This famous climate graph is hiding a secret 🤔
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 лип 2023
- Another UA-cam #shorts from your favorite science dad, Dr. Joe!
Join us on Patreon!
/ itsokaytobesmart
Twitter
/ drjoehanson
/ okaytobesmart
Instagram
/ drjoehanson
/ okaytobesmart
This content is licensed exclusively to UA-cam
We need to flatten this curve as well
"Flatten the curve"? Where have I heard that one before. Oh, yeah, flatten the Economic curve.
No, we need to reverse the curve
Ain’t that what they said about COVID ?
On the correct axis this time
"flattening the curve" was about hospital capacity, which they quickly "forgot" when capacity went back to manageable levels.
“But if you zoom in, it’s not a smooth curve.”
Ah yes, didn’t notice the spikes until that zoom. Thanks bud.
he meant the curve itself, not the line that constitutes it.
@@andrewpak5035 He meant the curve's _je ne sais quoi_ not the curve itself
Notice how he didn’t zoom out far enough? This is not even a blip in earths history
@@cherokeerookie8973 It is, however, the part of Earth's history that is of concern to us, as well as all other life on Earth, because these are the climate conditions that the current species on Earth have adapted to.
@@cherokeerookie8973 did you miss the part of the video where he shows historic carbon levels and there's a massive spike in the last 200 years? Did you miss that ENTIRE part?
The most famous graph in all of science is most likely the natural distribution graph since it's so prevalent.
that's just a type of graph, not a SPECIFIC one
Mini wave spam in geometry dash be like:
the guy using speedhacks be like
@@Killbayne Fr
@@Killbayne definitely not me(maybe only sometimes)
Someone noticed
lmaooo top tier comment
So really, it's not humans doing too much, it's plants doing too little! What's your excuse, rainforest?!
Hello... rainforest?
We've cut half of them down lol
Sorry, rainforest couldn't reply because it had to step aside to make space for inefficient monocultures for factory farming.
whe.. where is forest?🥺🥺
Rainforest? Is he still alive?
Even if humans weren't here this graph would look very much the same😂😂 most people are too stupid to think critically about climate science
Ever since the OG Titanic was hit by an Iceberg 🧊.. we declared war on all Icebergs.
That was done so the elites could take control of the central banking.
😂 that's was great one!
I realise this is kind of nitpicky, but the Titanic struck the iceberg. Not the other way around.
My uhhh, fellow Americans. Uhhh, Osama Bin Iceberg will uh fall.
and forests
people be like: plant more trees! me and my other personalities: factories cargo ships and private jets will keep going even if the the average citizen goes green and off the grid 💀
thankfully since some years ago, regulations have come in effect to counter this
There is no space on the planet for the required amount of trees. Each person in the first world would have to plant a tree every day to offset their emissions.
@@pavel9652 Pretty easy for folks in the country side - we plant dozens every day.
@@OutsiderLabs How many trees your family members planted in total and is it equal to the combined age in years * 365 (for argument sake)?
@@pavel9652 "Their emissions". You're looking in the wrong place, since most emissions are released by corporations, factories, massive luxury items like private jets, and unsustainable sources of energy that release greenhouse gases.
we had a mini ice age they dont mention
Still, you'd have to wonder whether this is because we're pumping so much CO2 into the air, or because we're pretty much deleting most forests and plantations... Or both.
Answered it yourself! Both of course will have an effect and both are taking place on an industrial scale. Although we should note that there are some places in the world where the CO2 is locked up more and more in forests, peatlands and such but these can be more vulnerable and prone to wildfires when they grow TOO thick when there's no thinning done by smaller fires or big herbivores felling trees or partial wood harvesting.
Plants offset about 40% of the atmospheric CO2. Trees are literally carbon capture devices - take it out of the air and turn it into a clump of carbon.
So, if we were taking that wood and storing it (like in timber constructions) then replanting the trees it would be good because the new trees will capture new CO2.
If we don't replant the trees, then there is less CO2 capture and thus net positive CO2 which is bad.
@@pXnTilde Very true! However it's at this moment we have to consider how people use wood and wood products. If it is stored in a sturdy building which will stand for as long as that tree would have lived naturally on its own and we don't cut down a forest to clear land for that building then that's fine.
However, if the products we make of trees we cut down decompose or are incinerated/burned in a fire before the tree would have died on its own we have lost out on some carbon sequestration power by cutting the tree. But we do need wood and paper so replanting is very essential to make the calculations work out in the end!
The trouble is that a lot of logged forests are not being replanted but turned into grazing land for cattle, soybean plantations for cattle or palm oil plantations...
False the 'keeling curve is controlled by the Keeling family. CO2 was up to 380 during the 1800s. There is no "Climate Crisis" You are a shill for the United Nations...... Why do you lie to people?
Predominantly the removal of forest. It's absolutely astonishing the difference plants can make for the planet, but there's one problem: it's not profitable.
In some places (I'm mainly going to be referring to my home country of Australia), there is higher incentive to use hectares of land, not for revegetation, but for solar and wind farms. Which on the surface it's all good and all for a "fight against fossil fuels," but underneath that "clean energy" moniker is the expansion of mine to find the increasingly rare metals required to make these structures, predominantly the backbone that is the Li-ion battery. Inland resources of this element is virtually all used up, and where are these mines being taken to? The coasts. Just something to think about because I'm straying from the main topic.
Point is that we don't want to use this very easily achievable method that would majorly solve this climate problem, because it's not economically profitable to companies, especially to those with vested interests for pushing "clean energy."
Quick, knock down a few million trees for wind/solar farms!
lmao and don't mind the endless tons of fiberglass debris and silicon waste left behind! It's for the environment! We're saving the planet!
Guess again. Microscopic phytoplankton in the oceans absorb as much carbon as all plants and trees on earth.
I sure do love vaguely gesturing at imagined hypocrisy
Great work addressing the actual issue team
Idk what planet you're from but on Earth we put solar farms in inhospitable deserts and wind farms off-shore or in fields...
What I find strange, is that the pandemic (when we all stayed at home, shrunk production, travel and resource consumption, and thereby reduced emissions to an extent probably greater than what we could do nowadays with the system running) seems to have not changed anything noticeable in that graph.
