I have heard the phrase "carbon dating" for YEARS and never once made it into a pun. I feel ashamed and bow at the snarky genius of Sabine.

@sUmEgIaMbRuS

3 ай бұрын

There's a radio ad in GTA San Andreas that's based on this pun, so the idea is definitely not new.

@gmcjetpilot

3 ай бұрын

What is the IDEAL TEMP? What is IDEAL CO2 level? What is biggest green house gas? WATER VAPOR by many factors greater than CO2.

@gmcjetpilot

3 ай бұрын

All of CO2 only 2% is man made. About 0.04% of atmosphere CO2 and the man made. CO2 is 0.0000008% of atmosphere. CO2 LEVELS HAVE BEEN HIGHER IN PAST AMD IT WAS COLDER, BEFORE HISTOR OR MAN... SO WHAT...

@gmcjetpilot

3 ай бұрын

Hoax because of the POLITICAL POLICIES and obfuscation, outright LIES. Yes CLIMATE is changing, always has always will. HOW MUCH IS DUE TO MAN? ??? 1% 2%. GIVE ME A NUMBER!!! HONEST SCIENTIST SAY WE DO NOT KNOW, NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION.

@gmcjetpilot

3 ай бұрын

If no fossil fuels useful by man today. EXPERTS WITH MOR PHD's THAN YOU say yemps might drop 1 degree? Yawn. What is the IDEAL temp? WHY DO YOU NOT MENTION SOLAR ACTIVITY, PLANETARY ORBIT VARIATIONS THAT REALLY CHANGE TEMP??

PLEASE do more content like this--how did we learn X, how did we come to discover X, how did we figure out X. It is so good and it is a type of content I've been looking for for years

@michaelmr101

3 ай бұрын

or maybe you should go to school

@donpedro00769

3 ай бұрын

​@@michaelmr101except they don't teach you that stuff. They only tell you definitions, give you formulas etc, but rarely will they give more details. Let's be real, it would take too long or to advanced for the students to learn at pre college level

@csgowoes6319

3 ай бұрын

Agree, it's actually hard to find condensed explanations like this that you could convey to someone else easily. Same with the flat earth thing, I don't actually bother debating those people, but it's actually surprisingly hard to cut through the crap they believe with some simple facts when you haven't got them at your fingertips.

@limatngho9428

3 ай бұрын

solve for X

@cloudpoint0

3 ай бұрын

What's causing global warming? Explained in less than two minutes. kzread.info/dash/bejne/pX94ublyh8-2g8Y.html&ab_channel=CarbonBrief

I have doubts about how accurately we can measure temperature and 'extreme weather events' from 500, 1000, 5000 years ago. Even if we are one or two degrees off, it changes everything by an order of magnitude. I'm sure we can get a 'reasonable' idea but we've only been measuring weather quite recently. Also, many have criticized how many temperatures are taken in cities instead of the countryside - where cities are usually a degree or two warmer due to concrete, etc. I'm not saying cliimate change isn't real or isn't caused by humans, but I really question how accurate we can get with this.

Saw a large rise in average temperatures during the later years of WWII. With the massive influx of industrial production, tens of thousands of aircraft, countless fields of crops/town/cities burning.. vehicles gobbling up petrol. Etc etc Didn't go back down until after the war and not until the 60/70s did it reach similar levels again. To me that was all the proof I needed.

@shanecollie5177

12 күн бұрын

The global temperature rose from the early 1900's until the mid fourties, from where it fell for the next thirty years,when co2 levels were rising, the opposite of what you just claimed

@shanecollie5177

11 күн бұрын

@@cortical1 Seek out noaa unadjusted data,you'll find that you are wrong.

@literacypolice

11 күн бұрын

@@shanecollie5177 State your position clearly, instead of claiming alternative data. Do you believe that the global average temperature has been increasing? And do you believe that this relates to human activity? Just answer yes or no for each of the two questions. We'll go from there. If you cannot have a grownup conversation and show you're incapable of answering two simple yes or no questions, you will be disqualified as a puerile kook. Answer them now.

@shanecollie5177

11 күн бұрын

@@cortical1 Noaa data will show that you are wrong about your assertion as to when global temperatures rose and fell during the 20th centuary. Data does not care about your opinions. I have directed you to the source of the data but you choose to believe something different.

@cortical1

11 күн бұрын

@@shanecollie5177 I actually collect data for NOAA, Einstein, at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. There is nothing you could possibly teach me about NOAA data. 👌🏻

My uncle doesn’t think the warming bit is a hoax but he thinks the ‘crisis’ bit is a scam, synthesised to advance geopolitical power, to control the serfs, through unwarranted fear, and to justify and rationalise uncontrolled, ever increasing debt. He says more and more people are coming to see it like that.

@denysvlasenko1865

3 ай бұрын

No crisis should go to waste. Covid was fantastic, but "sadly" it's over, and politicos need a new scarecrow to explain why taxes should rise a bit more, and serfs have a bit less freedom. You will eat ze bugz.

@darkwinter6028

3 ай бұрын

You might ask him what part of unprecedented wildfires, drought, and heatwaves strong enough to cause fatalities isn’t a crisis? And if he says “Well, I don’t see it” you might suggest that he stick his head out of his little bubble once in a while and take notice of what’s happening in other parts of the world.

@ThatOpalGuy

3 ай бұрын

Your uncle maybe needs a higher level of education? Conspiracy theories often sound plausible, but reality ensures that most simply aren't sustainable.

@ThatOpalGuy

3 ай бұрын

​@darkwinter6028 while it is certainly possible for this kind of conspiracy to be implemented, there is just NO way to keep the number of people needing to be involved from "spilling the beans".

@petesmith6434

3 ай бұрын

Exactly!

I too have the experience that it's not always easy to find satisfying answers to my questions on the internet. When it is about climate it is extra tricky because it is hard to tell opinions apart from facts.

@fredneecher1746

3 ай бұрын

It's hard to tell if alleged facts actually stand up to scrutiny. Anyone can show a graph, but how do we know its source evidence is accurate? What parameters are there to show its significance. Does a decline of 0.06 in the pH scale (at Hawaii, not elsewhere) mean anything? What factors are missing? Contrary to the impression given by KZread clips, science is complicated, and hard.

@RMRobin7373msn

3 ай бұрын

@@fredneecher1746 Good on you. Do not listen to the "I know more about climate change than you do. It's too complicated for your pea brain." Do your own research and if you can, read the reports and thesis yourself. I have read 28 of them and seen quite a few errors in them. Almost all ignore the #1 gas that effects global warming - water vapor. The oldest one I read says that the earth will fail because of all the coal being used and that if nothing is done within 20 years, it will be too late. Punch line? It was written several years before the Titanic sunk. Yeah, that Titanic.

@christopheryellman533

3 ай бұрын

You should become familiar with Steve Koonin.

@christopheryellman533

3 ай бұрын

I agree Frederick. Sabine approaches this as a case to make, rather than a question to answer. I would rather listen to a good scientist who thinks it through critically.@@fredneecher1746

@RMRobin7373msn

3 ай бұрын

@@christopheryellman533 Steve Koonin - "Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters"? Got it in my library.

I'm just a trade worker, not a scientist and I gave up studying the sciences when I ran into some personal life difficulties that forced me out of college some years ago but your informative and fun videos have made me fall in love with science again. Even though it pains me greatly that I'll likely never be a scientist myself or contribute anything to research I can still enjoy catching up on the progress made by others.

@dpsamu2000

Ай бұрын

I was a machinist. During my career I invented a modification of the Boeing 777 that made it the safest airliner in history. 1800 flying. No mass fatality accidents in 30 years. An acrylic submarine nose I made is in the opening credits of Star Trek Enterprise. The Atlantis resort is made of many acrylic aquarium panels, and tubes I made. I made the heart of the Large Hadron Collider. Made it 10 times better than expected, and was thanked personally by the engineers. I was told because of my work it effectively increased the power 10 times. Instead of expecting up to 100 years to find the first evidence for the Higgs boson it was expected to take as little as 10 years. It took 8. In my free time I solved dark matter. It's ordinary matter. I solved global warming. It's not caused by fossil fuel. invented a widely popular 3d stereograph pinup collection. I invented a flying car system in conjunction with a city architectural technology never seen before. Buildings, and cars float in an oxygen, and Sulphur hexafluoride gas mix in a domed city. I designed a electric catapult space launcher that's much more practical, and economical to build, and operate than any other design, and I solved the landing problem of SpaceX. Increase roll authority to minimize roll. Eliminated nearly all crashing, reduced fuel required, and increased payload by several hundred pounds. You can still contribute. There's a lot of low hanging fruit of problems to be solved, and inventions needed to solve them.

@SnackPatrol

Ай бұрын

@@dpsamu2000 Agreed. I'm currently working on a way to teach accomplished machinists humility online

@dpsamu2000

Ай бұрын

@@SnackPatrol How's that workin' out for you? Loser.

@MuffinologyTrainer

Ай бұрын

​@@dpsamu2000 Laughing my bolls off. Well executed.

@dpsamu2000

Ай бұрын

@@MuffinologyTrainer Too bad nobody else gets to see it. Some loser deleted it as usual.

Please debate a scientist that disagrees with you. We need more debates for clarity.

@mikereed100

3 ай бұрын

But, where do you find a reputable climatologist who does not endorse anthropogenic climate change?

@drunkenhobo5039

3 ай бұрын

@@mikereed100 People who have worked for the BBC said they had that exact same problem. The BBC have this ridiculous notion of "balance" where they give both sides equal credence - even if one is overwhelmingly more accepted than the others. They could find 50 scientists in 5 minutes who would be willing to come on and explain anthropogenic climate change - but would take days to find a single one who would say it's natural.

@kennetharob

2 ай бұрын

@@mikereed100 NIPCC. whether you think they are reputable or not is irrelevant. What we need is anybody who argues against statistics, theories, motivations, etc. needs to be debated out before we just blindly believe this.

@bjornna7767

24 күн бұрын

@@kennetharob Absolutely

@lahder1682

23 күн бұрын

Ceres science, climateviewer, oh there's countless around actually, problem is they're shuffled to the bottom of an algorithm, and the colleges and the scientific publishers love hot button money making issues. So... they can come up and say their piece, but are rapidly shoved beneath the surface by the hungry grant biters.

I set this task to a group of my Level 3 BTEC Applied Science students, because I know that it is not as simple a question as the public believe. I reckon over 99% of people who vehemently believe in anthropogenic climate change, have absolutely no idea at all what the evidence is, they just know that all the experts are agreed. Not one single student came up with the evidence, even when later prompted as to what I was looking for. Rather they just came back with rising CO2 levels coinciding with increased industrial activity, and similar information to your initial searches.

@chingron

3 ай бұрын

Except… all the “experts” absolutely do not agree.

