Love how this turned out! The timeline really comes together, and the one continuous shot looks great

@3DRiley_

Жыл бұрын

Thank you so much for your great videos and inspiring Simon Clark to do his own spin on it, it really made this video a lot more interesting and attention keeping.

@dkaloger5720

Жыл бұрын

I hope more people follow this style of educational videos .

@smorcrux426

Жыл бұрын

I was thinking about you during this whole video

@marcosamuelfabus1044

Жыл бұрын

I knew I recognised the video style!

@jose.montojah

Жыл бұрын

A shame about that scientist that ended up as a Foote note...

I followed the science and found out there was none. I followed the money, and I found the science!

@markw4206

Жыл бұрын

You followed no science. And when you follow the money, you'll find the millions that the fossil fuel industry is pumping into the denial and disinfo websites you've probably consumed.

@billaddington831

Ай бұрын

Another climate disruption denier. Conformation bias much?

@Fomites

Ай бұрын

No you didn't. Tell us how you 'followed the science'. Sigh...And by following 'the money', you mean you projected your own driving mercenary motivation on to scientific endeavour. You know nothing.

@nincumpoop9747

Ай бұрын

@@Fomitestry to get a grant for research that goes against the man made climate narrative.

@montazvideo

Ай бұрын

​​​@@Fomitesit's very simple. The science predicted there will be no ice caps in 2012... This is what al Gore received the Nobel Prize for. John Kerry bragged about it loud and clear. Earth was supposed to be dead by now. And I'm f-ing quoting... Find me ONE prediction that turned out to be true. JUST ONE. 🤣🤣🤣 Well. We don't have models for cloud forming, just couple of months ago groundbreaking study of evaporation process was published. Was that taken into account? How? The fact of the matter is even solar cycles changes are NOT taken into account neither orbital changes. Changes in measurement... Nothing of fundamental importance. We are breaking temperature records... Established not a year ago, not even five... A century ago.... Wow... Gee.... What a continuity... So as we know NOTHING, the best way is to follow the science's track record of correct predictions to find out if it sticks. And there's NO correct predictions. Not even ONE. But it doesn't bother any dogmatic believer that can dismiss all failures for it to stick. You desperately want it to stick... That you always look ahead happily forgetting the past.

My niece was a NASA climate scientist in the oceanographic research. She and her team set up the metrics, data collection, and replaced insufficient methods with technology and satellites, all that good stuff. Then the collected data, a lot of data, and grinding through it. Then in 2021 it became so political that goals were buried and seminars seemed like important things rather than data. Grants dried up and now she teaches 8th grade. Seems climate change requires confirmation of what the administration says. Her comment on the popular opinion on climate? She said "Americans are often mathematical illiterates"

@unimogdave

23 күн бұрын

NASA spent a lot of money rewriting temperature data so that a rise in temperature could be shown to follow the rise in CO2. When someone discovered they had changed the summer temps of one Caribbean island to zero ⁰ for an entire month the gig was up. NASA is corrupt.

@akmurf7429

18 күн бұрын

Sorry to hear that particular story over and over. Her fate was sealed when she confronted the consensus science dug in like a tick. Your science Doesn't meet the narrative, you're gone! We just can't trust most scientists any longer, like we can't trust politicians. It's more like political science these days. Subjective rather than objective.

@cerealkiller4248

16 күн бұрын

@@akmurf7429 Dr Keith Briffa had tree ring data that conflicted what the IPCC wanted to forced down our throats. He wanted further investigations into tree ring data, Michael Mann declined.

@nolewale

16 күн бұрын

@@stevevaughn2040 I'm

@come4t_a_bull

13 күн бұрын

All the math in the universe is worthless if the baseline you're working from is incorrect. Deep history is always ignored by the "pro-warming" crowd of scientists intent on receiving government funding. What was the cause of the bubonic plague in (approx) the 14th century? Look into it (1303 ad)... that's what we want again? Take the average CO2 levels over the last Billion years... the "recorded" temperature figures (18th-19th centuries) are thoroughly inadequate. The proper data can be (are) obtained from deep ice cores in each pole, and deep ocean cores as well. We are (and have been) at dangerously LOW levels of atmospheric CO2 for a very long time at ~400 ppm. Here's one for the "mathematicians"... How much CO2 is required for plants to SURVIVE, let alone thrive? Answer: 190 ppm - drop below that and all but two plant species die off... Maize (corn) and Sugar Cane will survive until atmospheric levels drop below 170 ppm... after which all fauna will also perish. Stop frightening our kids. They are fauna, as we are. They have enough problems to deal with. Atmospheric CO2 is the battery of life. We need MORE not less... the Earth's battery is almost depleted. Burning "fossil" fuels is the ONLY WAY to recharge the Earth's battery for life. Figure it out people - for your kids! .

Unfortunately for Gore and the climate loons before Revelle died he made the statement that carbon dioxide had as much effect on the climate as him spitting out of the window. Gore tried to pass this off as the ramblings of a demented senior but he was sued for defamation and lost after Revelle's family said his mind was sharp up until he died. Revelle's interest in atmospheric CO2 was a contract from the US Navy to study how atmospheric carbon dioxide would impinge on the IR missiles of their fighter jets not initially die to any interest in the science.Högbom and Arrhenius both conveniently ignored the fact that prior to the widespread use of coal, humans had been burning wood and lightening whole forests and that ruminants had been putting methane into the atmosphere both of which activities diminished significantly with the adoption of fossil fuels. More significantly they ignored Croll's work on the impact of inclination and precession on where heat falls on the Earth and is absorbed into the oceans so affecting the balance of CO2 between ocean and atmosphere. It was a good example of making a theory fit the selected facts not facts being the basis of theory. Keeling picked the two most extreme places to measure CO2 that are subject to errors - on top of a volcano in Hawaii in a part of the Pacific Ocean where CO2 emission is affected by ENSO and in Antarctica rather than the Arctic where absorption is depends on the deep return of the Gulf Stream and its temperature that in turn depends on the on-ice cover. Their successors continue the practice of using biased data by measuring temperatures at the end of runways and in areas dominated by the Urban Heat Island effect. All this bias shows up in the IPCC projection that fail to reproduce even the biased temperature data of the past thirty years.

@jasondashney

Ай бұрын

And Al Gore made big, big bucks off of his claims. Lucky coincidence!

@kimweaver1252

17 күн бұрын

@@jasondashney Care to demonstrate how he "made big bucks" off of any claims. You know,,..... EVIDENCE.

@kimweaver1252

17 күн бұрын

CO2 is the primary determinate of the climate and global average surface temperature for the entire Phanerozoic Era. There is no other factor which explains the thermal dynamics. "Urban Heat Island" is silly. This has been compensated out of the data for decades. With the availability of satellite data, this is a trivial and now inconsequential non-issue. Keelings choice of Mauna kea is not problematic, as the data collection is at over 12,000 feet, and the active fissures and caldera is 7,000 feet below and miles away. Besides it's not continuously erupting and the amount of CO2 volcanos produce it minuscule compared to the concentrations in the atmoaphere and tiny compared to human sources. Antactica is better choice than the Arctic as almost all industrial output is in the northern hemisphere and therefore is more likely to be skewed toward higher concentrations. To be conservative, the southern site was chosen since the Hawaiian site was in the northern hemisphere.

@abajojoe

7 күн бұрын

@@kimweaver1252 He started a company to sell carbon credits. It turns out that the carbon credits were of dubious value, to state it most charitably.

@abajojoe

7 күн бұрын

@@kimweaver1252 You are correct about satellite data being far more accurate and reliable. But I don’t agree that they have factored the urban heat island effect out of thermometer data. Just to test your assertion, compare the increase in temperature from thermometers in rural areas with NOAA’s claims about overall thermometer data. If urban heat island had been accurately factored out, they should be the same.

Unfortunately, history didn't begin in the middle of the 18th century. What of the 1,000 times greater CO2 during the life-promoting Cambrian period (among other important historical data). Like the great majority of climate alarmists, your conclusions appear to be pre-conceived. "The damage is done." What damage? Models and predictions made over the last 40 years have been very largely wrong. Climate "science" is now politicezed, discrediting itself and, most unfortunately, other scientific efforts. It's now climate pretense.

@jaycurtis5036

18 күн бұрын

So polluting the atmosphere is OK. It does not hurt anything. You are an idiot. In my lifetime lake Erie went from freezing over most of the winter season (Basically Thanksgiving through March). Now we hardly even get ice thick enough to ice skate on during the entire winter.

@kimweaver1252

17 күн бұрын

In the Cambrian period, there were no thermoregulating mammals in existence. There apparently were NO LAND DWELLING ANIMALS. It was NOT "life-promoting" in the Cambrian if you weren't a marine creature, like a sponge or a crab. The predictions made by REAL SCIENTISTS who weren't paid by fossil fuel and chemical magnates have been almost universally supported by outcomes. The shills and "popular press" have been dismal in their estimates of future outcomes. The political pollution has been almost unilaterally promoted by business and financial interests and their paid-for political whores for purely crass and venal reasons. Yes, it is now too late. So, Deniers win.... there is no reason to struggle anymore. No need to spend money or change your behavior or motivations. UNLESS you realize that you have to do SOMETHING during the final act of humanity, and it may as well be a right thing that you find satisfying, without regard to outcomes. You have to do SOMETHING during this era, so do something good. At the very least, don't make things worse. Try to engineer a departure with dignity while minimizing suffering. By the age of 12 or so, we all learn that we will personally become extinct at some time. Then we learn that the average tenure of mammal species is about a million years and we have been here something like 300,.000 to maybe a million years, depending on which style of hominid we accept into our family, how we choose to define ourselves. So, it's no surprise that we are here. One way or another, you're doomed. Deal with it.

@jamesday5636

5 күн бұрын

rubbish

@kimweaver1252

5 күн бұрын

There was NO land dwelling animal life in the Cambrian.... ONLY in the seas. None of the crustal structures were the same as today.... there were no Alps, Apennines, Andes, Cascades, Rockies, Himalayas. The continents were in completely different positions on the Earth. There was NONE but a little annual ice, maybe. For most of the era, no ice. None of the major rivers of today existed. Ocean currents were different. For all intents and purposes, this was a different planet, not even close to the Earth we evolved on. We could not have lived on Earth in the Cambrian, it was far too hot....... in part BECAUSE OF THE HIGH CO2 concentration. You make MY case for me. So, that comparison is completely inconsistent with your contention. Try again.

