were "brainwashed by the system".
- Only accepting results that agreed with their preconceived ideas.
You address a real problem and I think it's a difficult one. I think it's human nature not to want to hear that we are causing a catastrophic problem and that we need to change our behavior. Also it unfortunately doesn't hurt that it makes people feel superior when they think they have the truth and the experts are all just lying to them.
Honestly, I don't know how to get through to people like your uncle.
In that case just ask his wife, if she could do you a favor and talk to your uncle on any second day how these emotional outbursts hurt her feelings. She should mention that the stress is such high that she can't do the chores until she calms down and that include 2 hours of intensive talk about her feeling. It is just a shoot in the dark, but i guess it takes less then 14 days before the emotional outbreaks of your uncle disappear like magic.With good connection to the church they might even accept it as a wonder.
It's termed Bias Dismissal
I like Sabine, but this sounds precisely as what she did in her research :). @@davidg4288
Next, I would like to see a video that looks at how and why and when the narrative changed over time. When I was young, we were all being warned of a coming ice age. Why was that? If if the scientists were wrong about that, why were they wrong, and how did they happen to incorrectly reach that consensus?
I remember this 30 years ago: The coming ice age then they switched to heating. As if they need a global catastroph to push through the world government..
@@peterlustig8778 Now we have the warmest whatever on TV while freezing off our ass in a cold wet winter-spring.
The narrative never changed. This very idea that "the narrative changed" itself is a modern invention put out by climate change deniers to just discredit scientists and this so called "consensus" about global temperatures falling in the future was not a real thing at the time in the 60s-70s like these people say it was.
The actual reality was that even in the 60s and 70s it was clear beyond dispute that greenhouse gases we emit will lead to global warming. This is was already well understood and accepted by the relevant scientists in the 60s. What happened is that there was a separate, unrelated question about the net global effects of putting so much aerosolized materials into the atmosphere and what effect this specific increase in aerosolized particles would cause. And, reasonably, it was thought that the net effect would be a cooling one as light from the sun is reflected away more by the increase in aerosolized particles in the atmosphere.
And it was correct. But that was an entirely different question. Their was indeed a very small cooling effect, BUT that has nothing to do with the warming caused by the greenhouse effect, which obviously way way overwhelms any cooling effect so the net effect together is still perfectly consistent with temps rising overall.
So there was no conflict, no "change of narrative". They were two related things, and scientists were correct about both... both in the 60s and now. There is no contradiction, no "change".
You just heard that somewhere and so assumed it was true, because it's a common made up talking point made by people trying to discredit climate scientists. But it's based on nothing real. There was no "change in narrative". There was no change at all. Its been consistent the whole time. What you need to do now, is realize how many other climate change talking points you've just accepted just as easily are also based on nothing/misunderstandings/outright lies.
@@clray123 warmest since 1913 means it was cooler between 1913 and now. So many are unable to understand this.
It's all driven by political and economic vested interests.
There is no genuine science involved.
The end.
Uncle: "Scientists say what their bosses tell them to say.", or "According to scientists in the 1970's, the ocean should be 200 feet higher now".
The scientific community intensely debated the issue of global warming with much back and forth for decades. Global warming caused by humans was accepted as an established fact by the scientific community in 1995.
Nobody said that. Strawman.
According to scientists in the 1970's, we should be heading into an ice age. There are numerous archived articles about it.
"Scientists say what their bosses tell them to say."
unironically this, idk why people think that scientists are immune to taking bribes
and the scientists who actually do science stuff (not just make a paper based on what the real scientists said) are very few and easy to control groups
for example think about the scientist who take ice core sample from Arctic, very few do it and its a group easy to control and bribe but we base a lot of stuff on their research
@@patrickconley2091 Not earlier? I thought it had been established at least by the second half of the 1980s.
I don´t get a couple of things and hope you can clarify:
1. If we burn fossil fuels which shifts the C12/C13 ratio. Doesn´t that mean that we are restoring the ratio how it was in the past?
2. All graphs were from after the industrial revolution kickt off. Do you know where i can get pre "industrial revolution" graphs for CO2 levels in the athmosphere?
3. How many % of climate change can be attributed to human activity (Controlling the data for other variables like sun activity, measuring in urban vs rural areas ect)
What do you mean ratio as it was in the past? Which exactly moment in the past? It was changing many times over geologic history? Also, how would that make anything better?
@@KateeAngelhow are things worse? There's no real trend in extreme weather events, except for people not maintaining their damns and building more stuff in flood planes.
Yes, we're digging up carbon that was once in the atmosphere. However, the change in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is unnaturally fast for the living to adapt to the changes. Also, 99% of the species that lived in the world is now extinct. So do you want us humans to go extinct too because it's natural? Or do we do our best to maintain Earth so that we can live longer in a better environment?
The timespan over which bio-organisms turn into now usable fossil fuel is much greater than the equivalent rate at which we are burning those. So yes, we are pumping CO2 back into the atmosphere, as in we are restoring the ratio ; except that we are much overdoing this, which actually imbalances said ratio the other way around.
Basically, we are burning more fossil fuel than is able to naturally generate.
#3 is over 100% of warming is attributed to us releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere. If CO2 levels stayed at the 280ppm before the industrial revolution we would currently be in a period of cooling rather than warming.
Good job! You seem to be exactly the right person to make this video. I think it's astonishing that you have a bunch of people in the comments who identify themselves as 'that uncle', but instead of angry diatribes, I see people mostly exchanging opinions in a rather calm and civilized manner. With this topic and on this platform that is quite the acomplishment in itself!
These "uncles" gather at Sabine's channel because they, due to their issues, see her as "the one showing the finger to Them", which she isn't. The issues these people have are they are narcissistic and have low amount of knowledge, and that's a deadly combination behind so many antiscience movements today (antivaxxers, flatearth morons, chemtrail idiots, etc.).
I am a uncle, and I strongly refute that I am thus prevented from being able to critically assess things that people tell are pure science!
Do yourself a favor and look into the “pure science” methodology and lack of research… settled science is just misogyny.
My uncle came back to me. He still thinks it’s a hoax 😂
Because it's unmanly to change your opinions based on what someone else tells you. Especially if it's a woman 🙄 What a goddamn doofus.
He is right you only have to look at historical data from millions of years of CO2 levels and temperature and you will notice that they dont follow each other. You know when we had dinosaurs the temperature was way way warmer then now and the planet was much greener.
@@tomtetomtesson2477 yes, it probably was warmer. But the rate of change wasn't nearly as high as now. Also, why do you think a climate that's good for dinosaurs is good for humans?
The whole point of action against climate change is to keep our atmosphere livable for humans, not dinosaurs. Also, the heat isn't gonna be the thing that kills us, the aftereffects will. And even then, not all of humanity will die, only the less fortunate.
@@jonnevaalanti4949 Did I say its good for the humans? We are no where near 12 degrees but telling the most adaptive primate on earth that we are doomed over a couple of degrees global warming (which we also aint nowhere near) is just fearmongering. History shows the opposite that when its warmer we thrive better and plants just love more CO2 also which actually has been dangerously low for plants recently but no one wants to tell us that. What scientists can do is to measure the temperature outside of city centers and the tell us how much the earths has become warmer before they start fearmongering. After around 30 wrongly predicted doomsday scenarios the last decades its getting tiresome to listen to another doomsday MODELLING scenario.
@@jonnevaalanti4949 You know that we are in a ice age period right now and no matter what we do we it will get warmer sooner or later anyway and telling us humans cant live under when temperature changes is like saying Africans cant live in colder countries. Colder climate has been proven to be more dangerous than warmer climate historically so why would it be any different now? Never trust a scammer who tries to silence opposite scientific views like the so called consensus on climate. They did the exactly same thing with Covid but they have been doing this for decades with climate. Every single scientist, media or politician who have accepted this kind of behaviour should be fired immediately. The thing with historical data is that it shows that temperature and CO2 level has not been correlating before but suddenly it does?
This is perfect. I've had that exact problem you described at the start of the video- finding the actual scientific evidence rather than just someone saying it's true.
She just said it was true. She knows better and is lying.
@@jamesmcginn6291 prove to us why we should believe u instead
@@jamesmcginn6291 She did not just say it was true, she explained in some detail how we know it is true.
@@jamesmcginn6291 If you're so sure that she is lying I'm certain you can easily point out which point or points that she mentioned are incorrect and I am sure you can also point us to the relevant scientific literature that supports your claims!
She's literally telling what has been said and asserting it as fact.
Calling something a "hoax" doesn't always mean the premise is a lie. It sometimes means the conclusion is a lie.
It is not really a lie, just hard to tell what is really going on cause there are so many factors at play.
The problem is the underlying premises of:
Warming is a threat to life.
We can control the climate by controlling human behavior.
The costs of controlling human behavior are worth the benefits.
All false premises.
It remains an inconvenient historic truth that our planet has been through many ice ages, while CO2 was higher than today.
I hope, for your sake, that you realize that your observation there is absolutely irrelevant to the scientific finding that human actions - mostly our CO2 emissions - are causing a dramatic global warming. If you think you've produced a defeater of what climate science has found, then you aren't "thinking" at all.
What did fauna and flora look like in these days?
@@jollyjokress3852 Frosty
And ironically -- in light of the overblown hysteria -- we currently live in an *_Ice Age,_* AND the Holocene is NOT the warmest interglacial of the Pleistocene.
Gore's "inconvenient" film tricks many people with correlation but wrong causation. The lack of skyrocketing temperature -- CO2 leaving temperature far, far behind -- suggests that CO2 is wimpy, at best.
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
it's another inconvenient truth that more die from cold than from heat. And a further one that the 25,000 per day that die of starvation and its related diseases, is a far bigger number than even the worst AGW estimates predict, and could be solved with a far smaller budget..... not to mention that the increased CO2 increases crop yields... it is almost as though they want to end lives, not save them...
Carbon from plants going into the atmosphere is not solely from fossil fuels but also from soil carbon being lost due to forests and other land being cleared for farming. Still human caused but not just fossil fuels.