@robguyatt9602

3 ай бұрын

@@chingron Just the ones who aren't paid off by big carbon.

@johngeier8692

3 ай бұрын

You would have to conduct controlled prospective experiments on whole close Earth analog planets with large surface oceans to accurately determine the climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. The effects are highly dependent upon the initial conditions. If the initial mean surface temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration are suboptimal for plant growth, then raising them is actually beneficial.

@robguyatt9602

3 ай бұрын

@@johngeier8692 for plants yes but what about the unwanted consequences? I find it extremely ignorant for people to say in isolation that increasing CO2 is good for plants. They think they have a gotcha when they are only harping on one side of the story.

@josephnolan8217

3 ай бұрын

Except global warming is not relevant for overall trends toward cooling historically, which is a bigger threat than any warming ever would be. A single super volcano which we are overdue for would plunge us into global winter or a single large enough asteroid. We are concerned about the wrong things. A carbon tax is a ponzi scheme for rich elites and would od nothing but green washing. Electric vehicles do nothing to help green energy because of refusal to use nuclear energy, which is safe, reliable, and ultimate future of energy, but stopped by interest groups and environmental nut jobs.

It’s not a hoax but is it really an existential threat to humanity? No.

@peixeserra9116

3 ай бұрын

If we wait long enough and take zero precautions (which we aren't), it'll certainly be. Like it's starting to That is, if you somehow think preventable deaths from disasters, extreme weather, resurfacing diseases and population displacements to not be emergencies that can lead up to Anarchy.

@olbluelips

3 ай бұрын

I that’s a ridiculous bar. It’s not gonna kill us all but it’s making millions of lives worse and killing enough already. Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and Floridians (to name a few) are going to have a hell of time in the coming decades, because flooding is going to continue to get worse, and so much will be destroyed. In western Canada, we used to only have to worry about dangerously smoky conditions a few days a year at most. Now it can be WEEKS. It’s not acutely life-threatening, but breathing ASH is absolutely horrible for your cardiovascular system

@mikebryant614

2 ай бұрын

That's the heart of the issue, is it actually an " existential level" event or happening? Absolutely not , and anyone who says it is , is lying to you. As an aside, our collective Govts have failed horribly at combating hunger, homelessness, and drug abuse, problems FAR simpler than changing a planets climate - what exact part of that fact would lead anyone to believe they can successfully do that? I can not think of a single Govt program that has been so wildly successful that I'd even begin to entertain they can "alter the planets climate".

When I saw the headline, I was sure the comments would have been turned off.

@definitlynotbenlente7671

3 ай бұрын

Then how are you making this coment

@bjornna7767

2 ай бұрын

@@definitlynotbenlente7671 Do you understand English? English is my 2nd language and I completely understood what Mike wanted to say. And, do you live in our world or under a stone? It's a common habit to turn off comments when it comes to topics that only allow for "one correct" opinion. And this topic is such one.

@definitlynotbenlente7671

2 ай бұрын

@@bjornna7767 she almost never disables the coments on there video and mabey hard for you to understand but not every thing you dislike is propaganda to controll you

@perrypresley9630

2 ай бұрын

Check out my comment. I debunked her nonsense with facts!

@mikeruhland6928

2 ай бұрын

@@bjornna7767 I think you understand science as well as English.

Thank you for the video. I heard a lot of interesting correlations, but I didn't hear anything approaching causal evidence (as was suggested at the beginning of the video). Just for the record, I do believe that human activity is playing a role in climate change, but I'm guessing my estimate of the extent of that role is significantly below Sabine's.

@swiftlytiltingplanet8481

3 ай бұрын

Considering that the sun's output has weakened over the past 40 years (NASA) and all three Milankovitch Cycles are in COOLING phases, and that we can trace the CO2 added since the Industrial Revolution to combusted fossil fuels, what other major forcing agents exists to warm the planet?

@juliamihasastrology4427

Ай бұрын

YUP

@rayzsome8852

20 күн бұрын

The entire video explains why it was doubtlessly us who released the additional CO2 that is warming the atmosphere. The warming is not created by additional solar activity of the sun. The additional carbondioxide was created by burning fossil fuels that once were plants. So this is not a question of opinion or belief. I recommend to watch it again.

@mattclark6482

20 күн бұрын

​@rayzsome8852 You are making the assumption that the warming observed is 100% caused by additional CO2 released by humans and there are no other factors that contribute to that equation outside the domain of humans.

@swiftlytiltingplanet8481

20 күн бұрын

@@mattclark6482 The sun has weakened over the past four decades, according to NASA, and the Milankovitch Cycles that drove warming in earth's past are in COOLING phases now. Global temperature has risen exactly as our CO2 emissions have since the Industrial Revolution, which is just one of several lines of evidence scientists cite to connect to an anthropogenic cause. The consensus that today's warming is anthropogenic and not natural, is now 99.9%, according to the latest survey of the scientific literature by Cornell University. Even Exxon's own scientists in leaked memos have acknowledged that combusted fossil fuels are warming the planet to a damaging degree.

"[carbon 14] is really good for dating organic stuff, tho I'd recommend you leave it at home for the first dinner" that's hilarious 😂

@andreaskampmiller7756

3 ай бұрын

two (or even three) jokes in one, that's genius! :D

@hime273

3 ай бұрын

It's not even remotely funny.

@paintingholidayitaly

3 ай бұрын

​@@hime273they are bots trying to legitimise the agenda😂

You missed the most important bit - how sitting in front of traffic or throwing soup at artworks will cause a decrease in CO2 instead of just more green-washing.

@SabineHossenfelder

3 ай бұрын

Ah, I will be making a joke about this on Saturday, don't want to repeat myself...

@ChielScape

3 ай бұрын

@@SabineHossenfelder Planning jokes ahead of time, how delightfully German of you 😂♥

@gzoechi

3 ай бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/lJ-mxdqFl6vUXdo.htmlsi=cPW30FacDJPVFg23

@deathragh1

3 ай бұрын

Lol they calculate the impact of their protests based on statistics, it's not as simple as you make it out to be, maybe do some research into them before assuming you know why they are doing it

@MaakaSakuranbo

3 ай бұрын

Pretty simple really. Car drivers "ah dam,n they're blocking the roads, guess I wont drive today" co2 decrease achieved

Wow, as an ex-scientist I loved how simply you explained this. I am not too hopeful in an environment where opinion carries as much weight as knowledge, unfortunately.

@tuberroot1112

10 күн бұрын

Well it may convince a layman but it does not even amount to high school science. She says that ocean pH is changing and somehow this rules out that changes in solar activity are causing "global warming". FFS she is supposed to be a scientist. She comes here are makes an idiot of herself because she is way outside her field and is totally uncritical. I guess she believed all the BS AI Chatbots tell her instead of checking whether it even makes sense. Sadly she fools folks like you who give undue deference to her qualifications in particle physics or whatever she used to do.

Sabina. Just when I started to make some sense of all this, I read chapter 3 of "Fake Invisible Catastrophes..." by Patrick Moore and threw up my hands, in practice for when the world comes to an end. What do you make of his interpretation of the longer trends in CO2 and temperature. Im waiting with bated breath. Regards, George

@Richard482

2 ай бұрын

She may not have read it, so maybe explain his interpretations?

Fantastic synopsis. Extra credit for not making it 20 minutes longer than needed or ranting and postulating. Much appreciated.

I don´t get a couple of things and hope you can clarify: 1. If we burn fossil fuels which shifts the C12/C13 ratio. Doesn´t that mean that we are restoring the ratio how it was in the past? 2. All graphs were from after the industrial revolution kickt off. Do you know where i can get pre "industrial revolution" graphs for CO2 levels in the athmosphere? 3. How many % of climate change can be attributed to human activity (Controlling the data for other variables like sun activity, measuring in urban vs rural areas ect)

@KateeAngel

3 ай бұрын

What do you mean ratio as it was in the past? Which exactly moment in the past? It was changing many times over geologic history? Also, how would that make anything better?

@kayakMike1000

3 ай бұрын

​@@KateeAngelhow are things worse? There's no real trend in extreme weather events, except for people not maintaining their damns and building more stuff in flood planes.

@Harry351ify

3 ай бұрын

Yes, we're digging up carbon that was once in the atmosphere. However, the change in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is unnaturally fast for the living to adapt to the changes. Also, 99% of the species that lived in the world is now extinct. So do you want us humans to go extinct too because it's natural? Or do we do our best to maintain Earth so that we can live longer in a better environment?

@maxanimator9547

3 ай бұрын

The timespan over which bio-organisms turn into now usable fossil fuel is much greater than the equivalent rate at which we are burning those. So yes, we are pumping CO2 back into the atmosphere, as in we are restoring the ratio ; except that we are much overdoing this, which actually imbalances said ratio the other way around. Basically, we are burning more fossil fuel than is able to naturally generate.

@Pastamistic

3 ай бұрын

#3 is over 100% of warming is attributed to us releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere. If CO2 levels stayed at the 280ppm before the industrial revolution we would currently be in a period of cooling rather than warming.

Finally, after 10 years, someone explained an anthropomorphic global warming effect vector to me. I have been lambasted, spat upon, vilified, mocked, harassed, etc. but never got a real answer until now. Thanks, Sabine.

Hi Sabine, is there a saturation effect in the absorption yield from CO2 and how significant is it? Because at some point a significant portion of the radiation energy around those absorption bands must be allready transferred. Is there a certain ppm limit where the warming effect stops?

@paoloesquivel7430

3 ай бұрын

No, just diminishing returns. We take into account the diminishing returns when estimating the warming from additional CO2.

It's a controversy because the truth costs rich people money. Look for "controversies" on whether smoking causes lung cancer or cheeseburgers cause heart disease.

@Jacob-yb6bv

3 ай бұрын

To not have come across the wealth of evidence that cholesterol doesn’t cause heart disease is a controversy in itself.

@henryyoung3897

8 күн бұрын

Plastic in the Sees,suige, chemicals, All costs money for the rich at the W,E,F.

This is perfect. I've had that exact problem you described at the start of the video- finding the actual scientific evidence rather than just someone saying it's true.

@jamesmcginn6291

3 ай бұрын

She just said it was true. She knows better and is lying.

@tonybs03

3 ай бұрын

​@@jamesmcginn6291 prove to us why we should believe u instead

@lellyparker

3 ай бұрын

@@jamesmcginn6291 She did not just say it was true, she explained in some detail how we know it is true.

@ruschein

3 ай бұрын

@@jamesmcginn6291 If you're so sure that she is lying I'm certain you can easily point out which point or points that she mentioned are incorrect and I am sure you can also point us to the relevant scientific literature that supports your claims!

@indenial3340

3 ай бұрын

She's literally telling what has been said and asserting it as fact.

