There's a question no one seems to address: Yes, we are putting extra CO2 into the atmosphere, and the planet-warming effects of CO2 are well-documented, but is it the case that, as the Holocene ends, the changes of the Earth's tilt, precession, and eccentricity (as described by the Milankovitch cycles) completely overwhelms all the inadvertent efforts by humans to keep the planet warm? Anthropomorphic global-warming suggests the next glacial period has been put on hold indefinitely because of human activity. That certainly could be true - and a lot of scientists think it is true. You probably can't even get a grant to study climate change if you don't already think that global-warming is mostly caused by human activity. But two other outcomes are also possible: The first is that humans are adding just enough greenhouse gas to delay the next round of glaciation. The second is that glaciation is inevitable, and the amount of greenhouse gases added over the last 10,000 years is negligible with respect to the overwhelming cooling that will happen as the Holocene period ends. So there are three possible outcomes - and from what I've read, more open studies are needed to see which path we're really on. Unfortunately, the way science currently works, there is no funding to look into these alternative outcomes - which, of course, leaves scientists open to being completely surprised when things don't go the way they are predicting.

@ItsJustAstronomical

3 жыл бұрын

I think it's certainly true that humans have delayed the next glaciation. In the book "The Life and Death of Planet Earth", the authors say that in a few centuries we will have exhausted most of the world's fossil fuels and the glaciers will return. They don't give any specifics on when this will happen. But I think the reason this hasn't been studied so much is because this is so far into the future. Most scientists are more worried about the next few centuries than thousands of years from now. And if you want to think about the distant future, the book also explains that the Sun is very gradually getting brighter. In a billion years, it will be so hot that the oceans will boil away. But the big unknown in all of this is the advancement of human technology. Maybe we will have developed enough technology in thousands or millions of years to make planet-wide interventions. It's hard to know.

@mxbishop

3 жыл бұрын

@@ItsJustAstronomical All good points. All I'm really suggesting is a scientific study that asks if it possible to use CO2 to control the balance between entering glaciation, and staying just outside of it. Like a thermostat for a house, only use it for heating/cooling the whole planet - in an optimal sort of way. If such a thing were possible, we'd need a lot more information on how, when, and why glaciation begins. There are some studies we can use, but more could be done to explore this idea. There probably is an optimal amount of CO2 for planetary health. But what is that value, and how is it derived?

@ItsJustAstronomical

3 жыл бұрын

@@mxbishop A lot of scientists are interested in this kind of question and they're working on it. It's just a really hard problem. Given an amount of CO2, what will happen to the climate? Or just given our current level of CO2, what will happen to the climate? There are plenty of different climate models out there. But they disagree with one another and aren't known to be very accurate. It's really hard problem, but I think we're making progress on this. But the other part of the thermostat is missing too. Even modest changes to the world's CO2 production are hard for us to implement.

@praem9597

2 жыл бұрын

Co2 does not warm the clinate. This is Ipcc propaganda.

@abebuckingham8198

2 жыл бұрын

Given that fossil fuel companies funded countless studies to try and disprove climate change so you're wrong about the grants. The problem is that they've already been studied and they failed to explain what's happening without man-made climate change. I'm sure you'd have trouble getting a grant to try and disprove the existence of gravity too but that's not a bad thing.

Something to keep in mind: Milankovich cycles don't directly cause ice ages or warming periods, they influence feedback cycles of heating and cooling. It's a slow, subtle process and it doesn't take much to be disturbed.

@flatsville1

4 жыл бұрын

Yes. Volcanic eruption for example.

@InitiativetHH

3 жыл бұрын

@@flatsville1 Still emissions from volcanos is less than one percent of what we release by burning fossil fuels.

@paulscottfilms

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah righto.You know it's good enough for many of us to realise that the further away from the sun you are the less heat.

@InitiativetHH

3 жыл бұрын

@sciphynuts So than you might be able to give me some reliable references for that?

@CarlosAM1

3 жыл бұрын

@sciphynuts problem is you are completely wrong here, give me a source for the bs you just said.

I've heard of these cycles before but didn't know the names. The way you explain things even my grandma can understand. Thanx

@whatabouttheearth

Жыл бұрын

For the length of time of the cycles from shortest to longest remember POE: Precession (shortest) Obliquity Eccentricity (longest)

@TalkingGIJoe

Жыл бұрын

he is wrong... kzread.info/dash/bejne/lmyqyaOopMzYlqw.html

@rogueriderhood1862

Жыл бұрын

Are you saying your grandma isn't very bright? That's not very nice, is it?

@gordanagarment

Жыл бұрын

@@rogueriderhood1862 BE NICE , Thank you.

I studied Ice Ages as part of my batchelors degree. The Sun also has cycles and the Sun cycle periodically coincides with increases in volcanism. Volcanoes produce particles that ascend to the upper atmosphere and it is this that creates a lower temperature because the Sun is blotted out. All Ice Ages are preceded by increased volcanism. The amount of CO2 is approximately 0.0391 parts per million. This is measured by the percentage present in water vapour.

@misterbulger

2 жыл бұрын

Did you find if the sun's cycles impact volcanism in any way?

@syedjazibhassan4855

2 жыл бұрын

That doesn't change that we should be in a mini ice age if it wasn't for our co2 production

@chrissmartin4137

2 жыл бұрын

Excuse me, but the amount of CO2 ist aproximately ... where? In the atmosphere it is arround 400 ppm or 0.04 %. Guess it is just a misleading typing error?

@jackculler1489

2 жыл бұрын

@@syedjazibhassan4855 we are still in an ice age. Polar ice caps = ice age

@Afreshio

2 жыл бұрын

@@jackculler1489 We should be in an mild ice age right NOW. But the facts is that the ice caps are melting like there is no tomorrow, thus heating the planet even more.