@bhansen52

3 күн бұрын

Liar liar

I never write comments. But this is a masterpiece of pedagogy. As a uni lecturer, I am in awe. I wish more could see and appreciate this and read the books that were used as a source. And yes, a follow up on the efforts to educate (for some) and deflect or deny (for others) would be completely appropriate. Fantastic visuals!

@dogsdinner99

Жыл бұрын

For some good debunks and explanations of climate change I can also recommend potholer54. He always gives link to any sources

@RonaldoLuizPedroso

Жыл бұрын

Feed the Al Gorethm

@kevinpils4716

Жыл бұрын

A lot of this video is talked about in more detail in Simon's book Firmament. If you want to recommend a book to physics laymen (or climate change deniers) who actually want to learn something new, this is the one to go!

@dogsdinner99

Жыл бұрын

@@kevinpils4716 Added to my wishlist 👍

@stefanperko

Жыл бұрын

Also it says "inspired by Bobby Broccoli" whose documentaries I can also warmly recommend.

Al gore: no arctic ice in the summer, by the year 2014

@unapologetic7900

29 күн бұрын

And it's funny how Arctic Ice has actually increased, yet none of these "experts" care to mention that. Oh, and the Polar Bear population has risen as well.

@PatrickTice

29 күн бұрын

​@@unapologetic7900I'm not sure where you're getting that. According to NASA Arctic sea ice is indeed changing, with thick ice making up less and less of the total ice cover.

@RodMartinJr

28 күн бұрын

@@PatrickTice Sea ice has indeed increased, and decreased, and increased, again. But this fetish with ice in an ongoing *_Ice Age,_* is misguided, at best. And the Holocene is NOT the warmest interglacial of the Pleistocene, either. The Modern Warm Period happens to be the COLDEST of the Holocene's 10 major warm periods, 1,000-year cycle. In fact, the Holocene *_Optimum_* ending about 5,000 years ago, had the Sahara turn GREEN for 3,000 years. So, this fear of heat during an Ice Age is not only ironically funny, it's backwards and dangerous. Global Warming leads to*_calmer_* weather and more life-giving *_rain._* 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯

@SigFigNewton

25 күн бұрын

Arctic ice IS decreasing fast. Plenty of data out there for those who care. Or satellite imagery for the less literate

@RodMartinJr

25 күн бұрын

@@SigFigNewton Oh, that would be wonderful. END the nasty, dangerous Ice Age! 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯

There is a large body of scientists (they must not be government funded) that disagree with these conclusions on the basis of these points. First temperature measurement has significant inaccuracies that dwarf the claimed increases in temperatures (measuring devices / micro climates / methods of measurement / selection of measurement data to get included in the average). 2. The effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. The models create estimates of that function, but that driver is created through the "observed" increases in temperatures. In other words the models are ordained with a predetermined conclusion that CO2 is the cause - but its effectiveness as a greenhouse gas on climate has never been demonstrated. 3. Climate Modeling is wholly inadequate and has not correctly predicted any change in climate. 4. Time windows are always picked that ignore massive previous shifts in earth temperatures warming and cooling where CO2 was not a factor. In other words warming/cooling has happened a lot in the past well before there was a human factor and the current warming if there is any is just a part of a longer term trend. Hot or Not: Steven Koonin is a good resource. PS NOTHING predicts a chatostraphic outcome in fact the UN Models predice worst case by the end of the century (75 years from now) a 3% impact to Global GDP. Intellect not emotion must be applied to this discussion and the fear mongoring must end.

@mrunning10

11 ай бұрын

Conspiracy NOW! Conspiracy FOREVER! Fick dich if you think any of my measurements are fucking influenced by "funding"

@kapsi

4 ай бұрын

“Amazing, every word of what you just said was wrong.”

@Ironic1950

Ай бұрын

​@kapsi ...the only word that is wrong is 'chatostropic'...(catastrophic)...

@Fomites

Ай бұрын

There is not a 'large body of scientists' at all who disagree with the standard models. These 'scientists' who disagree mostly are not scientists in climatology but claim to have expertise. This is a very small group the proportion of which is comparable to the proportion of disturbed personalities in larger society.

@Ironic1950

Ай бұрын

​​@Fomites ...as Albert Einstein remarked, when a group of a hundred fellow theoretical physicists published an open letter criticising his work on Relativity 'If I were wrong, just one experiment would prove it, so why did it need a hundred of you?'. And as another notable physicist, Richard Feynman remarked more recently "If it's concensus, it isn't science, and if it's science it isn't consensus." The 'disturbed' minority are 'disturbed' for good, valid reasons, amply demonstrated by your poisonous comment, and the infectious 'handle' you hide behind...

Science is like politicians these days. Show me where the money comes from and I’ll show you which way it leans.

@Humdebel

3 күн бұрын

I conceed that in some cases that would be the case. Sadly. But to state it as a fact without caveat and impliying that not only the mayority of the science done "these days" but all of science it's like this is so wrong, that wrong don't make it justice, this is fractally wrong.

The summer of 1932 set new highs we've not hit again. Temperatures have been declining very slightly since 2014. The models have failed to predict accurately, cloud formation, solar variability, gama ray flux (solar & extra solar) axial tilt, and long time-scale orbital eccentricity changes (beyond 3 body problem & have far larger effects than greenhouse gasses). Urban heat island effect is real and significant for urban populations. CO2 is a logarithmic greenhouse effect, so as CO2 increases a given quantity, its effect is smaller than that of the previous quantity of increase. Humans are not responsible for the large majority of CO2 as this comes from the oceans. Recently, we've found that oceanic abysal plane volcanos and vents are more frequent and in higher numbers. One of the largest volcanic explosions occurred deep in the Pacific a couple of years ago. This and the fact that the error on temperature readings is +/- 1.1 degrees C means these models are very suspect.

@stevenpeaketrainsandstuff3682

Ай бұрын

That last sentence convinced me you are full of it. I hope you are American, and I hope you experience the record breaking heat they are already experiencing.

@olivierdumon6542

29 күн бұрын

I totaly agree, IPCC models cannot include clouds covering so they are working on a hearth that does'nt exist

@marklmansfield

26 күн бұрын

Any so-called Climate Studies that do not include the heat from decades of Nuclear weapons testing and the subsequent reactors are misleading at best If a person deliberately did not include all data is it real science ?

@draco_1876

26 күн бұрын

Stop the copy and paste comments. You federal agents are annoying

@jeffreyhurst9552

18 күн бұрын

Huh. (That means I’m thinking about what you said).

How come the heat absorbing capability of Atmospheric water is never discussed in these climate discussions? From my work with FTIR, I know atmospheric CO2 is heat absorbing but it has a very narrow absorption spectrum while atmospheric water vapor has a very wide and deep absorption spectrum that will engulf a CO2 peak.

@jakedenos

Жыл бұрын

water vapor is also not limited to 400ppm but more like 10-50000ppm

@zalzalahbuttsaab

Жыл бұрын

Yes water vapour is a major greenhouse gas. CO2 is a trope that doesn't really figure in the equation.

@thurbine2411

6 ай бұрын

Oh but it is certainly discussed. Aircraft contrails is one of the more publicly known parts I would say. I also think that most of the water that we add to the atmosphere down at lower altitudes doesn’t stay for long at all and so the effect is quite limited compared to the co2 we are emitting. Still if we are talking overall temperature of the earth then I think water vapour is a much bigger contributor than CO2 but for the part that we humans have emitted and the part that has actually changed over the last century or so co2 is playing a bigger part

@gatorbna4107

4 ай бұрын

@brucepeterson3246 Exactly! No one knows the feedback effect of water vapor. Also the self- proclaimed Oxford "expert" failed to mention the studies demonstrating that as CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the rate at which the additional delta of CO2 contributes to additional warming gets smaller.

@gatorbna4107

4 ай бұрын

​@@thurbine2411I don't think anyone knows or can predict with any accuracy the combined effect of water vapor and CO2 on long term climate.

Of course humans have an impact on the earth's climate but the main driving force behind climate change is explained with the Milankovitch Cycles; changing orbit of the earth around the sun, change in tilt of the earth's axis, etc. And changes in solar radiation are also an important factor. Fun fact is that with the increase of CO2 and nitrogen in our atmosphere and the global warming, the earth has actually become 15% greener than it was a couple of decades ago.

@rps1689

Жыл бұрын

Then you know that changes in solar irradiance and the Milankovitch Cycles are currently in cooling phases and have been for hundreds of years and for hundreds of year to come, so they can’t account for the current global warming, which is happening at an unnaturally fast rate, because it is being driven by a manmade forcing more powerful than the current natural known forcings. Yes, the planet is greening as predicted by climate science. Also most of the global greening is due to China’s and India’s mega tree planting programs, but it would take four times more land than exists on this planet with new trees on it keep up the current rate of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, and most of that land would require irrigation with fresh water. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes increased cellulose production hence more tonnage of certain crops, but no increase in nutritional value. Current rate of global warming brings a loss of global biodiversity and favours weeds over crops. Crop yields are good nowadays due to technology even in global CO2 levels of 421 ppm, but we can’t produce the protein per acre like we used to. When food is grown at elevated CO2 levels in fields, it becomes less nutritious and lose significant amounts of zinc and iron plus grains lose protein. Because of this you need more fields to produce more volumes to make this up and more greenhouses, as you decrease the amount of protein you can produce per acre. We are already seeing major crops like rice, wheat, corn and even soybeans becoming less productive where average mean temps have increased slightly in the last ten years. Rice is also becoming less nutritious in high CO2 conditions. That being said we know that plants can acclimatize or adjust to rising CO2, but the fertilization effect of CO2 diminishes over time. In a greenhouse this is not a problem because they have excellent soil, optimal amounts of water, and controlled temps.