All the charts in the World wont get through to those committed to denial, it is best just to carry on as if their opinion on the subject doesn't matter any more because it doesn't.

@williamwilliam5066

2 күн бұрын

I heartily agree. Denial of science and climate change religion will sadly never be totally eradicated :(

Please show proof of "more extreme weather events"

@rps1689

3 ай бұрын

Well there are well over 400 published peer-reviewed studies looking at weather extremes around the world showing mounting evidence that human activity is raising the risk of some types of extreme weather, especially those linked to heat. Easy to access nowadays considering it is easier to get around paywalls to check out what top leading working scientists publish. Droughts, floods, and hurricanes are occurring at higher strengths due to climate change, and evidence points to climate change contributing to the frequency and magnitude of tornado behaviour.

@holgernarrog

22 күн бұрын

That`s a purely religious statement. Usually wind is the result of temperature differences. If the climate gets warmer the poles heat up more than the equator. The temperature differences get smaller. Thus a global warming should reduce the extreme weather events.

@WAUZZZ81ZDA

21 күн бұрын

​@@holgernarrog "If the climate gets warmer the poles heat up more than the equator. " Why?

@holgernarrog

20 күн бұрын

@@WAUZZZ81ZDA There are 2 effects that make the poles heat up more than the equator in case of a warming (positive**). It is the Stefan Boltzmann law. The back radiation increses with the 4th exponent of the surface temperature. It is a very strong effect! This law is not disputed. Second it is the water evaporation. It increases strongly with the temperature*. *The water evaporation is not understood well yet. There are in the best case empirical formulas that apply for some water bodies. It depends on water temperature, air temperature, solar radiation, wind and waves. It is one of the reason why it a climate modelling would be extremly challenging. Or the climate models provide any result you wish. **In warm ages the earth surface suitable for civilization increases.

@matthewokeefe2286

20 күн бұрын

@@holgernarrog are you replying to me? If so I'm not sure how asking for evidence is a religious statement. Please explain.

But my uncle sits at home on his couch sometimes and feels things. Are you sure we're not tunnel visioning on evidence and physics at the danger of disregarding the emotional outbursts of my uncle?

@davidg4288

3 ай бұрын

My uncles did their own "research" which involved: - Ignoring PhD's and other degreed persons as they were "brainwashed by the system". - Only accepting results that agreed with their preconceived ideas.

@ruschein

3 ай бұрын

You address a real problem and I think it's a difficult one. I think it's human nature not to want to hear that we are causing a catastrophic problem and that we need to change our behavior. Also it unfortunately doesn't hurt that it makes people feel superior when they think they have the truth and the experts are all just lying to them. Honestly, I don't know how to get through to people like your uncle.

@Techmagus76

3 ай бұрын

In that case just ask his wife, if she could do you a favor and talk to your uncle on any second day how these emotional outbursts hurt her feelings. She should mention that the stress is such high that she can't do the chores until she calms down and that include 2 hours of intensive talk about her feeling. It is just a shoot in the dark, but i guess it takes less then 14 days before the emotional outbreaks of your uncle disappear like magic.With good connection to the church they might even accept it as a wonder.

@tanakaren1822

3 ай бұрын

It's termed Bias Dismissal

@kilohsakul

3 ай бұрын

I like Sabine, but this sounds precisely as what she did in her research :). @@davidg4288

This point about the carbon isotope ratios was completely new to me - great information! I did not expect to really learn something new from the video but yet again I did.

@chrimony

3 ай бұрын

There's always more things to learn! Like sea levels rose 400 feet over the last 20,000 years.

@ADUAquascaping

3 ай бұрын

I commented on it in the previous video. We verify the ratio in the atmosphere using tree rings

@zoeherriot

3 ай бұрын

I've been telling people this for a while (since it's not a well known fact) - and it's such a damning piece of evidence.

@josephnolan8217

3 ай бұрын

Anyone realize global cooling is more a threat than warming? An ice age is easier and more likely than a runaway greenhouse effect. Historically, ice ages and global winters were more devastating than warming periods for life on earth aside from few notable exceptions. Cold is the enemy not warmth.

@guerreiro943

3 ай бұрын

For me the thing about Stratospheric cooling was new to me

Next, I would like to see a video that looks at how and why and when the narrative changed over time. When I was young, we were all being warned of a coming ice age. Why was that? If if the scientists were wrong about that, why were they wrong, and how did they happen to incorrectly reach that consensus?

@peterlustig8778

Ай бұрын

I remember this 30 years ago: The coming ice age then they switched to heating. As if they need a global catastroph to push through the world government..

@clray123

20 күн бұрын

@@peterlustig8778 Now we have the warmest whatever on TV while freezing off our ass in a cold wet winter-spring.

@ryandempsey4830

8 күн бұрын

The narrative never changed. This very idea that "the narrative changed" itself is a modern invention put out by climate change deniers to just discredit scientists and this so called "consensus" about global temperatures falling in the future was not a real thing at the time in the 60s-70s like these people say it was. The actual reality was that even in the 60s and 70s it was clear beyond dispute that greenhouse gases we emit will lead to global warming. This is was already well understood and accepted by the relevant scientists in the 60s. What happened is that there was a separate, unrelated question about the net global effects of putting so much aerosolized materials into the atmosphere and what effect this specific increase in aerosolized particles would cause. And, reasonably, it was thought that the net effect would be a cooling one as light from the sun is reflected away more by the increase in aerosolized particles in the atmosphere. And it was correct. But that was an entirely different question. Their was indeed a very small cooling effect, BUT that has nothing to do with the warming caused by the greenhouse effect, which obviously way way overwhelms any cooling effect so the net effect together is still perfectly consistent with temps rising overall. So there was no conflict, no "change of narrative". They were two related things, and scientists were correct about both... both in the 60s and now. There is no contradiction, no "change". You just heard that somewhere and so assumed it was true, because it's a common made up talking point made by people trying to discredit climate scientists. But it's based on nothing real. There was no "change in narrative". There was no change at all. Its been consistent the whole time. What you need to do now, is realize how many other climate change talking points you've just accepted just as easily are also based on nothing/misunderstandings/outright lies.

"I don't actually understand any of this, AND it goes against my preconceived notions so it's still a hoax" The Uncle

Carbon from plants going into the atmosphere is not solely from fossil fuels but also from soil carbon being lost due to forests and other land being cleared for farming. Still human caused but not just fossil fuels.

@davestorm6718

3 ай бұрын

Since C14 is almost non-existent in fossil fuel given it's short half life, this alters the ratios significantly (though, the nuclear test stuff I hadn't heard of before) when it's being pumped into the atmosphere. I'm not sure what you mean by soil carbon lost - it shouldn't affect the levels of CO2 unless you mean via microbial action, but even then, when you consider the total biomass in a system and a relatively stable bio-decay rate, there shouldn't be a net increase in CO2 in the system. That said, as the temperature increases, the bio-decay rate will also increase. (I'm using "bio-decay" instead of "decay" to not confuse it with nuclear decay) When deforestation happens, it removes nature's natural CO2 absorbers, however, over a greater time span, there still won't be a net increase in CO2 from this (the wood from trees, eventually decays and any CO2 captured is re-released). The takeaway from this is to stop burning organic compounds trapped in the ground over geologic time scales.

@mikethebloodthirsty

3 ай бұрын

So net zero is just pointless designed to push us into poverty, while the big corporations carry on this behaviour right?.

@mikethebloodthirsty

3 ай бұрын

​​@@davestorm6718the takeaway is more nuclear and to stop de forestation and plant trees. Net zero just seems tokenism while we are letting governments and corporations carry on doing this. The biggest countries who pump co2 into the air are China, Russia and America... China is trying to offset some of their emissions, but really fundamentally I don't see America or Russia giving a fk.

@fakestory1753

3 ай бұрын

Good thinking, but i think the effect is minor, due to we burn way more fossil fuel than taken down trees. MinutePhysics video once talk about the carbon we throw into atmosphere per year is 100x of total mass in biosphere. kzread.info/dash/bejne/hXht27ickZnOeKw.html

@TimothyWhiteheadzm

3 ай бұрын

@@fakestory1753 Sorry but that is not even close to being true. For the atmosphere: current CO2 = 3,200 gigatons approx. CO2 emitted by humans since 1850 = 2,400 gigatons approx. Emissions last year approx 40 gigatonnes. Biosphere breathing effect: 436 gigatonnes per year. I struggled to find a good source for total biosphere carbon but its enormous relative to above figures. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#:~:text=It%20has%20been%20estimated%20that,over%2040%20gigatons%20per%20year.

You answered some questions I've had for a long time. I hadn't been able to find the answers elsewhere.

Carbon dioxide is dwarfed by water vapor as an infrared absorber and are we really experiencing more extreme weather or are we just reporting more of it?

@jwoya

3 ай бұрын

Water precipitates out of the atmosphere unlike CO2. And adding more CO2 causes more water to evaporate, which means water joins it in absorbing more infrared energy.

@alanserjeant4947

3 ай бұрын

It also depends where you take the measurements.

@duncansmith7562

3 ай бұрын

you won't get any scientists doing much investigation into the effects of water vapor on the climate......remember, all funding is based on establishing a human cause.

@roblloyd1879

2 ай бұрын

A recent 'freedom of information request' to the UK Met Office elicited the information that global storms are currently at a low level compared with past recorded data.

@mattleathen445

2 ай бұрын

Texas is currently having their largest ever wildfire. And it’s not even wildfire season. It’s winter…

Sabina, again, very nicely done. You formatted the evidence supporting the anthropogenic origins of climate change in five concise premise-proof talking points. I also enjoyed your rebuttal to “Climate Scientist” on the CO2 Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) in an earlier video.

@roshandinesh6701

2 күн бұрын

😂😂

I'd like to see a video that covers alternative hypotheses for the observed effects, and what evidence has led to them being rejected.

@Larsonaut

3 ай бұрын

Stop blowing against the “scientific” house of cards

@Ixnatifual

3 ай бұрын

Could be an undiscovered civilization living underground, who have the technology to simultaneously capture all of the CO2 our fossil fuel burning humans do, but themselves emitting an equal amount.

@ruschein

3 ай бұрын

Why do you assume that there are alternative hypotheses in the first place?

@kayakMike1000

3 ай бұрын

It's the sun. The ACRIM data controversy was political garbage.

@darkstepik

3 ай бұрын

i can recommend to browse trought www.youtube.com/@tomnelson2080 youtube videos , there are many plausible alternative scenarious from accredited scientist and climate scientist which go against the dogma of the omnipotent CO2 cause and effect hypothesis

UC Davis has had posted on their University website for years a long article about nitrogen in Boreal Forests. They say that past rapid CO2 rises on Earth were sequestered by the Boreal Forests absorbing the CO2 into increased forest growth, naturally sequestered CO2! And the reason the Boreal Forests can do this is because they have excess nitrogen in their soils which the forests can absorb more rapidly than is normally thought to occur in nature and that this phenomenon deserves further study.