So, what you're saying is that not only has farming and industry provided us with food and shelter, it's also prevented an ice age that would have killed millions through famine.

@ItsJustAstronomical

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah, something like that, but you can have too much of a good thing.

@baldieman64

4 жыл бұрын

Then clearly the only solution is the extermination of around 6 billion people and the reforestation of much of the planet. Hand on a second...... There are multiple global efforts all claiming to be planting millions/billions of trees. Is there something we're not being told?

@ItsJustAstronomical

4 жыл бұрын

@@baldieman64 That's obviously not the only solution.

@takeoffyourblinkers

4 жыл бұрын

@@baldieman64 Planting trees hasn't worked, but maybe this could. kzread.info/dash/bejne/qKSIqstwf5mcoKw.html

@happycamper3455

2 жыл бұрын

Here in Canada we had an iceage 12,000 years ago...co2 levels now are roughly 400ppm...65mil years ago co2 levels were at 2000ppm to 4000pm that gew giant plants and giant animals...the gradual increase in co2 is a good thing..better than living in a frozen waist land..

This is what i expect when discussing the topic of Climate Change - A well built analysis devoid of any personal preference, agenda and most importantly no Ableism. Its really sad how the media has politicized Climate Change and reduced it merely to preference of Political Parties.

@thomasmitchell1790

4 жыл бұрын

Totally agree

@snuffeldjuret

4 жыл бұрын

I don't think it was the media, it was the right who chose to ignore the science.

@oldschoolgreentube

4 жыл бұрын

@@snuffeldjuret The science is, that the addition of a tiny amount of an insignificant weak greenhouse gas cannot create what alarmist are predicting.

@snuffeldjuret

4 жыл бұрын

@@oldschoolgreentube that does not refute what I said.

@oldschoolgreentube

4 жыл бұрын

@@snuffeldjuret Yeah. It does.

Thanks, Exactly what I was looking for! :D I laughed when you zoomed in to where we are now LOL

Haha as soon as I watched the previous video I wondered where we're at in the cycle, and then I see this video, nice!

@michealnagy6173

2 жыл бұрын

Actually you are on the correct idea! There is a lot to know about weather than previously understood! The more we learn the more we realize we have much more to learn.

@michealnagy6173

2 жыл бұрын

What is also a factor now is the earth is wobbly! Just like a top on a table does so does Earth! How does that now effect earths weather is only speculation but it is a factor.

We ARE in a mild ice age right now, the poles do have ice where they don't in warmer periods.

@grindupBaker

2 жыл бұрын

Yes. Formally when there's a sizeable permanent ice sheet on Earth its in an Ice Age. Antarctica & Greenland mean Earth is now in an Ice Age. Bods everywhere use "ice Age" colloquially to mean "glaciation period" because it's more understandable by the unwashed masses, which is almost everybody.

@richb2229

2 жыл бұрын

Technically, we are in a ice age. But really in an interglacial period (warm period) that has lasted about 10,000 years so far. And, we are the rising side of a peak in global temperature related to the Milinković cycles. For civilization, the end of this interglacial period is much more of a threat than the little bit of warming we might see over the next hundred years or so. Ice ages are very difficult to survive.

@andrejcerjak1790

2 жыл бұрын

@@richb2229 Exactly! We (human race and animals and plants) should be much more afraid of the ice ages than warm periods! This global warming fear is generated by rich elite who don't want to risk changes in which they would probably lose some of their influence (and their properties next to the beaches). . And those who oppose this theories are condemned to media silence, some even lose their jobs (many others are quiet because of their fear of losing their jobs) Even when sea levels do start to rise (which still isn't happening - 30 years or more after it was announced) it will not happen over night, it will be a very slow process instead unlike in those stupid movies supporting the fear of "Global Warming"!

@michaeldeierhoi4096

Жыл бұрын

@@andrejcerjak1790 The global warming fear is absolutely NOT generated by the global elite. Global Warming science is well established by the climate scientists who study it. Saying that we have more to fear from a global ice age is pure hubris. There is no imminent ice age in the foreseeable future. We are however seeing the direct effects of global warming right now!! There is increasing drought, heat waves, floods going on right now. Forest fires are larger and moving much faster because exceptional drought and increasing temperatures. The Arctic Ice Cap is retreating in thickness and area at a record rate. The list goes on as the catastrophic effects of global warming intensify.

@saschaesken5524

Жыл бұрын

CO2 is the least counting faktor to climate change.

Maybe I missed it, did the "little ice age" make it into that data set?

@ItsJustAstronomical

4 жыл бұрын

The little ice age is part of the temperature graph, but as the name suggests it was a small event in the grand scheme of things.

@Scott89878

4 жыл бұрын

There were lots of climate swings back and forth like that. Rome fell because of a colder period, the bronze age collapse was largely driven by a colder period. But none of those swings even compare to the shift from ice age to interglacial period.

@adriansandrigo7136

4 жыл бұрын

thats because the solar behaviour not milankovitch cycle

@jeffbenton6183

4 жыл бұрын

@Deimos Cain The Black Death has nothing to do with the little Ice Age. It happened near the close of the Medieval Warm Period. (Also called the Medieval Climate Anomaly, because certain tropical Pacific regions were cooler, even as the North Atlantic region was warmer)

@1450JackCade

4 жыл бұрын

@Deimos Cain I've a PhD, one of my specialties is Bubonic Plague in the Early Modern Period (1500-1800, roughly), Jeff is correct. The Bubonic Plague, that led to the pneumonic version that caused the Black Death or Second Pandemic. The Black Death was the second time Plague had come to Europe, the first was 600 years earlier, and neither outbreak had anything to do with cold, in fact, the plague thrives in WARM weather. It was so bad because Europe was modernizingish, and living in cities more and more. Both major plague appearances were a result of human forays into infested areas, destabilizing ecosystems of infected animals. That is all.