@easy_s3351

Жыл бұрын

@@rps1689 Solar irradiance is currently actually higher than before. The effect of the Milankovitch cycles takes quite some time to notice. Peak of our current warm period as by the Milankovitch cycles was about 7000 years ago and since the different cycles run between 40.000 and 100.000 years we're still feeling the effect of that. It'll take another couple of 1000's of years before we start experiencing the cooling effect of being in the cooling down phase of these cycles. Most of the greening of the earth is due to plants now being able to grow where they weren't able to grow before, i.e. in harsh environments. Due to higher temperatures they can now grow in previously frozen areas like permafrost areas. Due to an increase in CO2 plants don't have to open their pores as much to be able to capture enough CO2. Having to open those pores less means they don't have as much water evaporating which means they can now grow in warm areas where they weren't able to grow before. The fact that crops have less nutritions nowadays is not as much due to higher levels of CO2 but due to our crops largely having been genetically modified to grow faster giving them less time to accumulate those nutritions. They did a nice test which shows that fact by putting up two cobs of corn for squirrels , one of which was genetically modified (the corn, not the squirrel). Guess which one got eaten. Yes, changes in climate affect the biodiversity. They always have and always will. About 90% of all known previous life on earth has become extinct over time and other forms of life have come to life because of it. That's what we call nature. And like I said, of course we humans have an impact on the climate but not as much as the Milankovitch cycles which cause ice ages (which we don't). If you look at data going back 150 years the weather hasn't become more extreme, there aren't more hurricanes or heat waves (global average temperature is only 0,5C higher than 50 years ago) and the sea level has only risen by on average 1 inch per decade. BTW, in the last warm period (about 130.000 years ago) sea levels were about 5 meters higher than they are now. They have also been much lower during ice ages (up to 100 meters lower). So even sea levels are a cycle. The main problem is that we are a large population and have build houses and other structures all over the place and when for instance a hurricane hits, the damage is big, there is a lot of suffering and it is all over the news. So it seems as if things are worse than say 100 years ago whereas they aren't. The models predicting the future as far as global warming goes are way off, on average by a factor 2 yet nobody seems interested in rectifying that problem. Why? Because the powers that be like to present us with problems, with crisis and then offer us a solution. Usually a solution that involves us spending money and limiting our freedom. Here's a good video to watch on climate change: kzread.info/dash/bejne/o36qk6uJfr23kdI.html

@rps1689

Жыл бұрын

@@easy_s3351 Christy? Seriously? This is the guy that lied about climate’s sensitivity to CO2, lies about GHGs, lies about internal variability, lies about the effect of climate change on agriculture, lies about the cooling affect of aerosols and the planets inertia in order to argue that the rate of increase over the last century ins nothing to worry about, lies about the occurrence of weather disasters in the past, lies about the dominant forcings, lies about rural and regional temperatures, ignores most recent satellite data, doesn’t tell you that a climate scientist that becomes a flack for the fossil fuel industry makes much much more money than the top leading working scientist in the world do, lies about the recent global temps that are unprecedented in the last one thousand years, he also knows that temperature adjustments are made in order to render raw data more accurate, but because of political reasons, doesn’t tell you, and lied about there being a consensus about a future global ice age in science especially in the 1970s; and the list goes on. I'm all too familiar with how he uses his usual distortions with misleading graphs to distort samples of emissions from satellite data by visual trickery. Not surprising from a guy that exacerbates Model-Data discrepancy and lies about TLT measurements saying they are made by a single satellite then fails to tell his audience that measurement instruments don’t have lifetimes of 34 years, which is why the splicing together the measurements from various different satellite instruments is done. Are you familiar with the outdoor field studies in Japan and China, growing different strains of rice in air under the same atmospheric concentration of CO2 that is predicted for the year 2100? They found the rice grown in these conditions had substantially less 1 vitamin B1 , B2, B5 and especially B9 (folate) than rice grown under current CO2 concentrations. When the most powerful physical forcings at the time are cyclic, then the climate's response is cyclic. When there's a one time forcing, the climate change happens once. The last few glacial periods in the Pleistocene were synchronous with the 105,000 year precession cycle. They're in a cooling phase right now yet we are not in a global cooling trend due anthropogenic warming; the current rapid increase in CO2 is manmade. All numerical models are “wrong” per se, which Includes the models we use to design spacecraft and chips that work right the first time. They are “wrong” because correctness is a matter of degree, not a binary on or off thing. These models in the hands of experts who understand their limitations deliver useful results. Everybody knows the CMIP5 and 6 models run hot, but that doesn't mean they're worthless. The observations have been inside the projection cones for fifty years. The models are right enough. We know it is a fact that Spencer/Christy UAH satellite set has been hyped by conservative and “skeptic” media, as if it were the only reliable data set and that Spencer/Christy were the only reliable scientists, more than anything else because their data set at one point diverged so widely from most of the others, but they are largely in alignment, indicating that mainstream climate science has been right all the time.

@franktully3065

21 күн бұрын

​@@easy_s3351Well said. I suspect Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is overestimated as about twice what it actually is. Dr Koonin's and Australian scientist Garth Paltridge's books: Unsettled and The Climate Caper have influenced my view.

@dannoringer

18 күн бұрын

This is truth. CO2 is a small consideration. it's a factor, but a minor one. The really hard part about predicting climate using milankovitch cycles is that the motion of the planet is an extraordinarily complex equation of the pull of gravities of a near infinite number of bodies in the heavens, combined with the oscillations of position of the earth as compared to the sun, combined with the complex absorption and radiation of Ocean, Clouds, and earth on a mostly circular surface and if that weren't enough complexity, with the motions of the atmosphere and oceans, further complicated by the movements of the planets and the changing magnetic poles of the earth. We can't predict our weather at a point in more than two or three days. Why would we have the hubris to think we can predict ice ages and climate years, and scores of years into the future ???? It's insane to think we could model this level of complexity, and the proof is in the observations.

Good presentation on the history of the push to pin the base cause of climate variability on CO2 levels. It highlights well the selectivity of those who are now pushing an agenda that does not care about the full picture when a partial one serves the purposes of fear and control much better.

Gore said in his movie " There would be no ice at the north pole by the year 2013 !!!!!! Bull Crap !

@johnford2508

Жыл бұрын

His entire film was debunked. European cities under water by 2020, polar bear extinction, "Siberian" weather the norm (yet the "World is on Fire!" when the English home counties had their annual heatwave this year), suicidal walruses, and the Great Barrier Reef would be gone (actually flourishing just now). The basis of his film was Michael Mann's discredited "hockey stick" graph, which was shown to be unscientific, fabricated, propagandist garbage. And Gore lied about Dr. Revelle being his mentor on climate change - Revelle warned against any rash action/expenditure. Still, Gore made almost $300 million from the film so he's happy.

@bradmcclure4945

Жыл бұрын

and allthe poor polar bears would die oh my sensationalist crap

@koyotekola6916

20 күн бұрын

Give him a break. He invented the internet.

@kimweaver1252

17 күн бұрын

@@koyotekola6916 He isn't a climate scientist and he extrapolated.... accurately.... the trend in the decline of sea ice. The trend didn't hold. Boo hoo. And Senator Gore DID in fact, play a vital role in creating the legal framework that allowed DARPANET to be privatized, capitalized, and to eventually become the Internet. He, more than anyone alive today, provided the basis for the internet. Sorry haters, you suck and you are wrong. As usual.

@garystrahan4601

9 күн бұрын

So true, but it has made hundreds of millions of yearly profits for him, and he's grifter mates out of it.

As so often in theories of people who propagate the co2 story, this promotion does not mention the (also by scientists) so-called Little Ice Age. A (with fluctuations) cool period of about 400 years, which ended about halfway through the 19th century. The glaciers in the Alps reached their maximum over a period of 3000 years in 1859. This study included several alpine glaciers and they all showed the same pattern. No wonder people began to experience the weather milder at the beginning of the 20th century. Since there were hardly any meteorological temperature measurements before the mid-19th century, these glaciers are very important proxy for an indication of the climate during the past 3000 years. The study also shows huge fluctuations over that 3,000-year period. The period about 2000 years ago during the Roman period is striking. A period of several centuries when the glaciers were so small and receded that they were virtually non-existent and therefore smaller than today. But during the Little Ice Age, Iceland was usually inaccessible to shipping during the winter months because it was surrounded by sea ice. The settlers in New England also had a hard time, because at that time frosts in June or July often destroyed the crops in the fields. This is known from chronicles of that time. The settlers could make do with hunting, which the common European people could not do, because here there was still a feudal system in which the people had to hand over the harvest to the elite. The common people could not/were not allowed to hunt, it was regarded as poaching. As a result, massive famine with attendant debilitation, disease, and early death. The average life expectancy in 1800 was 45 years. It is known from chronicles that children in the Alps began to eat grass out of sheer misery and hunger. It is widely believed that this miserable condition was part of the cause of the French Revolution. The Little Ice Age is, of course, not a true Ice Age. (but got that name) Nor the "past ice ages" mentioned in this video. These are glacials within the Ice Age. We are now in an interglacial in an ice age. Because as long as there are ice caps on Earth, we are still in an ice age.

@scallop640

Жыл бұрын

don't forget the mid evil warming period as well, which happened right before the little ice age. A period of time hotter than it is now, yet was also prosperous. I do believe C02 can be correlated to the warming of earth right now, but I also believe we could be missing other things contributing and don't have enough time to actually prove the theory that strictly gas emissions are to blame. Only time will tell I guess, it's also hard to not question science after seeing how money/corruption works in the field. The past 20 is years of Alzheimers research/data has found to have been fabricated.

@brettjohnson8009

Жыл бұрын

And we are going to get cold again,.......soon

@daizyflower272

Жыл бұрын

Yes, we are entering a colder period. What global warming?

@ceeemm1901

Жыл бұрын

That's right, you can't have global warming on a flat Earth.

@alfredthegreat9543

Жыл бұрын

@@daizyflower272 Some colder, some warmer. Global warming refers to the rise in global temperatures due mainly to the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases, climate change refers to more than just temperature ie precipitation, wind, sea levels etc. Some dummies think global warming as a phrase was replaced by climate change because of some places getting cooler- really can't explain the ignorance and poor education of those people.

Crop yields per acre continue to increase, forests in BC are increasing their growth rates between 1% an 3 % per year, life expectancy continues to increase and less and less people are in extreme poverty. All due to the burning of fossil fuels.

@mrunning10

9 ай бұрын

All true, and all PROOF that The Oil Will End numbnuts.

@zonewolf

Ай бұрын

"Production has trended upward in recent years, even as drought ravaged the southern sun belt and heavy spring rains overwhelmed midwestern fields. Farmers and experts attribute increased production to advances in agricultural techniques and a better understanding of how crops handle bad weather." Not due to fossil fuels. "In some ways, a warming world helps farmers. Warmer weather extended planting seasons by between 10 and 15 days in the Midwest. But the harmful conditions far outweigh any benefits, experts say."

@zonewolf

Ай бұрын

Also please explain how poverty has decreased globally. "Wealth inequality drives poverty and precarity for people at the bottom, and exacerbates disparity. Wealth inequality is high and rising and more marked than income inequality."

@zonewolf

Ай бұрын

BC old growth logging has increased year over year, and is unsustainable at it's current trend. No clue where you found growth rate data, but one could assume it's the added heat, and it's negligable considering how quickly we're cutting them down.