@kellyfutrell6832

3 ай бұрын

Observations show that ocean levels and climate change has fluctuated so much it is reliant on when we pick our climate change points on. Earth temps have changed since the beginning of time. There are far greater things to worry about such as tyrants and totalitarians. We have plenty of time to find alternative energy methods for transportation and manfacturing without shutting down and starving the population. Funny they never point to China's carbon production.

@rudolfquerstein6710

3 ай бұрын

@@kellyfutrell6832 I mean yes tyrants are a problem, but the climate today has one large issue. Yes there are natural means of compensation. The issue is... humans. Do you want to give up your house to grow a forest there? Like yes vegetation will increase if CO2 levels rise and will absorb a lot of it. Unfortunately the forest area on earth is shrinking, not increasing. The planet can only compensate for the increased CO2 production of humans if we let it. On top of that most of those fluctuations where fairly slow. We currently see changes even just in decades. We do not really know if the mechanisms that worked in the past would be able to work here.

@georgesimon1760

3 ай бұрын

​@@kellyfutrell6832this is like saying that because we're about to hit a tree anyway, we might as well hit the accelerator in the car.

@williamrgrant

3 ай бұрын

@@georgesimon1760 I think it is more appropriate to say: "there is a tree 60 miles ahead that I might run into in one hour of travel time. But there are massive sinkholes in the road immediately ahead of me that I should worry about first." Yes, taking care of our shared home (the planet) is an issue to address. But the time to real consequences of getting the climate problem wrong are on wildly different time scales than many of our other more present issues.

@georgesimon1760

3 ай бұрын

@@williamrgrant that's just an excuse to do nothing. There's no reason to wait on climate mitigation while we work on other issues.

My understanding is that the amount of heat that the atmosphere retains due to CO2 has a saturation point…meaning as C02 increases it retains less heat and we’ve reached a point where the CO2 were adding shouldn’t cause the atmosphere to heat all that much.

@paoloesquivel7430

3 ай бұрын

Nope. Earth is far from the saturation point. Even Venus has ways to go. And that's hell already.

@alexklein30

2 ай бұрын

the temperature on Venus has nothing to do with CO2, but with pressure. Mars is all CO2 but very, very cold. And as regards saturation: the optical depth for infrared in our atmosphere is just a few meters... it is all absorbed and re-emitted right near the surface. In fact it is not at all clear that the small CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is responsible for the temperature of the planet (water vapor, which makes up a huge fraction of the atmosphere, has a similar absorption spectrum) @@paoloesquivel7430

@billb3673

2 ай бұрын

​@@paoloesquivel7430😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅

Carbon dating gets nocked out of wack every time a nuclear weapon is detonated.

@thepsion5

Ай бұрын

Only Carbon-14 dating, and only when trying to date something that was exposed to the atmosphere after 1944.

Your quizzes are perfect. I often want to relay your information to friends and family, and with other channels I'll be like "Uuuh, wait well... just watch the video". But when I take your quiz it forces me to make a hard memory about the topic points, and gets me to rewatch certain sections. Then when I'm transcribing from memory, I'm representing the information accurately :)

On a long enough time line, the earth is cooling to absolute zero.

@ruschein

3 ай бұрын

You win my award for the most useless comment to the topic that was addressed in the video. Congratulations!

@MassimoAngotzi

3 ай бұрын

And, on a much shorter term, you too will be cooling to zero.

@user-sl6gn1ss8p

3 ай бұрын

but first it's gonna be swallowed by the sun, which will be a considerable warming

@uweengelmann3

3 ай бұрын

I am not sure about it. Is not the sun swallop up earth during it final stages? Than earth would not exist any more after such time. Than earth will never cool to absolute zero.

@mcfahk

3 ай бұрын

@@MassimoAngotzi I was going to write something similar, you, however, phrased it much better than I. Cheers!

Wonderful, Sabine, and thank you very much for everything you have shared with us. Would you please put this information into context? At what point are any of these values considered material changes that justify $trillions spent, de-population, eating bugs, etc.

@swiftlytiltingplanet8481

3 ай бұрын

What consensus of sober, legitimate climate scientists and politicians are calling for laws to mandate the eating of bugs and the reduction of population?

Most people don't even grasp what temperature really is: the average kinetic energy of molecules! It's the vibrations of the molecules that we feel as temperature. And they also do not grasp that WHY CO2 or other greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation: the specific configuration of the molecule which allows them to vibrate thereby storing energy in form of vibrations, just like guitar strings. If I flick a guitar string (i.e. I inject outside energy into it), it vibrates for a while (i.e., it stores this energy for a while). This is how greenhouse gas molecules are - you flick them (via sunlight) and they vibrate - for a long time - and it's to do with their molecular structure and the tightness/looseness of the chemical bonds.

@kennorthunder2428

Ай бұрын

I had understood it actually, but NOW I want to know: How is CO2 different when it's composed of C12 or C13? Because all these experts, only until recently have been making a big deal about CO2. Supposedly that's all we needed to know. If they were SUCH experts, why have they bored down on this SPECIFIC detail only now as opposed to explaining it to us earlier on? Are they just upping their game in the face of challenges, or were/are they merely still pontificating?

This was quite interesting for such a short video. I was aware we could tell the CO2 was from burning fossil fuels, but I didn't know exactly why. Also hadn't heard of Stratospheric Cooling

@ClebRuckus2

3 ай бұрын

didnt you learn in school that CO2 is plant food ? essential for photosynthesis? earth at its greenest was above 2000 ppm right now its 400 ppm ,Dunning Kruger cant science

@georgegrader9038

3 ай бұрын

There is also the masking of warming by "global dimming" [cooling] by atmospheric particulates. That's a thing, and a changing thing.

@kenwoodburn7438

3 ай бұрын

Have you heard of geoengineering and HAARP?

@ClebRuckus2

3 ай бұрын

@@kenwoodburn7438 or stratospheric aerosol injection ?these folks will limit their breathing to save themselves from dangerous CO2 😂 the same CO2 thats pumped into greenhouses to maximise yields and save water .These people forgot what they were taught school that CO2 is essential for photosynthesis.

@j.vonhogen9650

3 ай бұрын

​@@kenwoodburn7438- Geoengineering has been used for decades to create weather extremes that can then be falsely ascribed to fossil fuel emissions. The agenda behind the weaponization of geoengineering is as obvious as it is frightning, and of course Sabine doesn't have a clue about it, being the poorly informed climate alarmist that she has become. It's really disappointing that she seems so ignorant about the sinister climate change agenda and its well-documented history. I guess it is time for me to unsubscribe from this channel.

I seem to remember you did another video on why CO2 causes heat trapping, and how it's really quite a non-trivial reason. It might be a good idea to put a link to that video in the info beneath this video, because it goes into a bit more detail on the radiation and trapping.

@SabineHossenfelder

3 ай бұрын

Good idea, will do!

@MasterBlaster3545

3 ай бұрын

Yes that video put a whole new meaning to what we are doing. In other words what is really needed is depopulation. If done in a responsible way which means some will lose out on reproducing then so be it.

@nomizomichani

3 ай бұрын

@@MasterBlaster3545 Why do you believe depopulation is a responsible way to counter climate change? I would like to understand your logic behind it. You do know people are a form of carbon sink, don't you? Where would those carbon go if people are depopulated?

@osmosisjones4912

3 ай бұрын

Carbon dioxide doesn't trap infored it's to dense and reflective. Venus has a 90% reflection rate

@osmosisjones4912

3 ай бұрын

​@@SabineHossenfeldercarbon is more reflective. Venus has a 90% reflection rate and is internally heated. Your thinking of carbon monoxide. Also needs to transfer heat or else it would make things cooler

I am a uncle many times over. Last week I became a great uncle as my nephew s wife had a baby boy. I do not need much convincing as I have been farming for fifty years and I can see the affects of global warming. I had never been in a Cat 5 hurricane even though I have lived in Florida for a very long time. Hurricane Micheal roared through my area destroying crops, barns , trees and houses and power lines . I saw entire forests broke like they where match sticks. Made a believer out of me.

@billb3673

2 ай бұрын

Hurricane activity HASN'T CHANGED GLOBALLY!

Yes, it's possible that virtual backgrounds have contributed to a slight reduction in the frequency or importance of in-person housewarming functions, particularly for more casual or remote gatherings.

Can you cover the covid vaccines and excess death rate next please Sabine?

@georgelionon9050

3 ай бұрын

And the reality of the moon landing lol.

@andrewlucas6214

3 ай бұрын

I’m getting fed up with all this pointless debate. It’s like being on one of those old wooden ships..cannons firing all around as other ships battling away, masts falling and fire breaking out and we are all wondering whether the ship has woodworm!

@georgelionon9050

3 ай бұрын

@@andrewlucas6214 woodworms are a conspiracy of the elites to pull you inline!

@hanneslimbach2505

13 күн бұрын

@@georgelionon9050 pretty dumb comment, as excess death rates after vaccinations are horrible and completely obviously covered up by govs and media. Check OSCD statistics in yuonger age groups, and do the math, it's shocking, and yet no word about it.

I’m still waiting for the new ice age they promised us in the 70s

@williamadams4855

3 ай бұрын

And what happened to the acid rain. And how does Australia still have an ozone over it?

@bizzjoe

3 ай бұрын

@@williamadams4855 And killer African bees :-D

@williamadams4855

3 ай бұрын

@@bizzjoe forgot about that one.

@williamadams4855

3 ай бұрын

@bizzjoe Also this probably would have all been resolved if we would have ran out of fossil fuels by now.

@RMRobin7373msn

3 ай бұрын

They changed it to global warming when the science and predictions kept failing. Unfortunately, it still fails.

In their publication "Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001-2020" in "Atmosphere" (peer-reviewed), Vahrenholt and Dübal were able to show the greenhouse effect from the sum of all greenhouse gases (water vapor, methane, CO2 etc.) under "clear sky" conditions with an increase of only 1.20 W/m² in the last 20 years - however, this increase is even overcompensated in the cloudy areas to the tune of 1.48 W/m². In the last two decades, there has therefore been no global increase in radiation intensity due to the so-called greenhouse gases in the form of atmospheric back radiation, but rather a slight reduction (0.28 W/m²) in "All Sky". This means that the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere cannot be responsible for global warming in the last 20 years. The warming during this period is due more to changes in the clouds than to the classic greenhouse effect.

This video is informative, clear, concise, and precise. Really shows the causal evidences. Thank you so much.

TBH I never heard that carbon isotope explanation before, and this is both a great scientific evidence and a easy one to understand. Thanks Sabine for exposing it in such a didactic way.

@johnruess9699

3 ай бұрын

My uncle says her isotope correlation is unsubstantiated.