Since C14 is almost non-existent in fossil fuel given it's short half life, this alters the ratios significantly (though, the nuclear test stuff I hadn't heard of before) when it's being pumped into the atmosphere. I'm not sure what you mean by soil carbon lost - it shouldn't affect the levels of CO2 unless you mean via microbial action, but even then, when you consider the total biomass in a system and a relatively stable bio-decay rate, there shouldn't be a net increase in CO2 in the system. That said, as the temperature increases, the bio-decay rate will also increase. (I'm using "bio-decay" instead of "decay" to not confuse it with nuclear decay) When deforestation happens, it removes nature's natural CO2 absorbers, however, over a greater time span, there still won't be a net increase in CO2 from this (the wood from trees, eventually decays and any CO2 captured is re-released). The takeaway from this is to stop burning organic compounds trapped in the ground over geologic time scales.
So net zero is just pointless designed to push us into poverty, while the big corporations carry on this behaviour right?.
@@davestorm6718the takeaway is more nuclear and to stop de forestation and plant trees. Net zero just seems tokenism while we are letting governments and corporations carry on doing this. The biggest countries who pump co2 into the air are China, Russia and America... China is trying to offset some of their emissions, but really fundamentally I don't see America or Russia giving a fk.
Good thinking, but i think the effect is minor, due to we burn way more fossil fuel than taken down trees.
MinutePhysics video once talk about the carbon we throw into atmosphere per year is 100x of total mass in biosphere.
ua-cam.com/video/SD9yVca6hHI/v-deo.html
@@fakestory1753 Sorry but that is not even close to being true. For the atmosphere: current CO2 = 3,200 gigatons approx. CO2 emitted by humans since 1850 = 2,400 gigatons approx. Emissions last year approx 40 gigatonnes. Biosphere breathing effect: 436 gigatonnes per year. I struggled to find a good source for total biosphere carbon but its enormous relative to above figures.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#:~:text=It%20has%20been%20estimated%20that,over%2040%20gigatons%20per%20year.
On a long enough time line, the earth is cooling to absolute zero.
You win my award for the most useless comment to the topic that was addressed in the video.
Congratulations!
And, on a much shorter term, you too will be cooling to zero.
but first it's gonna be swallowed by the sun, which will be a considerable warming
I am not sure about it. Is not the sun swallop up earth during it final stages? Than earth would not exist any more after such time. Than earth will never cool to absolute zero.
@@MassimoAngotzi I was going to write something similar, you, however, phrased it much better than I. Cheers!
You should have an online discussion with physicist, Dr Bernhard Strehl. His arguments counter much of what you are saying. It would be very informative.
many many scientists disagree with the IPCC hypothesis. they've been deplatformed, vilified and defunded. but they are out there and must be heard.
Hi, Uncle Skeptic here. Earth self-regulates its global temperature. This has been going on for millions of years. Any addition to an enclosed environment will be affected. The question should be is how that environment reacts and over time can it compensate for the intrusion? Now it's always about how soon are we going to die
Exactly. All of the doomsday models assume a conditionally stable system that goes into thermal runaway. But common sense proves otherwise.
@MrRefract there is literally not enough water on Earth to have thermal runaway. It simply can not happen on Earth.
Those who talk about the destruction of the human race are wrong and counterproductive. What they SHOULD be talking about is the destruction of an economy and infrastructure hard wired to the way the earth is right now. That in itself is huge and should not be ignored.
Global warming has killed many species and many going endangered cause of it, human don’t feel it much but if you care about biodiversity then you should wanna slow down the warming, we won’t survive without biodiversity ourselves in the long run. And yes economy will suffer too
@@allenchang6185 what percentage of the warming is due to the always existing natural cycles and what oercent is due to humanity?
IOW, nature routinely kiss of a great many species, so how much of this would not happen of humanity never existed?
This point about the carbon isotope ratios was completely new to me - great information! I did not expect to really learn something new from the video but yet again I did.
There's always more things to learn! Like sea levels rose 400 feet over the last 20,000 years.
I commented on it in the previous video. We verify the ratio in the atmosphere using tree rings
I've been telling people this for a while (since it's not a well known fact) - and it's such a damning piece of evidence.
Anyone realize global cooling is more a threat than warming? An ice age is easier and more likely than a runaway greenhouse effect. Historically, ice ages and global winters were more devastating than warming periods for life on earth aside from few notable exceptions. Cold is the enemy not warmth.
For me the thing about Stratospheric cooling was new to me
UC Davis has had posted on their University website for years a long article about nitrogen in Boreal Forests. They say that past rapid CO2 rises on Earth were sequestered by the Boreal Forests absorbing the CO2 into increased forest growth, naturally sequestered CO2! And the reason the Boreal Forests can do this is because they have excess nitrogen in their soils which the forests can absorb more rapidly than is normally thought to occur in nature and that this phenomenon deserves further study.
Observations show that ocean levels and climate change has fluctuated so much it is reliant on when we pick our climate change points on. Earth temps have changed since the beginning of time. There are far greater things to worry about such as tyrants and totalitarians. We have plenty of time to find alternative energy methods for transportation and manfacturing without shutting down and starving the population. Funny they never point to China's carbon production.
@@kellyfutrell6832 I mean yes tyrants are a problem, but the climate today has one large issue.
Yes there are natural means of compensation. The issue is... humans. Do you want to give up your house to grow a forest there? Like yes vegetation will increase if CO2 levels rise and will absorb a lot of it. Unfortunately the forest area on earth is shrinking, not increasing. The planet can only compensate for the increased CO2 production of humans if we let it. On top of that most of those fluctuations where fairly slow. We currently see changes even just in decades. We do not really know if the mechanisms that worked in the past would be able to work here.
@@kellyfutrell6832this is like saying that because we're about to hit a tree anyway, we might as well hit the accelerator in the car.
@@georgesimon1760 I think it is more appropriate to say:
"there is a tree 60 miles ahead that I might run into in one hour of travel time.
But there are massive sinkholes in the road immediately ahead of me that I should worry about first."
Yes, taking care of our shared home (the planet) is an issue to address.
But the time to real consequences of getting the climate problem wrong are on wildly different time scales than many of our other more present issues.
@@williamrgrant that's just an excuse to do nothing. There's no reason to wait on climate mitigation while we work on other issues.
With all due respect, the concerns of 'sceptics' like Dr Steven Koonin and Dr Judith Curry have never been 'is climate change caused by humans?' but how much is caused by humans and what are the consequences. To answer the latter it is important to apply sensible projections of human emissions, which requires an understanding of what each representative concentration pathway (RCP) scenario represents, since some (e.g. RCP 8.5) are known to be so extreme as to be effectively impossible.
You might want to get up to speed on more recent research which is scarily beginning to make it look like RCP8.5 is far more possible. Climate sensitivity may have been underestimated...
Not only getting more likely but some, granted regional Data, one of our Profs showed us seemed to indicate that we are heading to a Scenario above the R 8.5. Meaning that the models possibly underestimate Climate Change. Not saying that will happen, because it could be an anomaly but the trend is scarry
I don't see how that's relevant. She didn't mention those people at all and she didn't mention their arguments either. You're just a bot getting upvoted by other bots and wasting people's time.
@@sntslilhlpr6601, sorry to disappoint you but I'm a human that has read the IPCC WG1 report, which presents no evidence to support extreme claims such as this.
@@ianmearsphoto, I'd be interested to read this new evidence, especially if it's in peer reviewed journals, as it seems to contradict current IPCC thinking.
What is the ideal temperature for plant earth?
Here in northern Canada I think 72 degrees fairenheight is perfect year round, so we’ve got a way to go.
The temperature you remember and enjoyed as a child is the baseline. Any change from that is a climate catastrophe
The ideal temperature is whatever the existing ecosystems and societies have adapted to. Ecosystems and human civilization can adapt to changes in climate. But our CO2 emissions are warming the planet about 10-20x faster than natural variations. We've already got a lot of political instability, and this is only going to make it worse, as massive numbers of refugees move away from places that become uninhabitable, huge swaths of farmland become arid, and so on. I'm in Canada, and naively I might say, "well, more of Canada will become farmable, so that's good for Canada!" Except no, as soon as land in Canada becomes valuable, Russia, China and the US are not going to let us just have it. Russia and China are already getting ready to take over the arctic part of Canada as it becomes possible for ships to navigate through it. The point is that minimizing our dependency on fossil fuels seems to be far less expensive than dealing with the consequences of global warming. But since the former is a cost that has to be paid up front, we'd much rather let future generations pay the huge cost than pay a relatively minor cost ourselves.
@@yessopie You have no idea that your claimed "10-20x faster" is anywhere near correct.
@@liquidmagma You're right, I'm sorry. It's actually more like 100x. I said 10x-20x because I wanted to compare to periods of maximum natural variation, not average natural variation.
It's easy to demonstrate that CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by humans burning fossil fuels does in fact warm the planet. However, it's harder to say by how much exactly since estimating the influence of climate feedbacks is difficult.
I would love to see you go into detail about Climate Sensitivity, how it is calculated, and some of the current estimates for its value.
This is where looking at stratospheric cooling comes into play - this effect seems to only be the result of CO2 and we can measure it as a point of comparison.
@@robnotwicz7002 "this effect only SEEMS to be the result of CO2" -trust us bros, because we really need that to be true so only certain people can drive cars and fly on private jets
Climate science can be both easy to understand and hard to understand but it is correct
There is a good paper by Hanson and others from November 2023 on this. It is publicly available.
Time to talk about the greening of Africa. Geologic evidence shows normal CO2 levers are usually 600 - 1200 ppm
that would be when humans weren't around ? I wonder why
there is no such a thing as "normal CO2 levels", it changed widely throughout earth's history. the problem is that we adapted to the earth we live right now, and changing it, specially this fast, could have dire consequences.
or might not@@danilooliveira6580
What were sea levels when CO2 levels were that high? Would it suit 8 billion people?
I think Sabine did a good job demonstrating that the measured increase in CO2 is from fossil fuels and so caused by humans. Did she address the connection between CO2 and climate change? I'm not sure she did. It may be true sea water acidification is an effect of increasing CO2 levels. But its connection to climate change? Drawing correlations to CO2 levels (acidification) does not draw the same correlation to earth temp. increase. Increase in sea level? That is very difficult to measure in part because of the accuracy and precision of the measurement required but also because of the lack of a real baseline. Extreme weather events? I'm not sure about this one but I suspect the correlation between extreme weather and CO2 increase is primarily supported by atmospheric modeling. I don't know, have any of these computer models been validated? Say, by using historical data to predict the present state of the atmosphere? Again, very difficult and a question that should be asked. We do know and have measured with great accuracy and precision the interaction of CO2 and radiation across a broad frequency range in the laboratory. I guess that is a start but I doubt it is the end of the story.