@zonewolf

Ай бұрын

Also, U.S. life expectancy has declined to 76.4 years, the shortest it's been in nearly two decades. Dude not a single point you made is true, were you being sarcastic?

I absolutely love how you didn't even bother introducing who the heck James Watt is, yet the fact that the SI unit for power is named after him tells me everything I need to know about him LOL

Fourier was not killed by heat, he was killed by gravity!

@cryyc

Жыл бұрын

I hope your parents are proud of you

@jaydensdream714

Жыл бұрын

Your wrong of course. What killed him was the sudden stop of his inertia.

@boogathon

Жыл бұрын

@@cryyc Well, I am.

@ErikDPhillips

Жыл бұрын

@@boogathon You are what?

@boogathon

Жыл бұрын

​@@ErikDPhillips If you look close, you can see I was replying to Cryyc. I understand, because, I've made the same misteak (but I never misspell a word).

Yes. Part 2 please. I find both science and history fascinating so this combination is great. being about climate change adds to it even more. Thank you for your videos and I look forward to more.

@papertowelthe6th105

Жыл бұрын

Damn straight I need Part 2. Climate Town already covered a lot but I just want to have as many channels have their take as possible. Can always learn something new.

@rimbusjift7575

Жыл бұрын

Stay in school.

@PremierCCGuyMMXVI

Жыл бұрын

@@papertowelthe6th105 two, multiple sources is always fascinating and great to have.

@PremierCCGuyMMXVI

Жыл бұрын

@@rimbusjift7575 schools don’t teach climate science as they should, same with a lot of subjects.

@rimbusjift7575

Жыл бұрын

@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI Physical science is mandatory is most of the western world.

If the CO2 concentration on Earth would be reduced from 0.04% to 0.03% green plant life, which depends on CO2 would die off. Lately, Revelle has renounced Al Gore's conclusions about global warming. The so-called temperature increase in the past 200 years can easily be dismissed due to the inaccuracy of thermometers in the past plus the fact that thermometer calibration standards have changed at least twice during that time.

@rps1689

Жыл бұрын

0.04 percent, which is an increase of 50 percent since 170 years ago. A very fast rate geologically, and even on scales relevant to humans. There is a reason why global warming is not estimated in in degrees per decade; it is estimated in watts per square meter or total watts, which we know you have no clue why thus your nonsense about thermometers. If you or anyone else can show that the methods used to determine the increase in global mean temp can be dismissed, you'll be the next rock star in applied physics and rich to boot.

@naturalkind5591

Ай бұрын

Ignore how 200 years ago it was below 0.03% lol

@UnknownPascal-sc2nk

Ай бұрын

​@naturalkind5591 it was 280ppm in 1960. Now 427 and we are heating up with no mechanism to go back down.

@Hudson-rs7ty

29 күн бұрын

@@rps1689 The 1.0 C of slow and gradual warming since the Little Ice Age (half of which occurred before fossil fuels) has improved human prosperity and flourishing by every metric, so what game are you playing? In the first place there is no such physical thing as an “average global temperature' - it's is a non-physical and statistical construct invented by and for global warming alarmism. What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970? Evidence of warming is not evidence of the cause of warming. From the very beginning the underlying assumptions in the UN IPCC process presumed - without establishing scientific evidence - that anthropogenic activity was driving “global warming” which was subsequently modified to “climate change” after the global temperature “pause”. In the 17 years 11 months from October 1996 to August 2014 why was there no global warming at all, according to the RSS satellite dataset, whose output is not significantly different from that of any other global-temperature dataset. Why does the Climate Reference Network (CRN) the most accurate nationwide temperature station network, implemented in 2005, shows no sustained increase in daily high temperatures in the United States since 2005. These facts alone break the AGW hypothesis.

@slyrik1145

25 күн бұрын

@@rps1689 10000% of nothing is nothing... from 2 parts in 10000 to 4 parts in 10000 is nothing

Who ever dreamed it would take courage to tell the truth about the weather. Got married in 1970, we farm, lived through some tough cold years and listened to a bunch of jargon about a coming ice age that by the year 2020 we wouldn’t be able to grow most of the major crops here on the Canadian. Prairie. Now they tell us exactly the opposite. Climate continually changes. Never recall two years the same. Now they’ve turned climate into a new religion. I’ll stick with Jesus. Hasn’t failed me yet.

@jojojo9178

Жыл бұрын

people have lost their minds because of falsified history. If you don't know who you are, you are sitting duck for the falsifiers.

@kimweaver1252

17 күн бұрын

Climate is never described by a year to year change. Fool.

It feels that you vilified James Watt a little. He was a genius and without his inventions we wouldn't have any of the technology that surrounds us today. (If Watt was never born then it could have simply delayed the industrial revolution he kickstarted by 50 years, because someone else would have eventually made the same discoveries.)

@jojojo9178

Жыл бұрын

Watt is a fantasy figure in a falsified history from the victor. Humanity had electricity and a highly advanced society on a global scale. The victor had destroyed it all and the rest is "his story"

@woodliceworm4565

Ай бұрын

Watt made significant improvements however the steam engine had already been invented.

@Ironic1950

Ай бұрын

Watt merely improved, by adding a condenser, to what Thomas Newcomen had already invented...

@jimbarth9859

Ай бұрын

It must be understood that any friend of humanity is an enemy to the life-hating, anti-human death cult. 😜

Where did you find the reference stating that Napoleon (big bad wolf) forced poor little Fourier to accompany him on a tour of Egypt. Since when do we need to force a scientist to do the journey of his life and making jealous the rest of the gallery ? Your choice of words says long on your opinions. You could have taken this opportunity to explain that Napoleon had the enlightened idea to bring a scientific team in his campaign of Egypt. Some people see a glass being half-empty and some see it as being half-full - you choose, matey !

@Dougie1969

20 күн бұрын

Have you been drug tested?

@jameseverett4976

10 сағат бұрын

@@Dougie1969 wow, what an argument! Can I borrow that one? What I like most about it, is that it will work with ANY debate, no matter the subject or facts of the situation.

@Dougie1969

8 сағат бұрын

@@jameseverett4976 Well, when the subject and "facts" are skewed so far off, one can only ask.

I have a degree in science and I’m scratching my head

@petercbrandon

Ай бұрын

What do you mean by a degree in science? What exactly?

@UseLogicNotEmotion

22 күн бұрын

Clearly you waisted your time and money getting that useless degree!

@kimweaver1252

9 күн бұрын

Which degree in what scientific field from what school?

@premikyam2726

3 күн бұрын

a degree in science ? must have been social science

@kimweaver1252

3 күн бұрын

@@UseLogicNotEmotion That would be "wasted". Ironically.

The problem with much of the science around CO2 is that it has always failed to factor in biomass - and continues to do so. So ocean acidification will release CO2 back into the atmosphere, but at the same time Coccoliths will absorb that carbon (via algae) and concert it to calcite, which (in turn) is deposited on the seabed and eventually becomes chalk. Geological features like the chalk cliffs at Dover, were created as a direct consequence of the massive increases in CO2 levels at the end of the Cretaceous (caused by the eruption of the Deccan Traps in what is now India).

@ms-jl6dl

Жыл бұрын

Can you explain this "ocean acidification" to me ? If you're gonna start with "warmer oceans contain more CO2",than don't waste my time.

@jean-marclamothe8859

Жыл бұрын

PH of 7.8 instead of 7.9 is not acidic at all. We are talking about salted ocean here!!! Stop using acidic when it’s a bit less basic. Peter Reid said that within 24 hours the ocean ph can dropped by 0.4 night/ day and everything is find. The best coral since loooong time is flourishing.

@Pop-zb3wr

Жыл бұрын

@@ms-jl6dl lol what a way to start a conversation with someone

@TheHaughtyOsprey

Жыл бұрын

I can't believe people still buy this nonsense.

@polarbearfelly

Жыл бұрын

Actually, that is factored in when they make carbon budget calculations.

Can someone tell me what the ideal CO2 level is? Don't tell me the pre-industrial level.

@old-pete

Ай бұрын

The one that does not change much.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.” -HL Mencken I enjoyed the presentation. It's hard to buy into the climate alarmism that kids are swallowing whole, but I will continue to read.

I love how Simon mentioning Bobby on the wikicast to making a whole video in his style. Feels like a Disney channel crossover.

@Altobrun

Жыл бұрын

gotta give some love for the originator of this style too, Jon Bois' chart party series. It's such an exceptional way to tell a story.

@JeevesAnthrozaurUS

Жыл бұрын

​@@Altobrun Before there was Chart Party, there was his series "Pretty Good" in which this style became the consistent Jon Bois style Shoutout to Bobby for giving folks a tutorial for it.

@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, the style seems a bit unusual for Simon's channel, but it is a great homage to BobbyBroccoli.

@spacemonkey9000

Жыл бұрын

Disney is poison.

Fourier was one of the greatest scientists in history. His discoveries were key to development of digital music, digital video, cell phones, computers and just about everything that sends, receives or processes digital data. He was even the lead on the development of the metric system.

@rinzler9775

Жыл бұрын

Yes, he invented what probably is one of the most important mathematical algorithms.

@ceeemm1901

Жыл бұрын

And Eunice Foote was just a chick.

@areyouavinalaff

Жыл бұрын

@@ceeemm1901 oh no , Sir, she was more than a mere chick. She was a rather hot chick.

@ceeemm1901

Жыл бұрын

@@areyouavinalaff Yeah,and as someone said in 1967, "What she did was a gas, man".

@markw4206

Жыл бұрын

@@ceeemm1901 I hope you're being sarcastic. She was extraordinary, despite everything stacked against her. And note that her accomplishments weren't limited to just discovering the most important issue of the following centuries, but she also was an inventor. What have you done?

Let us not forget that - AL GORE was a son of a N. Carolina TOBACCO FARMER, worked the fields himself helping to increase carbon footprint, cigarette smoking, pollution, etc ..... and then of course once a Politico himself .... had the gall to suggest THAT OUR SHORES WOULD BE INUNDATED BY THE OCEAN .... by the late 1990s early 2000s ..... of which NOT A SINGLE prediction was correct. There ya go.

@old-pete

5 ай бұрын

How is tobaco farming increasing the carbon footprint? And yes, the oceans are rising.

@miyojewoltsnasonth2159

Ай бұрын

@@old-pete I'm also confused by "son of a N. Carolina TOBACCO FARMER, worked the fields himself helping to increase carbon footprint." The two best thoughts I can come up with: 1. Burning a cigarette increases CO2, however minor. 2. Burning fuel in tractors, though this would be the same for any modern farming. *@jeffreyjacobs390:* Are one of these what you mean? If not, what are you actually talking about?