@GrandpasPlace

3 ай бұрын

John replied about how the isotope correlation is unsubstantiated. Which is correct but I dont think is helpful So let me try to explain C12 is the Carbon in the CO2 we exhale, as well as the CO2 that plants use, and that fossil fuels produce. C14 is radioactive and there are small amounts of it on the planet which lest us do carbon dating of ancient items. C13 was produced by the testing and use of atomic weapons 80 to 90 years ago. We dont know if there was a baseline of C13 before that so it could have been 0 before we started using atomic weapons. Measurements of the ratio of C12 and C13 in CO2 show C13 declining over the last 50 years. This could be because we are producing more CO2 or it could be because it was created 80 to 90 years ago and is slowly working its way out of the atmosphere. We don't know for sure.

@dysrhythmia

3 ай бұрын

@@GrandpasPlace C14 is the isotope created from nuclear bomb tests, not C13

@scottw2317

3 ай бұрын

@@GrandpasPlace further to that plants do use C13, the utilisation differs whether it is a C3 (wet and cool type plant) or a C4 (are dry hot climate type plant). This is well known even in anthropology where they test ancient collagen for what types of plants the creatures ate or in the case of carnivores what the animals they ate did eat. A decline could be described as going down if plants of the type most likely to take in C13 also increase as was shown by NASA satellites showing a vast greening of the planet.... largely by C4 types of plants. The acidification aspect was equally dismal. You have three states, Acidic (Below 7) Neutral (7) and Alkaline (above 7) so if you move from one state towards the other without crossing Neutral it is Neutralisation. Seawater is generally around 8.1ph (alkaline) and the amount of CO2 to neutralise it from 8.1 to 8 is staggeringly large and with each subsequent change is larger than the last meaning it is logarithmic (about 10 times) so to change from 8.1 to 7.8 would be about 110 times more than 8.1 to 8.0 and we are taking about changes in the error bands here so nothing to see with this anyway. Another aspect is that the ocean is outgassing CO2 meaning there is less because temperature also plays a part in this, the ph can change purely from temperature in this case. Also if CO2 was the driver it would not follow the temperature record by 800-1200 years in the proxy records...

@ya472

3 ай бұрын

​@@GrandpasPlaceWhat about the influence of forestry and forest fires?

Fun fact: In 1976 Vangelis released the album Albedo 0.39. The albedo is the fraction of light that a surface reflects, and back then that's what the earth's albedo was. As of today, that figure has fallen to about 0.30 which is a pretty big change in less than 50 years!

@stevesmith3990

3 ай бұрын

One of the first albums I ever bought - still love it.

@norlockv

3 ай бұрын

Didn’t realize that albedo had changed that much in 40 years. Now I have to check on the other terms. What’s going on with the obliquity of the ecliptic?

@Milan_Openfeint

3 ай бұрын

After 5 minutes of googling, I think Vangelis used a wrong value. The current estimate is 0.30 but it hasn't moved at all during last 10 years.

@da4127

3 ай бұрын

@@Milan_Openfeint it really is a bad measurement, from what I can find online, albedo has decreased by around 0.05 since 1850, and only about 0.02 since the 80's with more accurate measurements, maybe the 0.39 comes from a different way of taking measurements that have not been accordingly modified

@dutchdykefinger

3 ай бұрын

lol what the fuck kind of credit does a musician have in making that assessment? just defer everything to everyone and never question it... lol

What is the ideal temperature for plant earth?

Hey Sabine, question: Wouldn't we say that private cars are an atavistic concept, because you transport yourself with a machine that is twenty times heavier than yourself, and is uselessly standing around most of the time? And considering that we now know that using energy is actually really expensive, as it was for most of human history?

@KatlaJokulsdottir

5 күн бұрын

If you want to reduce your carbon footprint from transport, some suggestions: - If you can, use the bike or walk - Next best, use public transport (not flying though) - If you need a car only sporadically, rent or borrow it if you can. (1/3 of the CO2 effect of a typical car comes from building and scraping it, so even just reducing the number of cars helps) - If you need to use a car, either rented or owned, go for an electric and small one if you can. - Try to reduce the number of car rides. For example: if you commute, try to team up with colleagues or neighbours and ride together. Similarly, if you do need a car for shopping, consider teaming up with your neighbours and/or try to do several shopping missions in one go. If you use the car or any CO2-intensive transport for holidays, consider making your trips less frequent but longer.

I think Sabine did a good job demonstrating that the measured increase in CO2 is from fossil fuels and so caused by humans. Did she address the connection between CO2 and climate change? I'm not sure she did. It may be true sea water acidification is an effect of increasing CO2 levels. But its connection to climate change? Drawing correlations to CO2 levels (acidification) does not draw the same correlation to earth temp. increase. Increase in sea level? That is very difficult to measure in part because of the accuracy and precision of the measurement required but also because of the lack of a real baseline. Extreme weather events? I'm not sure about this one but I suspect the correlation between extreme weather and CO2 increase is primarily supported by atmospheric modeling. I don't know, have any of these computer models been validated? Say, by using historical data to predict the present state of the atmosphere? Again, very difficult and a question that should be asked. We do know and have measured with great accuracy and precision the interaction of CO2 and radiation across a broad frequency range in the laboratory. I guess that is a start but I doubt it is the end of the story.

@tomfeng5645

3 ай бұрын

She did though, the evidence pointed out here was Stratospheric cooling, which exactly fits the models of what CO2 does in the upper atmosphere, which suggests the model's predicted effects in the lower atmosphere - which is more complicated to entangle due to it being much more chaotic - are correct. Given the short-form video, you can't really expect more to presented on that, but there's plenty of such evidence. Effects like the strengthening of El Nino/La Nina and other such weather oscillations driven by temperature have been well documented, as well as comparisons to historical and geological records of extreme weather events. By the way, sea level and global surface temperature measurements have improved enough with satellite technology that the effects are *very* evident even in the short period we have been able to measure them with that level of precision.

@pressrepeat2000

2 ай бұрын

Agreed. It wasn’t a good video at all. Definitely won’t convince any uncles.

@pressrepeat2000

2 ай бұрын

@@tomfeng5645It wasn’t a good video, nothing in here would convince a sceptic uncle. Most of the stuff she says here is more like “trust me, bro”, rather than clear, evidence based cause and effect.

@pressrepeat2000

2 ай бұрын

@@tomfeng5645It wasn’t a good video, nothing in here would convince a sceptic uncle. Most of the stuff she says here is more like “trust me, bro”, rather than clear, evidence based cause and effect.

@oldkarate

2 ай бұрын

Explanation for science illiterates. In science nothing is PROVEN. It's either supported or not supported. There's no "trust me bro" nonsense here. She just presented supporting evidence (as opposed to the crap climate deniers come up with). In that respect, it did what it was supposed to do.

Skeptoid had a podcast about this , less detailed but along the same lines. Thank you saving!

@Sabine: Can you make a video about the saturation level of CO2 in the atmosphere? I read that from a certain level of CO2 on there is no effect on temperature anymore!?!

The problem I have with climate change is that if we stop it too soon, I won't have my beach front property. 😅

Good job! You seem to be exactly the right person to make this video. I think it's astonishing that you have a bunch of people in the comments who identify themselves as 'that uncle', but instead of angry diatribes, I see people mostly exchanging opinions in a rather calm and civilized manner. With this topic and on this platform that is quite the acomplishment in itself!

@lajoswinkler

3 ай бұрын

These "uncles" gather at Sabine's channel because they, due to their issues, see her as "the one showing the finger to Them", which she isn't. The issues these people have are they are narcissistic and have low amount of knowledge, and that's a deadly combination behind so many antiscience movements today (antivaxxers, flatearth morons, chemtrail idiots, etc.).

@phumgwatenagala6606

3 ай бұрын

Because this video invites more conservatives, which are better to communicate and discuss ideas with online. 😅

Accepting what you say which I definitely do, how then do we account for climate change in the past - i.e. since the end of the Younger Dryas and the beginning of our 'civilistation'? Glaciologists, dendrologists, geographers, historians, archaelogists, etc all concur in there being quite significant variations - for example, the so-called "Medieval Warm Period' or the 'Little Ice Agent' which followed it. I have never heard an explanation of why these past variations have happened.....it would be great if you could explain! I have total faith in you Sabine to explain all things scientific that interest me.......if only you had been around when I was a kid!

@joejoe-vx4xs

3 ай бұрын

'Little Ice Agent' lol.

@sgalla1328

3 ай бұрын

Those darn little ice agents 🤣 You must have Google Gboard..

@Blake4Truth

3 ай бұрын

Unfortunately Dr. H., whine I love dearly, neglected to address other factors that can contribute to warming of the lower troposphere and cooling of the upper atmosphere: 1) increased water vapor, which has an even greater effect than CO2, 2) changes in global cloud cover, 3) changes in solar activity, meaning sunspot and coronal mass ejection activity, not solar irradiance, 4) natural cyclic fluctuations in ocean currents having periods from decadal, to multi-decadal, to century, and even millennium and longer, 5) and even changes in cosmic radiation. The UN IPCC’s climate model regime has been repeatedly falsified; repeatedly shown to run to warm, about double what has been credibly observed (you know, actual science). The good doctor is out of her wheelhouse. Climate is a massively complex chaotic system. It’s not enough to show that hydrocarbon fuels are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere; one must also show that the extra 0.0001 portion by volume of CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of not just warming, but dangerous warming. The best measure of reality is to look as changes in sea level as registered by paleo geological science and by tide gage records. Do not make the mistake of combining or concatenation either with satellite derived sea level. They are not the same measurement, and the satellite derived data is HIGHLY manipulated, unlike paleo geology and tide gage records. When you do that, you’ll find no acceleration or unusual rate of increase in sea level. You can also observe the polar ice, both ocean and land borne. We have written records going back over a century for that. And we have ice core proxy records from both a Greenland/Arctic’s glacier, and an Antarctic glacier What we’ve observed recently is nothing new. The data doesn’t lie, but government bureaucratic scientists do.

@ItsEverythingElse

3 ай бұрын

We CAN account for climate change in the past. That doesn't mean that currently it's the same causes.

@danilooliveira6580

3 ай бұрын

we do have a pretty good idea what caused some of those climate events, the problem is, as always, there are too many variables, and one or all of them could be the responsible for those events. the difference with anthropogenic climate change is that we have a pretty good idea of all the other variables for global average temperature increase, and the only one that aligns neatly is the CO2 released by humans.

It's that simple. Explained in five minutes without simplifying nor reducing. Make sure you memorized as surely didn't understand.

Climate is probably the most complex phenomenon we study outside of biology - although in some aspects you could argue it is even more complicated than biology. The only thing that is certain is we don’t know much about what’s happening with the climate and why. Anyone who tells you we understand it or says the science is settled has certainly bought into an ideology.