I am curious, if this is just delayed or if our impact is really that small. Do you have any info or explanation for that? 😊
The atmosphere is .0005% co2 of that, humans have added around 3% lolol and co2 doesn’t make it hotter, when it’s warmer the oceans release the co2 and when it’s colder it absorbs it again.
@@kalenlarsensource of your claims that dont make sense?
its because the climate has heated and cooled, up and down like a yoyo since the beginning of the planet.
The only thing that is constant is powerful people telling the gulliable masses that its their fault that the weather is bad.
"if u have sinned, God will punish you with bad weather and therefore bad harvests! "
@@MadCuzUBroke Look up the solubility curve for CO2 in H2O. Water at 0C will absorb 3.4 g of gas per kg of water; but water at 30C will only allow 1.25 g per kg. This is also why your soda goes flat when it gets warm.
A lot of major carbon emission sources still were in operation. Factories still ran, refineries still ran, power plants still ran, and cars still ran. Fewer of them? Certainly, except power plants maybe. But nowhere near carbon neutral levels.
Not only is most of it in the Northern Hemisphere, but that's where the deciduous plants are. There are very few deciduous trees in the Southern Hemisphere.
Rainforests in south america
@@chemplay866 aren't deciduous
I think he meant the siberian forests majorly. Thats just vast forests of trees
Deciduous
I misread ‘deciduous’ as ‘delicious’ and I was very confused until I reread (I may or may not be hungry right now)
I swear a republican will zoom in and go "look! It's going down! It's a lie!".
Perhaps they already have.
@@STEAMerBear they aren't silenced whatsoever. It's just that the ones that do say that ruin their careers because there's such a blatant abundancy of data showing that climate change is in fact real and fully caused by humans, that even pausing to consider otherwise is so thoroughly seen as wrong (because it is) that they just get forgotten by academia. You know, knowledge is supposed to grow over time, and we don't want incompetent people polluting the timeline with trash.
@@moron0000literally, the climate debate is over. Climate change is happening and it is caused by CO2. Any more time wasted on the subject is time not spent on more important things.
Yes. The cherry picking of data to spot short-term cooling trends (where each new trend starts slightly higher than the previous one started) has been dubbed "riding down the up escalator."
@@STEAMerBear If they were silenced you wouldn't know they had said it would you genius.
@@tims5268 Gosh you’re smart.
Fun fact:
I am the main author of the German Wikipedia article about the keeling curve 🙂
So I just have to believe you as a reliable source? Nice
@@Nicolau_Flameldo you even know how Wikipedia works?
@@Nicolau_Flamelwikipedia cites its sources
I shared this graph and was labeled a "climate alarmist". Huh.
The phrase "climate alarmist" is so infuriating. Of course we're alarmed. The planet is melting.
Because it IS alarming. It SHOULD be taken that seriously
Remember that time we tried to flattened a different curve and dolphins started swimming in the Venice canals and you could see most of China via satellites again? We do produce a lot of pollution.
Yep. If we ignored the economic effects that would be an incredibly good way to fight climate change. Unfortunately the economy would probably collapse if we were to do that long term, but if we didn't care about having to rebuild the economy it would absolutely work for reducing emissions.
As a local, dolphins were spotted regularly in the canals before the pandemy and the quarantine, but i get your point
@@dragonmasterlangeweg7625who cares about the economy
@@Gigachad-mc5qzpeople who want to be able to put food on their tables
@@Gigachad-mc5qzPeople who want to actually live? Live in Yemen or something if you don't want an economy.
The celebrities we oh so look up to contribute a lot with their private jets and luxury yatchs.
oh, but thats not just it! its also: the industry, the power source, general transportation (cars specifically, even electric are terrible) general utilities and quality life (ac units lol), and much, much more!
@@sneakersneakersneakerindustry is the worst overall but celebrities definitely don’t help
@@sneakersneakersneakerhow are electric cars terrible? 🤡
Yes and that's one of the problem's to address
My first thought is meat production.
Carbon dioxide is around 0.04 per cent of the earth's atmosphere which is not advertised so much because that wouldnt get you excited enough
The percentages don't matter. What matters is how much heat comes in from the sun versus how much heat is irradiated back out. Disturb the balance by introducing gasses that trap heat and the planet begins to warm. It warms enough to start melting permafrost and polar ice that trapped CO2 long ago, and you exacerbate the problem. It's a slow burn, but a burn we'll all feel eventually.
The funny thing is, of that 0.04 percent,we produce as humans(like burning coal etc) make up only 3 percent of that 0.04. The rest is nature.
You mean the world has been effected this much by such a small percentage of our atmosphere? Crazy. All the more reason to reduce the CO2 being released in the atmosphere.
Also, 0.04% means it's gone up by 50% over just the last 150 years. That's a rapid increase. Interesting how you can frame such a large amount of change to look small, when you compare it to something not entirely relevant.
@@Panzerkampfagen885if you make one bag worth of garbage a day , and exactly one bags worth can be thrown out a day, making 3 percent more garbage and then lowering how much can be thrown a day (destroying oceans and forests ) then you start having garbage build up.
If you still don’t get it your being an Idiot . We have gone over the cpaaoicty of co2 absorption , and we have lowered the capacity for co2 absortion. That’s why the increase in amount present is more important than amount produced by humans
Pumping c02 into the atmosphere ten times faster then the petm extinction event, what’s the worst that could happen?
Damn vegetarians stop eating all the plants.
Downvoted for not having a Y axis. Useless graph is useless.
also not a long term graph people who talk about this kinda of thing always fail to show the last 500 years or more its always recent
yep. And nothing in that graph justifies his "out of balance" comment.
@ReasonablySane very good point. You would think a guy like this would Have both the action y access marked, as well as having a large enough graph to show that the balances abnormal.
@@NEOgeek402 Except the last wide look at the graph actually shows the carbon trend over 800,000 years. And it shows how in. the last 50 years or so, we have left the trend line behind and are twice as high as the highest levels ever in those 800,000 years. Far more than your 500 year requirement. It's based on NASA studies of ice cores from the Antarctic and/or Greenland.