@user-os9ge2we2b

Ай бұрын

@jeffreyjacobs390 Al Gore was also vice president to BILL CLINTON. Aka EPSTEIN #1 fan! He 100000% was on pedophile island with his BFF Bill Clinton. It's so obvious and gross. How is this not being talked about?? Trump looks in the wrong direction and it makes front page news for 2 years, AL GORE AND BILL CLINTON WERE REGULARS AT AN ISLAND BUILT FOR PEDOPHILES AND NO ONE TALKS ABOUT THIS????

@stevenpeaketrainsandstuff3682

Ай бұрын

You have confirmed, through your own comment, that you have no clue what you are talking about. You polluted this comment space with an inspired piece of crap. I hope you are proud, sir.

@Fomites

Ай бұрын

Apparently Gore did make some technical errors but his overall direction has been validated. I don't think he made the claims you suggest though. The information you present almost certainly came from others who exaggerated Gore's work. And why such an attack? Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

"Sidenote: eww." Yeah there's a few moments like that in science history. Excellent vid, very well presented. Thank you.

Currently watching and still waiting for a mention of periods of warming on the planet 'before humans burnt all the coal and wood etc' can't wait for the explanation

@mrunning10

Жыл бұрын

you really believe that CARBON is the ONLY factor?

@markw4206

Жыл бұрын

The video isn't a comprehensive explanation of climate. It's about climate history. You might crack a climate textbook though, where you'd read about Milankovitch Cycles, and how the periods of time they act on are about 4 or 5 orders of magnitude too slow to be even remotely relevant to the sharp warming of recent decades. Or, you can remain ignorant and just spill your derp on comment boards looking foolish.

@tentruesummers9043

Жыл бұрын

@@markw4206 What is this sharp warming you speak of? We have no instrument records beyond a relative snap-shot of history. For all you know this 'sharp warming' is normal or even slower than previous warming. And never forget...we're in an inter-glacial period so we're destined to freeze over again sooner or later. After which it'll start getting warmer! You see a pattern emerging?

@mrunning10

Жыл бұрын

@@markw4206 Hey Simon, can't figure out this rant can you? Seems to be upset that you gave a history of man's understanding of climate change, for some reason expecting a comprehensive explanation of climate?" Bizarre? or just on drugs?? Then rants that you missed the Milankovitch Cycles (there are 3 of 'em) but then rants that they are "too slow to be even remotely relevant?" Bizarre? most likely drugs? These precious "Milankovitch Cycles" are ACCOUNTED for in the climate models because they in small part add to the Energy received by Earth from the Sun.

@jct4418

Жыл бұрын

So funny when the cult members can't understand how YT comments work and get at each other.

Very well presented - thank you. I began to research the link between CO2 and temperature rise in the early nineties. At the time there were many detailed meteorological studies and studies of ice cores, which showed no link, at least at the scale of the atmosphere, between CO2 and temperature rise. If there were even a slight link, it was that temperature rise precedes an increase in CO2 levels over a period of 800 or so years. Sadly, the demonisation of CO2 has become dogma, and no debate is permitted. CO2 is a trace gas, 0.038% of the atmosphere. At this level, it cannot have any influence on global temperatures, I would argue (though it may be different in a vessel full of CO2, when heated). We must allow debate to resurface on this, because we're about to plunge ourselves into a dystopian future of restricted food, energy and consequent poor public health. After all, CO2 is plant food and for plants, 380 parts per million is pretty low - some argue practically starvation level. Science is a method of systematic observation of the real world in order to draw tentative conclusions, always allowing those conclusions to be scrutinised. Science is not an oracle of wisdom, but it's the best system we have and we shouldn't abuse it with crass assertions such as 'the science is setttled'. That should never be the case. Climates do change! 12,000 years ago, there was an ice age. Now there isn't (although the period we find ourselves in is called an interglacial, somewhat worryingly). That is a rather simple statement, but it is an observation and can be debated. We must not rush headlong in any direction (unless there's an asteroid headed our way!), lest we engender untold misery for little or no reason. We now have a new term - 'climate emergency'. Emergencies are a brilliant way to shut down debate. We have been presented with many questionable emergencies over the past 30 years and all have fizzled away to nothing, but have led to restrictions on our freedoms, if you think about it... This worries me far more than the latest worrying concern.

@crumdub12

Жыл бұрын

Exactly Steven, Great comment

@Mathesonguy

Жыл бұрын

Good post but I believe we are currently still in the 5th ice age, as there is still ice. Please correct me if you have a source saying this is mistaken.

@Dolby202

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for writing that. Simon is a full dogmatic person, that despite of being a so called scientist he is not presenting the things right. I don't know why he does that because I like his other videos. We don't know how global climate really work's and we need more investigation, but I don't buy the narrative of Global warming. We need more people like you.

@lsu1992

Жыл бұрын

Thank you, Steve. Send this comment to youtube to replace their woke "context" that no one asked for.

@RD-000

Жыл бұрын

Well said. Open discourse without demonising a finding or opinion that doesn't align with your own is what's lacking in our society. When it's said that "the science is settled", you quite often find power and money collaborating to get a desired outcome in their own interests.

People need a complete history of climate to put all the panic today into perspective like the Thames River freezing over how long ago was that

@old-pete

Ай бұрын

That should give you an idea how much the climate has changed...

I'm 71 and live in Southern California. I've also travelled all over the world. I haven't noticed anything different (by much) in all those years. It gets hot in the summer, which doesn't last nearly long enough, and cold in the winter, which is annoying and seems to go on forever. In the 1970's all they talked about was the coming of the next Ice Age. Meanwhile, Las Vegas still lingers between 115 and 120 in the July-August (like it did in the 1970's), and the hottest recorded temperature on earth is still 134.1 degrees, set in 1913 at Furnace Creek in Death Valley. Glaciers in the north still exceed and recede, and Antarctica hasn't changed at all, with penguins constantly searching for the warmest areas to park themselves. We're currently going through a cool summer here in Southern California, something I've experienced twice in my life. We worry about what gasses humans produce, while volcanoes all around the planet (both above and below the water) spew out endless amounts of CO2 (and other stuff). Gore and others have made millions promoting their hysteria, while I sit here in mid-July waiting for it to get hot enough to go out to the pool. For farmers, summer is when food grows. Winter time? Not so much.

@Humdebel

3 күн бұрын

Well, there are so many incorrections that I don't know how start! But let's keep ti simple with the most blatanly false. "Antartica hasn't changed at all". That's a false statement. In may ways. And I sayit in another comment, but I would satate here too. I'm currently at end of July in north Spain. We were used to 25~28 ºC. Last week we reach 38ºC. And that could prove global warming the same way that the contrary cannot disprove it. Localized events have nothing to do with global warming. The fact that I'm having a really warm experience is irrelevant for this discussion. The same way that if I was having the coldest summer of my life wouldn't matter to global warming.

One of the big picture pieces missing are geological experts to show how the Earth has had periods of thousands of ppm of CO2 in it's atmosphere before and how the oceans turn it into carbonate rock.

@SigFigNewton

25 күн бұрын

Every period of increased CO2 in the deep past is associated with warming

@SigFigNewton

25 күн бұрын

Yup, it’s happened before. And sea levels were considerably higher then. And a billion humans live near current sea level hmmm Tens of millions of climate refugees, coming to a decade near you

I would like to see part 2. I would also like to hear part 3 which would address issues such as science being almost entirely funded now by politicians with agendas often unrelated to science and how that affects the research results presented. And take a serious look at the arguments made by scientists who disagree with the basic global warming premises and conclusions. As many of us know, often it is the scientists on the fringes who end up being correct in the end.

@bradmcclure4945

Жыл бұрын

it is all about control

@deathryder711

Жыл бұрын

@@bradmcclure4945 just like organized religion

@bradmcclure4945

Жыл бұрын

@@deathryder711 false analogy watch and lean kzread.info/dash/bejne/a4B1qM6KZ8bZk5s.html

@woodsghost9088

Жыл бұрын

Fringes are often right but not rich.

@LTVoyager

Жыл бұрын

@@woodsghost9088 True. Scientists get rich by following the government or big corporate narrative. Ask Fauci.

Warm weather has Saved lives and that is also a fact!

@user-os9ge2we2b

Ай бұрын

@@michaelkazz yup

@Fomites

Ай бұрын

And what is your point?

@josephcooper1928

Ай бұрын

Excessively hot weather, along with other extreme weather events has killed people. In a 2021 study published in the Lancet Planetary Health journal (Vol 5, Issue 7 July 2021) that looked at the numbers for 2000 to 2019, found that globally 5,083,173 deaths had occurred globally that are attributed to global warming/climate change. That number included 170,000 in the US alone. There are many more scientific studies detailing the negative impact that global warming/climate change is having on human health and mortality, the environment, and even the economy. So while you may be attracted to purveyors of misinformation and outright lies, the scientific community continues to do real research and their findings are continuing to verify the original scientific consensus that global warming/climate change is a real threat and is getting worse each year.

@paulhoughton1691

Ай бұрын

@@Fomites Perhaps his point is. Would you rather the Earth had cooled or got warmer. I know what farmers would say.

@brokenrecord3523

Ай бұрын

​@@paulhoughton1691 Yes, we should definitely ask farmers about science. We should also ask plumbers about physics and maybe the police about early childhood education

You could say that Foote's discoveries were... noteworthy. :3

If this is truly science there should be plenty of research papers that attempt to disprove the theory. Where are they?

@Humdebel

3 күн бұрын

Well, all of them have that in mind. In principle every paper tries to disprove the main hypothesis that the paper assume. Is not a full picture but a few quick searches in google scholar return a lot of them. You should try it out. Google scholar is not perfect but it's a good initial aproach in my opinion.

I was a teenager in the 70’s and the only thing we heard is that we were headed into an Ice Age. Funny how what people say about what was said then doesn’t match what we know we actually heard back then.

@C2yourself

Жыл бұрын

Climate cooling is mentioned in my high school year book, 1974

@ckva7888

Жыл бұрын

Are you going to believe the climate hysterians or your own eyes? Come on man FJB and FAG

@lisaac9477

Жыл бұрын

It's almost like the "experts" don't know sh*t...

@jeffwalker1322

Жыл бұрын

@@lisaac9477 facts don’t mean anything. The only thing we hear is the political agenda

@lisaac9477

Жыл бұрын

@@jeffwalker1322 That's all there is today. No science. Just politics. Anyone with a shred of common sense knows when science becomes political, it stops being science.