She did though, the evidence pointed out here was Stratospheric cooling, which exactly fits the models of what CO2 does in the upper atmosphere, which suggests the model's predicted effects in the lower atmosphere - which is more complicated to entangle due to it being much more chaotic - are correct.
Given the short-form video, you can't really expect more to presented on that, but there's plenty of such evidence. Effects like the strengthening of El Nino/La Nina and other such weather oscillations driven by temperature have been well documented, as well as comparisons to historical and geological records of extreme weather events. By the way, sea level and global surface temperature measurements have improved enough with satellite technology that the effects are *very* evident even in the short period we have been able to measure them with that level of precision.
Agreed. It wasn’t a good video at all. Definitely won’t convince any uncles.
@@tomfeng5645It wasn’t a good video, nothing in here would convince a sceptic uncle. Most of the stuff she says here is more like “trust me, bro”, rather than clear, evidence based cause and effect.
@@tomfeng5645It wasn’t a good video, nothing in here would convince a sceptic uncle. Most of the stuff she says here is more like “trust me, bro”, rather than clear, evidence based cause and effect.
Explanation for science illiterates. In science nothing is PROVEN. It's either supported or not supported. There's no "trust me bro" nonsense here. She just presented supporting evidence (as opposed to the crap climate deniers come up with). In that respect, it did what it was supposed to do.
Thanks, Sabine. I believe in taking care of our planet.that said, over the past twenty years, I periodically see things in the news such as email leaks documenting data falsification, or articles about improper measurement methods, or government scientists refusing executive orders to release their data for public scrutiny, and I get angry and suspicious.
Second, I see valid questions getting asked (some of which you answered in this video), and the response has (until today) been howling accusations of being "science deniers" and bigots and worse; further, I've seen scientists who asked valid questions get mobbed out of their jobs by their peers for simply asking some of these same questions.
On top of that, when the only actions recommended by the politicians are to actively decrease the population, limit access to fuels that keep the poor alive, strip people of their civil liberties, and line the pockets of the politicians, I become very suspicious that any good science being carried out is being perverted for money and power by political schemers.
Providing clear answers to direct questions is something Western civilization is not good at. And then we wonder why our society is polarizing. If we had more people like you, we might have less bickering.
That said, I still have skepticism for academics,scientists on the government payroll, the politicians that sign their paychecks, the activist groups that push the political campaigns, and the "news" groups that spin the events.
I very much appreciate your contribution to clarity and honest diallogue.
Can we ignore other factors (big and small) such as Milankovitch Cycles, Solar Cycles, Ice Ages - Interglacials ... is the science " settled " concerning Oceans, constantly changing Water vapor in the atmosphere ... what about predicting modeling ...
@FernandoWINSANTO the Milankovitch Cycles show the Earth would be warming right now even if humans never exist. They also show that CO2 level changes have always been a result of temp changes and never a cause.
She ignored them due to them not helping her "prove" her predetermined outcome.
@@cybrsageMilankovitch cycles don’t disprove man-made climate change. The whole point of this video is that different drivers of climate change leave different finger prints and that’s where you may want to focus. It feels like you’re looking for an easy out.
@@Danimalpm1 nope, she did by saying "climate change is man made". That is like saying a pie is home made because you dethawed what you bought in the store. You just "forgot" to mention the store bought part. No deception by you, right? You did not lie by omitting a huge chunk of truth to make people think something untrue, right?
She did not mention the natural warming at all, whilr saying the warming is man made. We know it is a combo of both, yet she "forgot" to mention nature at all. She took the easy, and untruthful, way out, lying by omission.
I want the hard work, the "how much is caused by man and how much by nature" that no one seems to want to tell us all.
We know the Earth would be warming right now even if humans never existed. People then say man is making it hotter. How much hotter? 1% hotter? 99% hotter? It makes a big difference and is important.
Why is it purposely not told to everyone? Why keep it hidden?
We don't know. We just think we know it's not spurious correlation.
I don't understand why no one talks about all the trees that have been cut down for shopping centers, more housing, and parking lots. Growing up I lived an area with lots and lots of trees. We had lots of undeveloped land with trees. I still live in the same area but more than 80% of the trees are gone. They have been replaced with abandoned shopping centers. They build a shopping center and then a few years later they build a new shopping center nearby. The merchants abandoned the old shopping center in favor of the nearby new one and the cycle continues. They don't go back to the abandoned areas and redo them, instead they just devour untouched land. This has also caused flooding as the water they used to go into the ground must now be handled by the sewer system which was never designed for the increased load. I have kept the trees in the back of my house but in many of the houses in my area they have taken down the trees because the people under 40 do not like to rake leaves in the fall. No trees = No leaves to deal with. Unless I have been liked to all the years in school, trees used to take in CO2 and give off O2. I say take down some of those abandoned shopping centers and plant trees there instead.
The Earth has more trees now than 100 years ago. Look into it: The Greening of Earth.
Yeah. Where I live in the Northeast US, the region has over 95% reforested in the 100 years. This is largely the result of farms leaving for the Midwest.
@@jehl1963 but the Amazon has less…
@@donnasummer6285the planet overall has more, we are talking about a global phenomenon are we not?
Trees are the best method for carbon capture.
Not so fast Sabine. If you want an excellent summary of the earth's increase in CO2 concentration and how we can prove, with direct measurement, that the increase in CO2 comes from the burning of fossil fuels then this is your video. However Sabine, you very much did a wave of the hand of "How do we know climate change is caused by humans" or more specifically how do we know increased CO2 concentration causes global warming. A few sentences concluding stratospheric cooling is the simple explanation of why increased CO2 increases the earth's temperature doesn't answer with any specificity the relationship between CO2 and global temperature. The prediction of stratospheric cooling in the 1960s done by Manabe & Wertherald is a mathematical model and not a direct measurement. You can watch your previous video on the Green House Effect to get your detailed explanation of stratospheric cooling but there is plenty to debate when you examine the details of stratospheric cooling and the impact of CO2 concentration on global temperature. My point is not to prove or disprove that increased CO2 causes global warming. My point is you described "How we know CO2 change is caused by humans" and not "how we know climate change is caused by humans".
Yes there is a second part missing...
Yup, well said. Catastrophics is not a branch of real science; just ask John Kerry while having dinner with him at Davos. That is, if Bill, George and Klaus will let you get a word in.
There are additional CO2 fingerprints in the warming.
Nighttime temps are increasing faster than daytime temps consistent with additional retention of heat, but not increasing inputs.
Increasing ground level IR in the bands CO2 absorbs, with decreasing IR in those bands observed escaping to space by satellite.
These were predicted based on the physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas prior to being observed. The physics of co2 as a greenhouse gas was worked out through observation 150+ years ago.
By Tyndall, Arrhenius, and others.
We also have 50 year old predictions for today's global average temps based on the CO2 emissions scenario as it played out which proves correct, but they didn't just predict THAT it would warm. They predicted precisely how much it would warm. To put that into context Earth hasn't been this warm in 125,000 years. Clearly one of the greatest predictions in the history of earth sciences.
@@revivalcycle Do you think the moon wasn't created in a massive planetary collision? Do you not believe in the Missoula floods?
@@IAMACollectivist What does that have to do with you giving evidence that dead animals make oil? You politicize science. I did not bring up worldviews. I asked for evidence that petroleum can be made from dead animals. Why can you not defend the WEF myth that you advance? Who's payroll are you on?
Climate is clearly changing but an additional question that needs to be addressed is the actual effect of CO2 on warming. I think all agree that it does absorb heat as Sabine describes, but I have also heard arguments that it isn't a major driver in warming. These claims are that other molecular content like changing water vapor ( & other) content in our atmosphere have much more impact which still confuses our ability to conclude that the changing weather is human-caused. These changes could still largely be due to natural processes. While it is becoming apparent that we are contributing to rising CO2 levels, is there a way to further prove what is actually the cause of warming?
Because of the behavior of our politicians, I have zero trust in their policies. If they truly believed that this is a near-term existential threat as they claim, we would be seeing many different (& more effective) actions. Instead, they talk a lot, push EVs but then go about things in their normal way. If they were being honest, why aren't we seeing all options being pursued - like also working on adaptation to changing climate? Adaptation would have much lower impact on the poverty stricken countries while also being a much more effective way to minimize impact of changing climate on humans. All I can really conclude is that we are spending a LOT of money (and who is profiting?) with almost no guarantee that there will be any impact on global warming.
CO2 does not absorb "heat". CO2 has a very high emisivity to IR. That is why it is the most widely used industrial coolant in the world. And you cannot "trap"" "heat". Heat is not a "thing" that you can trap, it is a result of the state of energy and vibrational state of molecules. Further, no gas can "cause" warming, just like pouring 140F coffee into your cup, no matter how much coffee you add you can never get above 140F. "Heat" cannot "pile".
I don't understand your comment. We know for a fact that big companies in industries that contribute to CO2 levels have, by their own admission, tried to steer the narrative about climate change using propaganda for decades. Those same companies are leading the charge right now to influence politicians to deny the existence of climate change (see: project 2025's backers and its goals). And yet, you think that looking for sustainable energy is a world-wide conspiracy that other countries outside the United States (like China) invest heavily in?
I agree that there are people pushing a narrative for profit. But it's way simpler than you think it is, and it's not the people who advocate for planting trees, creating better public infrastructure, or trying to preserve the environment.
Its a reducing effect after the first 20ppm so little significant rise in temperatures above current levels.