So Earth became just warm enough to enable us to successfully farm and the positive feedback caused by farming kept us just warm enough to evade going back into iceage hell. I think we're still quite far away from the Earth being a maximum habitable and comfortable place overall so it's refreshing to know that we're currently in a low period on the Milankovitch cycle and should see warmer times ahead in the distant future.

@Khadgars123

Жыл бұрын

We are not in a "low point" in the Milankovitch cycle, this channel has it backwards. We just passed the local maximum, meaning hottest period of the current inter glacial. We are not set on a slow turn towards being colder with a new ice age expected in 50,000 years.

@thoutube9522

Жыл бұрын

Well, maybe it depends a little on where you live. If you're in Canada, that's great. If you live in India, not so good. Or if you live close to sea level. Luckily, people LOVE refugees. In the UK , excited crowds rush to the Kent coast to welcome the people arriving in small boats, hugging them warmly and inviting them to share their homes. No country in the world sees refugees as a problem. So if people start flooding north into the USA, for example, it will be fine. They can just make their homes in Florida, where Governor de Santis will give generous grants to newcomers. Refugees have never been an issue in the Southern USA.

@marcwinkler

Жыл бұрын

@@Khadgars123 of course you know about The Little Ice Age

@mountainflyhigh

Жыл бұрын

Current population is at least 4x what Earth can sustain long-term, no matter what cycle we're in.

@thoutube9522

Жыл бұрын

@@marcwinkler That's exciting news. So the fact that it used to be cold hundreds of years ago means that it's not going to get hot now. That's such a relief. You are so right. This is genius.

Thank you for great videos ! 👌

The first Was great thanks for a follow up

Thank you for a very informative video!

We are still in an Ice Age. It's just that we are in an interglacial period of the current Ice Age.

Interesting and relevant analysis. Many thanks.

We are in a mild ice age! Theres ice on the poles

@QuizmasterLaw

4 жыл бұрын

historically, is non-ice age = polar zones free of ice?

@QuizmasterLaw

4 жыл бұрын

@Melissa Sullivan i do believe an ice age is defined by the presence of ice caps. however it is a hell of a difference between ice caps around labrador (like my childhood) versus ice caps at NYC let alone all the way to the southern U.S.A. Without a) farming and b) cars and factories NYC would likely be glaciated if my understanding of the contemporary projections from past history is other than wrong. Anyway for sure Newfoundland should be glaciated were it not for cars and farms.

@QuizmasterLaw

4 жыл бұрын

@Melissa Sullivan around 1000 a.d. there was a serious temperature drop. This dropping stopped by 1400. By 2000 it had reversed, if I am not mistaken.

@MrTryAnotherOne

4 жыл бұрын

Not enough it seems.

@ATLparanormalOG

4 жыл бұрын

@@QuizmasterLaw Not quite, but close. Napolean's conquest of Russia was largely halted by a particularly harsh period of a mini ice age which all told, lasted from around 1250 to the early 1900s. The peak cold periods were in the 1600s followed by another dip almost as cold in the early 1800s, which is when he got his butt handed to him both by the Russians and the precipitous dip in winter conditions.

I get it! I also get reduction of greenhouse gases devices.... but why are we not super focused on re forestations?

@hater_apologist645

Жыл бұрын

Because the rich buy all the land so they can get richer 🥺

@xaviermaster1

Жыл бұрын

There are 8 billion people and everyone need house, like it or not we need to cut trees

Very educational and interesting mate,, well enjoyed

Thank you for answering a long burning question I've had

Would be fascinating to understand the interaction of this theory with John L Casey’s Relational Cycle theory on the bicentennial cycle of sun activity’s influence on earth

@juliusapriadi

2 жыл бұрын

I guess it depends how strong these sun activity cycles are in comparison to the forces described in the video. If the sun activity's effect is relatively marginal, it won't change much - otherwise it adds another beautiful layer of complexity.

@lindaostrom570

Жыл бұрын

so many factors to consider besides " carbon is bad". carbon keeps us warm and the crops growing. no carbon no plant life. earths tilt, cme's, solar flares and gases, poles in flux, ozone depletion, solar maximums and minimums.....all are part of what we refer to as climate. climate is not static and never has been. so sorry for the inconvienience, but why dont you go out and march, throw soup on paintings, glue yourself to the road lmao, block roads and bridges. the natural forces at work will surely change just for you and your ill informed passions.

It's been cooling slowly since just after exiting the last glaciation within this ice age. Both the medieval and roman warm periods were warmer than it is today. The coldest time since being somewhat recent during the little ice age. The current warming is not particularly fast or warm and we should hope our effects are as strong as the politicians claim. Why? Because cold is much harder to adapt to and is in our future.

@oldcountryman2795

2 жыл бұрын

Spot on. Warming is good.

@TankUni

2 жыл бұрын

@@oldcountryman2795 Have you forgotten that there's ~8 billion people on the planet now, who depend on a stable climate and biosphere for food, fresh water and land that doesn't flood? Just look at the disruption a relatively mild pandemic has caused.

@oldcountryman2795

2 жыл бұрын

@@TankUni The “biosphere” is just fine sweetie. The tiny and gradual warming that we’re supposedly experiencing is a good thing, if real.

@TankUni

2 жыл бұрын

@@oldcountryman2795 Ok cupcake. But I think I'll give more credence to the scientific community though, who definitely don't share your casual attitude.

