Hey Insane Curiosity Squad! If you liked the video, we would love for you to share it with your friends or on other social networks like Facebook, Reddit Instagram, Tik Tok and Twitter, etc.. ( Since the algorithm is not cooperating in showing us to the public). In just 30 seconds, you will greatly help our Channel to grow and improve our future content. A big thank you from all of us.
This is total nonsense based on where we are in a Milankovtich cycle we should be 200-500 years into a new Glacial period not melting down all the glaciers and ice sheets and certainly not having increased temperatures
@oleonard7319 The Milankovitch cycles are only influential if CO2 levels drop down to UNDER 280 ppm ... with 180 ppm being low enough for every glacier to completely melt ... raising sea levels greatly. Current CO2 levels above 400+ ppm has flooded-out the swing in the cycle. Until such time that we invent the technology to fix CO2 permanently, it will take centuries for Earth's plant and mineral processes to re-absorb thousands of years to re-absorb the carbon.
@@Kitkat-986you do know that the "elites" are the global petroleum, transportation and distribution industries plus the institutional investors who finance them right? Right? Like you don't think there is some "elite" group of thousandaires with their million dollar organizations that is somehow taking in money and power if I put a solar panel on my house? You see that the evil elite selfishly manipulating the message are the billionaires with their trillion dollar industry trying to maintain market volume and keep us burning their products even if it means war and death. Like you understand that right? Right?
Whenever I heard people promoting "Global Warming" + "Climate Change". Their videos get a thumbs down. Many of my friends to this! I encourage all to do the same! Sweden is a big promoter of this "Global Warming" + "Climate Change"!
There's one other major factor being overlooked. Solar activity. Regardless of what point in a cycle we are in, solar activity variations will play a role. If you think about it, the Malankovitch cycles are also all about the sun.
Not just the Sun, but also from the galactic center, when energetic GC neutrinos elastically give up some of their energy as they fly through planet Earth.
I like warm weather. I dislike cold weather, except for the skiing. Burying Canada and Siberia under a mile of ice yet again seems like a bad idea. I think there might be a way to prevent it.
100% The problem with solar cycles is that we only a couple hundred years worth of data. That is because we don't have enough information to make any conjectures as to what they were like before we started paying attention. However, if you explore "The year without a summer", you will find a solar minimum plus a large volcano errupting can pretty much cancel a summer on the other side of the planet.
The main subject that affects climate on Earth is the Sun itself. Sun spots, solar flares , solar prominences and variations in the Sun itself determine how much radiation the Earth receives.
Thanks for your comment! Milankovitch cycles do have a big impact on Earth’s climate over time. They affect the planet’s climate patterns in ways that can be hard to grasp, but they play a crucial role in long-term climate changes.
the time schedule… Exactly. The earth has been around for at least 4 billion years (that we know of) and we humans basically just woke up 10,000 years ago (thinking of recorded history) yet we think we know every damn thing. And by "we" I mean scientists and especially climate change "experts."
The thing people often neglect is that Milankovitch cycles are already integrated in climate models, and they effect the climate over longer periods of time. The changes we see today are happening much more rapidly, so while Milankovitch cycles do play a part, we can't just write off the unprecedented warming we've been seeing. This is the same as blaming it on solar activity, which accounts for maybe 10%% of the warming.
You missed a whopper. There is also a six thousand year cycle of our solar system passing through the highly charged galactic current sheet. This directly influences solar activity and causes geomagnetic excursions/pole shift, potentially accompanied with crust uncoupling and sudden tectonic plate shift. Tropical plant material has been discovered under the ice in Antarctica, not too old either.
@@HawaiiLimey sounds interesting… but he didn’t miss it as it is not a Milankovich cycle, as what you suggest isn’t based on orbital dynamics. It may be a different type of cycle instead though.
It's true that Earth's climate and geological activity are influenced by various factors, including solar and galactic interactions. The discovery of tropical plant material under Antarctica's ice does suggest significant climatic shifts in the past. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
I did red that Antarctica has an continious ice coverage since the last 18 million years. The general temperature on earth then was around 20ºC. Today that is 12,5ºC.
The Piri Reis maps (i believe 2 world maps) show Antarctica without ice. US Geological Survey states, that the maps are consistent with their topographical findings from the 1950's. Reis stated, that that they were based on multiple older maps, how old I don't know, though some suspect the originals may have come from the Library of Alexandria. Charles Hapgood, Earth Crust Displacement theory, believed that Antarctica was where Madagascar is today and the 6,000 year cycle that you speak of could have caused Pole Shift and subsequently the sudden movement of the Earth's crust. The Reis maps are from the 1500's, Antarctica wasn't discovered for another 300 years, in 1820. Thank You Graham Hancock, for opening my brain, lol. Cheers !
Of course but human civilisation is only adapted to the climate of the present interglacial which began around 11,500 years ago. Moving either into another ice age or to much higher temperatures would make maintaining that civilisation and the present population levels of humans difficult if not impossible despite the fact that Earth has experienced many severe ice ages and hothouse earth periods in the past. Another factor is that past climate changes took place gradually over long periods which allowed animals and plants to adapt to the changes whereas the global temperature rises we have been seeing are happening at an unprecedentedly fast rate.
The change into and out of ice ages is reckoned to happen relatively quickly, not graduallly. It is also a recurring, cyclical process which has happened many times throughout history, irrespective of human activity.
Naturally occurring climate change usually takes much longer than the changes we are seeing now which is happening so fast, many species won't be able to adapt.
This is the response I gave to the authors of the blue note on climate change the climate influencers put on you video. They think we are stupid I guess. "Your error in the statement that mankind being the main driver of climate change. It's your option and not a fact. Science is theory not fact. It's politically and economically driven and presented this way obscures the facts and theory of others. You should know this if you are a scientist." Insane Curiosity your doing a great job and without content like yours we are distend to hear only one agenda.
You do realise that a scientific theory is not the same as when you use the term "theory" in everyday life tho, right? It's a model. Based on all available data, without any contradicting, able to make testable predictions, that stood the test of time. We know for a fact clime changed for billions of years. We dont worry about the fact that it's warming. We worry about the fact that it's warming by a factor of 20 faster than it should be, which is indeed, for a fact, caused by human CO2 emissions. So yes, humans are the main driver behind the *speeding up* of warming we are observing.
This was one of my first college classes, "Ice Ages and the Rise of Man", a Geology course.. and we had to KNOW the Milankovitch Curve for the Final. So I DREW it on my forearm. I passed; barely.
Climate change caption box leads to Humans are responsible for global warming site & the democrat Bernie Sanders view point. I didn't know they were scientists, I thought they were dishonest polititions.
Yup... obviously the cycles describes here were obviously caused by human activity. A species with maybe a couple hundred thousand years old has been the primary driver of climate change millions of years ago.
Good idea, I left this feedback: This video is discussing orbital and geologic process over millions of years. It seems disengenious to suggest a species as young as Homo Sapiens was the primary driver of climate changes millions of years before the species we evolved from walked the earth...
Of course, YT puts up a statement since this vid concerns Climate Change: "Human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas." That drives policy, which can be hugely counter-effective if it is not actually true. Not that human activities does not have an impact, but that it is vastly not the main driver!
In the timeline of these very large changes is seems premature for such quick change to being a hot planet. About the time scale of the ice well, we have just barely seen the end of the 55 billion year cycle of the Ice age. It has not been long enough to be getting this hot and so quickly. We are entitled to our opinions but, not a personal reality. Reality goes on with us or without us. The earth is indifferent in these matters.
11:56 @@marcominneapolis3461 But the Milankovitch Cycle doesn't make itself noticeable until CO2 levels get down past 280 ppm. After it gets down past 230 ppm and all the way down to 180 ppm. 280 to 180 and back up to 280 ppm has been repeated 8 times in 800,000 years: at 180 there are glaciers a mile high on NYC - - at 280 all the world's glaciers have melted. Now, today, we are at CO2 >410 ppm and the "M" Cycle has been washed out. We won't see the Cycle engage again until we develop Carbon-Fixing tech that gets the Earth back below 280 ppm!
The earth, the solar system, the galaxy are all cyclical, glaciers are retreating quickly, yet temperatures fluctuate, the earths weather can be a paradox at times but one things for sure, it's always changing, going through cycles.
If the earth was warmer then the Democrats could blame Trump for that also! If we blame Trump for global warming because his free speech rights are hot air! Trump's speaks too much! Hillary needs to take Trump's free speech rights away!
Sadly it is irrelevant, since the planet is heating up 11 times faster than in the past 50 million years. This fails to explain why the planet is warming 11 times faster. Damn reality.
From this natural fluctuation we should be cooling right now with rate of - 0.1°C per 200 years not rapidly heating like last 100 years with 1.3°C. Do you understand that?
@@markhivin8670I am waiting for the explanation to why the plant is heating up 11 times faster today than it has in the past 50 million years by using the cycles mentioned in this video.
@@craigbuchanan5294 It's what we learned when I was in high school in the US--long, long ago. Then, they started fear-mongering, along with the first "Earth Day." And they convinced many people we were going to die in the coming Ice Age. LOL!
"global warming" all depends on context. Over the last million years, how warm is "warm" and how cold is "cold?" Also, with regard to the rate of change, how fast is "fast" and how slow is "slow?" It's all relative. Just because the temperature is different today than it was 20 years ago doesn't mean anything.
But since coral has been here a very long time, why is the sun bleaching coral. This bleaching kills coral and they are endangered now. Would they just spring up when the climate is right again? This seems like looking for a way to stay in denial given the science of climate change. We had better get better at living under the surface of the earth. It is a plausible solution.
All people need to do is look at the temperature record going back far enough. There were years in the 20's and 30's warmer than now. As the video demonstrates, it's all cyclical. And real climate change takes eons. Some solar scientists think we are headed for a cooling period. And they're the ones I listen to most, because the sun is the main driver of climate in the solar system. We're not the only planet that experiences changes.
There's a difference between naturally occurring climate change which takes a very long time and what we are seeing now, mainly in the speed of the temperature changes and with how the start of that acceleration lined up with the beginning of the industrial revolution
@@ryanhurley1298 ...considering there are many 'peer reviewed' papers out there stating that CO2 lags behind temperature increases by between 600 and 800 years...
We are still in a 'ice age'. It started about 2.75m (2,750,000) years ago and over that period, there have been between 30 and 50 cycles between glacial and interglacial periods. We are at present in the Holocene interglacial period. The previous one was about 1.25k (125,000) years ago and is often called the Eemian interglacial. For about the first half of the present ice age, the cycles were more or less 41,000 years long while for the latter half of the present 'ice age' the cycle length has been about 100,000 years. Of course we will go into another glacial period some time in the future. If we stop burning fossilized (sequestered) carbon, the planet's biology and geology will eventually lower the CO2 level in the atmosphere and when the next Milandovitch cycle is at a low (low temperatures in the summers of the Northern Hemisphere), snow will begin to accumulate, starting on the high lands of Baffin Island and will spread southward. If we have used up all the sequestered carbon, we will not have anything to hold off the next glacial period and it is likely that the great plow which is the continental ice sheet will plow all our human artifacts southward, leaving them in a great pile somewhere south of the Canadian - American boarder. In the mean time, we have put off and even possibly stopped the glacial period that Milankovitch cycles predict should be on the way. If it is enough, we could keep the next glacial period at bay until we enter the next interglacial warm period. Unlikely though. We may drive ourselves into extinction before that happens.