Thanks for standing up for Eunice Foote's legacy as the first person to propose the "greenhouse effect".

@LiveFreeOrDie2A

Жыл бұрын

Eunice Foote’s “legacy” 😂

@KevinSwan10200

11 ай бұрын

All her work was destroyed in a fire yet it was rediscovered much later during the WOKE decades. I wonder if she was of African decent as well? Perhaps we will discover her secret ethnicity during the next Democrat Presidency.

@gregglewis5405

10 ай бұрын

Ever been in a greenhouse in the nighttime, they are still lovely and warm but when the sun goes down here it's bloody cold , just a observation

Carbon dioxide is present in our atmosphere. 400 parts per million. a million particles: 700k are nitrogen , 80K are oxygen , 8K are argon and 400 of these particles are carbon dioxide. Plants depend on CO2.

@R0YB0T

Ай бұрын

But that goes against my narrative!

@geraldfrost4710

Ай бұрын

Slight adjust... 790k nitrogen, 200k oxygen.

@lucasleepwalker7543

Ай бұрын

and? what is your point? if nitrogen were a greenhouse gass the earth would be a blob of molten lava. "ooh look the gass that does nothing is in vast quantities, that means the gass that does do things is magically incapable of warming the planet"

@Vigula

Ай бұрын

@@lucasleepwalker7543 I think the point is, though I could be wrong, that in all our historical records CO2 has never led global warming.

@lucasleepwalker7543

Ай бұрын

@@Vigula it is one of the main reasons reason behind our temperature. base temp for earth without greenhouse gasses is -16. if any point on earth is warmer than that, you have greenhouse gasses warming stuff up. co2 is the main one that does the bulk of our warming, without it we are an ice ball, with too much of it we turn into a dessert. the problem we have at the moment is its really easy to influence co2 amounts, as it only takes a small amount of co2 to do a lot of warming, so humans have managed to pump out co2 levels that within 40 years will kill most life on earth. this has happened twice before, co2 levels climbed to 5 or 6 degrees higher than life was adapted for, so almost everything died the difference with our situation, is where those two extinction events took tens of thousands of years, we have done it in 200 years at the moment we are an ice age planet, and humans are an ice age species, we die at about 40 degrees if its humid enough. and we are rapidly bringing earth out of the ice age into a hot dry world that next to none of our life is adapted for, and the few species that can survive the heat, are the ones that are about to-and have gone extinct due to human activity.

If Water Vapour is the main insulator of the earth, why do you not make this clear - and that CO2 is an almost insignificant percentage of greenhouse gases? Also, that the insulating effect of CO2 is asymptotic and not linear and so increases in CO2 have the effect of greening the planet and not heating it up?

@Lord_Rowlet

Жыл бұрын

then why is the plante heating up then

@gavinfraser5784

Жыл бұрын

@@Lord_Rowlet It heats up and cools down all the time. And what causes this are forces much greater than some insignificant gas which represents a tiny fraction of the greenhouse and which, in fact, we need to keep life going on earth. If CO2 drops too low, life on earth dies. We have the lowest summer temperatures now in the Arctic and Antarctic for decades, and the thickest summer ice. It has been much hotter in the 1930s and 1950s, and before that during the late Medieval era and Roman times. Societies flourished when the temperature was 3-4 degrees higher than now. Cold is the killer - not only directly on humans, but also because food production drops dramatically. By they way, how much do you say the temperature has increased in the last 100 years?

I really enjoyed this overview of how how these processes were discovered historically. It gives you a much deeper appreciation of how many people were involved and how much previous work our current theories build on!

@etjay5239

Жыл бұрын

Global warming: An inconvenient pile of bull sh!t. Sorry lemmings, you've been had (again).

@andrewrourke9519

Жыл бұрын

That´s just the laast 200 yrs. What does the paleo-proxydata over the last 25-30 thousand years indicate?

@jaykanta4326

Жыл бұрын

@@andrewrourke9519 Marcott et al 2013.

@chinajoebinlying1773

Жыл бұрын

Yeah in 1912 they also believed the Martians were an advanced race of beings which created expensive canals in order to fight climate change on their planet.

@jaykanta4326

Жыл бұрын

@@chinajoebinlying1773 Who is "they"?

Taking the end of the little ice age as the starting point for these predictions is short sighted to say the least.

@mrunning10

Жыл бұрын

relax, they go back at least a million years.

@ricardosmythe2548

Жыл бұрын

@@mrunning10 most of the data used to show a warming climate starts in around 1750 the end of the little ice age. Can't think why 😂👍

@jasondashney

Ай бұрын

Lots of climate data is very cherry picked.

I'm looking forward to the next episode. Thank you for your effort in producing a great video.

@jimsouthlondon7061

5 ай бұрын

Next Episode another 12 years to save the world Greta get Deleting .

Most definitely part two you’re leaving me hanging here. I need more please please do a part two as it is needed for full comprehension.

Good thing KZread is there to put a context label on your video so we can understand what's going on. Like they are some kind of authority of knowledge.

@mtapp113

Жыл бұрын

I know doctors who appreciated KZread's expertise in censoring what other doctors were allowed to share concerning their findings dealing with COVID patients.

@bradmcclure4945

Жыл бұрын

exactly big tech trying to control the narrative by removing content that challenges their false narrative

No Simon, you are incorrect. The reason the Earth is at 15degC and not -16degC is because of the heat trapping properties of water vapor. While CO2 does trap some infrared, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere combined with the fact that water vapor traps a wider range of infrared radiation causes CO2 to be a quite minor contributor to the 'greenhouse effect'. Just take a look at the absopriton spectrum for each gas.

@murphygraham4724

10 ай бұрын

Absolutely! “They” never talk about good old water vapor which is 3X more effective than CO2. Water naturally swings between 10,000 and 40,000 ppm in our atmosphere. 150 ppm increase of CO2 is a calamity? Ice cores show higher CO2 levels during ice ages. The Martian atmosphere is predominantly CO2. Why is it so cold?

@michaelmarron8441

9 ай бұрын

@@murphygraham4724 Mars has a much thinner atmosphere than Earth. Because it has about a sixth of the pressure of Earth’s atmosphere, the planet doesn’t retain heat very long, causing temperatures to drop quickly.

@geobergh

9 ай бұрын

Yes, CO2 is a very minor contributor of greenhouse effect but how to tax water vapor and clouds? how to get peoples culprit about water? So false informations is the key. It is your fault, basic human, if the earth is going warmer.... not mention that it has been way warmer than now. And try not to supress all CO2, vegetables will die, so will animals... and we are animals, wether you like it or not.

@publicdomain1103

9 ай бұрын

Denial is not just a river.. Drill baby drill is what I am hearing. fuk dat.

@kenjett2434

9 ай бұрын

​@@michaelmarron8441true Mars has a thinner atmosphere but did you bother to ask why? Just might have something to do with the lack of water.

The problem about this whole topic is that in the medivial time, at around 1000 AC, the temperature was higher than tiday, and that without a high CO2 or human interacting. And there are also scintific papers that say the CO2 rise is following the temperature rise and not the other way around.

Conclusion is terrifying . Arguments easier to understand and the evidence very convincing . Thank you

If I’ve heard one sky is falling story over the past, pushing 50 years, I’ve heard them all. And still here.

@roostertn

Жыл бұрын

Hey now!! That acid rain/killer bees/amazon ants. Will be here any day, Amy day...then you'll see. By the year 2000, the oceans will rise, the higher latitudes will start to freeze over, and everything in between will be nuclear acid raining killer flying amazon ants...and that...would be mankind's fault.

@pat5882

Жыл бұрын

@@roostertn you forgot the massive crop failure and the ice age that was to occur in North America only around the year 1980.

@ladymacbethofmtensk896

Жыл бұрын

Maybe you have not heard the first anthropogenic climate change scare, from the cold summer of 1816, where the Year Without a Summer was blamed on Ben Franklin's lightning rod. Ironically, Franklin himself was one of the first people to speculate that volcanoes could cause drastic cooling.

@jamesportrais3946

Жыл бұрын

@@roostertn ...and one of the most earnest agenda-pushing Presidents of the last few decades proves his adherence to the faith by buying a $15million beachfront property...

@nilla003

Жыл бұрын

@@ladymacbethofmtensk896 I believe, without verifying it however, that Mary Shelly's Frankenstein was a product of that same period. She was on holiday with her husband and another author and the poor weather kept them inside most of the time, which they spent writing.

Nice work. I look forward to hearing about the 70-90's I remember in the 80's how we were told we would not be able to walk outside by the 2000's due to the fact that there would be no ozone (because of humans) and our skin would melt off due to all the acid rain that was going to be everywhere (because of humans). Seeing as we have only recorded weather for about 100yrs and only accurately for the past 30, we know there are 50yr storms and 100yr storms... it is speculated that there are 500 and 1000yr storms... it seems a little arrogant to think we understand the global weather cycles that can span 10s of thousands of years... but I have an open mind and wish to hear more on what we know at this point.

@GrumpyMeow-Meow

Жыл бұрын

Yep! I can attest all that is true!

@pattonpending7390

Жыл бұрын

If you go back 18,000 years in human history, where I live in NH was under a mile of ice. As late as 15,000 years ago the sea levels were 200 feet lower than today - that's an average rise of 9 inches a century. 8,000 years ago, the Sahara desert was grasslands and forests. 1,000AD was called the 'mediaeval warm period' with world temps over 1 degree hotter than average now. it was followed by the 'Little Ice Age' from 1500-1900AD and then this manmade catastrophe of Global Warming. Obviously, the Earth has warmed significantly in recorded history, and it cant all be explained by CO2 emissions. Humans DO tend to think that we are the cause of everything unusual. Hundreds of years ago, civilizations would perform ritual sacrifices when a comet or lunar eclipse occurred, because we didn't know what was going on and blamed ourselves. So, given the wild temperature swings that we have seen in the last 20,000 years, how can we be so positive we are to blame for climate change?

@boogathon

Жыл бұрын

@@pattonpending7390 Correctomundo, compadre. I agree with your analysis. The only quibble is with "...it cant all be explained by CO2 emissions." Actually, almost none of the observed global warming corellates with rising CO2.

@jonmcdaniel8492

Жыл бұрын

The ozone hole discovery and the subsequent banning of a refrigerant that had just gone out of patent set the template for manipulating "science" to affect a desired policy.

@tryagain.k1821

Жыл бұрын

@@jonmcdaniel8492 I take it that you have talked to The British Antarctic Survey. And know all the facts.