@@BrinJay-s4v - not possible. CO2 has absolutely NO warming "affect" whatsoever. In order to make warmer, you need more energy. Where does the extra energy come from? .. Pouring more 140F degree coffee into your cup will NEVER get your coffee more than 140F, no matter how much you pour in. The other question you need to ask yourself is, why is CO2 the most widely used industrial COOLANT in the world? .. Why do ice-skating rinks use CO2 to freeze their rinks? (spoiler: to save 60-70% in energy to do so). The bottom line, you cannot, under ANY circumstances, violate the Laws of Thermodynamics. The entire premise of a "greenhouse effect" absolutely violates the Laws of Thermodynamics. No gas in our universe can cause atmospheric warming, no matter the concentration.
To assess whether or not we are being indoctrinated by the global warming alarmists, I only need to look at the way data is presented:
1) The graphs shown all magically start around the 1980s.. as if no prior data was available.
2) The graphs' vertical scale (atmospheric CO2, C12 vs C12 ratio etc..) vs horizontal scale (years).
3) The selectivity of the data presented.. eg: as if Mauna Loa observations can be extrapolated to the whole planet.. without question.
If it has feathers, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
Tut tut. You weren’t supposed to notice that!
-Ask for actual, empirical data that ANY of the supposed " fixes" can , will, or have had, any effect at all, let alone the desired one , on "the climate". It doesnt really matter how" real" the problem is - if you can't prove your " solution" to address it will work- and so far, there is ZERO data that any of it will have ANY effect.No data , no facts, just "theory" and "hypothetical models".Science is about FACTS ,and they've not got any .
1.) There’s plenty of studies with graphs out there that extend much further back. Conclusions are the same.
2.) The scaling of the graphs is meant to demonstrate a point that the statistics are making. The conclusions are backed by rigorous statistics, not just the graphs.
3.) There have been countless studies of climate change exploring many different lines of evidence. This video may not be comprehensive, but research on this largely is. If you feel that a crucial piece of evidence is missing from the literature, help us out and publish research on it.
I appreciate your skepticism, but your criticisms are pretty underwhelming. If you want to appear as a data-driven skeptic, at least honestly engage with the data.
@@afraidofmoths6547 Lets see your hard data that proves any of the implemented or proposed " fixes" have had, or will have, the desired effect. THAT is the data that matters no one ever produces- it doesnt matter HOW real a problem is, if you can not demonstrate reliably you can do a damn thing about it.And I've yet to see ANY scientific data to prove ANY of the current proposals have, or will, work.Since you appear to be Mr Master of Graphs, go find THAT data , and THOSE graphs.
@@mikebryant614 this is not what the original post was talking about. On this topic, we absolutely agree. Most politicians are absolutely incapable of proposing a decent solution and I believe most of the ones currently being enacted are half baked and not enough to make a change we need to see.
that being said, your brain also seems to half baked if you can’t understand how reducing CO2 in the atmosphere will slow climate change. I suggest you also engage with the data, lol.
I seem to remember you did another video on why CO2 causes heat trapping, and how it's really quite a non-trivial reason. It might be a good idea to put a link to that video in the info beneath this video, because it goes into a bit more detail on the radiation and trapping.
Good idea, will do!
Yes that video put a whole new meaning to what we are doing. In other words what is really needed is depopulation.
If done in a responsible way which means some will lose out on reproducing then so be it.
@@Vile_Entity_3545 Why do you believe depopulation is a responsible way to counter climate change? I would like to understand your logic behind it. You do know people are a form of carbon sink, don't you? Where would those carbon go if people are depopulated?
Carbon dioxide doesn't trap infored it's to dense and reflective. Venus has a 90% reflection rate
@@SabineHossenfeldercarbon is more reflective. Venus has a 90% reflection rate and is internally heated. Your thinking of carbon monoxide. Also needs to transfer heat or else it would make things cooler
A good summary Sabine. All of this is uncontroversial i.e. most skeptics agree that CO2 is rising and the additional CO2 derives from fossil fuels. The controversy is about what happens in the future. How much temperature rise would a doubling of CO2 cause and how does this factor alongside the natural temperature cycles? Would this on balance be a bad thing or a good thing and what we should do to mitigate any negative effects? It’s about feedbacks, particularly whether the CO2 rise drives an increase in water vapour in the atmosphere and whether or not the models provide a reliable forecast of future temperatures. This is a lot more complex.
definitely a bad thing ... seen the floods ? then there are increased temperatures when its not raining .Then you can also get steam bath conditions . If the temperature reaches 35C and 100% humidity then humans cannot ..repeat .. cannot survive ...because we cannot release body heat and so like a car engine without a radiator we overheat and die . A medical FACT not a climate science fact . And that has nearly happened a few times recently ..This is why there are climate refugees ...even internally displaced climate refugees
This.
Ugh, just stop. You guys were wrong before about climate change not happening, and you’re wrong now about it being a good thing or stopping it being impractical or whatever flavor of denialism you prefer. Don’t you guys ever get tired of being wrong? I’m gonna drop a fat “i told you so” now, and maybe in another ten years I’ll see you in the comments again and I can drop another one. Lying stupid assholes who aren’t willing to make any sacrifice for the greater good. Ten years dude 👀🫵
water vapor concentration in the atmosphere is directly related to temperature, so while other greenhouse gases have a much smaller impact, they increase the concentration of water vapor, accelerating the warming effect. other greenhouse gases removed, water vapor would be stable.
The issue is CO2's saturation point doesn't allow any more heating once it's reached. And we've already pretty much reached CO2s max saturation point when it comes to heating.
As it stands, we're much closer to having too little CO2 than too much.
Why did you skip a step between explaining that the internet doesn’t readily show the causality of climate change, and then explaining how we’re tracking CO2 without defining the significance of CO2 in relation to other possible causes?
I'm just a trade worker, not a scientist and I gave up studying the sciences when I ran into some personal life difficulties that forced me out of college some years ago but your informative and fun videos have made me fall in love with science again. Even though it pains me greatly that I'll likely never be a scientist myself or contribute anything to research I can still enjoy catching up on the progress made by others.
I was a machinist. During my career I invented a modification of the Boeing 777 that made it the safest airliner in history. 1800 flying. No mass fatality accidents in 30 years. An acrylic submarine nose I made is in the opening credits of Star Trek Enterprise. The Atlantis resort is made of many acrylic aquarium panels, and tubes I made. I made the heart of the Large Hadron Collider. Made it 10 times better than expected, and was thanked personally by the engineers. I was told because of my work it effectively increased the power 10 times. Instead of expecting up to 100 years to find the first evidence for the Higgs boson it was expected to take as little as 10 years. It took 8.
In my free time I solved dark matter. It's ordinary matter. I solved global warming. It's not caused by fossil fuel. invented a widely popular 3d stereograph pinup collection. I invented a flying car system in conjunction with a city architectural technology never seen before. Buildings, and cars float in an oxygen, and Sulphur hexafluoride gas mix in a domed city. I designed a electric catapult space launcher that's much more practical, and economical to build, and operate than any other design, and I solved the landing problem of SpaceX. Increase roll authority to minimize roll. Eliminated nearly all crashing, reduced fuel required, and increased payload by several hundred pounds.
You can still contribute. There's a lot of low hanging fruit of problems to be solved, and inventions needed to solve them.
@@dpsamu2000 Agreed. I'm currently working on a way to teach accomplished machinists humility online
@@SnackPatrol How's that workin' out for you? Loser.
@@dpsamu2000 Laughing my bolls off. Well executed.
@@MuffinologyTrainer Too bad nobody else gets to see it. Some loser deleted it as usual.
I have doubts about how accurately we can measure temperature and 'extreme weather events' from 500, 1000, 5000 years ago. Even if we are one or two degrees off, it changes everything by an order of magnitude. I'm sure we can get a 'reasonable' idea but we've only been measuring weather quite recently. Also, many have criticized how many temperatures are taken in cities instead of the countryside - where cities are usually a degree or two warmer due to concrete, etc. I'm not saying cliimate change isn't real or isn't caused by humans, but I really question how accurate we can get with this.
"I have doubts about how accurately we can measure temperature and 'extreme weather events' from 500, 1000, 5000 years ..."
==
Did you watch the video?
Which part you didn't understand?
@@allgoo196 It is established science that the Milankovitch cycles are currently warming the Earth regardless of the existance of humanity. So that brings in the only question that really matters. What percentage of the warming is caused by humans and what percentage by the Milankovitch cycles? Is it 1%, in which nothing we do will matter? Or is it 99% in which even small changes will make a big difference?
This is something no one seems to be able to figure out, yet it is the most important part.
@@cybrsage
" It is established science that the Milankovitch cycles are currently warming the Earth regardless....."
==
Link?
Do you have one?
@@allgoo1990 Yeppers, here you go, from NASA. I have also linked to a simplified graph showing that CO2 increases have always lagged temperature increases. Forgive the extra writing on it, I could not find one stretched out wide enough to show that on increase in CO2 is due to warming of the Earth, and that a cooling of the Earth always preceded a decrease in CO2. The orbit and rotation of the Earth are primary drivers in the temp of the Earth which is the primary driver of the Earth releasing CO2 when it gets hotter and absorbing it when it gets cooler.
jimdo-storage.freetls.fastly.net/image/272748462/2ad28bb9-bea9-401f-865b-730f7e68e06c.jpg
From NASA
" In 1976, a study in the journal Science by Hays et al. using deep-sea sediment cores found that Milankovitch cycles correspond with periods of major climate change over the past 450,000 years, with Ice Ages occurring when Earth was undergoing different stages of orbital variation.
Several other projects and studies have also upheld the validity of Milankovitch’s work, including research using data from ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica that has provided strong evidence of Milankovitch cycles going back many hundreds of thousands of years. In addition, his work has been embraced by the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
Scientific research to better understand the mechanisms that cause changes in Earth’s rotation and how specifically Milankovitch cycles combine to affect climate is ongoing. But the theory that they drive the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles is well accepted."
science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
@@allgoo1990 my post appears to have vanished. I will recreate it.
IPCC AR6 was released in 2021 and the following are classified as "low confidence" that they have changed significantly in the "modern era" which means from 1850. "Low confidence" means there is little or no evidence they have changed.