@@ReasonablySane Look at the very last part where the visual backs out to show that the whole of that graph (from a NASA study of ice cores from the Antarctic) covers 800,000 years. The carbon levels have travelled consistently between a high and a low point. But about 100 years ago, we reached that highest point, left it behind and are now twice as high as it has ever been in 800,000 years.
Turning the world into a toaster oven one year at a time. 🫡
Then stop eating meat its incredible harmful to the environmental and completely unnecessary in the diet
Climate change will get so bad that eventually all pop tarts on earth will be toasted perfectly
Oh, it’s actually much worse than that. We’re not turn in the world into a toaster. We’re turning parts of the world into a toaster and believe it or not, we’re actually making certain parts of the globe significantly colder. This is why most scientist of shift away from using the phrase, global warming, and instead are using the phrase climate change. Causing it to be hotter in certain parts of the world messes with all of the weather patterns and causes other parts of the world to actually wind up being significantly colder.
@@SonnyD223the only upside to climate change
Still not as warm as the Roman time.
When leaves fall off trees and plants die in winter it’s not that they release Co2 into the atmosphere, it mostly goes into the soil it’s just that there’s less plants to absorb the Co2 we produce
It's almost like this guy doesn't have any idea what he's talking about and the words of anyone who names their channel "besmart" should be taken with a grain of salt.
Actually when the leaves rot they do release loads of CO2, it's the literal product of plant material being broken down. Ask anyone who has ever measured the gas output of a compost heap.
It's the last graph that is the stunner.
yes but the entire thing is a scam
the current global temps are NOWHERE NEAR the highest levels in history
not even close
and its cyclical
go look at ice core samples from the last million years
the planet has been FAR hotter dozens of times before, and it always "resets" and starts a global ice age
So many climate denialists in the comments
Yeah it kinda makes me sad
@@vinnycampbell2048tommorow the carrot will be shrunk due to shrinkflation
First of all English is my second language.
Check out some of the earth documentary and you’ll see how the earth has changed over millions of years💪 the universe is way to big that humans can possibly control the weather😂 if the moon affects the ocean, don’t you think it affects other things? Or many other planets? We barely know anything about the earth, universe or climate. They are just trying to make it look like it’s humans fault so they can tax us more, and they have succeeded.
There has been several encounters of government hiding evidence that could prove it’s all about the money. Money is a government first priority in EVERY country, without money they are weak and vulnerable. Since ww2 money was the only priority and thanks to the explosion in advanced technology they could much easier find new ways to get more money from us. It’s so obvious I don’t understand how more people can’t see it😅
My recent discovery is how they tried to hide that sport causes head trauma, because they make so much money of it and they need people to be distracted.
Do you know why the colosseum was built? Yes to distract.
Quick google shows:
Built as a way to keep the people of Rome entertained and distracted from any ideas of uprisings.
No way this is the only thing on earth made to distract😂
If you have to resort to name calling to argue your point, maybe your point isn't all that valid.
@@theplasmacollider6431 that isn’t name calling, that’s what is those posters are. Denying humans are causing climate change.
Secondly please explain how the scientific evidence that humans are causing global warming not “valid”?
The most famous grass and all of science is probably a normal distribution with no labels
Politicians gonna say "CO2 emissions dropped!" Every spring
No, they just change the colors on Summer temperature graphs to make it seem like each year is getting hotter and hotter. But when you look at historical data; the oceans haven't risen, the temperatures are nominal, and CO2 levels; historically speaking, aren't rising out of control.
@@Keys879well thats a steaming load of crap
@@eebox1 Disprove it then.
What are the units and range on vertical scale?
ppm, or parts per million.
These levels are measured at an observatory in Hawaii, which minimizes local seasonal effects.
Aside from the vegetation, during the winter, burning of fossil fuels to provide heat increases. The gradual increase in the level is due to the average human activity using fossil fuels.
I use this curve in one of my classes on time series analysis. It’s really remarkable how consistent this curve is, with two exceptions. During the Obama years, the rate of increase slowed and again during the worst part of the COVID pandemic.
What policies would you attribute the slowing during the Obama era to? (If any)
@@wills242I know this is 6 months ago, but it was actually moreso due to the world economic downturn in 2008-2010. But the Paris climate agreement gave good benchmarks for countries too, and there was a bigger push for European governments to switch to renewables.
This makes me really sad because I’m afraid of how many people don’t believe it.
If it makes you feel better, most people against the climate change doom cult do believe it. They just either don't agree with the doom cultiness that climate change activists tend to have or they just don't believe that humanity (or the things climate change activists tend to want to target) are the main causes.
I don't believe stupid graphs made full of nonsense.
@@Red-Check-MarkYou don't understand graphs because you didn't go to sixth grade. Got it.
@@lazdahumani was told that Florida would be underwater by 2013 and that was SCIENCE. . .
@@Red-Check-MarkI’ve never seen someone so proud to be unable to understand simple graphs 😂
Arizona is suffering from the hottest summmer in history rn. Trash bins outside are literally melting. Mess around and find out I guess.
I wouldn't be complaining too much about heat while living in a 🏜️ climate state.
It's like saying the kitchen it's hot. 🙄
@@GIGABACHIExcept the kitchen, while hot, doesn't melt you down for just staying in the room.
My garbage can is not melting. Perhaps you need to buy another garbage can?
@@eraldway is it normal for a minority of garbage cans to melt while they use a perfectly respectable building material?
@@0ninja213yeah the important word is minority the majority are melting in the hotest summer on record beating last year and the year before that
Oh well guess I'll sell my private jets
Every billionaire over the age of 70, "Don't change anything that would affect my precious billions"!
That's every poor person struggling to feed their family too. Collapsing the economy to save the planet doesn't seem like a great idea when starvation is at the door.
hmmm maybe all those billions of dollars shouldn't be in some fat old demon's bank account collecting dust and actually be used to fix problems like that@@OutsiderLabs
@@OutsiderLabs
just a matter of postponing the inevitable. No way a 2-3 C hotter planet can support 8 bn people.