@oldcountryman2795

2 жыл бұрын

@@TankUni I don’t care who you “give credence to.” Just like “global warming” it doesn’t affect me.

have you noticed that they don’t bring up Milankovitch cycles when they’re talking about magnetic pole reversal,what effect the wobble might have on the inner liquids of the planet

@u.p.woodtick3296

4 жыл бұрын

Bob Le Clair good point, never considered it myself

@lewisyaxley

4 жыл бұрын

No it’s green house gasses Dame it. Shame on you for buying a car.

@paulscottfilms

3 жыл бұрын

Paul Scott 1 second ago No Social scientists say it's all Carbon. He is sorry for saying that the sun is hot.

@abebuckingham8198

2 жыл бұрын

Magnetic pole reversals are not cyclic and the internals of the planet move independently of the surface. Those two factors make it extremely unlikely that they're related.

@loshan1212

2 жыл бұрын

Because the magnetic pole and the earth's physical rotation across its pole are two different things? one is caused by the hot and high pressure material inside the earth (magnetic pole) and the actual rotation of the Earth is caused by gravitional means (the solar system's sun, earth's moon, other planets). The magnetic pole doesn't affect the movement of the Earth, so there's not going to be anymore or less sunlight, which causes Ice Ages and Greenhouse ages, as explained in the previous video.

Even today only about 12% of the earths surface is used for agriculture and much of that was never forest, it was prairie grass. Before the discovery of iron it would be pretty difficult to deforest what wasn't already deforested. I would really like to see your data on deforestation by human activity over the 9000 years you are referring to. Even 5000 years ago the human population has been estimated at only 14 million. Deforestation by humans increased greatly in the last 300 years or so but you have a lot of explaining to do for the other 8700 years. The main thing to keep in mind is that more than two thirds of the earth is covered in water and it's the photo synthetic bacteria and many other micro organisms in the vast oceans and lakes that generate and exchange the great majority of atmospheric gases. So any additional CO2 generated as you say from conversion of forest to agriculture would face the vast oceans to absorb and convert it. Being land animals and very egocentric ones at that, we like to think it's the beautiful forests on land that are the "lungs of the earth" but in truth it's the slimy bacteria and fungi that are doing the majority of the work generating most of the atmospheric oxygen, virtually all of the nitrogen and reducing most of the CO2 down to just a few hundred parts per million.

@ItsJustAstronomical

4 жыл бұрын

For the data on deforestation I would suggest looking at these papers: Kaplan, J. O., K. M. Krumhardt, and N. Zimmerman (2009), The prehistoric and preindustrial deforestation of Europe, Quat. Sci. Rev., 28, 3016-3034 Ruddiman, Fuller, Kutzbach, Tzedakis, Kaplan, Ellis, Vavrus, Roberts, Fyfe, He, Lemmen, Woodbridge. (2015). Late Holocene Climate: Natural or Anthropogenic?. Reviews of Geophysics. 54. They argue that there was much more deforestation per person when farming was getting started. Also, I slightly oversimplified the mechanism for deforestation in the video. Much of the deforestation was actually caused by domesticated sheep, goats, and pigs. They eat the young shoots of trees and over decades deforest vast tracks of land. Most of the sheep pastures of England were once oak forests before sheep.

@praem9597

2 жыл бұрын

@@ItsJustAstronomical Your video seems like propaganda for the climate change fraud.

@vanbatim5906

2 жыл бұрын

@@praem9597 That's because you can't follow science when it is put in its simplest form. It's not propaganda, it's your inability to comprehend. Or you're gullible.

@kevinturner7509

2 жыл бұрын

@@vanbatim5906 Those imbeciles will mistake anything that goes against their pridefully held confirmation bias as "propaganda." When they're presented with inconvenient scientific consensus, they merely dismiss it as the opinion of an opposing tribe much like their own conspiracy theorist group. They are largely beyond help or reason.

@Tucker93669

2 жыл бұрын

@@ItsJustAstronomical so they can't prove it, it's just an argument? Yet you claim it as fact?

As per definition, "Ice Age" is a period in which there are ice sheets at the Poles. As per this definition, the current ice age we are living in start around 34 Million Years ago when the Antarctican tectonic plate moved on top of the South Pole. This current Ice Age is called the 'Late Cenozoic Ice Age'. But many scientists say that since the Arctic ice sheets formed around 2.5 Million years ago, so the current ice age began at that time, and should be called 'Quaternary Ice Age'. There have been at least five major ice ages in the Earth's history (the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, late Paleozoic, and the latest Quaternary Ice Age). During each Ice Age, there are Glacial Periods and Inter Glacial Periods which are dictated as per Milankovitch Cycles (mainly). Currently we are in an Inter Glacial Period known as the 'Holocene' which began around 11700 years ago. Predicted changes in orbital forcing suggest that the next glacial period would begin at least 50,000 years from now, due to the Milankovitch cycles. Though, increased greenhouse gases are estimated to potentially outweigh the orbital forcing of the Milankovitch cycles for hundreds of thousand of years. So, the next "ice age" in laymen terms or the next glacial period in scientific terms will not begin for the next hundreds of thousands of years even accounting for Milankovitch cycles because of human release of CO2 and Methane in the atmosphere. It is estimated that if the current release of CO2 continues for a hundred more years, then the global temperature will rise around 6 to 7 degrees Celsius and become similar to the global temperature during the time of the Dinosaurs, at which point the North Pole would be completely ice free, and the Antarctic ice sheets would be collapsing with devastating effects on human civilization.

@lawrenceroper

4 жыл бұрын

Pay no attention to the Sun, it's got absolutely nothing to do with our climate. lol.

@tesseract2144

4 жыл бұрын

@@lawrenceroper No, clearly not this time, learn some stuff before trying to pedantly rebutt some very well detailed explanation of ice age.