Anthropogenic carbon emissions may make life a little...difficult...for some, and some have said it may delay the next glacial period by perhaps 100,000 years, it will still fall and _hard._ There are a lot of other factors, like the Himalayas and the Isthmus of Panama that prevent Earth from reentering its usual ice free 'hothouse' state. But I do not think we will "drive ourselves to extinction" by then. Humanity is tenacious and supremely adaptable. We are like cockroaches! I always imagined we (or a species descended from us) would be the last things stubbornly clinging to the sunbaked Earth, probably in air-conditioned suits or other engineered solutions, and by then, hopefully also spread throughout the stars. Even if we "bombed ourselves back to the stone age," we would still have a lead over our Paleolithic brethren. As long as we remember that we can grow food, and math and chemistry are things, we will be back to silicon chips and rockets within a few centuries.
Also, just some friendly advice, try to break long comments into paragraphs that reflect the changing thought. That wall of text a little bit of...a chore to read. I would have started new paragraphs at "we are, at present", "For about the first half", "If we have used up", and possibly " If it is enough", but the last one is arbitrary.
@@jul1440 yeah even in the event of severe setbacks, like climate disruptions or societal collapses, the foundational knowledge and skills (e.g agriculture, mathematics, chemistry) could facilitate a recovery and technological advancement over time.
I think that Milankovitch Cycles probably play more of a factor than the Green new Deal proponents want to admit. Does Fossil Fuel burning have an affect? Absolutely. But I'm not convinced that going 0 net carbon would do as much as they are claiming. Naturally occurring cycles have to play a major role. And maybe it is possible that even the Solar System's position in the Galactic Orbit may play into it as well as where the Galaxy is in the Universe. Differing Background Radiation could play a part in our local climate. Kind of like El Ninõ or La Ninã cycles affect weather patterns in Europe. It is all a part of a Universal System. But much more study needs to be done over several centuries in order to come to any absolute conclusions.
Well according to all the natural cycles (Milankovitch and others) the earth is supposed to be cooling right now. Atmospheric carbon is supposed to be reducing. Glaciers are supposed to be growing. So no, Milankovitch cycles are not the answer right wing petroleum fanboys are looking for. The reason we are moving opposite the natural cycles, quickly, above anything seen in the last million years, is most likely due to human caused increase in atmospheric carbon.
And no we do not have centuries to study it. No joke within decades there is a definite possibility of human extinction if we keep rising as fast as we are. Human tragedy due to pollution and the resulting glibal warming has already started causing human tragedy. The longer we wait the more tragedy we risk.
@@5353JumperAlso, if you think the temperature change we're experiencing right now is more extreme than anything in the past million years, you should take a look at the temperature swings at the onset of the YD, 12800 ybp. Climate change at the termination of the glacial period of the ice age eclipsed modern changes by tenfold.
"From 1-3 million years ago, climate cycles matched the 41,000-year cycle in obliquity. After one million years ago, the Mid-Pleistocene Transition (MPT) occurred with a switch to the 100,000-year cycle matching eccentricity. The transition problem refers to the need to explain what changed one million years ago." I'm working on it
When is the last time we saw a major mountain range form? The kind of event that shapes a continent cannot be understated in its effect on climate change.
Impact of large meteors may have driven Earth into abnormal orbit or obliquity, triggering Ice Ages. Remember! Fossil records show some life on Earth perished almost instantly as deep-freeze conditions set in. That contradicts our geological theories but they are facts.
Milankovitch was a SUPER-GENIUS and an extremely dedicated computing fanatic. It took YEARS for him to perform his calculations, since there were no electronic computers. He put in THOUSANDS OF HOURS over several years. It is truly amazing that his calculations, done by hand, were later confirmed by computers. He was one of the greatest mathematical astronomers since Newton.
This is a really well made, and thoughtful video. I even enjoyed the engagement activity at the end. Yes, these cycles are vastly more impactful than the current carbon dioxide panic.
Great video! This should be more understood by more people, the Earth is old (been around a long time) you can't understand the climate unless you look at a reasonable period time (100K years or more).
I think these cycles do play a role here, and should be included in any model. Volcanic action will also play a role, along with exactly what parts of the earth are subjected to the freeze thaw cycle of carbon capture sections. (Permafrost for example.) In this video it mentions the complexity of the cycles, but because they are cycles, they can be modeled, but random factors like volcanic activity, the effect of our moon and it's cycles upon the crust and oceans combined make it almost impossible to accurately model. Climate change has been shown not only taking place over millennia, but sometimes in weeks and months. (Noting the Siberian Mammoths frozen with plants in their belly.)
I like to tell the Climate Change "enthusiasts", who often suffer TDS, that in 1981 Mt Pinatubo in Philippines, released on its second day alone, more greenhouse gasses with massive amounts of Chlorine Dioxide, than mankind has ever released in history, right up until today. The effects of this "historic disaster" were almost completely gone within 2 years. The planet was created through the utilization of these gasses. The Earth will repair itself. There is approximately 20 - 25% more green plant life today, than in the year 2000. Dinosaurs were humongous because of the greenhouse effect, creating giant carbon breathing plant life, thus breathing out massive amounts of oxygen. Go Earth !
Good point. The frozen mammoths and other fauna indicate a catastrophic event that has never been adequately explained. Sudden collapse of global cloud layer ?
Well I think these cycles bring about long term changes, they do not stop regardless what is said about CO2. CO2 has a very narrow spectrum that reacts initially very strongly at 20ppm reducing in effect on a log basis, At 340ppm no measurable effect was noticed by the Pen University when adding more CO2 units. It appears there are insufficient higher energy photons from the Sun explaining the lessening effect. CO2 has an insignificant effect now and cycles are better explained by orbital changes. I love the clear way our axis mechanism is explained.
But I was told to run around screaming like my head was on 🔥 because I am polluting Earth and causing climate change. Dont mind the graph showing the glacial cycles, that shows we are right at an ice age termination event.
They use fear as the greatest motivator of the public. Seems to have fairly widespread effect with the decades of Green Church Doomer prophecy that's been fed to the masses. Unfortunately.
This is absolutely correct. This has been happening to our planet after all the planets in our solar system had settled in their current locations. About 3 billion years ago. This also created the snowball earth conditions, as well. The Milankovitch system will keep happening until a major gravitational tug happens to our solar system.
It would be interesting to include the variation of the magnetic poles - i.e. pole shift - and the accompanying change in Earth's magnetic field with the Milankovitch cycles. Also not sure if there is any geologic record of intense Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs), but if so it would also be interesting to include those in the calculations.
PLEASE understand Milankovitch Cycles are ALREADY PART OF THE CLIMATE MODELS. We are still in trouble from our own doing. No one ever denied natural climate change! Please upvote this if you care about our future. This does NOT mean things are fine!
The ancient Greeks around 2600 years ago, realised that all animals came from a mother and saw too that humans came from a mother. Thus the statement 'Mother Earth' having been in our lexicon all this time, stating that 'from her - all things issued.' James Lovelock who worked for NASA and the Jet Laboratories at Pasadena USA, saw our planet as a living 'super-organism' and called it the Gaia Hypothesis, which is now a growing Theory. Man has made subtle, yet intensifying affects to our atmosphere, oceans and forested areas. Pollution is an increasing challenge and problem throughout the biosphere. There has been discussions that cities and mega cities are causing 'heat islands' as well as the proliferation of ever taller buildings and sky scrapers. Particularly the increasing use of 'concrete' and 'beleive it or not' shifting the balance of weight ever so subtly, is possibly accentuating a distinct wobble in the rotation of our planet on its axis. Just like one acupuncture needle can have an affect on a human body or one mosquito bite can take down a human. The combined effect of now 8.1 billion humans in a 'closed system' - does have a knock on affect. There are now many ancient anomalies being found in the so called fossil record - we are unearthing cities in the Amazon basin as well in Southern Africa - plus the wagon wheel in a coal mine in the Donbas in a Ukraine coal mine that is over 30 million years old. Even near the Atlantic Ridge there are discoveries of ancient ruins. Reminding us that civilisations come and go and a study of them reminds us that most 'go down' due to corruption - especially when we look at our present day society and the challenge of being open and truthful.
My ancestors take it a step further and once believed humanity entered the world through a hole in the ground called a Sipapu. For the last few centuries, however, shallow sipapus have been dug into the floors of kivas for mainly ceremonial purposes. I think it is also the name of a ski resort in New Mexico, USA.
Continued reasoning that climate change is a difficult and complicated "thing" to just plain understand. Many and varied inputs to its full understanding, if one can even comprehend even some of them. Thank you for your work here.
You mention that our relative exposure to the sun's radiation causes change, but omit to mention that the sun's output is also variable and might be at least partially responsible for the 'pleistocene transition' and 'stage 5 paradox'. I would also look for variability in cosmic background radiation which has been shown to affect cloud formation rather than leap to the 'it's CO2 wot dunnit' hypothesis. ua-cam.com/video/Bj6ORbRBZ2s/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/JXKHfL55G2A/v-deo.html
Earth is a changing planet, we know this from the study of geology. Changes in orbital patterns and changes of the suns intensity need to be considered paramount to this changing climate. I wish we would discuss and consider this more, much more than we do.
What's your source? and what are the numbers of this increase? If it's warming up, we should have hard data... so please share it with us so we can see!!!!
@@Dankdayz707 I read CNN, watched various youtube videos, experienced recent summer heat and typhoon Yagi just hit my country. Sorry, I don't store data.
Yes, an ice age is still possible in the future. The Earth's climate naturally changes over long periods due to factors like the Milankovitch Cycles, which affect the planet's orbit and tilt. Even though we're warming now due to human activities, these natural cycles could eventually lead to another ice age.
@@InsaneCuriosity What’s so interesting to me is that yes we are insulating the planet with Green House gasses at an insane rate but what if that insulation is what prevents us from experiencing an ice age. If we can hold off on adding too much and getting too hot before we reach a distance far enough from the sun then maybe that insulation could counteract the cold spell from the far off distance from the sun. I wonder the time frame of this next ice age we could be too far from its effects to worry about right now.
EXCELLENT Science explanation not political. The rather spin on an axis … rotating and an elliptical pattern over billions of years. Carbon made us it’s not bad.
The Earth also has its own heat generation below our feet, a nice nuclear reactor feeding volcanoes and influencing our climate directly by warming up the oceans too..
It's almost like an inverted water cycle, too! water sinks through earth (duh) and the vents and volcanoes pump it back out. Someday, this will all slow down to the point where the oceans will descend into the mantle. No one can refuel this reactor!
@@freeforester1717 Insolation only regulates the _inorganic_ carbon cycle. The _organic_ carbon cycle has always been regulated by the interior heat of the Earth. The more carbon in the atmosphere, the more likely it is to be drawn down by an alga, which will eventually die and become marine snow. Layers of this material become carbonate rocks, which eventually subduct below the crust, where they are melted, and the carbon returned to the atmosphere by volcanoes. Of course, that is all before humans started mucking up this finely tuned machine. If suddenly algae went haywire and drew down a little too much carbon less than double the current rate, that would be enough to cause a runaway icehouse effect, even with increased insolation. it is not unlike how less than double the carbon we have added is making it much warmer.