Couldn't even support 2bn today, if they all lived the American lifestyle.
I didn't know most vegitation grew in the north. That's pretty cool
@michaelenquist3728 oh yeah, makes sense. I remember learning that. Funny how when you say it a different way (focusing on the flora and vegetation), it can sound like a brand new fact haha
It doesn't, not necessarily. The foliage in Equatorial areas is always there. It doesn't die like it does in the north, which is why the graph follows the northern hemisphere seasons
Probably the sawtooth follows Northern Hemisphere seasons is more likely due to the reading being taken in Northern H. (Hawaii, I think).
@@ernestsmith3581 No, it follows Northern hemisphere seasons because the majority of the world's landmass is in the Northern hemisphere. Most of the Southern hemisphere is water.
@@tonymurphy2624 Water plants photosynthesize too, you know. Aamof, it was suggested about 3-4 years ago by Climate Change scientists that aquatic plants scavenge much more CO2 from the atmosphere than all the world's forests. I am still not convinced the sawtooth reflects N. H. photosynthesis for any other reason than because the readings are taken near the center of the N. Pacific High.
The graph has a base point of 310, and there are no other numbers on the vertical axis, so we don't know if CO2 levels are increasing to 311 or, say, 3000. An honest graph would have a base of zero, and therefore be a lot flatter. A classic way of making statistics look a lot worse than they really are.
Clearly someone failed maths class
This is CO2 in parts per million in the atmosphere.
@@jovicamateric7756 yes, but it only gives a number for the base level. It doesn't tell us what the final level is.
You can very easily look up the Keeling curve and see that it ends at 410 ppm. It’s generally been between 200 and 250 ppm for at least the last 800,000 years. We absolutely do know.
@@RayDon1 yes. I have looked it up. But that doesn't change the fact that the data are badly presented, in a way that suggests that levels have increased much further than they really have.
Fun fact, we've been replacing natural grassland with trees and invasive species in a lot of places due to the delusion that trees are better than grasslands. This contributes to the increase in carbon release since the trees concentrate it in higher volumes. So less than emissions, we should worry about destroying natural filtration because we think that climate activists know what's best when they cant be bothered to research the consequences of destroying native habitats
Normal people: cool ig. GD players:
I bet the raging and enormous wildfires burning in the entire Canadian forests will be a factor.
Something doesn't add up.
Won't add up much in the grand scheme of things
They're more of a symptom than a cause
Arguments aside... most the wildfires in Canada eight now have resulted in arson charges. Theres ironically a graph showing forest fire destruction by acres by year... the year preceeding and year of elections have gigantic spikes. The other 2 years are about 5% of acreage destroyed. It's a pretty consistent 4 year trend since the late 90s
Wildfires are natural too. If it does cause a perturbation, it will be temporary.
I am not denying climate change or anything, i know some people can be really emotional on this topic but please dont flame me in the replies for pointing this out. The vertical axis does not appear to be starting from zero, seems like it is a way to exaggerate the slope of the curve, but anyone who has worked with data and statistics can clearly see that the graph is trying to manipulate or gaslight the reader into believing something that might not be so exaggerated, in fact not starting the vertical axis from zero actually undermines your efforts for climate, dont do something that can be used against you by the deniers.
Depends on the context and the unit. The number 0 is not some magical base number that has the same relevance in every unit. But I agree, the point is to not display data in deceiving ways.
Luckily the video features a complete graph "zoomed out" at the very end. Unfortunately, it's even more worrying.
@TribalSMD I have trouble believing in that graph, too. I'm certain there are ways we can calculate realistic values for atmospheric CO2 800,000 years ago, but they are all still estimates at best, since, you know, people could not have tracked the real numbers back then. The sharp uptick could be the result of real data and our past estimates are way off on this graph.
Of greater concern for me is the lack of an upper bound on the axis. What is the scale of those tick marks? Is the trend over the last sixty years an increase of less than six hundredths of a percent? Definitely looks like data manipulation. Would love to see the raw myself.
@@Nekedladies Study Paleoclimatology yourself then and write a paper on how all data from a whole scientific field is to be discarded as inaccurate estimates.
@@Nekedladieswe can get very accurate data of past atmospheres in fact from the bubbles formed in ice in Antarctica which have formed millions of years ago and haven’t melted
I just bough a 90s diesel, im happy im contributing :)
David Hilterman: "The more fossil fuels we use the better for humanity." The earth has grown more than 25% greener and better with 50% more CO2 since 1820. CO2 is food for plants which are absorbing more, at least half of the extra CO2 from fossil fuels and producing more oxygen.
Plant growth, food production, biodiversity and petroleum byproducts have grown tremendously to meet the growing population surge.
With the onset in 1820 of fossil fuels use in the world, extreme poverty was 95%. It shrunk to 47% in 1960 (3 billion people). Today only 10% of the world (8.1 billion people) is in extreme poverty.
Plants are taking in increased CO2 and yielding, more beneficial oxygen also.
Commercal plant growers use 3X more CO2 in their in greenhouses at 1200 ppm.
Load of cherry picked BS. Plant growth is affected by temperature and rainfall. Increasing CO2 won't help plants if the temperature is out of their preferred range or there is too little or too much rain. The projections for agriculture point to reductions in agricultural output greatly outweighing any regional increases.
@@nerdyali4154so no correlation between wealth and increased CO2 ? ...which has gone from what % to what %?
making the earth greener.
Not sure about that one. It's definitely killing a lot of species.
Plant more trees.
Plant more crops! Take advantage of the carbon to make us food!
nope, wrong again. More trees will just make the problem worse. What you need to do is process Organic Waste into Worm Castings and spread those castings out over some land, every single year for your entire life.
Planting trees is completely meaningless if there is no Rhizosphere beneath them to feed.
Theres no land because we're farming animals on it. Animal ag is a major source of deforestation. Joseph Poore Oxford study shows if everyone in the world were Vegan wed free up an area of land the size of Africa and still have enough food to feed 2050s population. All that freed up land could be used to regrow the forests and woodland destroyed for farming.
That's more of a band-aid fix to the underlying problem
@@abuBrachiosaurusagreed! More nuclear power stations! A hundredfold will solve the problem!