@danaldtrampf6717

4 жыл бұрын

@@lawrenceroper State me one scientific source, that states that the sun has become severly hotter in the last 50 years and I'll believe you. Otherwise you're just some biased idiot

@johnchandler1687

Жыл бұрын

Of more immediate concern from our sun is a magnetic pulse like occurred in the late 19th century. Saw a member of the government committee formed to study that. He said it would knock out the power grid for approximately 2 years resulting in about 90% of our population to die from starvation, disease and fighting over food, etc. Said it would cost around $3 billion to shield the grid, but so far the government and electric companies won't spend the money. Meanwhile congress gives away uncounted billions to countries that hate us every year. If you want something to worry about, that's a real and present danger that we know has happened recently and no telling how many times before.

Cherry-picked that time frame nicely... curiously no mention of the epochs in history when the CO2 levels were many, many times current levels, but also the most rampant exploding-with-life-forms, and not much warmer. Or how those variations in CO2/methane (negligible effect that methane has, due to its reactivity) may or may not correlate or correspond with the Milankovitch cycles. How can you ascribe the changes to human activity when there are known human-less periods (without farming and petroleum-use) in the past eras that had more extreme amounts of what you claim are causing the climate change (or lack of it, since you say we should be in a 'mild ice-age' whatever that really means?)

@marcinc378

Жыл бұрын

Terry make an effort and look for explanations for other warming periods (e.g. PETM). It is not so difficult.

@thoutube9522

Жыл бұрын

I WON'T believe it. I won't'I won't. So there. Evidence? Who needs evidence?

@thedeathwobblechannel6539

Жыл бұрын

What about the effect of volcanoes on these emissions? And just to throw it out there 10 years of electric vehicles from Tesla is not going to change anything luxury vehicles are not going to change the world.

@thoutube9522

Жыл бұрын

I assume you mean the Cambrian Explosion. "At this time the average temperature may have exceeded 120 degrees Fahrenheit, even near the poles. Eighty-five percent of the earth was covered with water (compared to 70 percent today...the average temperature of these vast seas may have been in the range of 100 to 110 degrees Fahrenheit." Or to put it another way. Yes, there have been times when CO2 is higher. and yes it was hotter and yes the sea level was massively higher. In other words, EXACTLY the conditions we're hoping to avoid.

@EricThe82

Жыл бұрын

@@thoutube9522 there have been many periods since the Cambrian explosion. Why are you picking the furthest back example?

4:02 “This released a lot of CO2” *First car you see is a Tesla*

@teomaik

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah, as if Tesla cars need only hopes and dreams to produce. P.S. i do know they are probably better than the coal burning diesel cars

@laturista1000

4 жыл бұрын

@@teomaik Tesla cars are only zero carbon emissions while driving, if and only if, the driver is charging at a station that gets electricity from the sun or other renewable sources. Sadly, most Tesla Supercharging stations are connected to an electrical grid that is powered by COAL! So electric cars are not really that eco friendly. They are better than a traditional combustion engine. Saves more money to the consumer and is easier to maintain an electric car, no oil changes.

@19thewanderer

4 жыл бұрын

@@teomaik But do you know how much Co2 was produced making a Tesla car?? And did you know you can't make a Tesla car without using coal. google to find out.

@1queijocas

4 жыл бұрын

@@19thewanderer Well electric cars are only part of the solution, the next step will be solar roofs and electric mining machines (which Tesla is planning on making).

@jeffbenton6183

4 жыл бұрын

@@teomaik diesel, like gasoline, is a petroleum product. It comes from oil, not coal.

Your video completely omits the fact, that the earth is greening. Now large parts of the Sahara are greening as well, because of co2.

@abebuckingham8198

2 жыл бұрын

That's because it has exactly nothing to do with the topic discussed in this video.

@paterater6196

2 жыл бұрын

@@abebuckingham8198 .../sigh...watch the video again, like from 2:00 ...

@AORD72

Ай бұрын

It also misses the fact I have run out of toilet paper.

wow thank you so much, your explaination is beyond amazing❤️

@DadBodDrumming

3 жыл бұрын

But its just a THEORY and its an obviously incomplete one. Since it doesn't account for the Sun Cycles. The sun itself has its own warm and cool trends which also affect our weather.

@klokoloko2114

2 жыл бұрын

@@DadBodDrumming If you think on 11 years sun solar cycles than this is just 0.15°C max temp. fluctuation during those 11 years up and down. Right now we are at the beginning of 25 cycle so next 6 years will be hotter .

@sinephase

2 жыл бұрын

@@DadBodDrumming what? that's not what "theory" means and this cycle is a predictor of global temperature just like sun cycles are (and those are only 11 year cycles IIRC so how do you account for the near constant increase in temp over he last 100 years?) If you can't understand how these orbital patterns might affect global temperature patterns you aren't as smart as you think you are LOL Now go read the definition of what a scientific theory is and get back to us.

@brendawilliams8062

2 жыл бұрын

If all you had todo is bump 24. Then we’d all be in high cotton.

Very compact yet very informative video. God bless. Stay safe and healthy.

@Tucker93669

2 жыл бұрын

a lot of assumptions in that video

@gordanagarment

Жыл бұрын

@@Tucker93669 Not simple topic, same here.

Thanks for your great videos

Thank you for that clarification about greenhouse gasses vs the M cycles.