The AR6 reference is Table 12.12 regarding “Climate Impact Drivers (CIDs)” from Chapter 12 of Working Group 1 of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report,
Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions)
Aridity
Avalanche (snow)
Average rain
Average Wind Speed
Coastal Flood
Drought Affecting Crops (agricultural drought)
Drought From Lack Of Rain (hydrological drought)
Erosion of Coastlines
Fire Weather (hot and windy)
Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods)
Frost
Hail
Heavy Rain
Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms
Landslides
Marine Heatwaves
Ocean Alkalinity
Radiation at the Earth’s Surface
River/Lake Floods
Sand and Dust Storms
Sea Level
Severe Wind Storms
Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets
Tropical Cyclones
This is directly from IPCC AR6, and so Sabine many of the things you say proves climate change are contradicted by AR6. Remember this is not my opinion, it is from hundreds of IPCC authors.
However, the summary for policy makers also contradicts much of the above.
120,000 years ago global temperature was 2-4C hotter than today and seas 5-7 Metres higher than today. There was no Arctic ice for at least 1000 years and somehow the planet didt incinerate and polar bears become extinct.
In the dinosaur era, CO2 was 4 times higher than today but the oceans didnt turn into a seathing cauldron of acid.
1000 years ago Vikings farmed parts of Greenland that are permafrost today so we know for a fact it was hotter than today. From 1300 until the late 1800's was the Little Ice Age which was the coldest period in the last 8,000 years. So our current warming cycle is just the planet bouncing out of the LIA and past interglacials show this is perfectly normal.
Global sea level has risen 130 metres since the last ice age 20,000 years ago and tidal gauges with histories of 100 years or more show that sea level has been rising steadily at about 2mm/year and this was recorded as early as 1810 which was before AGC could have made the slightest difference.
The Central England Temperature database started in 1659 and shows that from 1690 to 1730 temperature rose an astounding 1.2C, then dropped and has been been rising sporadically ever since.
Glaciers which had advanced at a rapid rate during the LIA started receding around 1750 which was well before anthopogenic warming could have had the slightest difference.
So Sabine, just parrotting climate cult propaganda is contradicted by history and IPCC AR6.
And that leaves out the question of what should the “correct” temperature should be.
"120,000 years ago global temperature was 2-4C hotter than today"
This is laughably false.
I love how you cite scientists who would all blow your argument out of the water if they were to read it.
@@hrlincoln9873 Maybe not laughably????? From: GROK:
@grok
120,000 years ago, during the last interglacial period known as the Eemian, the global temperature was warmer than it is now. The exact temperature difference is difficult to determine precisely due to the limitations of paleoclimate data, but it is estimated that the average global temperature was around 1 to 2 degrees Celsius (1.8 to 3.6 Fahrenheit) higher than it is today.
This warmer climate resulted in sea levels being 4 to 8 meters (13 to 26 feet) higher than present-day levels due to the melting of ice sheets. It is important to note that this period was characterized by a different distribution of solar insolation due to orbital variations, which played a significant role in driving the warmer temperatures.
Quote
@@hrlincoln9873 hahahahahhaaa LAUGHABLY
In my experience, scoffers are almost always wrong
Why are you only looking at the data from 1960 forward, if you go back to 1880 when we started recording temperature data accurately it shows we are in a long term cooling trend. Where are you getting your info on more storms and more intense storms? They have actually decreased. Please state your sources.
On temperature, look at NASA website (The Raw Truth on Global Temperature Records). This has a temperature record from 1880. Not sure I can see a cooling period since the 1920s? Am I reading this incorrectly?
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures#:~:text=According%20to%20an%20ongoing%20temperature,1.9°%20Fahrenheit)%20since%201880.
You missed the blatantly provided sources for literally every single plot. If that is any indication of your cognitive capabilities then I do not think you have anything of value to provide to intellectual conversations. Too bad you will never realize this for the same reasons.
@@elliotn7578 There were no sources provided, either for or against. It is clear that you do not have the intellect to discuss rationally. You would be better directing him to Chapter 11 of Ipcc ap6 report, Which claims that this is the case and new research proves it. Of course, the IPCC is not a scientific body and cherry-picks data. Other new research seems to indicate that Te cRED dataset of natural disasters shows a downward trend,
The problem is that for any extreme weather situation, the data is not consistent according to reports. One will find it increasing and another will find it static or decreasing. Just like whether islands are actually being submerged, some are, some are rising and some no change.
First, the data don’t show a cooling trend from 1880 onward, they show the exact opposite. That exact chart is online in many places. Look it up. Secondly, I’m guessing you don’t live in the tropics. Stronger and more frequent hurricanes are real and as I live in Florida, it’s hard to miss. Yesterday’s news was that Hurricane Beryl is now the earliest cat 5 hurricane on record and that comes on the heels of forecasts that this year will be one of the most active hurricane seasons on record. The sources are everywhere. Do your own work and stop copying off everyone else.
This was quite interesting for such a short video. I was aware we could tell the CO2 was from burning fossil fuels, but I didn't know exactly why.
Also hadn't heard of Stratospheric Cooling
didnt you learn in school that CO2 is plant food ? essential for photosynthesis? earth at its greenest was above 2000 ppm right now its 400 ppm ,Dunning Kruger cant science
There is also the masking of warming by "global dimming" [cooling] by atmospheric particulates. That's a thing, and a changing thing.
Have you heard of geoengineering and HAARP?
@@kenwoodburn7438 or stratospheric aerosol injection ?these folks will limit their breathing to save themselves from dangerous CO2 😂 the same CO2 thats pumped into greenhouses to maximise yields and save water .These people forgot what they were taught school that CO2 is essential for photosynthesis.
@@kenwoodburn7438- Geoengineering has been used for decades to create weather extremes that can then be falsely ascribed to fossil fuel emissions. The agenda behind the weaponization of geoengineering is as obvious as it is frightning, and of course Sabine doesn't have a clue about it, being the poorly informed climate alarmist that she has become.
It's really disappointing that she seems so ignorant about the sinister climate change agenda and its well-documented history. I guess it is time for me to unsubscribe from this channel.
Would you be able to explain why the warming effect of carbon dioxide is so big while the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air is only 0.04%
Stop asking sensible questions. The religion can't cope with them.
It's like the masks: the holes are too big, but if you didn't wear one anyway... Come to think of it, that'll probably be up next: "Wear a mask to contain your expelled carbon dioxide! Nevermind how big the molecules are! Just do it or you're a denier!"
It isn't "big" per se its a few kelvin difference, but it makes a very noticeable impact. And about the 0.04% do not have an impact.. you think drinking a 0.04% solution hydrocyanic acid would have no impact on your health?
@@georgelionon9050 hydrocyanide is not carbon dioxide......this does not explain why such a small percentage has such a big effect
@@helenvanginkel7910 Again, it’s not a big effect in absolute terms. It’s only ”big” relative to living species.
Fun fact: In 1976 Vangelis released the album Albedo 0.39. The albedo is the fraction of light that a surface reflects, and back then that's what the earth's albedo was. As of today, that figure has fallen to about 0.30 which is a pretty big change in less than 50 years!
One of the first albums I ever bought - still love it.
Didn’t realize that albedo had changed that much in 40 years. Now I have to check on the other terms. What’s going on with the obliquity of the ecliptic?
After 5 minutes of googling, I think Vangelis used a wrong value. The current estimate is 0.30 but it hasn't moved at all during last 10 years.
@@Milan_Openfeint it really is a bad measurement, from what I can find online, albedo has decreased by around 0.05 since 1850, and only about 0.02 since the 80's with more accurate measurements, maybe the 0.39 comes from a different way of taking measurements that have not been accordingly modified
lol what the fuck kind of credit does a musician have in making that assessment?
just defer everything to everyone and never question it... lol
This will be the last time I watch one of your videos, Sabine.
My confidence in your "expertise" has been waning for a while.
Now it has evaporated completely.
Evaporation is evidence of climate change.
It’s not a hoax but is it really an existential threat to humanity? No.
If we wait long enough and take zero precautions (which we aren't), it'll certainly be. Like it's starting to
That is, if you somehow think preventable deaths from disasters, extreme weather, resurfacing diseases and population displacements to not be emergencies that can lead up to Anarchy.
I that’s a ridiculous bar. It’s not gonna kill us all but it’s making millions of lives worse and killing enough already.
Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and Floridians (to name a few) are going to have a hell of time in the coming decades, because flooding is going to continue to get worse, and so much will be destroyed.
In western Canada, we used to only have to worry about dangerously smoky conditions a few days a year at most. Now it can be WEEKS. It’s not acutely life-threatening, but breathing ASH is absolutely horrible for your cardiovascular system
That's the heart of the issue, is it actually an " existential level" event or happening? Absolutely not , and anyone who says it is , is lying to you. As an aside, our collective Govts have failed horribly at combating hunger, homelessness, and drug abuse, problems FAR simpler than changing a planets climate - what exact part of that fact would lead anyone to believe they can successfully do that? I can not think of a single Govt program that has been so wildly successful that I'd even begin to entertain they can "alter the planets climate".
It’s a threat to biodiversity and ecosystems, a lot of species gone endangered/extinct already, but people don’t feel it so no one cares
More accurate to say that humanity is influencing climate change that changes with and without us over centuries and millenia. We are nowhere near the hottest or coldest or stormiest weather that previouly existed on earth. I agree that we are now a new player in the 100 factors that impact weather.
The planet should be cooling very slowly towards the next full glaciation. We're causing the exact opposite to happen.
Most studies say that we have been slowly warming over the last few thousand years and are still at the tail end of the last glaciation. I did not say that we are not an influencer, just that lots of factors influence global weather. One could also blame grazing mammals for a huge increase in greenhouse gasses. I am more concerned with the dramatic rise in human population over the past 100 years. If not stopped we'll soon hit an unsustainable need for food. @@Richard482
Would it be getting warmer even if humams didn't exist? Yes. Is it better for life if it gets warmer or colder? Warmer. The question is, what percentage of the warming are we causing.
The question has been answered, for the changes since 1980.. almost all human, because the things happening without humans doesnt happen within 40 years but within many hundrets of years.
@@georgelionon9050 it's gotten on average 1 degree warmer over the course of 100 years while in an interglacial warming period. We are in an Ice Age. The Altlantic ocean is widening due to continental drift faster than the oceans are rising.
@@merc9nine "on average 1 degree warmer over the course of 100 years" not true, you are missing a zero there.
@@georgelionon9050 you truly believe that it's gotten 10 degrees warmer?