Best green up we’ve had, if they stop burning the Amazon lol
Zoom out past 1958 and you realize how insignificant this "rise" is
So you didn’t watch the video? Because at the end he zoomed out and compared it with the last 800k years. It shows that the current rise definitely is significant. Sorry but why are you making such a fool of yourself by claiming that something is insignificant while a 48 seconds video shows something completely different.
@@YraxZovaldoYoure the only one making a fool of themselves. He clearly states in the video that these atmospheric carbon measurements only began being recorded in 1958 the chart at the end represents data from glacier ice cores which have its own methodology and limitations. In the video, the narrator also states that the increase in atmospheric carbon is due to humans without providing any evidence.
@@IluvinortheIneffablethe increase due to human activity is already a proven fact, it's accepted by every scientific organisation in the world, if you disbelieve it you have to disprove it
@@IluvinortheIneffable Sure, proxy data will have some problems and limitations. That doesn't mean it's meaningless and can't be used. The person I responded to stated that it is insignificant when you zoom out. To determine if the current rise we are observing is significant or not, you need proxy data. So what you essentially are saying is that I'm making a fool of myself because I used proxy data to refute a point that relies on proxy data. Really? Do you think that David is also making a fool of himself, or is it only a problem when someone doesn't agree with you?
And naturally, he doesn't provide evidence for everything. It is a UA-cam shorts video, not a research paper. You can't provide extensive explanations for every point you make in less than a minute. He discussed evidence for this in previous videos. Look, I get it if you don't like short videos, but maybe stop watching things called UA-cam shorts instead of complaining that they are doing what the name promises.
@@YraxZovaldo Then dont jump to conclusions. If you dont acknowledge the limitations in the data or extend the data to your own conclusions without sufficient evidence, you are liable to make mistakes.
Wonder if you'll ever talk about nuclear energy.
Maybe but there isnt much drama in nuclear its basically the safest energy source now days short of fussion
@@theironqueen2386 no debate in science, but a ton of people still think it's dangerous. The issue is lack of knowledge from the public.
@@analogicparadox yeah its really sad because of no longer present flaws and the power sector besmirching its name people are scared for no reason but cooperate greed
@@analogicparadoxpls tell that my country😭😭
@@analogicparadox I'm a huge fan of nuclear energy, I don't think it works everywhere (see fukushima daiichi) but it works most places, and is safer once you look at the cost of lives / TWh
The idiotic unscientific comments, depressed me & confirmed we are doomed to dither away whatever little time left. Just hope my children will be lucky & won't suffer too much.
The idiots speak louder than the majority. 60-70% of Americans believe that climate change is real. If we work together, we can get the misinformation off of the internet, and off of cable.
Get off the internet then😂
But you’re not the problem right? Everyone else is the problem?😢😢😢😢 get rid of all electronics, your car, vacations. Most likely your job, grow you own food and ingredients.
No??
Then stfu
Buss, train or any other transport than horses is allowed either!
Find a safe space already.
Sometimes, I'm starting to think that psychopath villains are correct. Wiping out humanity is the only way to save Earth. 😐🙁
Oh the earth will survive, it has gone through way worse, nature and us on the other hand ...
Oi we don't do ecofascism here, capitalism, consumerism and the insane lifestyles of the rich are the problem, not people existing
Lmao "if you zoom in" like it was that hard to see
I'd love to see more details on that last .1 second graph, because on a global scale 60 years is the equivalent of the last millisecond of your 8 hour day compared to the earth's climate pattern
Just accept that global warming is happening
And if we wanna look at the entire history of Earth we will see that -500 celsius and 3000 celsius are pretty normal at different points in time. But humanity would prefer that we not go into these areas just because "Well, this is within the range Earth has been in before!"
@@PhoenixFires lol wtf are you talking about?
yeah and a spike that big in just 8 earth milliseconds is insane.
@@dbneptuneexactly, which is why I wished he'd talk about that instead of a 60 year graph that functionally tells us nothing on a climatealogical scale
Hear me out. We farm plants and then, instead of doing literally anything with them, we gather them all and seal them-along with the carbon they capture-into airtight chambers to keep the carbon from escaping back into the atmosphere.
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
that's what oil and coal was supposes to be, until we started harvesting and burning it
This is the idea behind carbon capture and sequestration. It's being explored and is even implemented in some prototyped machines (I want to say in Australia, but not sure). But it's expensive and there is *so very much* carbon to bury. It takes a lot of energy and resources to filter the air of carbon and securely bury it on a meaningful scale and such that it doesn't leak out. It would be especially dangerous if it leaked out in a very short period.
@@Krranski Carbon capturing is a scam
@@astrovation3281if you say so buddy.
@@astrovation3281 It's certainly very inefficient and probably not a worthwhile solution. But to say it is a scam, I don't know enough about it. Do you have an article in mind? Title, author, and date will be sufficient, since YT doesn't allow links.
This is really bad we aren’t warming up the earth fast enough. Feels bad man
Good thing he zoomed in so I could it going up and down😂
What graphs like this show is that the negative derivatives of CO2 growth are small. The idea that CO2 has no upper limit is absurd. There are always limiting factors to every system. Eventually, the negative derivatives will dominate the equation and bring things back into equilibrium. Projecting a trend forward in time is called extrapolation, and I think it would be hard to convince a data scientist that it's accurate. Whatever effects may exist that regulate CO2, there are none that are snappy enough to react to the recent changes. That's a more solid scientific claim. This graph merely defines the upper limit for the negative derivatives.
If humans are causung the rise, doesnt that mean the equilibrium would be all humans dying on earth
@@Daveeeeeeyhowyoudoing Fun fact, way more people die from the cold, each year, than the heat. Heat can be regulated by simply wetting yourself down, the cold requires specialized clothing, buildings, energy; in general it's much more difficult to deal with. That's why humans started out in Africa (where it's warm) and migrated north over time. People will adapt to the heat in the same capacity they adapted to the cold -- hot regions on Earth will have building codes that require thick insulation and reflective roofing, people can't go outside without specialized clothing, etc. Meanwhile, the cold areas of the world will mellow out, more land will be habitable in those regions, and fewer people will die from the cold. It's not exactly the "crisis" they claim it is. It's obviously going to cause migration and lifestyle changes, but is this an existential threat? No.