Why was the co2 graph only taken back 10,000 years shouldn't it have been extended back as far as the milankovitch graph for a more balanced comparison over such a long period

@abebuckingham8198

2 жыл бұрын

So that you can see what's happening. If you add another 100,000 years for an additional carbon cycle it obscures the effect because the periods of the two cycles are so different. What I can tell you for certain is that there has never been a point in the last 2 million years where we had over 300ppm atmosphere CO2 until humans arrived. It would go from a little under 200ppm and back up to a little under 300ppm and that pattern has been steady for at least the last 800,000 years. So the entire cycle had an impact of about 100ppm. Currently we're over 400ppm and all of that extra growth came in the last 150 years. It was terribly bad luck that we industrialized right at the peak of the natural cycle.

Great video! thanks a lot and keep it up

Excellent video, but isn't it strange how the conclusion can be negative rather than positive. It just shows how, if graph scales are manipulated sufficiently, you can alter the conclusions with simply changing the scales on axes. I agree with everything in the first 90% of the video and strongly disagree with the last 10%.

awesome video! Thank you!

More videos please!

So what happens when this is combined with the solar cycle GSM....?

@saurabhsalunkhe2417

4 жыл бұрын

Whats that ?

@joep9617

4 жыл бұрын

@@saurabhsalunkhe2417 Grand Solar Maximum or Minimum. Natural Solar Cycles (there are longer and shorter cycles)

@dickfitswell3437

3 жыл бұрын

@JST Inceptions I concur

@paulscottfilms

3 жыл бұрын

No you have to forget the sun now, KZread told him so. Its co2 that causes heat.

@antred11

2 жыл бұрын

@JST Inceptions "Exactly! The IPCC, MSM and the extremists have long ignored the Sun." No, they absolutely haven't. But it's cute watching your squirm and pretend that they had just so you can hold on to your prefabricated notions.

I liked him in "Con Air" the best.

The underlying heat-adjustment effect works like this: --------- "GREENHOUSE EFFECT", TRYING TO WARM IF THE QUANTITY INCREASES - The "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere operates like this: Some of the "LWR" aka "infrared" radiation heading up gets absorbed into cloud above instead of going to space so that's the "heat trapping" effect of a cloud. The top portion of the cloud radiates up some of the LWR radiation that's manufactured inside the cloud but it's less amount than the LWR that was absorbed into the bottom of the cloud because the cloud top is colder than below the cloud and colder things radiate less than warmer things. That is PRECISELY the "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere. It's the "greenhouse effect" of liquid "water" and solid "ice" in that example. You can see that "greenhouse effect" of liquid "water" and solid "ice" for all the various places on Earth from CERES satellite instrument at kzread.info/dash/bejne/nXlluKR8pJutfMY.html at 7:50. It's the pink one labelled "Longwave....26.2 w / m**2" so cloud globally has a "greenhouse effect" of 26.2 w / m**2. - Solids in the troposphere have the exact same effect as the "cloud greenhouse effect" above for the exact same reason. - Infrared-active gases in the troposphere (H2O gas, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs) have the exact same effect as the "cloud greenhouse effect" above for the exact same reason. Non infrared-active gases in the troposphere (N2, O2, Ar) have no "greenhouse effect" because their molecule is too simple to get the vibrational energy. The "greenhouse effect" really is that simple, and it's utterly 100% certain. --------- SUNSHINE REFLECTION EFFECT, TRYING TO COOL IF THE QUANTITY INCREASES - Clouds (liquid "water" and solid "ice") absorb & reflect some sunlight and the "reflect" part has an attempt-to-cool effect, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the "greenhouse effect". You can see that "sunlight reflection attempt-to-cool effect" of liquid "water" and solid "ice" for all the various places on Earth from CERES satellite instrument at kzread.info/dash/bejne/nXlluKR8pJutfMY.html at 7:50. It's the blue one labelled "Shortwave....-47.3 w / m**2" so cloud globally has a sunshine reflection effect of 47.3 w / m**2. - Solids in the troposphere absorb & reflect some sunlight and the "reflect" part has an attempt-to-cool effect, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the "greenhouse effect". - Infrared-active gases in the troposphere (H2O gas, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs) do not absorb or reflect any sunlight (minor note: except a tiny portion in the high-frequency ultraviolet where O2 & O3 has absorbed most of it already in the stratosphere above the troposphere). --------- NET EFFECT OF THE 2 ENTIRELY-DIFFERENT EFFECTS DESCRIBED ABOVE - The net result of the 2 entirely-different "cloud" effects is that clouds have a net cooling effect of 21.1 w / m**2 as seen in the blue-hues pictorial at left on screen at either of my 2 GooglesTubes links above. - The net result for solids in the troposphere is a net cooling effect because the change in this effect by humans is the "global dimming" atmospheric aerosols air pollution effect and that's a cooling effect (separate from its cloud change effect). - The net result for infrared-active gases in the troposphere (H2O gas, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs) is a warming effect because their 2nd effect above is negligible, essentially zero.

Interesting, so humans saved themselves from an Ice Age without even knowing it. We must be thankful to our forefathers!

@FootLettuce

Жыл бұрын

But they have created something worse: A Warm Age.

@Siddhartha040107

Жыл бұрын

A warm age in a supposed cold age. That might mean that when the warm age comes, it will be hell.

@xaviermaster1

Жыл бұрын

@@Siddhartha040107 yeah but it still a long time right?

@thoutube9522

Жыл бұрын

I'm assuming you live in a cold or temperate country well above sea level. That's great. For YOU. Some people live areas where it's already unbearably hot. Think about that for ten seconds.

@DipaTarigan

9 ай бұрын

​@@thoutube9522I live in equator area, and I'm fine, thanks

where did you get your interglacial graph from?

@ItsJustAstronomical

4 жыл бұрын

Ruddiman, Fuller, Kutzbach, Tzedakis, Kaplan, Ellis, Vavrus, Roberts, Fyfe, He, Lemmen, Woodbridge. (2015). Late Holocene Climate: Natural or Anthropogenic?. Reviews of Geophysics. 54.