@andrewtrip8617

3 ай бұрын

Climate and biology are both so intertwined with carbon that the distinction between them is futile .

@jimj2683

3 ай бұрын

Maybe machine learning can help us understand the climate better.

@dormilon36

3 ай бұрын

Bless your heart, child.

@ricinro

3 ай бұрын

Yes, science is never settled. However, it can make predictions to test hypothesis and if 2+2=4 then that is more useful than contrarian rhetoric or better science that has not refuted the overall understanding we have of climate.

@Pseudify

3 ай бұрын

@@ricinro Well that’s just the point. Our climate models are trash at making useful predictions about the climate. Check out John Christy’s work at Alabama, Huntsville.

Thanks as always Sabine. Always a pleasure tuning in to your newest post. See you tomorrow. Hugs!!

Dear Sabine! I love your channel but help me understand one thing: With CO2 being only .04% of the concentration of the atmospgere, and H2O being say 9ish%, how in the world can we say that a gas that is at such a low concentration is responsible for these changes an no one hardly talks about the elephant in the room which is water vapor? I mean you can actually FEEL without instrumentation the difference between a cloudy night and a cloudless one. CO2 doesn't make sense to me from this perspective even if we humans have increased CO2 by .01%. Curious! Thanks.

@TonboIV

3 ай бұрын

The amount of water vapour in the air isn't changing (on average). It's a closed system which has been doing its thing since before we existed. What we are dramatically _changing_ is the carbon cycle.

@usr-bin-gcc3422

3 ай бұрын

CO2 modulates the VAST flux of energy radiated by the planet (approximately as great as the flux of energy from the sun). A small change in that vast flux is a huge amount of energy, which is why a small amount of CO2 can cause a large effect. Unlike water vapour (which amplifies any warming) CO2 doesn't precipitate out of the atmosphere (rain), which is why it can cause a problem when it accumulates. The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is determined by its temperature (Clausius-Clapeyron sp? relationship), so if you put more water vapour in the air than the temperature can sustain, it just falls out again as rain or snow.

@terryshaifer6831

3 ай бұрын

In theory, the universe is a closed system. If that is the case, are there other things outside of earthly variables that can impact stratospheric cooling? Could the exponential expansion of the universe impact the overall density of the universe, which would impact the temperature of the upper atmosphere? Is there a way to measure the local impact of an exponentially expanding universe?

@xanthee_imr

3 ай бұрын

That’s why you don’t do science according to what you “feel” but to what you observe. Your argument is basically “0.04% doesn’t seem that much, even though I have no idea of how much you need to produce the effects we observe, is it has to be something else”. Also it’s not just purely CO2, climate change is a very complex phenomenon, see the effects of methane on the atmosphere for example

@juvenalsdad4175

3 ай бұрын

@davemartin Try drinking a litre of water with 0.04% LSD in it, and you will see how small quantities can have a big effect.

Thanks, Sabine. I believe in taking care of our planet.that said, over the past twenty years, I periodically see things in the news such as email leaks documenting data falsification, or articles about improper measurement methods, or government scientists refusing executive orders to release their data for public scrutiny, and I get angry and suspicious. Second, I see valid questions getting asked (some of which you answered in this video), and the response has (until today) been howling accusations of being "science deniers" and bigots and worse; further, I've seen scientists who asked valid questions get mobbed out of their jobs by their peers for simply asking some of these same questions. On top of that, when the only actions recommended by the politicians are to actively decrease the population, limit access to fuels that keep the poor alive, strip people of their civil liberties, and line the pockets of the politicians, I become very suspicious that any good science being carried out is being perverted for money and power by political schemers. Providing clear answers to direct questions is something Western civilization is not good at. And then we wonder why our society is polarizing. If we had more people like you, we might have less bickering. That said, I still have skepticism for academics,scientists on the government payroll, the politicians that sign their paychecks, the activist groups that push the political campaigns, and the "news" groups that spin the events. I very much appreciate your contribution to clarity and honest diallogue.

@FernandoWINSANTO

16 күн бұрын

Can we ignore other factors (big and small) such as Milankovitch Cycles, Solar Cycles, Ice Ages - Interglacials ... is the science " settled " concerning Oceans, constantly changing Water vapor in the atmosphere ... what about predicting modeling ...

So, where did the plants originally get the carbon if not from the atmosphere and the very near surface soils?

@rps1689

Ай бұрын

Look up Ordovician epoch.

My uncle keeps mentioning the sun as the real factor. I had hoped you'd have explained how the sun doesn't effect climate change.

@djberryhardkore

3 ай бұрын

It obviously does a lot - being slightly farther away from the sun is what causes winter…

@davestorm6718

3 ай бұрын

The Sun does affect climate change, but all that excess CO2 acts as a multiplier (as the data indicates) even over long periods of stable solar activity (inputs) while CO2 levels rise along w/temps. They're inserting factual data about the Sun while ignoring the factual data about CO2.

@tikaanipippin

3 ай бұрын

@@djberryhardkore No, in January, around the 4th, the Earth is nearer the sun than in July. Elliptical orbit. Winter in the south occurs in the northern summer.

@Ixnatifual

3 ай бұрын

The Sun has been a main driver in deglaciation in the past, but it's currently in a cooling period, so is not responsible for the current change in climate we are experiencing.

@methylene5

3 ай бұрын

@@djberryhardkore Due to Earth axis tilt of course. Some people think the Earth is just further away for Winter, but forget that the Southern Hemisphere has their summer when the Northern hemisphere has their winter.

I'm the kind of person who wants to see the evidence. So when someone says "It's undeniable" or "We just know" or "Almost every scientist agrees!" it's an insult tbh. Sorry, I don't blindly believe things just because someone said it was true. I am open minded though. I appreciate the fact that you showed actual data. That's very rare to see from something that's so politicized. Regardless, I think the move to cleaner energy can't possibly be a bad thing and I fully support it. Edit: I should clarify. Technological development can't be a bad thing. Forcing people to switch before the market is ready is.

@squidly1117

3 ай бұрын

" I think the move to cleaner energy can't possibly be a bad thing and I fully support it." Of course it can be a bad thing.

@Hust91

3 ай бұрын

@@squidly1117 I am very curious how moving to cleaner energy can be a bad thing.

@xanthee_imr

3 ай бұрын

People just accept that things are difficult to fully understand without the right knowledge and experience and the same goes for scientific data, so they rely on who knows better than them and if almost all the people who dedicated their life to study this stuff agree on the same thing it’s very likely that the truth is something very close to that. For example… is this video really enough to satisfy your doubts? What if this is just misleading propaganda?Take the graph at 4:32. Did you actually watched that and though “oh yea now I can see with my eyes the proof”? Could you correctly interpret it? Is it authentic? What does “AMSU-A Fit” actually mean? Do you really have full context and enough knowledge to understand without an inch of a doubt what all of that means or did you just think “well ok Sabrina seems convincing enough”? Because this is no that different from those “insulting” people telling you “almost every scientist agrees”, you just made a small step further and nothing else.

@SkeletalMisunderstanding

3 ай бұрын

Give me an example of energy which is 'cleaner'?

@mixelplik

3 ай бұрын

​@@Hust91I've worked in the renewable energy field for 25 years. When 99% of the "green" infrastructure is constructed in a communist country that refuses to abide by international protocols but insists the USA do so, and this results in a massive transfer of wealth to said communist country, then you can start to see it is not necessarily a good thing. Clean energy in concept I am fully on board with - but when human interests take over profit becomes the key determinant, not helping others. Sad but true.

So if we are warming up the atmosphere does that automatically mean we can fix it?

Can you speak about what the accuracy rate for the models are?

@hosnimubarak8869

2 ай бұрын

A 2019 study led by Zeke Hausfather evaluated 17 global surface temperature projections from climate models in studies published between 1970 and 2007. The authors found "14 out of the 17 model projections indistinguishable from what actually occurred." Look up “Hausfather et al 2019 Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections."

@MrMentalpuppy

2 ай бұрын

@@hosnimubarak8869 I did after, I was surprised. I think this should be discussed more. But then my question became how we know what is making the largest contribution to rising temperatures. I suppose it is obvious, but I haven't seen much solid proof there.

@hosnimubarak8869

2 ай бұрын

@@MrMentalpuppy Satellites have provided direct empirical evidence that the earth is currently trapping more heat than it used to, specifically at the frequencies that are absorbed by CO2 (Harries et al. 2001; Griggs and Harries 2007).

A good summary Sabine. All of this is uncontroversial i.e. most skeptics agree that CO2 is rising and the additional CO2 derives from fossil fuels. The controversy is about what happens in the future. How much temperature rise would a doubling of CO2 cause and how does this factor alongside the natural temperature cycles? Would this on balance be a bad thing or a good thing and what we should do to mitigate any negative effects? It’s about feedbacks, particularly whether the CO2 rise drives an increase in water vapour in the atmosphere and whether or not the models provide a reliable forecast of future temperatures. This is a lot more complex.

@danobrien3601

3 ай бұрын

definitely a bad thing ... seen the floods ? then there are increased temperatures when its not raining .Then you can also get steam bath conditions . If the temperature reaches 35C and 100% humidity then humans cannot ..repeat .. cannot survive ...because we cannot release body heat and so like a car engine without a radiator we overheat and die . A medical FACT not a climate science fact . And that has nearly happened a few times recently ..This is why there are climate refugees ...even internally displaced climate refugees

@tedjohansen1634

3 ай бұрын

This.

@rob.j.g

3 ай бұрын

Ugh, just stop. You guys were wrong before about climate change not happening, and you’re wrong now about it being a good thing or stopping it being impractical or whatever flavor of denialism you prefer. Don’t you guys ever get tired of being wrong? I’m gonna drop a fat “i told you so” now, and maybe in another ten years I’ll see you in the comments again and I can drop another one. Lying stupid assholes who aren’t willing to make any sacrifice for the greater good. Ten years dude 👀🫵

@danilooliveira6580

3 ай бұрын

water vapor concentration in the atmosphere is directly related to temperature, so while other greenhouse gases have a much smaller impact, they increase the concentration of water vapor, accelerating the warming effect. other greenhouse gases removed, water vapor would be stable.

@benjamintherogue2421

3 ай бұрын

The issue is CO2's saturation point doesn't allow any more heating once it's reached. And we've already pretty much reached CO2s max saturation point when it comes to heating. As it stands, we're much closer to having too little CO2 than too much.

Once a Scientist says 'the Science is settled!' you know they've been bought.

@AlxFitz

3 ай бұрын

Bought by the space alien communists?