@@Entropic0Yet it is not about the heat, but the water and food shortages that heat causes. Direct deaths from heat are obviously low.
@@otherhouse The amount of farm land will increase with CO2 because it allows plants to tolerate a wider range of conditions (they can occupy higher altitudes, for example). Earth isn't headed for a "dry desert" climate, it's headed for a "tropical rain-forest" climate, which means the amount of plant life is going to go up. This theory that there will be food shortages is pure conjecture and highly biased at that. The reality is that Earth has a naturally changing climate and that life on Earth has been adapting to these changes since life began. There is such an incredible amount of biodiversity on Earth that, no matter what happens, life already has the solutions on hand and will quickly equalize via natural selection.
@@Entropic0 Sure nature can adapt, but it adapts slowly asf. With the speed we are changing the earth, there is nothing than mass extinction awaiting us around the corner. Species just dont change immediately. They dont have time to adapt, they go extinct -> food shortages.
What I've always wondered is if rising carbon dioxide also spurs plant growth when will this even out?
It would even out quickly if you stop the emission of fossil fuels at the same time. But we're still increasing that, despite all great plans. Short-term money is more important, instead of more time to spend it.
That would be interesting to see. I suspect it isn’t right now due to the rate of industrial expansion steadily increasing, staying just ahead. Comparing numbers of aggregate economic production… normalized in some fashion to counter the effects of inflation… might reveal something interesting. Once the world enters population decline and the third world is satisfied, then general industry may fall or become more steady. Maybe.
No, because the rising temperature kills off a lot of plants.
If we plant enough trees then they can absorb a lot of the CO2, but a single tree only absorbs around 167kg of CO2, which means that (assuming that the trees would never die, because I'm to lazy to calculate that) you'd need to plant around 89 trees per year to combat the CO2 of just a single American.
It doesn't spur on plant growth its more food do people have more chuldren when surrounded by food? And they also breath oxygen at night more co2 does not equal more plants
CO2 causes a bunch of other things that kill off plants, so it won't even out.
They mention the sawtooth because it's a distraction from the main event which is Joan over to the left. Look at the bottom where the lowest entry is over 300 and in fact none of the tick marks above are labeled at all. It makes things look far more dramatic to alter the labeling of the y-axis in this way. If the data shown in the graph really represented a selling point for global warming wouldn't they want to put other numbers in to prove the point? I would.
Every time the global warming crowd points to a single hurricane as evidence of disaster I just smile because that's as irrelevant as my pointing to the fact that we're something like 6° below normal over the last 60 days as evidence of global cooling. Over the term of years or decades we are talking about changes in weather not climate.
Anyone else thought that Joe was Hank from SciShow but like 5 years in the future lol
Fyi: graphs have no meaning without a Y axis or whenever the x=0 is also not y=0
Good thing this graph has a Y-axis, then. Maybe you're a one-dimensional entity and couldn't see it?
The y-axis is shown at 0:14 to be CO2 concentration in parts per million. In the first year (1960?) the measurement was 310 ppm. Today the value is up to about 420
It's the companies
The sawtooth pattern actually shows seasonal variation in the surface temperature of the ocean surrounding Hawaii. The solubility of CO2 in water is tightly controlled by temperature. Cool water holds more CO2 than warm. As the nearby ocean cools and warms each year it absorbs and releases CO2. Because we are coming out of an ice age, the oceans are gradually warming and the upward trend reflects that.
Politicians: Yes yes, more tax while we print some cash too and a dash of power grab on top.
Citizens: And how will this reduce carbon?
Politicians: Hate speech!
Good reason to be concerned about reality in place of mysticism. UA-cam has regular reports like this one that catch my attention.
CensoredTube. UA-cam stopped being UA-cam a long time ago.
@@josueveguilla9069
CorporateTube
*You* r Videos cannot be found. Take any natural disaster and search for video, and YOU can't find posts by people. Only posts by media.
I generally only use Twitter to search UA-cam now.
That's not good, but at least it isn't censored.
@@paulsnowlol
what does this even mean?
@@jakob7116 Becoming educated about the physical world has an attraction via curiosity. This learning experience can be an unending attraction to your real world.
Regenerative agriculture would help draw in way more co2
So would planting more trees
But these don't make nearly as much money so we don't hear about it
Just planting trees won't solve the dying of plains and ocean life
@@ZombieJWRWhere is this evidence of anything dying? CNN?
Plains become deserts due to overuse, not CO2.
The wave shows how little the carbon cycle changes the problem.
@@jamesphillips2285 what problem?
I dont think you needed to zoom in to see the sawtooth 😂
So? I’m not panicking, in the least? Go tell the marines!!
You also have to acknowledge the absolute explosion we as a species had in the last 100 years. In the early 1920's it sat around 1.8-2 billion. 100 years later we've quadrupled that number. Its also pretty difficult to lower the total co2 in the atmosphere without lowering our population.
With the current low birth rate we are experiencing it's going to diminish but first it's going to hit us hard.
Bringing it down to preindustrial times is hard, but since most of the CO2 is emitted by the richest people, it is more a question of lifestyle in industrial countries. Overconsumption is not necessary per se, but in our system, growth isn't up for debate.
@@IlovRoflevr Even if the rate slows, the effects will linger and as long as we output more than can be reabsorbed, the temperature will still rise, just at a slower rate.
@@IlovRoflevrlow birth rates aside our energy generation capacity will still increase 2 or 3 fold in the next 50 years
Just think about all the gases that aren't C02. Like methane and AC refrigerants. We're cooked if we don't take this seriously
Then why do they only talk about co2?
@@yoeyyoey8937why do you even ask questions like this when you clearly don’t care? I don’t understand the motivation to be willfully ignorant.
@@Dontreallycare5 the motivation is to make people think about what’s actually going on and inspire them to acquire knowledge
@@Dontreallycare5 the truth is that CO2 fear mongering moves the goalposts of the effects of pollution.