This is the best overview I’ve seen on the science behind AGW. Bravo, Simon.👏

@Janelleybean23

10 ай бұрын

I’ve recently watched a video by a channel called Astrum which seemed very comprehensive

We are carbon-based life. Controlling carbon is about controlling life. If you look at the temperature record, we've been through this warming process before, and it will soon reverse (geologically soon, centuries in human timescales) back into another ice age, without anthropogenic climate change, so we better keep this going.

@mrunning10

Жыл бұрын

Except for ONE difference numbnuts, only MAN, in the past 450 years, has dug UP, drilled UP, and mined UP mega tons of carbon, which is NOT part of the natural carbon exchange process for billions of years BEFORE man started doing this. Wake UP.

@ahrzhule

Жыл бұрын

​@@mrunning10 😆 🤣

@gyn6131

29 күн бұрын

That's my exact hypothesis lol

@Humdebel

3 күн бұрын

Yes and No. we've been through warming process before? Of course! At this rate? Not that we know of.

roughly 1200-1800s was a mini ice age , occasional hot summers but freezing winters . with the thames freezing over and markets held on the frozen river , we are exiting a mini ice age it can only get warmer , we have been here before many times , only we didnt have phones or sensationalism

Very interesting and informative. Another inconvenient truth is that as global warming became a topic of study, we learned that the climate of earth was much more complicated than had been formerly realized. So many factors other than CO2 were at play. Actual climate study is a relative new science compared to other fields of study. Currently there is an amazing amount of data being produced every year. As we move forward, ideas that have been considered as fact are many times found to not be true. One of the most important truths in science is that the more you learn, the more you realize what you don’t know. Absolutely nothing in science is carved in stone. This an important fact to remember.

@bradmcclure4945

Жыл бұрын

it is far more complicated than most understand it to be anyone who studied chaos theory is familiar with what is called the butterfly effect which is why all computer modeling of climate fail

@ronaldss859

Жыл бұрын

Unfortunately, we haven't been studying the planet for the last 40,000 years. So the best thing to do would be to leave it alone, and let it do its own thing

@bradmcclure4945

Жыл бұрын

@@ronaldss859 we can study the last 40kyears by carbon dating and analyzing the tree rings of petrified wood from a petrified forest

@ronaldss859

Жыл бұрын

@@bradmcclure4945 do you remember mount Saint Helens or Upton and causing devastation in a matter of hours not thousands of years to create caverns much like the Grand Canyon..... so much for tree rings... My point is this go on in living room life do your own thing and the planet will take care of itself until such a time that God the creator is done with it .....

@bradmcclure4945

Жыл бұрын

@@ronaldss859 absolutely lived close enough for ash to fall down around my house

National Geographic in 1975 published an article that I have, are we headed towards an ice age? More people die from cold weather not hot.

@u2mister17

10 ай бұрын

One good volcano and we all freeze.

@torefoss7654

Ай бұрын

The old and stupid statement of winter death rates. Although it is true that the death rate is higher in the winter than in the summer, the reason isn’t due to people freezing to death. It’s due to the diseases like a common cold kills people that are at late stages in cancer or are of old age. And the winter and cold season will not go away by increasing the average temperature by a couple of degrees. As I experience living relatively far north the lack sunlight in the winter leads to more depression amongst a population which also can have an effect on the death rate. But how will we get more sunlight by increasing the temperature by a couple degrees? As the tilt of the earth is the reason for little sunlight in the winter, how will global warming change the tilt?

@phelixtaylor4973

29 күн бұрын

@@torefoss7654 Uh No, the cold weather absolutely kills way more people than the heat does every single year and ur ridiculous assertion that you have discovered that it's not actually from freezing to death that causes so many extra deaths in these northern climates during the winter months, but it's actually mass deaths caused by people getting the case of the sniffles and from being super depressed that there is little less amount of light causing mass suicides according to you. What a JOKE!!!

@RodMartinJr

28 күн бұрын

@@torefoss7654 Global warming won't affect tilt, but it will improve the life coverage of Earth. Calmer weather and more life-giving rain. In fact, during the far warmer Holocene Optimum, the Sahara was green for 3,000 years. 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯

@torefoss7654

28 күн бұрын

@@RodMartinJr How do you know that the weather will become calmer? Science says the opposite. Just Google: climate change and its effect on the weather, etc. Regarding the Sahara dessert. The explanation lies in the changes in the Earth's orbital wobble around the sun, the so-called Milankovitch Cycles. But these are changes over milleniums. (Yes, it is milleniumS in plural.) You can Google Sahara and Milkanowich Cycles too. So I guess the question from me would be: How can the increase in temperature affect the global wobble? And finally, a little fun fact that I almost hesitate to write because non-scientific people might misinterpret it. Plants need less water with more CO2 in the air. The reason is that plants lose water through the same pores in their leaves that they use to take in CO2, and with more of this gas in the air, they can keep the pores closed for a longer period. This phenomenon has been known to science long before global warming was a topic. We do have observed that some border areas around deserts have become greener, but this development has already stagnated because plants still have a minimum water requirement. Don't fall for claims that CO2 is plant food. Remember that for plants to utilize CO2, they also need more nutrients from the soil and more sunlight (photosynthesis), and so on. How do plants get more nutrients if there is more rainfall washing away the soil? How do we get more sunlight when it rains more? After all, it's cloudy when it rains. Earth's balance is more complex than what the simple reasoning here suggests: Nice weather equals warm weather, so warmer weather must equal nicer weather.... or?

The point of a video like this is to make it sound like the science behind CO2 and global warming is simple and obvious. (Which would on the other hand make further climate research unnecessary, which Greta Thunberg has correctly pointed out.) In reality it is not all that simple. The greatest hole in the narrative comes when it is first stated as a fact that CO2 is the gas that keeps planet Earth warm. Then later on it is mentioned that water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. And that is true, because water vapor is by far Earth's most important greenhouse gas.

Compared with the small locales where CO2 is measured, and the tiny masses of gas being analyzed, the Earth's atmosphere is several orders of magnitude greater. SO, it's a fair question to ask - is what is actually measured, precision notwithstanding, actually significant in the larger context. A good argument can be made that such restricted measurements are little more than ' noise '. And so that whole debate was initiated and continues to rage.

@robertcartwright4374

Жыл бұрын

You should make that argument, if it is good, in the scientific literature, where it can advance scientific understanding. I'm guessing you don't because in reality your argument isn't any good.

@stevenpeaketrainsandstuff3682

29 күн бұрын

@crustyoldfart Well, if your name is a reflection of your age, surely you might have noticed changes in the climate. Hotter summers, increased ferocity in storms, 20 year droughts, gentrification of poorer areas as people move inland (I'm talking Florida), and it's only just kicking off. My point is the warnings given 40 years ago, coupled with climate science, are bearing fruit.

1921 was noted for extreme world wide heat waves which have recently been erased from noaa’ s records . glad you gave a shout out for the real weather of 1921 despite noaa’s fictions

@darthmaul216

Жыл бұрын

They have not been erased at all dude.

@BudSchnelker

Жыл бұрын

@@darthmaul216 kzread.info/dash/bejne/d4SNtKiCo5jIoLw.html

yes, more please, especially the recent history from the 1970's and 80's.

What a fine history. I've studied this issue since the '80s as a SciTech journalist. But I learned a lot from this well-researched presentation. I hope you will continue with a second installment.

@mrunning10

Жыл бұрын

And? What to do about it? More importantly what are YOU doing about it?

@ethanshelbyskateboarding9980

11 ай бұрын

Climate change is one hundred percent natural and zero percent man made

@ethanshelbyskateboarding9980

11 ай бұрын

​@@mrunning10nothing BECAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE IS ONE HUNDRED PERCENT NATURAL AND ZERO PERCENT MAN MADE

@tomsmith6045

11 ай бұрын

@@mrunning10 And you?

@ethanshelbyskateboarding9980

10 ай бұрын

Global warming is one hundred percent natural and zero percent man made

Woo for part 2! Wonderful stuff Simon 👏👏

I can’t believe that, until the 60s, no one had bothered to factor-in acid buffering. It’s such an important chemical property in so many industrial and biological processes. Also, if you did the math on ocean acidification sans buffering, the oceans would’ve been a pH of 5 in the 70s and 3 or 4 today, inhospitable to life. And the reverse would be true as well, lower CO2 in ice ages sans buffering would have resulted in inhospitably alkaline oceans. If they gave it even a shred of thought….

@gwalkeriq

Жыл бұрын

With no CO2 in the atmosphere, ocean PH would be around 10 or 11 IIRC. Don't think we would care much since we would all be dead. The acid effect as well as the buffering in the ocean is vital for life, and not surprisingly in our blood too.

@vineleak7676

Жыл бұрын

Nonsense... It would have been absorbed by photosynthesis and the calcium carbonate cycle...

I'd love to hear the story of those lost decades!

I’m confused about the rate of warming being doubled twice before 2060. With everything that’s been done since 1970 to have cleaner burning and more fuel efficient combustion engines, more energy efficient appliances, and more efficient buildings/homes, how can it be getting worse? Also, why would we try to go further if, for example, china and India don’t seem to care?

The hockey puck graph was changed drastically from the previous graph which was manifestly unremarkable. One wonders if the scientist who created it thought the ICCP actually wanted facts rather than a study to prove their "hypothesis". The hockey puck graph was actually unremarkable as well, until it was magnified so the vertical marks represented tenths of degrees rather than degrees.

@ijustwannaleaveacommentony6511

Жыл бұрын

and he lost a million dollars in court because he could not produce the data.

@johnadcock6852

Жыл бұрын

Also, it has been proven that Mann's analysis leads to a "hockey stick" graph regardless of the data set. Even random numbers.

@mrunning10

Жыл бұрын

@@ijustwannaleaveacommentony6511 WTF are you talking about? What court? What caser? What "data?" just provide a link or reference if you can.

@ijustwannaleaveacommentony6511

Жыл бұрын

@@mrunning10 why the aggression? it's true, you can check it. i've tried to leave details on this comment section and been shadow banned. look up tim ball michael mann

@ijustwannaleaveacommentony6511

Жыл бұрын

michael mann hockey stick fraud. i don't even know if you will see these comments

Poor Fourier. If only he knew how widely his methods are applied.

There;s a TV show called "Extrapolations" set from 2036 to 2070 done as a drama about the expected effects of Climate Change. Really worth a watch.

@mrunning10

Жыл бұрын

Leslie Uggams! I thought she was dead!