In the late 70's there was a vid on TV about another Ice Age coming. That one actually makes more sense when you look at the climate graph over millions of years.
Works for me though we as a species have caused more general pollution, de-forestation, ocean acidification, extinction and over-population than any other higher life-form so far and continue to regardless. Glad I'm old so can still recall at time before when the planet was better off. Feel I lived through the best of times with most living today having no memory of the past beyond their years.
@@648Roland 40 or 60 years before humans were causing more pollution and contamination that today. So you as "an old person" contributed more to that than the actual generations that just inherited that way to do things and we're trying to produce technology in a cleaner way, and avoid pollution.
I would have thought that tectonic plate shift would explain ice ages, while Milankovitch Cycles only explain the periods of glaciation within the ice ages. No? Once South America linked on to North America the swirling oceans could no longer easily transfer heat from the tropics to the poles. The result was the formation of ice sheets at the poles, and those sheets expand and contract according to the shape of Earth's orbit, and its orientation to the sun. If the last 2.4B years, Earth has only had ice on the poles 15% of the time, which is the definition of an ice age. Each ice age has lasted tens of millions of years, which is the time period needed for tectonic drift. In short, Milankovitch Cycles are the icing on the cake, not the cake.
@CryptoSurfer it means they are occuping several times the cloud storage to say, literally, the exact same thing. So now Google needs to spend more money because these idiots want to upload duplicates. So yes. This new video is full of information that is not relevant because it's already been uploaded by them.
It runs in cycles, I read an article about how they found a cave in Europe that was blocked in by glaciers it melted down and inside the cave was tools, picks shovels etc..they were leaning up against the wall..it was dated back 800 years ago, something happened to the weather for the ice to cover up the cave..they said it was much warmer 800 years ago…
A good description of the M. Cycles. However as expected looking at many of the comments the time scales are not properly understood by many of the viewers. It doesn't address that the anthropogenic warming on a much smaller scale is irrefutably explained by GHGs and as such the video should not have left an open ended discussion without pointing this out to an audience where many are looking for "answers" that will confirm their preconceived notions
Answer: What climate change? There has been no discernable long term changes to ocean or atmosphere temperatures, ice sheet extent, cloud albedo, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, or wildfires. Nor has the ocean level risen even 1mm. Yes, there are substantial variations in all of these parameters, but in every case, over the past 200 years, there has always been a return to the mean/norm. These variations generally follow a cyclic pattern, but also with apparent randomness, too. The last noticeable excursion from the norm was the little ice age. Indeed, the climate alarmists can be soundly refuted in abyoutube comment. Google: Earth Atmospheric Absorption Spectra. Then look at the charts. Google: Earth Atmospheric Time Constant, and note the time duration (about 4-12 hours) Google: CO2 levels since 1900 (Unambiguous measurements show the CO2 level steadily rising from around 250ppm to todays 400ppm) Put the 3 things above together, and you will quickly tealize that there is no longer any reason to do climate change research. At least in regards to CO2.
@jul1440 thousand years ago, 14:18 the Vikings were farming on Greenland. There is no report that the Netherlands were submerged. What is your real point to call him a denier? He didn't denie the climate change.
@@jul1440 Then can you agree that, since the climate is now fully understood, we can stop funding climate research? Any changes to models would certainly change the output of the models, and this would be in direct denial of the current science...
@@FelonyVideos I wouldn't say we know everything about it, nor could we. Defunding the research would be the biggest climatic mistake since we discovered that black goo in the ground. You defund police or wasteful government spending, not funding to science. Scientific spending needs be increased 1000-fold and a scientist should be in the Oval Office, not a bunch of hard-headed old farts.
Interesting discussion. Funny to lead with the ominous Winter is Coming and then discuss these cycles which make no such prediction. An overall 100,000 year cycle was mentioned, but no clue given as to where present time falls within that, so, um, no idea. For all I know we're in the middle of another E5 Paradox right now. See, I learned a few new words but not enough information to correctly apply them to anything.
One relatively new idea is where the Earth is in relation to various galactic dust clouds in space may be a major factor in solar radiation levels. More dust less solar radiation. Then add in where our galaxy is in relation to other major space formations generating particles at various energy levels.
It would’ve been helpful if you would’ve told us where we are in each of these cycles. Like are we supposed to be warming up right now? Or are we supposed to be cooling down so that way I could tell you if man may climate change was actual thing or if the earth is is naturally warming up I mean, I think we’re definitely warming up faster than we should but that’s happened in the past so, who knows but yeah, it would’ve been helpful. If you would’ve told us where we are in each of those cycles like are we further away from the sun? Are we closer to the sun? Is it gonna get warmer? Should it be getting cooler?
@@Commonsenseisnotcommon8 way back in the 70's, we were taught (university level) that the natural cycles were trending to gradual cooling. Granted, the models are constantly being refined. However, the short term changes are contradicting this. Short term is relative, as "short" in geological records is thousands to tens of thousands of years. Human influence is short term. Time will tell.
According to the natural cycles (Milankovitch and others) since about 1300 thermal maximum we are supposed to be cooling towards both small and large ice ages right now. Atmospheric carbon is supposed to be reducing. Glaciers are supposed to be growing. There is no natural explanation anyone can find for why we are going the opposite direction, faster than anything seen in a million years and higher than anything seen in the last million years. No unusual volcanic activity, no unusual solar activity, no unusual algae blooms, no asteroids. Nothing explains this movement except for human caused increase in atmospheric carbon. It is the only explanation anyone can come up with that passes any review.
Thanks for your comment! Right now, we are in a period where the Earth should be slowly cooling based on the Milankovitch cycles. However, the planet is warming up much faster than expected, which suggests other factors, like human activities, are playing a big role. The Earth's distance from the sun does change, but that effect is pretty small over short periods.
@@5353Jumper I put forward the following item as well: a. It was only in the last hundred years or so whereby humans discovered electromagnetism ('em') as existing and started figuring out how to utilize it. b. Modern science claims 'heat' is agitated atoms, molecules and even lately sub-atomic particles. c. Modern science claims that all matter is made up of quarks, electrons and interacting energy, quarks and electrons being considered charged particles, each with their respective magnetic field with them. "EM" of course has both an electrical energy field and a magnetic energy field. d. Electricity can interact with electricity and magnetism can interact with magnetism, varying possibly only by energy density and energy frequency. e. Humans have been sending 'em' all the way up to outer space and back, continuously, with varying energy densities and varying energy frequencies for quite a while now. f. The atoms and molecules that make up our atmosphere are being agitated by humans 'em' being sent into and across that atmosphere, hence adding to the heating up of the atmosphere. * Is anybody going to stop utilizing their 'em' driven devices? Probably not many, hence the atmosphere will continue to warm as more and more energy is being dumped into it. * And this does not even take into account the Earth's magnetic field weakening and the Earth's magnetic poles moving and all their associated climate effects.
@charlesbrightman4237 Sun > human radiation. If you calculate the total human energy consumption of all forms including electricity (of which only some is radiated into the atmosphere as EM) the amount of solar radiation hitting the earth is about a billion times more per second. It is highly unlikely that us adding less than 0.00000001% more energy into the atmosphere is the problem. A lot more likely that humans adding 25% more atmospheric carbon is the problem. In this particular area we are a lot more powerful compared to the forces of nature. Then this additional atmospheric carbon is causing more of the suns massive energy volume to stay on earth instead of bouncing off into space and that has started to cause a warming effect.
Valentina Zarkova, the Russian authority on the Sun's cycles, has stated that CO2 doesn't have the role in climate change as widely spread by politicians and Libby groups. Moreover, she studied the Sun spots and according to her theory, we are heading towards a period with low solar activity and thus a cooling planet. If you know that cooler temperatures reinforce the temperature differences between the equator and the poles, which in its turn causes stronger rain and wind patterns, higher temps in some regions and much cooler temps on others, which we have seen the last years, then you know that we are on the way to a little mini ice age from ±2030 to 2050. Milankovic plays a big role in these natural phenomena and confirms Zarkova's theories.
These orbital cycles couldn't not play a role in affecting climatic change. Solar cycles and solar weather must play a role as well and it would be interesting to see if this had an effect on the two large discrepancies in historical expectations.
It is this basic principle that the alarmists cannot understand- that and their failure to understand the implications of the second law of thermodynamics. Thank you for articulating the matter.
WRONG! Increased temperatures speed up the inorganic carbon cycle, which _reduces_ atmospheric CO², not increases it. But don't take _my_ word for it! READ A BOOK, YOU LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR!! (a la R. Lee Ermy)
Soooo, according to this, we should be colder than the 19th century, which was the coldest ever recorded; the century that was colder overall than the mini ice age. The century that gave us years without summer. Instead, we are warmer. Has anyone stopped to think about the devastation that would have occurred without man-made global warming? We would be descending into another ice age right now.
Great point! The Milankovitch cycles are just one factor in Earth’s climate. Human activities have accelerated warming and prevented a potential ice age. It's a complex balance of natural and human influences.
Only trouble with knowing cycles of the past and using them for the present and future, is there were never 8 billion people contributing to a variation.
NO, today climate change is man made because we humans increased CO2 from stable 280ppm to today 425ppm also we increased methane gas in air from 700ppm to today 1900ppm and also N2O gas 30% up. Those are all greenhouse gases that do not let earth to cool or radiate back energy to space, its like we have a blanket that makes us warmer. Milanković cycles are long term climate change that change climate in 40 000 years to be colder than now 5°C and today because of that we should be very slowly cooling right now but NO we are very fast heating.
Let me fix your brain about CO2; Average outdoor CO2 levels are normally around 400 ppm, which achieves normal outdoor plant growth. Greenhouse and indoor plants grow better with CO2 concentration of at least two to three times that of outdoor levels (800 to 1200 ppm). CO2 levels above 2000 ppm are toxic to plants, and most experts agree that 1500 ppm is the maximum CO2 level for maximum plant growth. Minimum CO2 level for survival: 150 ppm. (Everything is dead.) Threshold for stunted growth: 200 ppm. (Everything starts to die.) Typical ambient CO2: 410 ppm. Ranges for growth enhancement: 1,000 to 1,500 ppm. Maximum CO2 level for survival: 1,500-2,000 ppm. CO2 is FOOD for plants n Trees !!!
@@justachipnc33 Oxygen and Sun is plant food not CO2. CO2 does not have energy. CO2 is burned stuff. That's why we exhale CO2 because it's byproduct of combustion. CO2 in air is in balance with dying things, when living organism or vegetation die they decompose and release CO2. Tell me then how will you get CO2 below 150ppm if all vegetation die? Tell me how will all those trees survive because now you have more forest fires because CO2 and other greenhouse gases increased heat waves. Also plants do not consume CO2 during night and during all winter, they breath oxygen like all living things. Will you home climate refuges (migrants) into your house because those people can't survive in their country because heat wave devastated crops so they do not have to eat or flush floods devastated community or fire or strong wind etc. What I think, you do not care about plants, or humans or anything, you just like fossil fuel money and their arguments like that one in your comment for continuation of devastating effect of climate change on human and all living things on Earth.