Human pollution is killing us everyday and giving us health problems, so the powers at be want us to talk about the least harmful aspect that may or may not have bad effects in the future. If we did what we had to do to get rid of the pollution we suffer from every day, then CO2 wouldn’t even be an issue to begin with.
@yoeyyoey8937 I mostly hear about "carbon" these days, which includes methane and refrigerants. Besides, CO2 is far and away the largest contributor by sheer volume.
The saw tooth is the planet breathing
Just need to invest in carbon capture.
A better one is the Milankovic Cycles
Pretty sure we're in a cooling phase according to the Milankovic cycles
@@jpheitman1 we SHOULD be, but we're not. We have literally broken the cycles, about half way through a cold phase.
@@sbkenn1 The Milankovic cycles are a consequence of the Earth's rotation. We are not breaking them. Rather, their effect is minor compared to anthropogenic carbon emissions.
@@jpheitman1 OK. Clarification: We have broken the link between global temperature and the Milankovitch cycles.
It's clear paying more tax and crippling the western economies is the only answer. China and India, you may sit this one out.
Based.
Based.
No, instead, we can do nothing and strawman arguments until we all roast. Can't have an economy if everyone is dead.
sure man, when you zoom in you see it
Thank you for helping me understand something i was struggling in my stat class ❤
My man carbon wants to beat apple stock
We need more carbon. Yay carbon! Warm it up baby!
oh when carbon gets high enough apple wont be a problem anymore.
take energy nuclear plant more trees, just don’t ban ICEs or mess with farmers
ICEs?
@@jackr2287 Internal combustion engines
@@Cykz. oh! 100%!! They're cheapness and resource efficiency is something to be marveled out. Don't need anything complex... just a hunk of iron, aluminum, or steel. The push that we should electrify is iritating considering how difficult and rare (and morally black) the extraction and processing of the rare resources are.
@@jackr2287 Yup, but its Taboo to say
@@Cykz. frustratingly so.
CO2 is gas of life, all plants need it so it is a good gas
the issue is that there's too much of it. water is good for plants but too much will drown them, same for co2
Water is good liquid. Lets flood the earth
Too much CO2 will increase global temperatures to such an extent that plants won't survive in that weather. For Example; in Sindh, Pakistan, temperature exceeded 52 degrees for 3 days straight, so only neem tree can survive on this weather but sadly still die from floodings due to instant melting of glaciers and changing moosonal patterns due to change in temperatures due to your so-called gas of life. Thanks to your gas of life, we are not experiencing winter weather in many parts of Pakistan for 2years.
where's your units on the Y axis?
When you realize we are turning earth into venus
to say that is to insult venus 😂
Extracting and releasing sequestered materials like crude oil reverts Earth to before plants existed..
It's not just carbon..
It's everything in crude oil.
I published a paper in 2007 .. and the experts and academics said i was wrong as it was not human caused.
The graph has a 50? year delay from the start of crude oil extraction.
Coal hasn't helped but it's not as bad.
Y'all need to be more worried about water vapor... Work towards discretionary capacity to emit in the infrared atmospheric window.
no.
Oh no we are a long way of venus earth has about two particles of co2 per million particles of air we are aiming at six particles if we dont do anything and four particles is enough to radically destabilize earth climate though change is happening thankfully but venus has an atmosphere of 96.5 percent co2
Reduce emissions, expand forests. Wood is an amazing construction material and should be utilized way more. Start cutting down trees and plant two saplings for every tree you cut down. Ina generation, we might start to see a plateau or even a reversal in the CO² graph. We could probably start growing all our vegetables using hydroponics and plant trees all over old fields to start with.
You can’t just plant any tree, but you need to plant hardwood trees. Only trees that have a long life cycle actually store CO2. Trees that get cut down 5-10 years after they are planted actually release more CO2 than they store, especially softwood trees.
The issue is, that most of the carbon we are putting into the atmosphere is very long carbon storage i.e. fossil fuels that take millions of years to form. Planting trees is a short term form of carbon storage as they all will die and decompose releasing carbon back into the atmosphere.
And then what? Ice age?
@@beanoboy62but if you make sure that you create a healthy forest, then you do have a long term storage.
@@deusexmachina5769 not comparable to crude oil, it's substantially shorter
Bro did not need to zoom in
We didn't have to zoom in for that
Damn… we’re really fucked
No we’re not
We are, but it’s important not to get too negative. You as a citizen can do almost nothing to help with this beyond minor changes and voting, so just keep your head up and live life.
Not that fucked -- we are on track to peak out at ~1.7 Celcius increase in global average, which is not as good as the plan (1.5), but still way fewer people dying compared to worst case scenarios
… yeah, way fewer. there will be an excess of deaths and we could be among them.
I've come to accept this already but if you need help just look at Florida. Perfect scope to look at us as a species when you come to terms with our stupid extinction.
@@a2e5 sadly that is not true. 1.7 is only possible if we go net zero tomorrow or better a year ago. That means every country using oil gas and what not to create energy, like idk more that 60% of the energy production must stop or quasi stop and produce only clean energy with no co2 emission and all the co2 emissions must be offset. That's impossible literally. How can you get Saudi USA Russia India to drop everything and go co2 net zero? It's impossible. With the current pledges we are stearing at 2.6°C or something. With the "promised" changes its around 2.0. Imo this scenarios are way to optimistic. We are in for a wonderful ride the next 100 years because a lot are going to change. The ball is rolling and it's to late to get 1.5 or 1.8 or 2.0. The chain reaction has started, insects, wildlife are dieing, droughts and natural disasters happen like every day and it's only the beginning.
damn carbonated beverages 😂
Slap a deforestation graph over it and you will notice something...
This has literally nothing to do with trees. Trees and plants and life in general are part of the short carbon cycle. The problem began when humanity started burning coal, carbon that had been stored in the ground. All fossil fuels are part of the long co2 cycle, but since natural ways of carbon going back into the ground take very long, the "long carbon" will just accumulate and overwhelm the short carbon cycle until we start meaningful carbon capture programs.
Well the feared fossil carbon had to be part of the naturally occurring free carbon cycle in the "carbon" era. How comes the earth didn't baked back then when all that fossilised carbon still circulated in atmosphere?