@EyalLotem-dy4wd

3 ай бұрын

Sure, that's why we don't know if evolution happened, what pulls things down, and so forth No science can be settled ever They're all bought by big evolution and big gravity

@robertjones1730

3 ай бұрын

Scientists love the scientific process until it questions THEIR theory

@AlxFitz

3 ай бұрын

@@robertjones1730 That's a comment that can only come from pure ignorance. Science moves forward by overturning old theories and establishing new ones. The fact is that the truth can be very problematic for people (and vested interests) and so they create a bogeyman out of science. And you fell for it chump!

@swiftlytiltingplanet8481

3 ай бұрын

"There is no settled science" is one of the fossil fuel industry's favorite propaganda memes. It's settled science that the earth is round, is it not? That the earth orbits the sun? That the moon orbits the earth and affects our tides? That water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen? That the rhinovirus causes colds? That bacteria evolve? That antibiotics kill bacteria? That washing hands before surgery reduces the death rates of patients? That electricity is the flow of electrons? That dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago? That humans did not exist during the time of the dinosaurs? That the atom can be split to produce energy? That the atmosphere is mostly made up of nitrogen, oxygen and argon? That the hippocampus plays a major role in memory? That humans who evolved near the equator have darker skin? That uranium is radioactive? That blood is formed in bone marrow? That mass creates gravity? Shall I go on? Evidence isn't subjective and no amount of rhetorical gymnastics changes that. We can descend into epistemic nihilism and secede from reality, believing there is no objective truth or independent criteria for determining what is real or false, or we can believe science, an empirical, verifiable reality that validates what we believe to be true. Spectroscopic analysis clearly shows heat passing through C02 in the atmosphere and radiating back to earth. That's an empirical fact. It won't change. It also reveals that C02 levels in the atmosphere are increasing. That's an empirical fact. It won't change. Isotopic analysis shows that a substantial amount of C02 in the atmosphere came directly from the burning of fossil fuels. That's an empirical fact. It won't change. Temperature has risen as our C02 accumulation has risen. Empirical fact. The rise of C02 began around the time of the Industrial Revolution. Empirical fact. The sun's last three cycles progressively weakened, yet we continued to warm anyway. Empirical fact. Earth's orbital eccentricty, axial tilt and precession are all in cooling phases, yet we continue to warm anyway. Empirical fact. As our lower atmosphere has warmed, the atmospheric layer just above it has COOLED, according to NASA monitoring since 1978. Natural cycles can't explain why satellites measure less heat escaping to space at the precise wavelengths which CO2 absorbs (Philipona 2004, Wang 2009). Neither the sun nor any warming force on earth can simultaneously warm the lower atmosphere while cooling the outer one. Only a greenhouse effect can do that. There is much in climate science that is indeed settled. Surely new facts will be added and some information refined but these won't change the empirically-based foundation of truth the new data will rest upon.

How do we know climate change is caused by humans? 1. Basic physics: CO2 absorbs infrared, 2. Atmospheric CO2 content has increased, 3. Ocean acidificatiton: disolved CO2 is decreasing PH, 4. Carbon isotope ratios rich in C12: fossil fuels not volcanos, and 5. Stratospheric cooling: Manabe & Wetheral 1967. Further evidence not mentioned: - the increase in CO2 content matches estimates of CO2 released by fossil fuels, - Satellites can measure where the new CO2 is coming from and it's urban areas not volcanos, - Solar irradiance is currently decreasing, - Previous shift in climate are associated with bolide impacts, major volcanism, or changes in ocean ciculation which are not currently happening, and - Increases in atmospheric water vapour are possible due to a warmer atmosphere because of CO2 (burning fossil fuels also releases water).

I thought that "correlation is not proof of causation." Which comes first, the elevated temperatures, or the increase in CO2?

@lrvogt1257

3 ай бұрын

In a normal glaciation the change in orbit comes first and the CO2 and water vapor follow as a feedback mechanism. Today the increase in CO2 comes from industrial emissions.

My uncle came back to me. He still thinks it’s a hoax 😂

@jonnevaalanti4949

3 ай бұрын

Because it's unmanly to change your opinions based on what someone else tells you. Especially if it's a woman 🙄 What a goddamn doofus.

@tomtetomtesson2477

Ай бұрын

He is right you only have to look at historical data from millions of years of CO2 levels and temperature and you will notice that they dont follow each other. You know when we had dinosaurs the temperature was way way warmer then now and the planet was much greener.

@jonnevaalanti4949

Ай бұрын

@@tomtetomtesson2477 yes, it probably was warmer. But the rate of change wasn't nearly as high as now. Also, why do you think a climate that's good for dinosaurs is good for humans? The whole point of action against climate change is to keep our atmosphere livable for humans, not dinosaurs. Also, the heat isn't gonna be the thing that kills us, the aftereffects will. And even then, not all of humanity will die, only the less fortunate.

@tomtetomtesson2477

Ай бұрын

@@jonnevaalanti4949 Did I say its good for the humans? We are no where near 12 degrees but telling the most adaptive primate on earth that we are doomed over a couple of degrees global warming (which we also aint nowhere near) is just fearmongering. History shows the opposite that when its warmer we thrive better and plants just love more CO2 also which actually has been dangerously low for plants recently but no one wants to tell us that. What scientists can do is to measure the temperature outside of city centers and the tell us how much the earths has become warmer before they start fearmongering. After around 30 wrongly predicted doomsday scenarios the last decades its getting tiresome to listen to another doomsday MODELLING scenario.

@tomtetomtesson2477

Ай бұрын

@@jonnevaalanti4949 You know that we are in a ice age period right now and no matter what we do we it will get warmer sooner or later anyway and telling us humans cant live under when temperature changes is like saying Africans cant live in colder countries. Colder climate has been proven to be more dangerous than warmer climate historically so why would it be any different now? Never trust a scammer who tries to silence opposite scientific views like the so called consensus on climate. They did the exactly same thing with Covid but they have been doing this for decades with climate. Every single scientist, media or politician who have accepted this kind of behaviour should be fired immediately. The thing with historical data is that it shows that temperature and CO2 level has not been correlating before but suddenly it does?

Sabine, the quiz is actually really helpful to remember the arguments you name better! However, to see which answers were correct, the website charges me a fee. Are there no quiz service websites which offer this for free? I was confused to see the Paywall by educational content from you.

@Thomas-gk42

3 ай бұрын

Don't you think, that she needs to eat too?

@da4127

3 ай бұрын

I mean, you can see the results for free, but the analysis of each answer is gotta be paid not only because Sabine gets a cut for her work making the quiz, but also to make the website work

@queenleech36

3 ай бұрын

Yeah, but it's not particularly helpful when you don't know which answer was wrong. And for that feature you've to pay. As it is now, I probably won't take the quiz again.

@Thomas-gk42

3 ай бұрын

@@queenleech36or you pay a few coins, or aren´t you payed for youe work too?

@007feck

3 ай бұрын

You are mistaken. This is not free education. She is running a business. Same as climate panic industry wants your money too. They need to “teach” you first tho

Never let a crisis go to waste is what you need to know.

Instead of calling it "climate change", people should have called it "climate destruction" or "climate disaster" or whatever to make it much easier to understand.

this video should show in the very first google search results on climate change

@JeffreyBenjaminWhite

3 ай бұрын

ahh, the narrative crafting algos are all online! check.

@richbalance8404

3 ай бұрын

No, it should be retracted as it is just another big climate lie.

@mikeruhland6928

24 күн бұрын

@@JeffreyBenjaminWhite and being tuned. War is peace.

THANK YOU SABINE! There is an almost complete lack of discussing the basics in the public sphere. Articles, videos and debates almost always cover some fringe detail which really doesn't matter to the general public, but there is a shocking lack of knowledge on the basics and we need to tackle that.

@nigelhungerford-symes5059

3 ай бұрын

Isn't it scary that Sabine found a public knowledge gap on something as immense as Climate Change. Given how much focus there is on Climate Change it is scary that Sabine is effectively saying most people are just accepting "the experts" as a source of scientific authority and missing out on the info she provides.

@louistournas120

3 ай бұрын

​@@nigelhungerford-symes5059 Some people just accept what the scientific community says and some people are accepting what the republican and various random websites say. I find that the general public, those that simply accept the science, are not sciene literate enough and that is not good. The average joe prefers to drink beer, watch sports, watch politics.

@DoctorOnkelap

3 ай бұрын

yes it is almost as if we optimized society for gullible knownothing dunning kruger sufferers...

@egoncorneliscallery9535

3 ай бұрын

Well, if you examine the 'basics' in depth you will find then questionable. Most people stay at the surface and they are easily swayed just like this video tries to do..

@DoctorOnkelap

3 ай бұрын

@@egoncorneliscallery9535 what dunning kruger sufferers find questionable is not important. They either research it themselves and publish their result for peer review or their opinion is worthless.

Dear Sabine, could you please make a video on how we easiest and fastest could tackle climate change? For instance, by reducing world wide particle missions from household coal consumption (heating, cooking etc), by reducing particle emissions from vehicles, by increasing Co2 uptake from lakes and oceans, by increasing reforestation programs and perhaps a few iother simple solutions that don´t necessary focus on direct Co2 emissions but on reducing particle emissions in combination with an increased Co2 uptake in nature. Would be nice to hear the swiftest possible solution to a global problem without ruining the global economy.

@KatlaJokulsdottir

5 күн бұрын

A great book on this is Mike Berners Lee "There is no Planet B". Not preachy, sometimes amusing, yet a great talent to crunch numbers in an entertaining way and give you a feeling for where the big possibilities for saving CO2 lie.

I think it could be getting warmer but i dont think scientists know why.

@hosnimubarak8869

3 ай бұрын

Over 15,000 do.

@z00zify

20 күн бұрын

The video explains why

@rayzsome8852

20 күн бұрын

for more than 200 years we know that CO2 has the ability to absorb and save heat better than other gases and really, she explains in the video quite well how it works and how it could be proven to be an effect of our CO2 emissions (+ methan and other factors)

@joekonopka2363

18 күн бұрын

You don't think

Nobody thinks Humans have 0 effect on climate. That is exaggerating your opponents points to dismiss them. You are intelligent and beyond these logical fallacies. Unless, of course, you, as most of your colleagues, are politically motivated to connive in such a manner. The things questioned are: * How much does human activity cause exactly which warming? Regardless of the persistence of activist in academia and journalist, this is still a hot topic, over which many serious, well respected scientist working at the IPCC have resigned, not helping this dilemma get resolved * What is exactly the cost / benefit scenario ? What impact does what warming EXACTLY have ? ARE there way more storms? IS growing delicious grapes in The Netherlands or Britain bad? * What measures have the most effect with the least impact? IS banning all oil, gas an coal in X years time the best solution? What technological implements can we use to combat problematic warming? As long as you keep approaching this subject in this manner and keep gluing your hand on the freeway, many, many uncles will deliberately shrug their shoulders and proclaim it is Kwatsch. What have you learned from your Uncle?