@@justachipnc33 CO2 is not FOOD, for something to be food it must have energy and CO2 does not have energy. SUN is plant food. Also 400ppm is not normal CO2 in air, in last 800 000 years CO2 fluctuated from 180ppm to 280ppm. Also for your knowledge point at what plants stop photosynthesis is 80ppm of CO2 in air and trees for example during winter time do not need CO2 at all, or during night, they breath oxygen. So trees can live without CO2 at all. Plants can's survive without oxygen and even if they die they decompose into CO2, so you point that plants die at 150ppm is non important. Tell me will you home climate refugees (migrants) in coming decades into your western house becase those people do not have to eat because their crops died from extreme drought or flood or fire storm devastated their area? I do not think so that you care even about humans at least plants ..
@@justachipnc33 CO2 is not FOOD, for something to be food it must have energy and CO2 does not have energy. SUN is plant food. Also 400ppm is not normal CO2 in air, in last 800 000 years CO2 fluctuated from 180ppm to 280ppm. Also for your knowledge point at what plants stop photosynthesis is 80ppm of CO2 in air and trees for example during winter time do not need CO2 at all, or during night, they breath oxygen. So trees can live without CO2 at all. Plants can's survive without oxygen and even if they die they decompose into CO2, so you point that plants die at 150ppm is non important. Tell me will you home climate refugees (migrants) in coming decades into your western house becase those people do not have to eat because their crops died from extreme drought or flood or fire storm devastated their area? I do not think so that you care even about humans at least plants ..
Many things will affect climate. However the present change being discussed fits too well to human increase in industrial activity & consequential pollution, and so seems clear that this is the present main driver of change.
All these cycles are well known and accounted for plus over longer periods you have plate tectonics, including vulcanism, meteorite impacts, solar fluctuations BUT you cannot explain more recent sudden climate changes without including the affects of mankind.
With so many variables affecting the status of things, many of which probably remain to be discovered, it astonishes me that the universe seems orderly somehow, all the variables seeming to interact such that utter chaos does not ensue.
The info and level of depth was very good. I only have 2 thoughts: I would like to have seen more relevant imagery. Most was stock footage and not informative. #2 is it would have been great to end with a perspective on where in these cycles we are now.
This video was very interesting and informative. Yes, these cycles definitely have an impact on climate change. Where are we presently in this pattern?
It would be interesting to see a comparison between the effects of where we are currently in the Milankovitch cycle (level of orbit eccentricity) and human-made emissions on climate currently. Not too mention the effects of resource extraction & depletion on Earth's orbit. Because we really have TWO SEPARATE PROBLEMS when it comes to the effects on the planet of climate change. One is greenhouse gas emissions, increasing warming, and the other is one of resource extraction, depletion & waste storage. All so-called green energy does is to replace ONE resource extraction, depletion & toxic waste storage problem with ANOTHER resource extraction, depletion & toxic waste storage problem - all we've really done is to change the resource being extracted, depleted and toxic waste stored somehow. It's not really an improvement.
Have a look at Valentina Zharkova scientist who lives in UK and her climate model based on the observation of the sun. She has more than 200 scientific publications. She has been teaching at the Northumbria University in Newcastle. Her model seems to have an accuracy above 90% and with it she predicts a mini Ice Age that will set in full scale by 2028/30 and will last until 2050 and the average temperature will drop between 1 and 2 degrees Celsius. Worth listening to the science and on what her model is based, she observes the solar dynamo, and discovered the solar quakes.
Climate change has not been following the Suns cycles or activity. No one is saying these are not important, but it's our changing of the atmosphere that is currently the problem.
Indeed, and Balentina’s calculations are based on NASA’s own raw data. I read someone here responding by suggesting that ‘change is gradual’ though offered zero evidence of this- the FACT that the Eurasian mammoths found froze. In Siberia could be found with vegetation still in their mouths and stomachs suggest that when the Sun’s accreted outer layer gets blown off and arrives here at around 1450 miles per SECOND that Boyle’s Law follows shortly afterwards on the side of the planet facing away from the impact. Diehold Foundation, Doug Vogt, series 4 - watch them all. Read about the evidence in The. Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes, by Firestone, West and Warwick-Smith, and Cataclysm, by Allan and Delair. See too MarkoPL100 for a demonstration of how a magnetic polar reversal works (4mins)
One should question when the first solution to a 'problem' is money, as the 'problem' is more likely an opportunity. Try asking those that present these 'problems' with the question "And if we had no money, how would we address said problem?"
Also relative to solar changes that happen over time is the changes to magnetic coupling from the Sun to Earth and other planets. This is a major process that can be altered by the Sun's activity, also by asteroids passing thru between Earth & the Sun such as the Great Comet passage in 1811 & 1812. Changes to Mars magnetic coupling after losing its magnetic field would have affected Earth's weather. These processes will need to be factored in as data becomes available.
Great video , is there a climate model that includes these cycles along with atmosphere makeup but without bias ? And also natural response to climate change such as global greening etc , or would it be too complicated to model
All very interesting... with a big BUT! People tend to assume Earth orbits our Sun. The problem is that's all they generally consider and the maths can then be worked out relatively easily, if you understand what you are doing and why. The problem (the BUT)? It is that BOTH the Sun and Earth do not orbit around a single point - the centre of their combined masses - but have an impossible-to-fully-account-for orbit about the centre of mass OF THE ENTIRE SOLAR SYSTEM! All 8 planets, Asteroid belt and Kuiper belt are entwined in an ever-changing dance around each other's centre of mass. Our Solar System has a barycentre that is larger than the solar sphere itself! So not only is the Sun not at a 'constant' position in the 'centre' of the Earth/Sun system (or more accurately rotating around the centre of mass of Earth/Sun) but every other mass in the entire system alters the Earth's orbit around the solar mass by their own gravitational pulls. This means to correctly determine the relative positions of and changes to Earth's orbit (and potentially it's amount of solar-related climate change) we can not use a 'simple' 2 body system but need to consider an additional 10 other 'bodies' ( 2 'belts', one Moon and the masses of the 7 major planets and their moon systems (count each as 1 unit)). No-one has yet successfully solved equations for a 3 body problem let alone an 11 body one.
Predicted is a cold period coming and that the electric grid is very insufficient for mankind s coming need due to it. The two movements of Earths axis are assumed to be constant and they may be not. The movement of the molten iron in the Earth should also be considered .
Thanks for the presentation. Great job. Makes sense. I would also suggest factoring in the Orbits of planets, like Planet X (aka Planet 9 - which is confusing BTW, if X = 10), that could have super strong gravitational pulls that would most likely effect everything on our planet while it's near us.
Insolation also depends on the power output of our Sun. Too many people ASSUME the Suns output to be constant. THAT is convenient, but wrong! The Sun is known to be variable (Sunspot cycle) and also erratic (Maunder minimum). The inner corona varies in size from barely a small halo, to multiple times the apparent size of the Sun.
that's a lot of information. I knew earth didn't spin in a perfect circle, but I didn't know that it circled in such a motion. That's interesting I wanna learn more about it.
Hey Insane Curiosity Squad! If you liked the video, we would love for you to share it with your friends or on other social networks like Facebook, Reddit Instagram, Tik Tok and Twitter, etc.. ( Since the algorithm is not cooperating in showing us to the public). In just 30 seconds, you will greatly help our Channel to grow and improve our future content. A big thank you from all of us.
This is total nonsense based on where we are in a Milankovtich cycle we should be 200-500 years into a new Glacial period not melting down all the glaciers and ice sheets and certainly not having increased temperatures
Could do a video on the moon as it moves away from the earth how it will effect our future
@@mikewolosz9456lol. Stop believing nonsense
@oleonard7319
The Milankovitch cycles are only influential if CO2 levels drop down to UNDER 280 ppm ... with 180 ppm
being low enough for every glacier to completely melt ... raising sea levels greatly.
Current CO2 levels above 400+ ppm has flooded-out the swing in the cycle. Until such time that we invent the technology to fix CO2 permanently, it will take centuries for Earth's plant and mineral processes to re-absorb thousands of years to re-absorb the carbon.
@@MrGBrooks9 that would kinda make them useless
''Naturally ocouring climate change'' ... now that's a phrase that I've not heard in a long time...
Because it can't be used to guilt trip us into giving up all of our property to the elites who will absolve us of our sins.
occurring*
@@Kitkat-986you do know that the "elites" are the global petroleum, transportation and distribution industries plus the institutional investors who finance them right? Right?
Like you don't think there is some "elite" group of thousandaires with their million dollar organizations that is somehow taking in money and power if I put a solar panel on my house?
You see that the evil elite selfishly manipulating the message are the billionaires with their trillion dollar industry trying to maintain market volume and keep us burning their products even if it means war and death.
Like you understand that right? Right?
naturally occur.... wait...
... WHAT!?
Blasphemy!!!
Whenever I heard people promoting "Global Warming" + "Climate Change". Their videos get a thumbs down. Many of my friends to this!
I encourage all to do the same! Sweden is a big promoter of this "Global Warming" + "Climate Change"!
There's one other major factor being overlooked. Solar activity. Regardless of what point in a cycle we are in, solar activity variations will play a role. If you think about it, the Malankovitch cycles are also all about the sun.
Thankyou, it's nice to hear the truth.
Not just the Sun, but also from the galactic center, when energetic GC neutrinos elastically give up some of their energy as they fly through planet Earth.
Don't forget farts, because a guy on youtube said it was so!
I like warm weather. I dislike cold weather, except for the skiing. Burying Canada and Siberia under a mile of ice yet again seems like a bad idea. I think there might be a way to prevent it.
100% The problem with solar cycles is that we only a couple hundred years worth of data. That is because we don't have enough information to make any conjectures as to what they were like before we started paying attention.
However, if you explore "The year without a summer", you will find a solar minimum plus a large volcano errupting can pretty much cancel a summer on the other side of the planet.
The main subject that affects climate on Earth is the Sun itself. Sun spots, solar flares , solar prominences and variations in the Sun itself determine how much radiation the Earth receives.
The cycles must have a continuous effect on the planet. It is the time schedule that seemingly most individuals do not comprehend.
Thanks for your comment! Milankovitch cycles do have a big impact on Earth’s climate over time. They affect the planet’s climate patterns in ways that can be hard to grasp, but they play a crucial role in long-term climate changes.
the time schedule…
Exactly. The earth has been around for at least 4 billion years (that we know of) and we humans basically just woke up 10,000 years ago (thinking of recorded history) yet we think we know every damn thing. And by "we" I mean scientists and especially climate change "experts."
The thing people often neglect is that Milankovitch cycles are already integrated in climate models, and they effect the climate over longer periods of time. The changes we see today are happening much more rapidly, so while Milankovitch cycles do play a part, we can't just write off the unprecedented warming we've been seeing. This is the same as blaming it on solar activity, which accounts for maybe 10%% of the warming.
The oldest Milankovitch Cycles I know have been recognised in 800 Mio years old Swedish sediments.
You missed a whopper. There is also a six thousand year cycle of our solar system passing through the highly charged galactic current sheet. This directly influences solar activity and causes geomagnetic excursions/pole shift, potentially accompanied with crust uncoupling and sudden tectonic plate shift.