Tell this to anyone who denies global warming saying “iTs naTuRAl iT’s aLwAys hAppeNeD beFoRe”
I prefer numbers.
Visual representations can be manipulated.
Just ask any 1st year marketing student.
I'm a geologist and it has happened all befor for millions of years and global warming is not man made. It's just the cycle we are in. If you want to be stupid and believe wealthy people that have a vested financial gain to be had then feel free to remain uneducated in this field. Thats of course if you are open to being educated instead of manipulated.
@@bobmalooga7249we are still leaving the ice age so the temperatures are naturally gonna go up and the poles are gonna melt. It's expected
End of ice age=good. Not going to kill us.
@@LieutenantPhys Bro what, the ice age stopped at least 10'000 years ago. This has nothing to do with the ice age.
This really puts into perspective how much carbon we are putting into the atmosphere. The entirety of the northern hemisphere's barely makes a dent in the damage we do.
For real. It would take thousands of years for our level of co2 to be priduces just from erosion and natural causes. We just speed ran the whole thing.
Starting the Y axis at 0 would be a good start if you want to have a good faith conversation lol.
Bro why don’t we just make massive floating algae farms in the ocean, they give us half of our oxygen or something already anyway.
Too much algae will starve the rest of the ocean of oxygen and light
@@hydromic2518so you claim to know the probability of a solution, just by reading it😂🤓💀
@@Daveeeeeeyhowyoudoing no but I do know that this is what happens in lakes and ponds when they have too big algae blooms, I’m just extrapolating from that
and nothing will be done about this either, because of corporations and greed
Did you all watch it to the end? Did you see the CO² difference between 1950 to present? Never in planet Earth's entire 4.55Billion year history has it seen such a rapid rise in CO² / temperature. NEVER in ALL that time.
Well, it has. Its just that such drastic changes were typically before life was around.
@@PhoenixFires: sorry my friend; it hasn't (except maybe ephemerally during the Chicxulub Meteorite impact) - not according to the Chairman of the London Geological Society.
@@Julian_Wang-pai That's while life was around. I'm talking before life when the planetoid before Earth proper was being bombarded with asteroids and in a chaotic flux
@@PhoenixFires : oh dear - seems like our planet isn't the only thing that's been bombarded. Bye bye.
@@Julian_Wang-pai Auf wiedersehen, rando. Hope your english improves.
I thought the most famous graph was the WOW radio wave graph
This is NOT the most famous graph in all of science.
Look at this graph! Every time I do it makes me cry...
CO2 is the food for the plants.
Actually, there are CO2 generators in the greenhouses to increase the growth of the vegetables we all eat.
@@overtoke That is a ridiculous argument. Most crops in the entire world are grown in temperatures within 20 degrees of 77 degrees. The benefit may peak at 77 degrees, but it is still a benefit from 57 to 97. The average air temperature of the near surface atmosphere is 57 degrees. If it warmed 3-5 degrees, with increased CO2 it would be a huge benefit for agriculture, humanity, and the entire biosphere, according to your own argument.
@@jimclarke8260Not really, youre taking this in a vacuum. Thats not how the world works. While plants may photosynthesize better, that's not the only thing we measure the worlds state by. Whats the ooint of optimal photosynthesis if species go excting left and right ?
@@flavorlessquark8614 How many straw men do you have lined up? Overtook made an argument, and I refuted it. You then said something like: "Well, what about species going extinct?. You ignored that!" Yes, I did, because that had nothing to do with his point or mine! We could talk about species going extinct, and you will not be able to name hardly any of them, and the few that you could possibly come up with, I could show that their was no evidence of climate change leading to their extinction, much less man-made climate change, (which is not discernable). Then you would put up another strawman argument that I would have to destroy, and so on, and so on. Eventually you will invoke the precautionary principle by saying "What if you are wrong?" Then I would have to point out that the precautionary principle is neither a principle or precautionary, because it is self-contradictory and usually results in great harm when it is used as an argument. Over the last 35 years, I have heard all the logical fallacies and strawman arguments.
What I haven't heard is any scientific data that supports the man-made climate crisis narrative. That is because there is none, and why every alarmist must invoke logical fallacies and a series of strawman arguments if the engage in a climate discussion with a crisis skeptic, like me. Most alarmists do not engage, but resort to name-calling. That saves a lot of time, and they can get on with trying to control populations with their fear porn, which is the whole purpose of the narrative.
@@jimclarke8260 Yet NASA says the earth is greener than it was 20 years ago.
@@TheCompleteGuitarist Mainly due to agriculture, which is (in terms of capturing carbon) the bad kind of green.
Notice that no matter how much carbon tax we are forced to pay the graph goes up at a constant rate. Does anyone actually think that carbon tax will reduce that amount, all while China is building more and more coal fired power plants around the world?
If global warming were a concrete problem, marketing campaigns and panic induction would never be publicity methods.
I've never heard of the Keeling Curve
So there's 4 reservoirs of carbon. The lithosphere, the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, and the biosphere. The lithosphere is where 99.99% of the carbon on earth is found. It's our bank where carbonate rocks and carbon fuels reside. Naturally, this carbon is transferred from the lithosphere to the atmosphere slowly by volcanoes and tar seeps. But we transfer that carbon much, much faster. So if you want to solve this process, you need to slow that transfer as much as possible. That's step 1. If you haven't taken that step, you haven't started to address the climate.
I cant believe trees would release co2. Shaking and crying rn.
Trees release CO2 every night and day. If you remember from 9th grade biology, this process is called respiration.
The reason I like keeling curve is, this isn't just take one generation to make this, it takes two generation, father and son, to do this data, so we nowadays can actually have a prove that CO2 in air do is getting more and more since industrial revolution.
False
@@ReidRed1 The only thing false is your parent said it wasn't your fault when they decided to divorce.
@@ReidRed1 Keeling curve is originally observed by Charles David Keeling, and his son Ralph Keeling continues this project since the old Keeling pass away in 2005. One of my college professors was literally the young Keeling's student, who the hell are you to think you have any authority to say this is false?