@russmarkham2197

3 ай бұрын

you must be one of those stubborn, ignorant uncles, I think. Why not read some of the actual scientific papers for yourself? Plenty are publicly available. Educate yourself, uncle!

@garryjones8050

3 ай бұрын

​@@russmarkham2197saw a UK labour MP saying we need to reduce fossil fuels by 75% in 5 years. Given the current price of energy, then people are going to die or be left in abject poverty. Parliament will still be heated by the money taken from those in poverty. Given that deaths from natural disasters has continually decreased in the last 100 years, can you point me at the data that shows that trend reversing such that iys a price i am willing to pay. I don't care about MMGW, I care about the costs and benefits of what people better than me think is for my own good

@markdavis632

3 ай бұрын

@@russmarkham2197 there are plenty of scientific papers and scientists that hold conclusions contrary to the mainstream. Perhaps you should educate yourself. Uncle.

@russmarkham2197

3 ай бұрын

@@markdavis632 I have educated myself on this subject by reading many scientific papers, and I have a strong background in science, technology and world affairs. And I have expressed my opinions after much consideration of the facts. My assessment based on the evidence is as follows: The warming has already had some bad impacts, these are going to get much worse over the next couple of decades, and our whole civilization is in danger of collapse. Most people and most politicians hope this problem is not real, or will go away by itself. Like ostriches, they have head firmly in sand. Or like the gentleman sitting in the first class bar of the Titanic, 30 minutes after the ship hit the iceberg. they think "The lights are still on and I have a brandy in my hand - everything is fine." And I don't think humans will succeed in reducing CO2 emissions by much. Especially if you are examples of the public opinion on this to date. One can only hope that some kind of climate repair can be done before it is too late.

@texluh

3 ай бұрын

Your comment has been curtailed. For someone to react to your quite reasonable questions by saying that you're a stubborn uncle would be quite mind blowing to some . Keep up the good work.

I see a lot of complaints about "smoothed" observation data. Maybe a video comparing raw to adjusted data and discussing the adjustments would be helpful. BTW this was a great summary without a wasted word.

@wildweedle6012

3 ай бұрын

Good luck with that.

@anderslvolljohansen1556

3 ай бұрын

Smoothing is just taking a moving average, isn't it? Perhaps you're talking about homogenisation. The placement of meteorological stations isn't the same over time, some are shut down, and some new ones are installed. So a continuous curve has to merge time series.

@stuartkim4857

3 ай бұрын

What percent of global warming is caused by human activity? Couldn’t it be that global warming is caused by both human and natural causes? How can one be confident that the majority of warming is caused by fossil fuels?

@anderslvolljohansen1556

3 ай бұрын

@@stuartkim4857 That has been quantified to between 80% and 120% of the warming since the last half of the 19th century, if I remember correctly. I don't have the reference in my head, but I remember Simon Clark discussing such a quantification or attribution in one of his videos.

@anderslvolljohansen1556

3 ай бұрын

@@stuartkim4857 Fossil fuels, land use change and livestock. Rice paddies and ruminants emit methane. Deforestation releases CO2.

hmm ok I was not sure if they were measuring different carbons, or if they were factoring in the greenhouse gases from volcanos, when they say there is more co2 being released, wouldn't this carbon 12 though also cause more plants to feed more readily from the more absorbable carbon 12 they like and can use more readily?

@LesliePajuelo

2 ай бұрын

We're digging up ancient CO2, that plants are absorbing more is very temporary, 1 year for grasses (think grains), even trees for the most part are 50yrs. a lot of tree planting is lumber, it's not being left to just grow. We've been digging up and releasing CO2 for 150yrs, we've deforested massive amounts of land and at best replaced it with lumber trees tho most commonly just annual plants from grazing or crops

Asked 2 professors of physics who did not think much of the CO2 --> Global Warming theory

@GerryMantha

Ай бұрын

I worked with a Christian paleontologist while in grad school on a research project that didn't accept the science of evolution. I figured as long as he kept that stuff at home and didn't let it interfere with his work, it was fine by me.

"The science is settled!", said no real scientist ever.

@rps1689

3 ай бұрын

"Settled" in science is basically Scientific consensus, which is the widespread acceptance that all attempts to refute a hypothesis or bust a theory have failed. It can only be observed long after it has formed. Anthropogenic global warming is occurring and settled, but it is hardly the most important or interesting area of climate research because of this. AGW is a baseline; just as evolution is the baseline for evolutionary biology. The 1.1C global warming since 1880 is settled. 
The 0.2C per decade global warming since 1980 is settled. 
The insignificant decline in solar energy output since 1980 is settled.
 These are observed effects, consistent with physical theory.

@Diamond_Tiara

3 ай бұрын

@@rps1689 what part of «... said no real scientist ever.» did you omit again. There is no consensus about global warming. Climate research, you know aliens research is also a real thing too. Just like people tracking and researching ghosts, spirits and poltergeist. Myself I find the possibility of the loch ness monster and similar ones in the Baikal lake to be more plausible. Anyhing will be a science, doesn't make it true, you can have a fandom and make stats and call you a pokemon sociologist, and that's science. You can do the same with climate or anything you want! What's your point. There is a change of temperatures, how can you be certain it is meaningful or related to human activity, deliver evidence, go ahead, links to scientific publication and data that can be verified, or remain silent.

@mattleathen445

3 ай бұрын

Exactly. We know absolutely nothing at all and just need to blindly guess on all things in the future ever. Will gravity work if I step out the window? Impossible to say. The science is never settled!

@xtratracy

3 ай бұрын

Ever

@Jmriccitelli

3 ай бұрын

@@mattleathen445the earth is 5.5 billion years old… man knows what exactly?

Why was the climate warming before humans raised co2 levels?

@littlefish9305

3 ай бұрын

sshhhh! you'll stop the money train.

@alangil40

3 ай бұрын

Because the earth was recovering from the Little Ice Age. I don't think scientists dispute that the earth has natural slow periodic weather changes. Just because there is a natural warming trend does not mean that AGC could be making things worse. The question is to what extent and what should we attempt to do to mitigate external forcings?

We just warmed out of an ice age, before that antarctica had forests on it…

@hosnimubarak8869

26 күн бұрын

Do some research. The slow warming that ended the last ice age ended 6,000 years ago.

For everyone who wants to learn more about what to do against climate change: A great book on this is Mike Berners Lee "There is no Planet B". The author has a great talent for crunching numbers without becoming boring or preachy, and really makes clear where everyone, including ordinary citizens, can save CO2. Really an eye-opener!

Time to talk about the greening of Africa. Geologic evidence shows normal CO2 levers are usually 600 - 1200 ppm

@danobrien3601

3 ай бұрын

that would be when humans weren't around ? I wonder why

@danilooliveira6580

3 ай бұрын

there is no such a thing as "normal CO2 levels", it changed widely throughout earth's history. the problem is that we adapted to the earth we live right now, and changing it, specially this fast, could have dire consequences.

@plundbohm

3 ай бұрын

or might not@@danilooliveira6580

@Richard482

3 ай бұрын

What were sea levels when CO2 levels were that high? Would it suit 8 billion people?

Wouldn't it be possible to establish a Baseline for Carbon 14 prior to Atmospheric Nuclear Testing by looking at tree and ice cores that span the period before and after?

@paperburn

3 ай бұрын

It is and has been done. It shows climate change is real and happening at a fast rate.

@xanthee_imr

3 ай бұрын

I guess an important change in CO2 levels was already happening and interpreting that data correctly is just more difficult rather than impossible, producing less reliable models. Remember that this video condenses a lot of information, things are always much more complex

@Diamonddavej

3 ай бұрын

Well, the baseline is the Vienna Peedee Belemnite (VPDB) isotope reference. It is a fossil whose C12/C13 ratio was measured with great precision, and it is this reference we compared against other samples. The deviation from this standard is called the Delta-13 (δ13C) ratio. And yes, we can measure the δ13C ratio, and the Oxygen and Hydrogen / Deuterium ratio, in ice cores going back hundreds of thousands of years. Stable isotope analysis is a fascinating and powerful technique. For example, in my geology department we could tell (from hair and fingernail sample) if a student spent summer in the US or stayed here in Ireland. This is because our dairy cows, beef cattle are grass fed, but dairy and beef cattle in the US are mainly grain fed, and thus end up with a different nitrogen isotopic ratio, which can affect people's own nitrogen isotopic ratio depending on their diet. It's now used en arcology and to solve crimes (Jane/John Does can be pinned down geographically, which can help with identification).

@picksalot1

3 ай бұрын

@@Diamonddavej Thanks for your detailed comment.

The date ranges on the charts are very recent , to be meaningful they should go way back in time

Wouldn't a more direct way to estimate the human contribution to carbon in the atmosphere be to estimate the amount of fossil fuels burned and the amount of carbon in those fossil fuels? And then see whether that squares with the rise in carbon?

Perfect summary thank you Sabine for this and all your honest thoughtful work which is up to date,human, humorous and always positively adds to scientific debate.

@berniv7375

3 ай бұрын

No mention of factory farming and it's horrific contribution to global warming. Disappointing.

What caused the last warming and cooling. Ice core samples show far higher co2 levels in pre history.

@ClayRavin

3 ай бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/qZ-lpqywhKzNj6g.html

I wish climate scientist would first explain how our electro magnetic field gets it's strength ? Sometimes I almost wonder if maybe magnetic reversals influences our climate but then I remember it's all the gases.

My uncle said that then why not the main economical powers reduce their ecological footprint and give money to the undeveloped countries so they can keep developing without polluting to avoid the warming. He asked me if you can do a video about that as well.

@paoloesquivel7430

3 ай бұрын

The poor countries have asked the rich countries for this money. Of course they have been turned away. But that's a political matter that you're raising. Let the engineering and the finance and the politics of climate change response be (mis)handled by the engineers and financiers and politicians. In the meantime, let's at least get the climate facts straight.

We don't know. We just think we know it's not spurious correlation.

You should have an online discussion with physicist, Dr Bernhard Strehl. His arguments counter much of what you are saying. It would be very informative.

@boxsterbenz4059

3 ай бұрын

many many scientists disagree with the IPCC hypothesis. they've been deplatformed, vilified and defunded. but they are out there and must be heard.

"... and the fraction's been increasing ever since the beginning of the measurements." Fantastic, I love this one. How do you know what happened before the beginning of the measurements? How about a few thousand years of increasing before the beginning of the measurements?

@paoloesquivel7430

3 ай бұрын

Because temperature leaves unique isotopic signatures and other marks on living organisms, fossils, and rocks. Because we have written records and archaeological remains.

One can't fix the problem until one fixes the economics. Peter Thiel in his book "Zero to One" acknowledged the attempted solution cause Bankruptcy. The scenario has to focus on the economics and cycling the water molecule which enables creating more products to spread the cost over!