Tropical plant material has been discovered under the ice in Antarctica, not too old either.
@@HawaiiLimey sounds interesting… but he didn’t miss it as it is not a Milankovich cycle, as what you suggest isn’t based on orbital dynamics. It may be a different type of cycle instead though.
Antarctica 🇦🇶 used to be up next to India 🇮🇳.
It's true that Earth's climate and geological activity are influenced by various factors, including solar and galactic interactions. The discovery of tropical plant material under Antarctica's ice does suggest significant climatic shifts in the past. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
I did red that Antarctica has an continious ice coverage since the last 18 million years. The general temperature on earth then was around 20ºC. Today that is 12,5ºC.
The Piri Reis maps (i believe 2 world maps) show Antarctica without ice.
US Geological Survey states, that the maps are consistent with their topographical findings from the 1950's.
Reis stated, that that they were based on multiple older maps, how old I don't know, though some suspect the originals may have come from the Library of Alexandria.
Charles Hapgood, Earth Crust Displacement theory, believed that Antarctica was where Madagascar is today and the 6,000 year cycle that you speak of could have caused Pole Shift and subsequently the sudden movement of the Earth's crust.
The Reis maps are from the 1500's, Antarctica wasn't discovered for another 300 years, in 1820.
Thank You Graham Hancock, for opening my brain, lol.
Cheers !
I love it when science proves that climate change isn’t a new thing😂
It’s been happening for billions of years!
Earth's climate has been changing for billions of years. Thanks for watching!
Of course but human civilisation is only adapted to the climate of the present interglacial which began around 11,500 years ago.
Moving either into another ice age or to much higher temperatures would make maintaining that civilisation and the present population levels of humans difficult if not impossible despite the fact that Earth has experienced many severe ice ages and hothouse earth periods in the past.
Another factor is that past climate changes took place gradually over long periods which allowed animals and plants to adapt to the changes whereas the global temperature rises we have been seeing are happening at an unprecedentedly fast rate.
The change into and out of ice ages is reckoned to happen relatively quickly, not graduallly. It is also a recurring, cyclical process which has happened many times throughout history, irrespective of human activity.
Naturally occurring climate change usually takes much longer than the changes we are seeing now which is happening so fast, many species won't be able to adapt.
Upon what evidence do you base your opinion?
There is no money in Milankovitch cycles.
Bingo!
Yeah Al gore can’t make a movie about natural occurring cycles
There's also no need for government to over-reach and control our lives with unconstitutional rules and regulations.
Indeed…follow the money…always.
Unless you own a snow shovel company.
Look out ! We have some actual science that isn't being made up to generate a payday! Good video!
This is the response I gave to the authors of the blue note on climate change the climate influencers put on you video. They think we are stupid I guess. "Your error in the statement that mankind being the main driver of climate change. It's your option and not a fact. Science is theory not fact. It's politically and economically driven and presented this way obscures the facts and theory of others. You should know this if you are a scientist." Insane Curiosity your doing a great job and without content like yours we are distend to hear only one agenda.
A person is smart, people are stupid. More people believe the nonsense promote by the IMF, and UN, than people that think for themselves.
You do realise that a scientific theory is not the same as when you use the term "theory" in everyday life tho, right? It's a model. Based on all available data, without any contradicting, able to make testable predictions, that stood the test of time. We know for a fact clime changed for billions of years. We dont worry about the fact that it's warming. We worry about the fact that it's warming by a factor of 20 faster than it should be, which is indeed, for a fact, caused by human CO2 emissions. So yes, humans are the main driver behind the *speeding up* of warming we are observing.
Can’t tax a Milankovitch cycle
Of course they can. They haven't thought of it yet.
This was one of my first college classes, "Ice Ages and the Rise of Man", a Geology course.. and we had to KNOW the Milankovitch Curve for the Final. So I DREW it on my forearm. I passed; barely.
Thanks for sharing your experience!
Where did you go to school? That sounds like a great class.
ANY first year geology, physical geography, or climate class @@drmichaelsheaYou should take one if you have the opportunity.
Whenever you tube has the caption box under the video, it seems the truth is being realised.
I can't see it on mine...
Climate change
caption box leads to
Humans are responsible for global warming
site & the democrat Bernie Sanders view point.
I didn't know they were scientists, I thought they were dishonest polititions.
@@matg6463 Yes, those boxes are arrogantly annoying and condescending.
Yup... obviously the cycles describes here were obviously caused by human activity.
A species with maybe a couple hundred thousand years old has been the primary driver of climate change millions of years ago.
Good idea, I left this feedback:
This video is discussing orbital and geologic process over millions of years. It seems disengenious to suggest a species as young as Homo Sapiens was the primary driver of climate changes millions of years before the species we evolved from walked the earth...
Of course, YT puts up a statement since this vid concerns Climate Change: "Human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas." That drives policy, which can be hugely counter-effective if it is not actually true. Not that human activities does not have an impact, but that it is vastly not the main driver!
No, but the variation in climate does not need to be large to do massive damage.
The panic is real... the threat, not so much.
In the timeline of these very large changes is seems premature for such quick change to being a hot planet.
About the time scale of the ice well, we have just barely seen the end of the 55 billion year cycle of the Ice age. It has not been long enough to be getting this hot and so quickly.
We are entitled to our opinions but, not a personal reality.
Reality goes on with us or without us. The earth is indifferent in these matters.
11:56 @@marcominneapolis3461
But the Milankovitch Cycle doesn't make itself noticeable until CO2 levels get down past 280 ppm. After it gets down past 230 ppm and all the way down to 180 ppm. 280 to 180 and back up to 280 ppm has been repeated 8 times in 800,000 years: at 180 there are glaciers a mile high on NYC - - at 280 all the world's glaciers have melted.
Now, today, we are at CO2 >410 ppm and the "M" Cycle has been washed out. We won't see the Cycle engage again until we develop Carbon-Fixing tech that gets the Earth back below 280 ppm!
The earth, the solar system, the galaxy are all cyclical, glaciers are retreating quickly, yet temperatures fluctuate, the earths weather can be a paradox at times but one things for sure, it's always changing, going through cycles.
Great point. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Absolutely correct, every single day is unprecedented no two moments in time have or will ever be the same
In Winnipeg, Canada, it's minus 40 °C in January and 35°C in July. Every year. It's called seasonal change. Fear mongering kills you!
THE EXCESS CO2 AND METHANE NOW WILL DISRPUT THIS CYCLE, THE EARTH WILL NOW GET HOTTER
@@domcizek Getting hotter is good less fuel is needed to keep warm.
If the earth was warmer then the Democrats could blame Trump for that also! If we blame Trump for global warming because his free speech rights are hot air! Trump's speaks too much! Hillary needs to take Trump's free speech rights away!
@@domcizek
Oh no, is the Earth boiling again?
But human made climate change of 1.5 degrees is going to kill us all!
Finally some rational and logic.
Thank you!
but sadly it is not taught in schools...............
Sadly it is irrelevant, since the planet is heating up 11 times faster than in the past 50 million years. This fails to explain why the planet is warming 11 times faster. Damn reality.
From this natural fluctuation we should be cooling right now with rate of - 0.1°C per 200 years not rapidly heating like last 100 years with 1.3°C.
Do you understand that?
@@markhivin8670I am waiting for the explanation to why the plant is heating up 11 times faster today than it has in the past 50 million years by using the cycles mentioned in this video.
our earth is an amazing thing
Agree. Thanks for watching!
It amazes me more and more. We barely have scratched the surface and few hundred years of data. We are barely exploring
@@kikinhugs11 👍
I have a friend from Serbia, this is apparently common educational material for them as young students…
@@craigbuchanan5294 It's what we learned when I was in high school in the US--long, long ago. Then, they started fear-mongering, along with the first "Earth Day." And they convinced many people we were going to die in the coming Ice Age. LOL!
"global warming" all depends on context. Over the last million years, how warm is "warm" and how cold is "cold?" Also, with regard to the rate of change, how fast is "fast" and how slow is "slow?" It's all relative. Just because the temperature is different today than it was 20 years ago doesn't mean anything.
Pure disinformation!
But since coral has been here a very long time, why is the sun bleaching coral.
This bleaching kills coral and they are endangered now.
Would they just spring up when the climate is right again?
This seems like looking for a way to stay in denial given the science of climate change.
We had better get better at living under the surface of the earth. It is a plausible solution.
Stupid premise followed by blatant lie.
“The oil industry is strong in this one.”
@@nicfarrow Please tell us what exact average global temperature would allay your fears.
All people need to do is look at the temperature record going back far enough. There were years in the 20's and 30's warmer than now. As the video demonstrates, it's all cyclical. And real climate change takes eons. Some solar scientists think we are headed for a cooling period. And they're the ones I listen to most, because the sun is the main driver of climate in the solar system. We're not the only planet that experiences changes.
Wait, we can’t blame fossil fuel anymore?
Don't forget cow farts....they like to blame the cows.
@@mikefisc9989 ...and the Dutch blame NITROGEN (the gas that makes up 78.08% of our breathing air) too...
@@mikefisc9989cow BURPS
There's a difference between naturally occurring climate change which takes a very long time and what we are seeing now, mainly in the speed of the temperature changes and with how the start of that acceleration lined up with the beginning of the industrial revolution
@@ryanhurley1298 ...considering there are many 'peer reviewed' papers out there stating that CO2 lags behind temperature increases by between 600 and 800 years...
We are still in a 'ice age'. It started about 2.75m (2,750,000) years ago and over that period, there have been between 30 and 50 cycles between glacial and interglacial periods. We are at present in the Holocene interglacial period. The previous one was about 1.25k (125,000) years ago and is often called the Eemian interglacial. For about the first half of the present ice age, the cycles were more or less 41,000 years long while for the latter half of the present 'ice age' the cycle length has been about 100,000 years. Of course we will go into another glacial period some time in the future. If we stop burning fossilized (sequestered) carbon, the planet's biology and geology will eventually lower the CO2 level in the atmosphere and when the next Milandovitch cycle is at a low (low temperatures in the summers of the Northern Hemisphere), snow will begin to accumulate, starting on the high lands of Baffin Island and will spread southward. If we have used up all the sequestered carbon, we will not have anything to hold off the next glacial period and it is likely that the great plow which is the continental ice sheet will plow all our human artifacts southward, leaving them in a great pile somewhere south of the Canadian - American boarder. In the mean time, we have put off and even possibly stopped the glacial period that Milankovitch cycles predict should be on the way. If it is enough, we could keep the next glacial period at bay until we enter the next interglacial warm period. Unlikely though. We may drive ourselves into extinction before that happens.
Anthropogenic carbon emissions may make life a little...difficult...for some, and some have said it may delay the next glacial period by perhaps 100,000 years, it will still fall and _hard._ There are a lot of other factors, like the Himalayas and the Isthmus of Panama that prevent Earth from reentering its usual ice free 'hothouse' state.
But I do not think we will "drive ourselves to extinction" by then. Humanity is tenacious and supremely adaptable. We are like cockroaches! I always imagined we (or a species descended from us) would be the last things stubbornly clinging to the sunbaked Earth, probably in air-conditioned suits or other engineered solutions, and by then, hopefully also spread throughout the stars.