@@merc9nineno 1K change over 1000 years was at most interglacial effects.
More taxes can fix anything boogeymen have caused.pay your taxes, say your prayers, pay your taxes and pay your taxes
Ok, now do "How do we know warmer weather is bad?"
have you ever heard about agriculture ?
@@nicejungledo you have evidence warmer temperatures are bad for agriculture?
@@senorjp21
have you ever heard that growing plants need water ?
@@nicejungle do you have evidence that warmer temperatures cause drought?
@@senorjp21 lol
Have you ever heard about evaporation ? 😂
Is there good evidence to support the idea that the majority of oil is fossil fuels? I am not asking disingenuously. A long time ago I went on a geology trip across the US where we visited oil refineries, and I know that there is indeed oil that comes from fossils from various time periods (especially in the US). However, I have also heard of the Russians having a theory that (some? most? I don't know) oil comes from deeper in the Earth's crust and is the result of some unknown production process deep inside of the Earth (i.e., not from plants). They came to this conclusion after revisiting old oil fields that had mysteriously refilled themselves. Not necessarily good evidence of oil not being a fossil fuel on its own, but it did plant a seed of doubt for me... do we actually know that all or most of our oil *is* a fossil fuel, or is that an assumption we have made because we've definitively proven that some oil comes from fossils, and made an assumption that this is the case for all oil everywhere?
Not that it changes the climate change debate any, but if oil is a fossil fuel, it is finite, and we have even more reason to switch away from it. If it comes from deep within the Earth, however, that leaves the question of "how much oil remains" open.
Complex hydrocarbons cover the entire surface of Saturns moon Titan. Not a fossil in sight at less than -300 degrees fahrenheit.
If the Russians do have that theory, then that would be a massive insult to Russian science.
As for why an oil field might "refill itself," they are not like giant fuel tanks that we fully explore, they are holes deep in the ground that liquid comes out of until it stops coming out. We mostly have to guess at the actual structures in there, but there could easily be a case where a pocket of oil exists, and they empty out that pocket to the point that it no longer flows smoothly, and declare it "empty," but there is another pocket of oil nearby that slowly seeps into that now empty cavern, slowly refilling it, and allowing it to flow again. This is not an infinite process though, it's just one finite reservoir refilling another, until both are depleted.
Besides which, "whether oil is finite or not" isn't the actual problem, the problem is the harm caused by burning it, and that would exist even if oil were somehow infinite.
*abiogenic petroleum origin theory
Oil deposits do not refill, they can just draw from other wells elsewhere. They are not a spherical, self contained bubble, they are a network of caves filled with a liquid, and you can drain all the liquid that is easily available, and declare a well "empty," but then a separate cave nearby can slowly trickle into it, refilling it. This does not mean that the oil is unlimited, it just means that you have multiple finite reservoirs.
@@levyroth It's bizarre that I can read your comment and the original poster's comment, yet my comment and another person's comment is hidden. Maybe YT doesn't like the idea that complex hydrocarbons are found on a moon where there has never been life ?
Accepting what you say which I definitely do, how then do we account for climate change in the past - i.e. since the end of the Younger Dryas and the beginning of our 'civilistation'? Glaciologists, dendrologists, geographers, historians, archaelogists, etc all concur in there being quite significant variations - for example, the so-called "Medieval Warm Period' or the 'Little Ice Agent' which followed it. I have never heard an explanation of why these past variations have happened.....it would be great if you could explain! I have total faith in you Sabine to explain all things scientific that interest me.......if only you had been around when I was a kid!
'Little Ice Agent' lol.
Those darn little ice agents 🤣
You must have Google Gboard..
Unfortunately Dr. H., whine I love dearly, neglected to address other factors that can contribute to warming of the lower troposphere and cooling of the upper atmosphere:
1) increased water vapor, which has an even greater effect than CO2,
2) changes in global cloud cover,
3) changes in solar activity, meaning sunspot and coronal mass ejection activity, not solar irradiance,
4) natural cyclic fluctuations in ocean currents having periods from decadal, to multi-decadal, to century, and even millennium and longer,
5) and even changes in cosmic radiation.
The UN IPCC’s climate model regime has been repeatedly falsified; repeatedly shown to run to warm, about double what has been credibly observed (you know, actual science).
The good doctor is out of her wheelhouse. Climate is a massively complex chaotic system. It’s not enough to show that hydrocarbon fuels are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere; one must also show that the extra 0.0001 portion by volume of CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of not just warming, but dangerous warming.
The best measure of reality is to look as changes in sea level as registered by paleo geological science and by tide gage records. Do not make the mistake of combining or concatenation either with satellite derived sea level. They are not the same measurement, and the satellite derived data is HIGHLY manipulated, unlike paleo geology and tide gage records. When you do that, you’ll find no acceleration or unusual rate of increase in sea level.
You can also observe the polar ice, both ocean and land borne. We have written records going back over a century for that. And we have ice core proxy records from both a Greenland/Arctic’s glacier, and an Antarctic glacier What we’ve observed recently is nothing new.
The data doesn’t lie, but government bureaucratic scientists do.
We CAN account for climate change in the past. That doesn't mean that currently it's the same causes.
we do have a pretty good idea what caused some of those climate events, the problem is, as always, there are too many variables, and one or all of them could be the responsible for those events. the difference with anthropogenic climate change is that we have a pretty good idea of all the other variables for global average temperature increase, and the only one that aligns neatly is the CO2 released by humans.
One volcano eruption in Iceland in 1997 issued more carbone dioxide into the atmosphere than 50 years of cars and industiries combined. Somehow this data is no longer available.
How do you know that if the data is not available?
The uncertainty is the part you glossed over. How much influence does an increase of CO2 have on global temperatures. If its small, then wasting trillions on it could be better used elsewhere. If its large, it's a serious problem. The reality is that the IPCC has a huge error range on this and there are studies showing it could be a lot lower than consensus. Additionally, the predictions are entirely modelling based which has its own sets of predictability issues. Additionally, there are also many positives in a higher CO2 world which are totally ignored in this debate. It's really an issue about people denying the reality that CO2 affects temperature, its about the size of the effect.
So would any positives outweigh the negatives?
The assumption that one's climate change denying relative is an uncle rather than an aunt is indicative of misandry.
My goto response is a chart from over 10 years ago that shows atmospheric CO2 levels for the past 15 million years, and at around WW2 the line stops looking like a line and more like a spiky cliff. The prehistoric data comes from layers in sediment and ice caps.
Your chart is nonsense. Atmospheric CO2 levels have varied considerably over the last 15 million years rather being a "straight line". And so, more importantly, have temperatures. At various points in the last 15 million years it has been both colder and hotter than it is at present.
The Skeptical Uncle recommends a video titled "10 Inconvenient Truths about Climate Change".
Today a lot of people think the weather is crazy but they haven't been alive for the storms we had in 1938 and in the early 1950s. The weather moderated after 1980 and it's been relatively calm since.
Interesting.
I live on by Nepean River and there has been this historical sign from 1921 about a giant flood that reach the level of the sign.
It's so far up the bank I would think it's impossible for the water to reach so far, it would flood half, if not all the city. Anyway that flood was 100 years ago and the river level has never been near it since....
Then between 2018 and 2022 that sign has been under water 3 times. Once in 100 year floods became almost annual events.
or the great Dust Bowl. Some estimates find that weather in US was most extreme in the 1930's. And how can we measure 'extreme weather' from 1000 years ago?
Your quizzes are perfect. I often want to relay your information to friends and family, and with other channels I'll be like "Uuuh, wait well... just watch the video". But when I take your quiz it forces me to make a hard memory about the topic points, and gets me to rewatch certain sections. Then when I'm transcribing from memory, I'm representing the information accurately :)
Thanks as always Sabine. Always a pleasure tuning in to your newest post. See you tomorrow. Hugs!!
She still did not prove it was man made. My goodness science is so political these day believing the results of any testing is an exercise in futility.
I'm the uncle you refer to. Thanks for a great video. Now if they could just come up with a workable solution to it that doesn't cause more harm than GW I am all ears.
The cure will be much worse than the ailment. There are far worse issues than Carbon.
I am also not opposing change in energy production.
But the funny thing is that we will not stop using old and gas for a very long time.
Oil and gas are used for many things, not just as an energy source.
And I strongly oppose the super expensive, super wasteful, super polluting, poor performing/unreliable draconian approaches taken today!
It just needs to stop before it kills half mankind.
@@TheEVEInspirationso far we aren't doing anything at all.
@@fischersfritz468 You need to go out more, windmills and solar panels everywhere. That is fine on roofs and such, but the big installations on Sea and near towns are really problematic.
Besides, they are far more costly to keep operational and so they never truly pay for themselves. Huge upfront costs and energy waste and little benefit.
@@TheEVEInspiration those big installations are money printing systems. Nothing is cheaper than offshore-windmills.
If atmospheric CO2 levels are driving warming, shouldn't we have seen an increase in Arctic sea ice melting over the last eleven years? But we haven't. Arctic sea ice at minimum extent 2012 was 3.3 million square kilometers. Over the last three years it's averaged almost 4.6. As per nsidc.
For what it’s worth, here’s ChatGPT4’s answer: According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), Arctic sea ice extent has been declining over the past four decades, with the 14 lowest extents in the satellite record occurring since 2007.
@@bishopdredd5349A good demonstration of the limitations of ChatGPT. Unable to do any analysis it misses the fact that there's been no increase in the amount of melting since 2012.
The average Arctic sea ice minimum extent 2007 through 2012 was 4.3 million square kilometers. For 2013 through 2023 it is 4.5 million. Sea ice actually increasing.
@@zstopperuno bullshit. Picking and choosing short snippets like that is dishonest. There are always dips and rises, but stats covering 43 years show what the trend actually is. Average December sea ice extent has gone down from about 13.6 million km² in 1980 to 12 million km² in 2023, and even dipped to 11.5 million km² in 2016. You're trying to sell us mouldy bread by pointing at the small remaining section not covered by green fuzz.
@@JuusoAlasuutari All the Arctic sea ice loss occurred between 1996 ( 7.6 million square kilometers at minimum extent) through 2012 ( 3.3 million). No increase in melting during the eleven years since then ( as per nsidc data).