2 times in the video it’s mentioned that scientists stated that we might be preventing the next ice age and that’s a good thing this is a relevant point that isn’t discussed enough

@edwardpackard5557

9 ай бұрын

We cannot prevent the next ice age. Geologically, we are still in one. To prevent it happening again, we would have to do several things. Correct the axial tilt. Alter all the orbits of ALL the planets AND THE SUN!!! I may be wrong about our ability to achieve this, but I suspect even America may find this difficult.

@markrainford1219

5 ай бұрын

@tijmen-vm9lq Not being funny, but the temperature can fluctuate by twenty degrees centigrade in twenty four hours in the UK. You can't expect people to get excited about a poxy one degree in a hundred years...maybe.

Excellent! Bored, I searched most viewed long “history” videos for this month and found yours near the top. We are truly in a golden age of video options, thanks to services like KZread and creators like you. Subscribed!

@T61APL89

3 ай бұрын

Why do you talk like a robot

I like how everyone in KZread comments is an expert

@referencefool6525

Жыл бұрын

Pdf: 📑⛰🍙 Mines, Minerals , and "Green" Energy: A Reality Check 💸🎇♨ 🏴‍☠

@robertcartwright4374

Жыл бұрын

I like this etymology of "expert": it's formed from two words, "ex", meaning former, and "spurt", a drip under pressure.

Every time I fart the temperature of my underwear rises significantly.... sometimes it is very moist

Fact: we are still in a ice age!

I look forward to your explanation of the warn period in the Neolithic and early Bronze Age, the subsequent decline in temperature and increase in precipitation in the later Bronze Age, The Roman Warm period, the subsequent cooling, the medieval warm period and the cooling into the little Ice age and then the increase in temperature which brought us out of it?

@lenlooksback7981

Жыл бұрын

You won't get any of that, naturally! That's the ACTUAL inconvenient truth, which this guy wouldn't touch with the proverbial ten foot pole.

@stephenmaniloff8493

Жыл бұрын

Global Temperatures were warmer during The Medieval Warming Period….This is quite clear based on Irrefutable Proxy Evidence.

@alessiob8700

Жыл бұрын

I'm a simpler man than you are, I look forward to an explanation of why the forecast say it's partly cloudy when it's been raining for almost sn hour already. I'd also like an explanation of why I should trust the predictions about climate when they clearly don't have the means to predict weather yet.

@nosferatut9084

Жыл бұрын

@@lenlooksback7981 That's what I keep telling everyone especially Al Boor's infamous "hockey stick" graph which "conveniently" left out the Medieval Warm Period which was warmer than now MINUS massive urbanisation no coal or gas fired power stations no cars no millions of international flights .

@nosferatut9084

Жыл бұрын

He never will because that's the REAL inconvenient truth.This presentation is affirm the climate bed wetters , bed wetting .

I really do like Bobby Broccoli's style and content! Fun to see this sort of crossover. :)

@herrk.2339

Жыл бұрын

Yesss! My thoughts exactly

Fourier ‘s equilibrium temperature doesn’t seem to take into account the fact that the planetary body could actually be generating heat

@old-pete

Ай бұрын

Then we would warm from below, which we do not.

Excellent summary of climate change. Would love to see the sequel!

@mrunning10

Жыл бұрын

Have YOU stopped voting for any politician funded into elected office by the fossil fuel lobby or the fucking Koch Brothers?

Yes, I want part 2! 😍 This was so informative and entertaining, mixed in with the few snide remarks here and there. 🧐 Also, Simon, idk what to say, but your voice is so soothing that I almost fell asleep, take it as a compliment or a complaint. 😁

Absolutely, Simon! Please tell us about the '70s, '80s, and '90s.

Your video came up as a youtube suggestion, it's well done and I'll be looking through your posted videos to watch more.

So if I have the conclusion correct, the temperature from 1960 to 1980’s has risen globally by 0.2 degrees C which was within the normal variability of the climate data then. Then you draw a line to predict the future from there?. Is it standard scientific practice to draw a conclusion from results that are within normal variability parameters?. I would question this conclusion. The fact that the amount of CO2 continues to rise after this is a significant finding, but has this now been proven to be related to hydrocarbons, as this video suggests, but looks like a correlation and not actually proven. Can someone point me to the data from 1980 to date so I can prove to myself that global warming is actually happening and it is not just a part of a bigger climate cycle that is occurring naturally ( eg related to the earths wobble that happens over thousands of years ) to base your whole climate change calculations which are complex and must include amount of radiation from the sun I would postulate must be included. This wobble has a massive impact on the amount of heat received from the sun , and 100 years of data considering the timescale humans have been on the planet is way to small of a timescale to draw any conclusions without a huge amount of data of a lager timescale. For that reason I am not yet convinced, but I am willing to be if good data is available 😊

@waynek805

23 күн бұрын

The ' good data' that you are requesting is not possible to be generated because, as you rightly pointed out, there are too many variables such as variations in sunlight intensity and the earth's wobble that must be accounted for. I have seen it argued that the correlation between increased temperature and atmospheric CO2 is actually a result of: as the earth warms, the amount of CO2 that the oceans can absorb decreases. So it is increased temp causing increased atmospheric CO2, not the other way around.

@stevet2968

23 күн бұрын

@@waynek805 cheers Wayne👍👍

This is your best video yet - and that's saying a lot! I hope someday in the near future kids in schools all over the world will watch this or hear a rendition of it by their teachers and/or classmates. Looking forward to part 2 about the 60s, 70s, and 80s :)

@HappyGingerWolf

Жыл бұрын

You've gotta check out BobbyBroccoli if you haven't already, he does videos in this style about the history of science

@engineeringvision9507

Жыл бұрын

@@HappyGingerWolf Bit boring really

@Mordalo

Жыл бұрын

Now if it were only accurate.

@KitagumaIgen

Жыл бұрын

@@Mordalo Which are the 2 major inaccuracies in this video?

@baneverything5580

Жыл бұрын

@@KitagumaIgen Elimination of CO2 is a suicide pact - Professor William Happer on climate change misconceptions

Brilliant! Sadly, nobody is really talking or educating humanity for future survival in rapidly changing conditions of shrinking living habitats. It’s about time it seems.

Before commenting, please watch the entire video. I’m seeing a lot of ignorant comments due to people watching only the first part of the video or none of it at all.

While not made with the same precision as Keeling's measurements from 1957, CO2 had been determined at about 280 ppm 100 years earlier, and measured many times as gradually increasing through the years since.

Hands down your best video. Please, release part 2, this topic is fascinating

@DSAK55

4 ай бұрын

Part 2: Ronnie Raygun was elected and the possibility of addressing Global Warming died

Yes please. I REALLY want to hear chapter 2. Well done Simon.

The editing, visualizations, and music remind me of Secret Base & their Chart Party/Dorktown videos.

@mrunning10

Жыл бұрын

Try this instead: Essentials of Atmospheric and Oceanic Dynamics, by Geoffrey K. Vallis

The original video picture showed flames shooting out of the earth. Love it!

27:34 'let me know if you'd like to hear it.' yes, please feel encouraged to talk about it and make that video too. first time I learned about Ms Foote and greatly enjoyed this clip.

We definitely need part 2, although I think I already know a lot of what happened...

@boogathon

Жыл бұрын

Let me predict Part 2: "OMG, Globaloney is gonna get us all! Run for your lives!!"

I liked your presentation. It would be good if you could do a video explaining the physics of how heat builds up in the atmosphere as a consequence of CO2

@old-pete

5 ай бұрын

It is rather simple. CO2 and other greenhouse gases reflect thermic radiation back to earth and reduce the thermic radiation to space.

More importantly. Did Al Gore ever find Manbearpig?

@Humdebel

3 күн бұрын

Yes he do, with nefarious consecuences! Underrated comment!

Great work! I've read a fair bit in this field and I still learned a thing or two. Very well put together. Would love to see a part 2.

@msimon6808

Жыл бұрын

Water vapor is a GHG as effective as CO2 according to GHG Theory. There is 50 times as much water vapor in the atmosphere as CO2.

@byrongsmith

Жыл бұрын

@@msimon6808 But it precipitates out relatively quickly, meaning that any shift in water vapour concentration is very short-lived. Thus, it responds to and amplifies the warming effect of longer-lived GHGs (like CO2 and CH4), without itself being a forcing. This has all been extensively studied and is well-integrated into the mainstream understanding of atmospheric physics.

@msimon6808

Жыл бұрын

@@byrongsmith Yes of course. Going from 50 times as much to only 45 times as much is going to make a HUGE difference? What about when it goes from 50 to 55 times as much? Besides the Earth handles the variations the same way mathematicians do. Integration. Unsteadiness is no longer the difficult mathematics problem it was 600 years ago. Mathematicians can now do it almost as well as the earth can. It is difficult to cover up an order of magnitude or two with hand waving.

@msimon6808

Жыл бұрын

@@byrongsmith Uh. No. If a joule of heat evaporates x amount of water vapor, it does not matter if the heat came from water vapor or CO2. I keep seeing the hand waving you propose being presented. It is an obfuscation. It does not negate elementary physics. If heat from CO2 causes water vapor to increase so does heat from water vapor. Mathematically it is solved by integration. Which is effectively what the Earth does with all the little bits.

@msimon6808

Жыл бұрын

@@byrongsmith The theory needs this hand waving or it breaks. " If heat from CO2 causes water vapor to increase so does heat from water vapor. " - the theory is broken.

"Dessicating"-- that's the best word for anything that still stands.

Did industrialisation bring any positives like a longer life span, better health, clean drinking water? If it did, will focusing on eliminating carbon dioxide cause de-industrialisation and a reduction in its benefits. Shouldn't we be rather concentrating on balancing the pros and the cons of fossil fuels? I don't believe that renewables are a panacea. I don't believe net-zero is achievable without doing economic harm. I do believe a that a reduction in use and responsible use of fossil fuels is a better plan. We need to get away from the political idea of either/or.

Wonderful presentation of selected historical events of climate information that are claimed but not proved to be caused by humans.

@Firefighter_Matt

9 ай бұрын

Confirmation bias science is the only science. Isnt that the rule? 😂

@distantraveller9876

9 ай бұрын

Did you even bother watching the whole thing because it literally doesn't say that.

@Firefighter_Matt

9 ай бұрын

@@distantraveller9876 Technically it doesnt half to 'say that'. If you only present selected pieces of science in your statement, video, presentation or whatever one is doing that's what it is. Why weren't any of these numbers in video link in this video? They were conveinantly left out of this video were commenting on. kzread.info/dash/bejne/pqiCyZN_Z7eWiZM.htmlfeature=shared