Even if we "bombed ourselves back to the stone age," we would still have a lead over our Paleolithic brethren. As long as we remember that we can grow food, and math and chemistry are things, we will be back to silicon chips and rockets within a few centuries.
I'm not sure about the data but I agree with real probabilities and possibilities that characterize your comments. Thank you.
Also, just some friendly advice, try to break long comments into paragraphs that reflect the changing thought. That wall of text a little bit of...a chore to read.
I would have started new paragraphs at "we are, at present", "For about the first half", "If we have used up", and possibly " If it is enough", but the last one is arbitrary.
@@jul1440 yeah even in the event of severe setbacks, like climate disruptions or societal collapses, the foundational knowledge and skills (e.g agriculture, mathematics, chemistry) could facilitate a recovery and technological advancement over time.
Nope. No more ice ages. Until we can FIX carbon and move CO2 levels below 280 ppm will we be able to fine tune a stabilized planet climate!
I think that Milankovitch Cycles probably play more of a factor than the Green new Deal proponents want to admit. Does Fossil Fuel burning have an affect? Absolutely. But I'm not convinced that going 0 net carbon would do as much as they are claiming. Naturally occurring cycles have to play a major role. And maybe it is possible that even the Solar System's position in the Galactic Orbit may play into it as well as where the Galaxy is in the Universe. Differing Background Radiation could play a part in our local climate. Kind of like El Ninõ or La Ninã cycles affect weather patterns in Europe. It is all a part of a Universal System. But much more study needs to be done over several centuries in order to come to any absolute conclusions.
Well according to all the natural cycles (Milankovitch and others) the earth is supposed to be cooling right now. Atmospheric carbon is supposed to be reducing. Glaciers are supposed to be growing.
So no, Milankovitch cycles are not the answer right wing petroleum fanboys are looking for.
The reason we are moving opposite the natural cycles, quickly, above anything seen in the last million years, is most likely due to human caused increase in atmospheric carbon.
And no we do not have centuries to study it.
No joke within decades there is a definite possibility of human extinction if we keep rising as fast as we are. Human tragedy due to pollution and the resulting glibal warming has already started causing human tragedy. The longer we wait the more tragedy we risk.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
@@5353JumperThere is absolutely no threat of human extinction in the next couple decades. Thats absolutely insane to think that. Stick to reality.
@@5353JumperAlso, if you think the temperature change we're experiencing right now is more extreme than anything in the past million years, you should take a look at the temperature swings at the onset of the YD, 12800 ybp. Climate change at the termination of the glacial period of the ice age eclipsed modern changes by tenfold.
Who can dislike the video? This is an absolutely well explained video about climate changes( melankovitch cycles).
Thanks for watching!
UN, IMF, FIFA, WHO?
Milankovitch cycles can't be used to gain control over every single aspect of your life.
"From 1-3 million years ago, climate cycles matched the 41,000-year cycle in obliquity. After one million years ago, the Mid-Pleistocene Transition (MPT) occurred with a switch to the 100,000-year cycle matching eccentricity. The transition problem refers to the need to explain what changed one million years ago."
I'm working on it
Thanks for watching!
@Hyunckel Could the sun have had a micronova at those times causing an increase in brightness, & solar output?
When is the last time we saw a major mountain range form? The kind of event that shapes a continent cannot be understated in its effect on climate change.
Impact of large meteors may have driven Earth into abnormal orbit or obliquity, triggering Ice Ages. Remember! Fossil records show some life on Earth perished almost instantly as deep-freeze conditions set in. That contradicts our geological theories but they are facts.
Milankovitch was a SUPER-GENIUS and an extremely dedicated computing fanatic. It took YEARS for him to perform his calculations, since there were no electronic computers. He put in THOUSANDS OF HOURS over several years. It is truly amazing that his calculations, done by hand, were later confirmed by computers. He was one of the greatest mathematical astronomers since Newton.
This is a really well made, and thoughtful video. I even enjoyed the engagement activity at the end. Yes, these cycles are vastly more impactful than the current carbon dioxide panic.
THE EXCESS CO2 AND METHANE NOW WILL DISRUPT THE NORMAL CYCLE AND THE EARTH WILL GET HOTTER ALL BECUSE OF HUMANS
Great video! This should be more understood by more people, the Earth is old (been around a long time) you can't understand the climate unless you look at a reasonable period time (100K years or more).
Thanks for watching!
I think these cycles do play a role here, and should be included in any model. Volcanic action will also play a role, along with exactly what parts of the earth are subjected to the freeze thaw cycle of carbon capture sections. (Permafrost for example.) In this video it mentions the complexity of the cycles, but because they are cycles, they can be modeled, but random factors like volcanic activity, the effect of our moon and it's cycles upon the crust and oceans combined make it almost impossible to accurately model. Climate change has been shown not only taking place over millennia, but sometimes in weeks and months. (Noting the Siberian Mammoths frozen with plants in their belly.)
Thanks for shaing your thoughts!
@@richj120952 💯
I like to tell the Climate Change "enthusiasts", who often suffer TDS, that in 1981 Mt Pinatubo in Philippines, released on its second day alone, more greenhouse gasses with massive amounts of Chlorine Dioxide, than mankind has ever released in history, right up until today.
The effects of this "historic disaster" were almost completely gone within 2 years.
The planet was created through the utilization of these gasses.
The Earth will repair itself.
There is approximately 20 - 25% more green plant life today, than in the year 2000.
Dinosaurs were humongous because of the greenhouse effect, creating giant carbon breathing plant life, thus breathing out massive amounts of oxygen.
Go Earth !
Good point. The frozen mammoths and other fauna indicate a catastrophic event that has never been adequately explained. Sudden collapse of global cloud layer ?
Well I think these cycles bring about long term changes, they do not stop regardless what is said about CO2.
CO2 has a very narrow spectrum that reacts initially very strongly at 20ppm reducing in effect on a log basis, At 340ppm no measurable effect was noticed by the Pen University when adding more CO2 units. It appears there are insufficient higher energy photons from the Sun explaining the lessening effect.
CO2 has an insignificant effect now and cycles are better explained by orbital changes. I love the clear way our axis mechanism is explained.
Interesting. I would love to know more about that study.
its funny that the blue rectangle notice is wrong again!
Great video and information !
Thank you! 😊
But I was told to run around screaming like my head was on 🔥 because I am polluting Earth and causing climate change. Dont mind the graph showing the glacial cycles, that shows we are right at an ice age termination event.
They use fear as the greatest motivator of the public. Seems to have fairly widespread effect with the decades of Green Church Doomer prophecy that's been fed to the masses. Unfortunately.
This is absolutely correct.
This has been happening to our planet after all the planets in our solar system had settled in their current locations. About 3 billion years ago.
This also created the snowball earth conditions, as well.
The Milankovitch system will keep happening until a major gravitational tug happens to our solar system.
It would be interesting to include the variation of the magnetic poles - i.e. pole shift - and the accompanying change in Earth's magnetic field with the Milankovitch cycles. Also not sure if there is any geologic record of intense Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs), but if so it would also be interesting to include those in the calculations.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
UN notice underneath the Video.... Says it all... Never has so much money being wasted on so many massive stipends!!
PLEASE understand Milankovitch Cycles are ALREADY PART OF THE CLIMATE MODELS. We are still in trouble from our own doing. No one ever denied natural climate change!
Please upvote this if you care about our future. This does NOT mean things are fine!
The ancient Greeks around 2600 years ago, realised that all animals came from a mother and saw too that humans came from a mother. Thus the statement 'Mother Earth' having been in our lexicon all this time, stating that 'from her - all things issued.' James Lovelock who worked for NASA and the Jet Laboratories at Pasadena USA, saw our planet as a living 'super-organism' and called it the Gaia Hypothesis, which is now a growing Theory.
Man has made subtle, yet intensifying affects to our atmosphere, oceans and forested areas. Pollution is an increasing challenge and problem throughout the biosphere. There has been discussions that cities and mega cities are causing 'heat islands' as well as the proliferation of ever taller buildings and sky scrapers. Particularly the increasing use of 'concrete' and 'beleive it or not' shifting the balance of weight ever so subtly, is possibly accentuating a distinct wobble in the rotation of our planet on its axis.
Just like one acupuncture needle can have an affect on a human body or one mosquito bite can take down a human. The combined effect of now 8.1 billion humans in a 'closed system' - does have a knock on affect. There are now many ancient anomalies being found in the so called fossil record - we are unearthing cities in the Amazon basin as well in Southern Africa - plus the wagon wheel in a coal mine in the Donbas in a Ukraine coal mine that is over 30 million years old. Even near the Atlantic Ridge there are discoveries of ancient ruins. Reminding us that civilisations come and go and a study of them reminds us that most 'go down' due to corruption - especially when we look at our present day society and the challenge of being open and truthful.
My ancestors take it a step further and once believed humanity entered the world through a hole in the ground called a Sipapu. For the last few centuries, however, shallow sipapus have been dug into the floors of kivas for mainly ceremonial purposes. I think it is also the name of a ski resort in New Mexico, USA.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Insightful. Thank you.
@@jul1440 hoyllow aearth
Continued reasoning that climate change is a difficult and complicated "thing" to just plain understand. Many and varied inputs to its full understanding, if one can even comprehend even some of them.
Thank you for your work here.
You mention that our relative exposure to the sun's radiation causes change, but omit to mention that the sun's output is also variable and might be at least partially responsible for the 'pleistocene transition' and 'stage 5 paradox'. I would also look for variability in cosmic background radiation which has been shown to affect cloud formation rather than leap to the 'it's CO2 wot dunnit' hypothesis.
ua-cam.com/video/Bj6ORbRBZ2s/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/JXKHfL55G2A/v-deo.html
Earth is a changing planet, we know this from the study of geology. Changes in orbital patterns and changes of the suns intensity need to be considered paramount to this changing climate. I wish we would discuss and consider this more, much more than we do.
The Earth is warming up. Another ice age will come.
What's your source? and what are the numbers of this increase? If it's warming up, we should have hard data... so please share it with us so we can see!!!!
@@Dankdayz707 I read CNN, watched various youtube videos, experienced recent summer heat and typhoon Yagi just hit my country. Sorry, I don't store data.
Yes, an ice age is still possible in the future. The Earth's climate naturally changes over long periods due to factors like the Milankovitch Cycles, which affect the planet's orbit and tilt. Even though we're warming now due to human activities, these natural cycles could eventually lead to another ice age.
@@InsaneCuriosity What’s so interesting to me is that yes we are insulating the planet with Green House gasses at an insane rate but what if that insulation is what prevents us from experiencing an ice age. If we can hold off on adding too much and getting too hot before we reach a distance far enough from the sun then maybe that insulation could counteract the cold spell from the far off distance from the sun.
I wonder the time frame of this next ice age we could be too far from its effects to worry about right now.
@@InsaneCuriosity 👍💚
Great information. These cycles are so big that we can only guess at their true impact on earths seasons.
the Earth has been in a major ice age for 2.6 million years
not ‘thousands of years’
EXCELLENT Science explanation not political. The rather spin on an axis … rotating and an elliptical pattern over billions of years. Carbon made us it’s not bad.
The Earth also has its own heat generation below our feet, a nice nuclear reactor feeding volcanoes and influencing our climate directly by warming up the oceans too..