@maxjoseph3009

4 жыл бұрын

@@ItsJustAstronomical ah cheers so helpful

Are we delaying a ice age from starting naturally from earths cycles? What about outside forces? Any inclinations of universal events linked or know to happen along the same time line?

You explained it really well in the simplest possible way, thanks!

@praem9597

2 жыл бұрын

Except it is lies. Please check Willie Soon videos for the truth on the climate change fraud.

@ShobeirSheida

2 жыл бұрын

​@@praem9597 I'm very well informed about the desperate efforts of your clients to cast doubt in the public minds about the fact of the man made climate change. So, no. I won't waste any more of my time, not more than what I have already wasted replying to your pitiful comment. 👎

@praem9597

2 жыл бұрын

@@ShobeirSheida My clients? What are you talking about? You are talking nonsense not only about climate but also about other things. You are very weird. Please check Willie Soon videos about the truth on the climate change fraud.

@ShobeirSheida

2 жыл бұрын

@@praem9597 Nope.

@user-vp1sc7tt4m

2 жыл бұрын

@@praem9597 Humans tend to believe what we want to believe. We gather evidence and then choose. Some are more flexible than others and may be more diligent in their research. An open mind can learn to see through the fog of evidence supporting all sides of a subject but only if the mind is willing to remain curious and keep looking. Take what I said here and do with it what you choose.

Can the sun cycles have an impact on earths climate? From what I have read so far is yes.

Why was the eemian interglacial far warmer than our interglacial yet co2 was much lower during the eemian? And sea level was around 6 metres higher across the planet, scary stuff!

@grindupBaker

2 жыл бұрын

I don't remember the detail on that one but I think the scientist said it was because the glaciation period (colloquial "ice age") before the Eemian interglacial was longer than the one before the present Holocene that made the Eemian a "short & sharp" one with a higher peak than pre-industrial . The main thing is that Milankovitch Cycles are a total Dog's Breakfast because the 3 of them don't ever line up perfectly and the orbital one has cycles outside its cycles (very similar to the Leap Year type of thing) so the SUMMER sunshine at specifically latitude 65N and latitudes near that (where ice can form in vast enough quantities on mountains) is a total Dog's Breakfast over a million years or so. You can even clearly see the 2 unsuccessful attempts at de-glaciation during the last "ice age" in the ice core proxies where latitude 65N got more SUMMER sunshine and the glaciers retreated but it wasn't enough (the 3 Milankovitch Cycles didn't align quite enough) and then the glaciers crept south again. You can easily find on the internet a plot of SUMMER sunshine at specifically latitude 65N because scientists understand it. That's what you really need rather than looking at the individual 3+ Milankovitch Cycles and trying to combine them all together yourself.

@abebuckingham8198

2 жыл бұрын

It's actually because of the topic of this video, the Milankovitch cycles. I

@daman7129

9 ай бұрын

#orbital forcing.

Whilst we are all aware that some gases make a small difference to the amount of energy able to leave our planet, it never ceases to amaze me that there is never any talk of water vapour as a “ greenhouse gas” it is the most relevant insulator. Yet nobody suggested that we get rid of water🤷🏼‍♂️🤷🏼‍♂️

Is there data on correlation or causality between the Milankovitch cycles and the AMOC?

@ItsJustAstronomical

3 жыл бұрын

I'm not an expert on the AMOC, but it looks like they are related: skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=33 www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/abrupt-climate-change-during-the-last-ice-24288097/

@astraltraveler257

3 жыл бұрын

@@ItsJustAstronomical Thanks! Digging into the Milankovitch cycles now.

Great video! Great explanation! Great graphics! Wonder why we never learnt about the Milankovitch cycles in our school geography! Please also make a video on how the situation on earth was (life forms, species, civilizations, etc) during the last ice age.

@ronnieriveros6067

2 жыл бұрын

how can they teach u the trick ? u need to continue blving the magician.

@segalaeksey

Жыл бұрын

@@ronnieriveros6067 you need to take a spelling class from 2nd grade .

@vextech

Жыл бұрын

Don’t worry. He was Serbian, we, here neither do learn in schools about this stuff. The guy was national scientist, who gave us a lot yet we know so little. Congratulations on spreading this !

@KM-nj3cm

Жыл бұрын

Maybe if they change the curriculum and stop teaching about sex, LGBTQPIAB2... They might be able to fit in real scholastic subjects.

@joebrooks4448

Жыл бұрын

Sorry to hear that. In 1960s USA, we were taught about The Milankovitch Cycles in grade school, middle school and high school.

Can you do a video of the evolution of humans and show where in the milankovitch cycle points of note are? Early migration, introduction of neanderthals/denisovans, Atlantis sinking (or at least when it's written abkut) etc. Is a timeline of Earth in general too much to ask? Like pangea splitting and stuff?

@AlwaysHereAndNow

3 жыл бұрын

Yes I want to see that too.

@abebuckingham8198

2 жыл бұрын

Humans have only been around for one and a half Milankovitch cycles. If we restrict ourselves to the period where we have reliable records we haven't even traversed 20% of a cycle.

@timberrr1126

Жыл бұрын

We are at the top of a 10,000 year warming cycle. For the next 1,000 years we will flat line then drop into a 90,000 year ice age where temps will drop by 15 degrees. I think there is political pressure to keep everyone in fear. So, real figures cannot be presented. This guy says Milankoviich Cycles are not the major cause at the end of the video. Scientists have to obey the party line otherwise their funding will be cut off. So, persue looking for 2 million year graphs for Malankovich cycles yourself.

You’re a GOAT for still answering on a 2 year old video

Just awesome

What about all the volcanism with the Milankovitch cycles!!