Sabine needs to read and understand Steve Koonin's "Unsettled" !!
Funny how the weather is so much more destructive on the telly screen these days but is exactly the same in my yard as it has been my entire life. Take a walk, people; trust your own senses. The box on the wall is not a faithful representation of reality.
Your yard is not the globe.
I'll send this to my nephew who still thinks climate change is a myth.
Nice uncle.😊
this video should show in the very first google search results on climate change
ahh, the narrative crafting algos are all online! check.
No, it should be retracted as it is just another big climate lie.
@@JeffreyBenjaminWhite and being tuned. War is peace.
Why is Google burying the actual answer to the question?
They're not. It's just how the algorithms work and vast amount of information accessible to the search engine.
Lol, burying? Google wants you to believe this more than anybody. They even add "context" to ALL videos about climate change just to make sure.
This is so incredibly clear. Thanks Sabine. It's sad that this is probably only going to be watched by people who already know this (albeit maybe without this clarity).
The seas are not rising though are they? If they were, then low lying islands would now be gone. The ice is enlarging in some places.
Low lying islands are experiencing sea level rise. The Maldives is now almost out of local fresh water, see also Kiribati which is the first island that will disappear. Much of the sea level rise is caused by thermal expansion of ocean water, not by melting ice.
@@jwoya
The Maldives' lack of fresh water is due to rising sea level, how?
@@edwardmclaughlin7935 When the sea water rises, it starts to contaminate low laying fresh water reserves with salt water. Is it really that hard to see the cause and effect?
@@PelosiStockPortfolio
Do you have a link to the location of the reserves please?
@@edwardmclaughlin7935I will take this opportunity to introduce you to an educational tool that lets you find these things very quickly. Its called google, and it is free
You expected Google to answer your question 😂
nowadays google isn't helping anymore 😔
@@everluck35 nowawdays? try 20 years.
Not without the misdirect to an advertisement.
This is more disturbing than funny. She's never strayed from her lane apparently.
Google is an advert spamming site for various billionaires and wef.
Nice and clear. Never really doubted it. But that doesn't mean that warming and ALL it's associated consequences is such a bad outcome. Also doesn't mean our reaction shouldn't be simply to adapt to the fact like we adapt to other and more drastic changes in the world (population increase, etc...)
I don't think you have done enough research on the effects then. The issue is not humans surviving. The issue is other animals and plants not being able to adapt like humans can. And that eventually leads to hunger of humans.
@@philosophist9562 And of course, sure, people in the US or Europe will probably be able to deal with it - with more intensive agriculture etc. But the vast majority of the world's population doesn't have the same options (not to mention that they will tend to further accelerate climate change, of course). Humans will survive... but it's also likely a whole load of humans will die and there will be tons of conflict as people are forced north.
So i hope you will be the first to adapt and take on a climate refugee fleeing famines?
Ah Yes Sabine, that picture of the cooling towers emitting ..... water vapour!
Yeah, it's as standard as polar bear standing on a small ice flow.
TBH I never heard that carbon isotope explanation before, and this is both a great scientific evidence and a easy one to understand. Thanks Sabine for exposing it in such a didactic way.
My uncle says her isotope correlation is unsubstantiated.
John replied about how the isotope correlation is unsubstantiated. Which is correct but I dont think is helpful So let me try to explain
C12 is the Carbon in the CO2 we exhale, as well as the CO2 that plants use, and that fossil fuels produce.
C14 is radioactive and there are small amounts of it on the planet which lest us do carbon dating of ancient items.
C13 was produced by the testing and use of atomic weapons 80 to 90 years ago. We dont know if there was a baseline of C13 before that so it could have been 0 before we started using atomic weapons.
Measurements of the ratio of C12 and C13 in CO2 show C13 declining over the last 50 years. This could be because we are producing more CO2 or it could be because it was created 80 to 90 years ago and is slowly working its way out of the atmosphere. We don't know for sure.
@@GrandpasPlace C14 is the isotope created from nuclear bomb tests, not C13
@@GrandpasPlace further to that plants do use C13, the utilisation differs whether it is a C3 (wet and cool type plant) or a C4 (are dry hot climate type plant). This is well known even in anthropology where they test ancient collagen for what types of plants the creatures ate or in the case of carnivores what the animals they ate did eat.
A decline could be described as going down if plants of the type most likely to take in C13 also increase as was shown by NASA satellites showing a vast greening of the planet.... largely by C4 types of plants.
The acidification aspect was equally dismal. You have three states, Acidic (Below 7) Neutral (7) and Alkaline (above 7) so if you move from one state towards the other without crossing Neutral it is Neutralisation. Seawater is generally around 8.1ph (alkaline) and the amount of CO2 to neutralise it from 8.1 to 8 is staggeringly large and with each subsequent change is larger than the last meaning it is logarithmic (about 10 times) so to change from 8.1 to 7.8 would be about 110 times more than 8.1 to 8.0 and we are taking about changes in the error bands here so nothing to see with this anyway. Another aspect is that the ocean is outgassing CO2 meaning there is less because temperature also plays a part in this, the ph can change purely from temperature in this case.
Also if CO2 was the driver it would not follow the temperature record by 800-1200 years in the proxy records...
@@GrandpasPlaceWhat about the influence of forestry and forest fires?
in the late 1700's adventurous souls were all over the planet in their state of the art wooden sailing ships .. they noticed that the ice sheets & glaciers were melting .. signalling the end of the 500 year cold spell that started in 1300
And to this date, still no one knows why the 500 year cold spell ended. Because it wasn't CO2, it must have been natural processes. Which means no one knows whether or to what extent those natural processes are still active.
I'm so glad you proved we can ignore how our technology, methods, and accumulated knowledge is no longer based on a fucking wooden ship.
some of you all really need some basic education
When I saw the headline, I was sure the comments would have been turned off.
Then how are you making this coment
@@definitlynotbenlente7671 Do you understand English? English is my 2nd language and I completely understood what Mike wanted to say.
And, do you live in our world or under a stone? It's a common habit to turn off comments when it comes to topics that only allow for "one correct" opinion. And this topic is such one.
@@bjornna7767 she almost never disables the coments on there video and mabey hard for you to understand but not every thing you dislike is propaganda to controll you
Check out my comment. I debunked her nonsense with facts!
@@bjornna7767 I think you understand science as well as English.
This lady seems genuine, but she should be reminded that correlation is not causation.
If someone is looking to doubt we are exclusively causing this temperature swing, you need not look very far in climate historical proxies to realize we just have not been taking measurements long enough for our data to mean anything yet.
She should also be reminded that a warmer planet isn’t necessarily a bad thing --it changes things--but that’s been going on in various extremes for as long as this planet has existed.
Turning it into a catastrophe or a crisis is an attempt for some people to assert control over other people. Since modern science is closer to a religion in many fields
I doubt the real scientists are going to stick their heads up long enough to cast doubt on the assertion. “We’re all going to burn to death in 100 years” if they are no longer going to be funded for the real science, they’re doing.
You nailed it. Funding. Whatever your field of research is today, if you sprinkle a bit of climate change over it, you'll get the funding. This is how you breed and groom a generation of docile, ideologically oriented scientists.
"She should also be reminded that a warmer planet isn’t necessarily a bad thing "
This is the stupidest thing I have ever read! First of all - if we continue to burn fossil fuel the planet doesn't only get warmer - it gets hotter and hotter! And it is already a very bad thing!!
Secondly - who with a working brain puts our habitat on jeopardy with uncontrolled terraforming???🤯 seriously, you don't get the scale of the issue, do you?
@@dervideominister I wonder what's the best temperature for life on planet earth. Here at the coast we have 10°C in winter and 20 in summer on average which is not bad although there are a few nights in winter when we go a few degrees below zero and some rare days in summer when we reach up to 40, but I wouldn't mind if temperature where ALWAYS a little higher.
I would ask for 15 on average in winter and 25 during the summertime.
All plants and animals including humans would be happier with 5 extra degrees all the time night and day all year long.
@@josemariatrueba4568 there is no best temperature for life, since life and the whole ecosystem adopted to it. Ask an ice bear, what temperature he needs, and the seals he hunts. Besides that, he needs the arctic ice to get to his prey.
Even with humans it's hard to determine: almost all old civilizations developed in tempered zones, while it seems that innovation and the ability to think forward was more rewarded in slightly colder regions (for obvious reasons).
And now think again: if the temperature rises on the whole planet, there are no more comfort zones. They just move more to the north, while former tempered zones will turn to deserts....
So you rather have less zones that are comfortable
@dervideominister You are right but only up to a certain extent.
I still think that a slightly higher temperature would be very beneficial fot all life on earth, because we do have enough information that colder climate has been terrible, and warmer climate has been great, in the past.
Too many people, animals and plants, suffered during the middle ages around the 6th century, and very much the same happened at the end of the 17th century.
Today, the average temperature above the surface is 14.5°C.
A couple of extra degrees would be very beneficial, like it was when Roman's had an empire 20 centuries ago or Danish sailors went to Greenland 10 centuries ago.
See the history.
There's more than enough information from the last 50 centuries to confirm that 2 extra degrees would be good. Probably 4 extra degrees would be even better.
There must be an ideal temperature for the vast majority of the existing life on planet Earth.
I wouldn't be surprised if it were 5°C more than now, let's say 20°C on average all over the world instead of 14.5, because that's what me, and my cats and plants, prefer.
Indoeuropean migrations occurred in prehistoric ages after some changes in temperature after the last glaciar period that suddenly ended around 120 centuries ago.
My vote for three or five extra degrees, please!
What caused the last warming and cooling. Ice core samples show far higher co2 levels in pre history.
ua-cam.com/video/wkqDJwTIg_E/v-deo.html
I see a lot of complaints about "smoothed" observation data. Maybe a video comparing raw to adjusted data and discussing the adjustments would be helpful. BTW this was a great summary without a wasted word.
Good luck with that.
Smoothing is just taking a moving average, isn't it?
Perhaps you're talking about homogenisation. The placement of meteorological stations isn't the same over time, some are shut down, and some new ones are installed. So a continuous curve has to merge time series.
What percent of global warming is caused by human activity? Couldn’t it be that global warming is caused by both human and natural causes? How can one be confident that the majority of warming is caused by fossil fuels?