It's almost like an inverted water cycle, too! water sinks through earth (duh) and the vents and volcanoes pump it back out. Someday, this will all slow down to the point where the oceans will descend into the mantle. No one can refuel this reactor!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
The amount of heating from within Earth is as nothing when compared to that of the Sun, which determines whether we freeze or burn.
@@freeforester1717 Insolation only regulates the _inorganic_ carbon cycle. The _organic_ carbon cycle has always been regulated by the interior heat of the Earth. The more carbon in the atmosphere, the more likely it is to be drawn down by an alga, which will eventually die and become marine snow. Layers of this material become carbonate rocks, which eventually subduct below the crust, where they are melted, and the carbon returned to the atmosphere by volcanoes.
Of course, that is all before humans started mucking up this finely tuned machine. If suddenly algae went haywire and drew down a little too much carbon less than double the current rate, that would be enough to cause a runaway icehouse effect, even with increased insolation. it is not unlike how less than double the carbon we have added is making it much warmer.
We do get particulates from volcanos that help cool the planet, so we don't need scientists to seed the sky with poison.
In the late 70's there was a vid on TV about another Ice Age coming. That one actually makes more sense when you look at the climate graph over millions of years.
Ice Age movies
Works for me though we as a species have caused more general pollution, de-forestation, ocean acidification, extinction and over-population than any other higher life-form so far and continue to regardless. Glad I'm old so can still recall at time before when the planet was better off. Feel I lived through the best of times with most living today having no memory of the past beyond their years.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
@@648Roland 40 or 60 years before humans were causing more pollution and contamination that today. So you as "an old person" contributed more to that than the actual generations that just inherited that way to do things and we're trying to produce technology in a cleaner way, and avoid pollution.
@@user-cj4hk8lr1v We lived a far more sustainable way of life then than today.
@@user-cj4hk8lr1v gaslight much?
Yes these cycles are effecting what climate change is happening at the moment
Stopping the government’s involvement in our atmosphere will allow the climate to balance.
Thanks for watching!
I would have thought that tectonic plate shift would explain ice ages, while Milankovitch Cycles only explain the periods of glaciation within the ice ages. No? Once South America linked on to North America the swirling oceans could no longer easily transfer heat from the tropics to the poles. The result was the formation of ice sheets at the poles, and those sheets expand and contract according to the shape of Earth's orbit, and its orientation to the sun. If the last 2.4B years, Earth has only had ice on the poles 15% of the time, which is the definition of an ice age. Each ice age has lasted tens of millions of years, which is the time period needed for tectonic drift. In short, Milankovitch Cycles are the icing on the cake, not the cake.
This is a recycled video from months ago.
Thank you. These losers love to reuse content like they are bringing something new to the table.
yep they just change some of their wording and information
So that means the information is no longer relevant, right?
@CryptoSurfer it means they are occuping several times the cloud storage to say, literally, the exact same thing. So now Google needs to spend more money because these idiots want to upload duplicates.
So yes. This new video is full of information that is not relevant because it's already been uploaded by them.
It runs in cycles, I read an article about how they found a cave in Europe that was blocked in by glaciers it melted down and inside the cave was tools, picks shovels etc..they were leaning up against the wall..it was dated back 800 years ago, something happened to the weather for the ice to cover up the cave..they said it was much warmer 800 years ago…
I would love to have nice cold winters again I haven't seen snow for 15 years!
Well, consider moving to Alaska.
"Urban heat island" has had a major regional effect.
A good description of the M. Cycles. However as expected looking at many of the comments the time scales are not properly understood by many of the viewers. It doesn't address that the anthropogenic warming on a much smaller scale is irrefutably explained by GHGs and as such the video should not have left an open ended discussion without pointing this out to an audience where many are looking for "answers" that will confirm their preconceived notions
Answer: What climate change? There has been no discernable long term changes to ocean or atmosphere temperatures, ice sheet extent, cloud albedo, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, or wildfires. Nor has the ocean level risen even 1mm.
Yes, there are substantial variations in all of these parameters, but in every case, over the past 200 years, there has always been a return to the mean/norm. These variations generally follow a cyclic pattern, but also with apparent randomness, too. The last noticeable excursion from the norm was the little ice age.
Indeed, the climate alarmists can be soundly refuted in abyoutube comment. Google: Earth Atmospheric Absorption Spectra. Then look at the charts.
Google: Earth Atmospheric Time Constant, and note the time duration (about 4-12 hours)
Google: CO2 levels since 1900 (Unambiguous measurements show the CO2 level steadily rising from around 250ppm to todays 400ppm)
Put the 3 things above together, and you will quickly tealize that there is no longer any reason to do climate change research. At least in regards to CO2.
TCCD (Typical Climate Change Denial), that is so 2009!
@jul1440 thousand years ago, 14:18 the Vikings were farming on Greenland. There is no report that the Netherlands were submerged.
What is your real point to call him a denier? He didn't denie the climate change.
@@jul1440 Then can you agree that, since the climate is now fully understood, we can stop funding climate research? Any changes to models would certainly change the output of the models, and this would be in direct denial of the current science...
@@FelonyVideos I wouldn't say we know everything about it, nor could we. Defunding the research would be the biggest climatic mistake since we discovered that black goo in the ground. You defund police or wasteful government spending, not funding to science. Scientific spending needs be increased 1000-fold and a scientist should be in the Oval Office, not a bunch of hard-headed old farts.
@@jul1440 1000-fold, huh? 😂😂😂
Eww, just, eww.
Interesting discussion. Funny to lead with the ominous Winter is Coming and then discuss these cycles which make no such prediction.
An overall 100,000 year cycle was mentioned, but no clue given as to where present time falls within that, so, um, no idea.
For all I know we're in the middle of another E5 Paradox right now. See, I learned a few new words but not enough information to correctly apply them to anything.
Thanks for your feedback! Appreciate it.
One relatively new idea is where the Earth is in relation to various galactic dust clouds in space may be a major factor in solar radiation levels. More dust less solar radiation. Then add in where our galaxy is in relation to other major space formations generating particles at various energy levels.
I think we should tax ourselves even harder as punishment for allowing these cycles to continue.
😂
Wow!!! Are you politician?
We are accelerating that change!! We need to stop accelerating those changes!
You got a overestimated opinion of yourself. If the earth wants to go warmer or colder, you can do nothing to prevent it.
It would’ve been helpful if you would’ve told us where we are in each of these cycles. Like are we supposed to be warming up right now? Or are we supposed to be cooling down so that way I could tell you if man may climate change was actual thing or if the earth is is naturally warming up I mean, I think we’re definitely warming up faster than we should but that’s happened in the past so, who knows but yeah, it would’ve been helpful. If you would’ve told us where we are in each of those cycles like are we further away from the sun? Are we closer to the sun? Is it gonna get warmer? Should it be getting cooler?
@@Commonsenseisnotcommon8 way back in the 70's, we were taught (university level) that the natural cycles were trending to gradual cooling. Granted, the models are constantly being refined. However, the short term changes are contradicting this. Short term is relative, as "short" in geological records is thousands to tens of thousands of years. Human influence is short term. Time will tell.
According to the natural cycles (Milankovitch and others) since about 1300 thermal maximum we are supposed to be cooling towards both small and large ice ages right now. Atmospheric carbon is supposed to be reducing. Glaciers are supposed to be growing.
There is no natural explanation anyone can find for why we are going the opposite direction, faster than anything seen in a million years and higher than anything seen in the last million years.
No unusual volcanic activity, no unusual solar activity, no unusual algae blooms, no asteroids. Nothing explains this movement except for human caused increase in atmospheric carbon. It is the only explanation anyone can come up with that passes any review.
Thanks for your comment! Right now, we are in a period where the Earth should be slowly cooling based on the Milankovitch cycles. However, the planet is warming up much faster than expected, which suggests other factors, like human activities, are playing a big role. The Earth's distance from the sun does change, but that effect is pretty small over short periods.
@@5353Jumper I put forward the following item as well:
a. It was only in the last hundred years or so whereby humans discovered electromagnetism ('em') as existing and started figuring out how to utilize it.
b. Modern science claims 'heat' is agitated atoms, molecules and even lately sub-atomic particles.
c. Modern science claims that all matter is made up of quarks, electrons and interacting energy, quarks and electrons being considered charged particles, each with their respective magnetic field with them. "EM" of course has both an electrical energy field and a magnetic energy field.
d. Electricity can interact with electricity and magnetism can interact with magnetism, varying possibly only by energy density and energy frequency.
e. Humans have been sending 'em' all the way up to outer space and back, continuously, with varying energy densities and varying energy frequencies for quite a while now.
f. The atoms and molecules that make up our atmosphere are being agitated by humans 'em' being sent into and across that atmosphere, hence adding to the heating up of the atmosphere.
* Is anybody going to stop utilizing their 'em' driven devices? Probably not many, hence the atmosphere will continue to warm as more and more energy is being dumped into it.
* And this does not even take into account the Earth's magnetic field weakening and the Earth's magnetic poles moving and all their associated climate effects.
@charlesbrightman4237
Sun > human radiation.
If you calculate the total human energy consumption of all forms including electricity (of which only some is radiated into the atmosphere as EM) the amount of solar radiation hitting the earth is about a billion times more per second.
It is highly unlikely that us adding less than 0.00000001% more energy into the atmosphere is the problem.
A lot more likely that humans adding 25% more atmospheric carbon is the problem. In this particular area we are a lot more powerful compared to the forces of nature. Then this additional atmospheric carbon is causing more of the suns massive energy volume to stay on earth instead of bouncing off into space and that has started to cause a warming effect.
Valentina Zarkova, the Russian authority on the Sun's cycles, has stated that CO2 doesn't have the role in climate change as widely spread by politicians and Libby groups. Moreover, she studied the Sun spots and according to her theory, we are heading towards a period with low solar activity and thus a cooling planet.
If you know that cooler temperatures reinforce the temperature differences between the equator and the poles, which in its turn causes stronger rain and wind patterns, higher temps in some regions and much cooler temps on others, which we have seen the last years, then you know that we are on the way to a little mini ice age from ±2030 to 2050. Milankovic plays a big role in these natural phenomena and confirms Zarkova's theories.
These orbital cycles couldn't not play a role in affecting climatic change.
Solar cycles and solar weather must play a role as well and it would be interesting to see if this had an effect on the two large discrepancies in historical expectations.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
"When the situation is hopeless there's nothing to worry about" Abby
Second part, WRONG, CO² is a consequence of climate change NOT a cause!
Do you denie that humans incresed co2 in air from 280ppm to today 425ppm?
It is this basic principle that the alarmists cannot understand- that and their failure to understand the implications of the second law of thermodynamics. Thank you for articulating the matter.
WRONG! Increased temperatures speed up the inorganic carbon cycle, which _reduces_ atmospheric CO², not increases it. But don't take _my_ word for it! READ A BOOK, YOU LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR!! (a la R. Lee Ermy)
Fabulous and informative video. Can't wait to share!!!!!!!😂with all my friends and family ❤️
Soooo, according to this, we should be colder than the 19th century, which was the coldest ever recorded; the century that was colder overall than the mini ice age. The century that gave us years without summer. Instead, we are warmer.
Has anyone stopped to think about the devastation that would have occurred without man-made global warming? We would be descending into another ice age right now.
Great point! The Milankovitch cycles are just one factor in Earth’s climate. Human activities have accelerated warming and prevented a potential ice age. It's a complex balance of natural and human influences.
We will adapt, as we always have
It's important to understand these cycles.
It's more important not to use them to explain away the effect of all the extra CO2 in the air.
@@darylwilliams7883 what do you mean by extra CO2?
Long term Co2 is around 1500 ppm, currently 420 ppm which less than a third the long term average. Your getting forward and reverse mixed up.
@@CryptoSurfer He means _anthropogenic carbon emissions._
@@AcheuleanAxe ...and the 420 ppm is measure at an altitude of nearly 3.5 Km on and ACTIVE VOLCANO.
@jul1440 bugger carbon, it's more like anthropogenic planetary destruction. We have not been very good to mother earth
Yes absolutely these cycles make more sense than the current green house gas theory not to say carbon emissions should be totally discounted.
This should be shown in all schools across the world 🌍
The present changes in climate are much too fast to be totally caused that way.
Only trouble with knowing cycles of the past and using them for the present and future, is there were never 8 billion people contributing to a variation.
it is a scary thing that youtube needs to provide "the correct" interpretation of climate change
NO, today climate change is man made because we humans increased CO2 from stable 280ppm to today 425ppm also we increased methane gas in air from 700ppm to today 1900ppm and also N2O gas 30% up.
Those are all greenhouse gases that do not let earth to cool or radiate back energy to space, its like we have a blanket that makes us warmer.
Milanković cycles are long term climate change that change climate in 40 000 years to be colder than now 5°C and today because of that we should be very slowly cooling right now but NO we are very fast heating.
Let me fix your brain about CO2; Average outdoor CO2 levels are normally around 400 ppm, which achieves normal outdoor plant growth.
Greenhouse and indoor plants grow better with CO2 concentration of at least two to three times that of outdoor levels (800 to 1200 ppm).
CO2 levels above 2000 ppm are toxic to plants, and most experts agree that 1500 ppm is the maximum CO2 level for maximum plant growth.
Minimum CO2 level for survival: 150 ppm. (Everything is dead.)
Threshold for stunted growth: 200 ppm. (Everything starts to die.)
Typical ambient CO2: 410 ppm.
Ranges for growth enhancement: 1,000 to 1,500 ppm.
Maximum CO2 level for survival: 1,500-2,000 ppm. CO2 is FOOD for plants n Trees !!!
@@justachipnc33 Oxygen and Sun is plant food not CO2.
CO2 does not have energy.
CO2 is burned stuff.
That's why we exhale CO2 because it's byproduct of combustion.
CO2 in air is in balance with dying things, when living organism or vegetation die they decompose and release CO2.
Tell me then how will you get CO2 below 150ppm if all vegetation die?
Tell me how will all those trees survive because now you have more forest fires because CO2 and other greenhouse gases increased heat waves.
Also plants do not consume CO2 during night and during all winter, they breath oxygen like all living things.
Will you home climate refuges (migrants) into your house because those people can't survive in their country because heat wave devastated crops so they do not have to eat or flush floods devastated community or fire or strong wind etc.
What I think, you do not care about plants, or humans or anything, you just like fossil fuel money and their arguments like that one in your comment for continuation of devastating effect of climate change on human and all living things on Earth.
@@justachipnc33 CO2 is not FOOD, for something to be food it must have energy and CO2 does not have energy. SUN is plant food.
Also 400ppm is not normal CO2 in air, in last 800 000 years CO2 fluctuated from 180ppm to 280ppm.
Also for your knowledge point at what plants stop photosynthesis is 80ppm of CO2 in air and trees for example during winter time do not need CO2 at all, or during night, they breath oxygen.
So trees can live without CO2 at all.
Plants can's survive without oxygen and even if they die they decompose into CO2, so you point that plants die at 150ppm is non important.
Tell me will you home climate refugees (migrants) in coming decades into your western house becase those people do not have to eat because their crops died from extreme drought or flood or fire storm devastated their area?
I do not think so that you care even about humans at least plants ..
@@justachipnc33 CO2 is not FOOD, for something to be food it must have energy and CO2 does not have energy. SUN is plant food.
Also 400ppm is not normal CO2 in air, in last 800 000 years CO2 fluctuated from 180ppm to 280ppm.
Also for your knowledge point at what plants stop photosynthesis is 80ppm of CO2 in air and trees for example during winter time do not need CO2 at all, or during night, they breath oxygen.
So trees can live without CO2 at all.
Plants can's survive without oxygen and even if they die they decompose into CO2, so you point that plants die at 150ppm is non important.
Tell me will you home climate refugees (migrants) in coming decades into your western house becase those people do not have to eat because their crops died from extreme drought or flood or fire storm devastated their area?
I do not think so that you care even about humans at least plants ..
@@justachipnc33And did you fix you brain😂
Many things will affect climate. However the present change being discussed fits too well to human increase in industrial activity & consequential pollution, and so seems clear that this is the present main driver of change.
All these cycles are well known and accounted for plus over longer periods you have plate tectonics, including vulcanism, meteorite impacts, solar fluctuations BUT you cannot explain more recent sudden climate changes without including the affects of mankind.
With so many variables affecting the status of things, many of which probably remain to be discovered, it astonishes me that the universe seems orderly somehow, all the variables seeming to interact such that utter chaos does not ensue.
The info and level of depth was very good. I only have 2 thoughts: I would like to have seen more relevant imagery. Most was stock footage and not informative. #2 is it would have been great to end with a perspective on where in these cycles we are now.
This video was very interesting and informative. Yes, these cycles definitely have an impact on climate change. Where are we presently in this pattern?
It would be interesting to see a comparison between the effects of where we are currently in the Milankovitch cycle (level of orbit eccentricity) and human-made emissions on climate currently. Not too mention the effects of resource extraction & depletion on Earth's orbit.
Because we really have TWO SEPARATE PROBLEMS when it comes to the effects on the planet of climate change. One is greenhouse gas emissions, increasing warming, and the other is one of resource extraction, depletion & waste storage. All so-called green energy does is to replace ONE resource extraction, depletion & toxic waste storage problem with ANOTHER resource extraction, depletion & toxic waste storage problem - all we've really done is to change the resource being extracted, depleted and toxic waste stored somehow. It's not really an improvement.
Just imagine a world without climate change! We would be dead
Our influence on global warming is insignificant
Yes very good
Its better keep the Earth cool
Instead of Global Warning(now is boiling)
Hope the cycles working all right
Let's wait
❤
Hmm, is solar output constant, or are there variations that are being overlooked🤔
Have a look at Valentina Zharkova scientist who lives in UK and her climate model based on the observation of the sun. She has more than 200 scientific publications.
She has been teaching at the Northumbria University in Newcastle. Her model seems to have an accuracy above 90% and with it she predicts a mini Ice Age that will set in full scale by 2028/30 and will last until 2050 and the average temperature will drop between 1 and 2 degrees Celsius.
Worth listening to the science and on what her model is based, she observes the solar dynamo, and discovered the solar quakes.
Climate change has not been following the Suns cycles or activity. No one is saying these are not important, but it's our changing of the atmosphere that is currently the problem.
Indeed, and Balentina’s calculations are based on NASA’s own raw data.
I read someone here responding by suggesting that ‘change is gradual’ though offered zero evidence of this- the FACT that the Eurasian mammoths found froze. In Siberia could be found with vegetation still in their mouths and stomachs suggest that when the Sun’s accreted outer layer gets blown off and arrives here at around 1450 miles per SECOND that Boyle’s Law follows shortly afterwards on the side of the planet facing away from the impact.
Diehold Foundation, Doug Vogt, series 4 - watch them all. Read about the evidence in The. Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes, by Firestone, West and Warwick-Smith, and Cataclysm, by Allan and Delair. See too MarkoPL100 for a demonstration of how a magnetic polar reversal works (4mins)
One should question when the first solution to a 'problem' is money, as the 'problem' is more likely an opportunity. Try asking those that present these 'problems' with the question "And if we had no money, how would we address said problem?"
Solid!
Top KEK!
Peace be with you.
Also relative to solar changes that happen over time is the changes to magnetic coupling from the Sun to Earth and other planets. This is a major process that can be altered by the Sun's activity, also by asteroids passing thru between Earth & the Sun such as the Great Comet passage in 1811 & 1812. Changes to Mars magnetic coupling after losing its magnetic field would have affected Earth's weather. These processes will need to be factored in as data becomes available.
Interesting! What part of the whole cycle are we now in? I've read about Melankovitch theory some time ago. Thanks for the reminder.
Great video , is there a climate model that includes these cycles along with atmosphere makeup but without bias ? And also natural response to climate change such as global greening etc , or would it be too complicated to model
I imagine they ask that all the time and thus probably have many hypothetical models of the climate. Plus, they get to play with supercomputers!
All very interesting... with a big BUT!
People tend to assume Earth orbits our Sun. The problem is that's all they generally consider and the maths can then be worked out relatively easily, if you understand what you are doing and why. The problem (the BUT)? It is that BOTH the Sun and Earth do not orbit around a single point - the centre of their combined masses - but have an impossible-to-fully-account-for orbit about the centre of mass OF THE ENTIRE SOLAR SYSTEM! All 8 planets, Asteroid belt and Kuiper belt are entwined in an ever-changing dance around each other's centre of mass.
Our Solar System has a barycentre that is larger than the solar sphere itself! So not only is the Sun not at a 'constant' position in the 'centre' of the Earth/Sun system (or more accurately rotating around the centre of mass of Earth/Sun) but every other mass in the entire system alters the Earth's orbit around the solar mass by their own gravitational pulls.
This means to correctly determine the relative positions of and changes to Earth's orbit (and potentially it's amount of solar-related climate change) we can not use a 'simple' 2 body system but need to consider an additional 10 other 'bodies' ( 2 'belts', one Moon and the masses of the 7 major planets and their moon systems (count each as 1 unit)).
No-one has yet successfully solved equations for a 3 body problem let alone an 11 body one.
So what we know or don't know is that all of these variations leave us guessing about their effects on climate.
Predicted is a cold period coming and that the electric grid is very insufficient for mankind s coming need due to it. The two movements of Earths axis are assumed to be constant and they may be not. The movement of the molten iron in the Earth should also be considered .
Would be helpful to give a forward looking prediction of our climate vis a vis Milankovitch cycles. Seems like cooling is in our future not warming
When has climate not changed? It’s always changing.
Thanks for the presentation. Great job. Makes sense. I would also suggest factoring in the Orbits of planets, like Planet X (aka Planet 9 - which is confusing BTW, if X = 10), that could have super strong gravitational pulls that would most likely effect everything on our planet while it's near us.
Insolation also depends on the power output of our Sun. Too many people ASSUME the Suns output to be constant. THAT is convenient, but wrong!
The Sun is known to be variable (Sunspot cycle) and also erratic (Maunder minimum). The inner corona varies in size from barely a small halo, to multiple times the apparent size of the Sun.
that's a lot of information. I knew earth didn't spin in a perfect circle, but I didn't know that it circled in such a motion. That's interesting I wanna learn more about it.