@@stuartkim4857 That has been quantified to between 80% and 120% of the warming since the last half of the 19th century, if I remember correctly. I don't have the reference in my head, but I remember Simon Clark discussing such a quantification or attribution in one of his videos.
@@stuartkim4857 Fossil fuels, land use change and livestock. Rice paddies and ruminants emit methane. Deforestation releases CO2.
An interesting theme occurs in these graphs and charts and numbers. Climate (temp) is usually measured with the GMT30, "Global mean temperature 30 year average".
However, repeatedly we are shown graphs which barely cover 30 years and are asked to interrupt the data 'within' it. If you use the data within the 30year period, you are not longer working with "climate", but seasonal and yearly variations. The same variations that using the 30year average is mean to stop miss interruption from.
I know you can plot "years" on a 30 year average, however with a ratio of 30:1 in the intented accuracy and the "point value" ... not much should be taken from it.
Yet, why do the media and even Sabine (although at least hers' has units!), keep showing us 30 year average data over less than 30 years. It's dishonest.
And often that 30-year period is decades old, like 1951-1980 or 1961-1990.
Provide source of your claim or you just cannot read data 😂
www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
My uncle is greatly relieved that the USA has rejoined the Paris Climate Accord. He’s been able to get off his blood pressure and sleep aide medication since we did. Prior to that he was so stressed out that the world was going to end in 12 years. He’s resting easy now! He also is doing his part by becoming a vegetarian to cut down on cattle flatulence and the damage its methane is causing throughout the globe.
So happy for your uncle!
@@JeffBetkerThank you, appreciate it! We at least can find some comfort in knowing my uncle feels better, since anyone who really knows what’s in the climate accord would realize the world isn’t getting anything else out of it!!
Vegan!!
Great comment
WOW - this is a level of insanity I didn't know existed.
The problem is the actual recorded temperatures from the 1930-1980's have been "adjusted" to show those temperatures as being 5 degrees F lower than they actually were. This is because the NASA people and NOAA people think all the people worldwide didn't read their thermometers correctly. Look at the actual temps from any city in the US and compare it to what NASA or NOAA says it was. Even the four recording stations in Africa have been given this treatment by the "scientists" today. No one on any continent could apparently read a thermometer.
This woman talks out of her backside,you are 100% right,Hansen et al. altered the data.
the problem is you're not paying attention and you've been misled.
@@GregQchi Instead of making a personal attack on me why not investigate it yourself? Bring up any US city during the 1930's and look for yourself at what the temperatures were. Read the newspaper accounts of the time about the heat.
they have been adjusting the data gradually on a regular basis. the adjustments are always cooling the past and warming recent measurements. these adjustments perfectly match the rise in co2. it looks like fraud. there is no downward adjustment for urban heat island effects which is a substantial heating effect during the 20th century and nothing to do with global warming. The mann vs steyn court case has just started and is revealing quite a lot (climate change on trial podcast).
@@Spritsailor that's not climate science ya plumb.
NASA also says that planetary warming can be seen in EVERY planet in our solar system, except for Mercury, which is too close to notice any changes....so how does human generated CO2 affect all the other planets?!
There were some studies from the early 2000's that claimed to identify evidence of climate change on Mars, however they were found to be localized weather events. Since that point no evidence has come to light that Mars is in a warming cycle. I tried to identify any other evidnce that you claim about every other planet, but haven't been able to find any studies or even random reports about this claim. If you have another source that purports this, I would love to see it.
Climate is probably the most complex phenomenon we study outside of biology - although in some aspects you could argue it is even more complicated than biology. The only thing that is certain is we don’t know much about what’s happening with the climate and why. Anyone who tells you we understand it or says the science is settled has certainly bought into an ideology.
Climate and biology are both so intertwined with carbon that the distinction between them is futile .
Maybe machine learning can help us understand the climate better.
Bless your heart, child.
Yes, science is never settled. However, it can make predictions to test hypothesis and if 2+2=4 then that is more useful than contrarian rhetoric or better science that has not refuted the overall understanding we have of climate.
@@ricinro Well that’s just the point. Our climate models are trash at making useful predictions about the climate. Check out John Christy’s work at Alabama, Huntsville.
The earth has warmed because cloud levels have decreased. How the heck does increased CO2 cause that?
The earth has warmed because the adding of CO2 to the atmosphere changes the thermal equilibrium point between the planet's climate system and space. "Returning" the system to equilibrium manifests as global warming.
Sabine, you should do a longer detailed video.
The climate deniers are going wild in these comments with isolated concepts and little 'gotchas.'
They mostly dont come up with gotchas as finding errors in her arguments.. they come up with totally unrelated denial theories..the only thing .. and here I have to agree, is the argument she proofed that CO2 is human made, but not that this CO2 is what has been warming the planet. (it does, but she didnt proof it here)
@@georgelionon9050 Yeah, that's true.
Isn´t it fun? I´m sure, she reckoned that, these guys are like flies being attracted to a heap of shit. She announced a long video about the topic today, and this one is not so bad: 14thousand likes, 14hundred dislikes, and I hope, some of the smarter ones get convinced by this vid.
Calling us names, are you? Typical of fascist Marxist propagandist.
On my planet the real problems started when we could not radiate excess heat from our alien activity fast enough.
the stephan-boltzman equation is great comfort
There is no excess heat. There is (alleged) local trapping in the troposphere balanced by local cooling in the stratosphere.
@@fredneecher1746 You guys are thousands of years after us yet! :p
How did previous ice ages end? Did temperatures increase linearly over time, or did jump up and down due to other events, like volcanic eruptions or maybe excessive vegetation growth etc?
linearly.
Your first pieces of evidence could also be applied to water vapor or methane no ? It’s like looking for the murderer in a room filled with people but ignoring everyone except your suspect exists
Here in Germany it's a very cold winter this year.
What part of Germany are you from? Where I'm living it hasn't been cold at all. We had a few bits of snow before Christmas, but that's all
I liked the quiz at the end which was made available. Neat feature.
I'd like someday to see a short video talking more about the stratospheric cooling effect. If you really want to drive the point home, I'd suggest explaining it. People who are hard-core skeptics on global warming's cause by human activity are going to point at this and claim that it doesn't make sense. They'll say "If CO2 absorbs sunlight and traps it as heat, why does it only do that near the surface of the Earth and not up higher. Sounds like some made-up mumbo-jumbo to support their claims to me!" (and it kinda does) So I think that'd be a neat supplementary video to be made someday.
This is a bit sad in fact. The "deniers" actually have quite sophisticated arguments and measurments, too. It is a complex debate, form the deniers point of view at least, which Sabine does not know much about, apparently. If she completely ignores what they say and present a symplistic version of the story of the other side, which the deniers mostly know well, she is not convincing the deniers, but only helping people already convinced to label the deniers as stupid, by creating a false impression that they don't accept oversimplified "facts". That's not constructive. If you really want to convince the deniers, you should engage with their arguments (starting with googling them up).
It is actually a bit funny, since her story sounds like, I believed something, and I googled until I found nice arguments that align with my belief :).
All these "sophisticated arguments" are falsified a boring millions of times.
@@Thomas-gk42 Sure...
Scientists never use terms like ‘deniers’.
@@MsBiggles51It´has become a public term, so there´s no sense in being petty. People who are upsetted about that just show their "denyism"😂
@@Thomas-gk42 upsetted? Denyism? I guess you have zero scientific training/understanding, as well as a poor grasp of English.
There is NO EVIDENCE of sea levels rising at an accelerated rate.
Most people don't even grasp what temperature really is: the average kinetic energy of molecules! It's the vibrations of the molecules that we feel as temperature. And they also do not grasp that WHY CO2 or other greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation: the specific configuration of the molecule which allows them to vibrate thereby storing energy in form of vibrations, just like guitar strings. If I flick a guitar string (i.e. I inject outside energy into it), it vibrates for a while (i.e., it stores this energy for a while). This is how greenhouse gas molecules are - you flick them (via sunlight) and they vibrate - for a long time - and it's to do with their molecular structure and the tightness/looseness of the chemical bonds.
I had understood it actually, but NOW I want to know: How is CO2 different when it's composed of C12 or C13?
Because all these experts, only until recently have been making a big deal about CO2. Supposedly that's all we needed to know. If they were SUCH experts, why have they bored down on this SPECIFIC detail only now as opposed to explaining it to us earlier on?
Are they just upping their game in the face of challenges, or were/are they merely still pontificating?
You could show an experiment do It with atmospheric gasses (CO2 at 0.2 ppm)and and the same with CO2 at 0.4, and then lets see what happen with the temperature a long the time
Rising temperatures: In some places.
Increasing sea level: Slightly, and in some places. It's actually decreasing at Seattle.
Ocean acidification: It's still alkaline, actually. The measured change is minuscule if even detectable.
Declining ice cover: Hooray. Nothing like Earth totally covered in ice to be Very Bad.
More extreme weather: If you say so. Maybe the USA will have another dust bowl like in the 1930's.
You sound like a guy who after being launched from a cannon says that everything's fine and dandy because he hasn't begun falling yet.
@@ubertrashcat Interesting. So you are the sound engineer that recorded just such an event. Lucky you!
@@ubertrashcat "You sound like a guy..."
Whereas you sound like a woman that believes every scary story and is easily fleeced because of it. I've been looking for close to 20 years for conclusive evidence that (1) a catastrophe is coming and (2) humans cause it. Well, there IS a catastrophe coming, and humans are causing it, and it will be called World War 3.
@@thomasmaughan4798 It's okay. I understand you're trying to cope. You don't need to convince yourself that it'll be okay. It won't change the way things are. It's okay to be worried.
@@ubertrashcat "You don't need to convince yourself that it'll be okay."
I do not understand "okay" in this context but THANK YOU for spelling out "okay".
Phew, I almost subscribed to this channel.
shame, would have been a good decision, but you are not that important luckily
There’s a small error in the section about upper atmosphere.
A more insulating atmosphere means energy takes longer to escape to space. The upper atmosphere cools (until energy balance is in equilibrium again), but it’s not because “CO2 in upper atmosphere makes it more effective at shedding heat” as Sabine put it.