The 2010 magnitude-8.8 Chile earthquake shortened the day by about 1.26 µs and shifted earth's figure axis by about 8 cm. And the 2004 magnitude-9.2 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake moved the figure axis by about 7 cm. We will have another ice age if this happens again.

@wallaroo1295

4 жыл бұрын

Makes you wonder how much the Younger Dryas Impact altered the axial tilt - that was quite a wallop, right at the northern axis. I don't think it was much, maybe none - but one thing of absolute certainty: After the Younger Dryas was over, Earth's climate radically stabilized - comparatively speaking.

@dg-vg9di

Жыл бұрын

But they keep saying we’re in global warming. The ice caps are going to melt anytime and we’re doomed! I think it’s all hogwash. Earth goes thru cycles and there are many different ones.

@cherokeestormchaser3259

Жыл бұрын

@@dg-vg9di yeah I don't buy that shit either

@changeminds2736

11 ай бұрын

*_Sorry,_** Earth's axis doesn't shift from earthquakes, neither does your axis shift when falling and trying to jump.*

Question: what do the ice core samples say about CO2 levels in previous warm and cooling cycles? Like the at begining of the last great Ice Age?

@ItsJustAstronomical

Жыл бұрын

Here's a chart. Temperature is in red. CO2 levels in blue: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#/media/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg

@williamgable2297

Жыл бұрын

@@ItsJustAstronomical This is interesting. Not only are we below the other previous interglacial averages in terms of CO2, but also in average temperature and methane levels. I would be willing to bet that if not for the level of deforestation that has occurred over the last 1000 years or so we would already be well on the way into a new ice age.

@ItsJustAstronomical

Жыл бұрын

@@williamgable2297 You've misunderstood this. It's only giving old historical values. The present day values are well above the interglacial average. In fact, they're off the chart. For CO2, we're currently at 414 ppm and for methane 1,896 ppb.

@williamgable2297

Жыл бұрын

@@ItsJustAstronomical I will have to look into this.

0:20 which would be the "worst case scenario" for a severe ice age? Lowest Tilt, highest eccentricity and precession tilted away from sun in summer - all combined? Is it possible?

@ItsJustAstronomical

Жыл бұрын

Yes, that's correct and yes, it's possible.

@wainbanfield6775

Жыл бұрын

Add in grand solar minimum?

I believe you have studied these things more than me. The Sun’s dynamos come to play too along with ocean heat sequestering and the jet streams blowing cold air south. Many factors come to play and CO2, methane, and water vapor all are involved. So is albedo which is increasing due to cosmic ray increase. CO2 still remains one of the smallest factors. That’s about all I to say about that.

@kparker2430

4 жыл бұрын

i would just add 'Sol's dynamics' one more time to your astute assessment - because i am a SuspiciousObserver ( search youtube ) and from this position - things look different - there is more than the Milankovitch cycles - the main thing is Sol's temperament and the electro plasma cosmologies interaction with Gaia's magnetosphere amongst other things.

@michaeldeierhoi4096

4 жыл бұрын

@Jack Watt. Where is the science that can explain cosmic rays causing an increased albedo? Albedo is the general reflectivity of the earth. During the glacial period with glaciers and snow covering much of the Northern Hemisphere the albedo is very high. There is a positive feedback that accelerates glacial formation which increases albedo and so on. On the warmer side of things the decreased glacier and snow cover during an interglacial period the albedo is much lower. And now with the Arctic ice cap receding to record lows in summer the albedo is also much lower which can create a positive feedback resulting in even more sea ice retreating. No where have I see any evidence that cosmic rays have any significant effect on albedo or in the ice age cycle. And Gavin Schmidt on his Real Climate website has made that very point. Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist with NASA.

@TotalSinging

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you for making that point. Dumbing it down to just the orbital cycles is too simplistic.

@JoeBurks_1

4 жыл бұрын

@@michaeldeierhoi4096 The theory is that cosmic rays seed cloud formation and clouds greatly increase the earth's albedo. Changes in the solar magnetic field can increase or decrease the number of cosmic rays from outside of the solar system, and therefore cloud formation and therefore earth's albedo. Increasing albedo due to increasing cosmic rays (what we should be seeing now) should be forcing lower global temperatures, but the effect isn't sufficient to overcome the net forcing of global temperatures upwards. It may, however, be tempering that effect so that things aren't as bad as they could be.

Well. It's a really good thing that the Earth has a reboot function then huh? Once so much of the fresh water in the poles melts into the oceans, it will saturate the oceanic currents which bring hot water from the equator to the north. With the northern hemisphere getting colder and colder the ice sheets will have a massive resurgence, and we'll pretty much be screwed... Hope it's not for awhile...

Question is do we all want to freeze and starve due to an ice age (plants and food not growing) or do we want to be warm and plenty of food and not be in an ice age?

If we are now in the middle of the cycle range, the next big thing could be an ice age? Is there any predictive value in the Milankovitch cycles? Or are they just a description of the past?

@ItsJustAstronomical

2 жыл бұрын

There is predictive value in the Milankovitch cycles, but as I explain in the video the levels of CO2 and methane are abnormally high right now which would predict a warmer climate.

@Khadgars123

Жыл бұрын

@@ItsJustAstronomical Actually if look at historic CO2 levels, the current state would be considered a CO2 drought. During the last glacial maximum (20,000 BP) CO2 dropped to 180 which is just about the lowest concentration for plants to survive and probably the lowest since multi-cellular life existed. The current 400ppm is also historically extremely low, it only looks high if you only look back into the pleistocene

So where does cement an asphalt fit into this. I’ve heard that these materials retain heat for a longer period than just plain old dirt, meaning they don’t really cool much at night ... I read It’s why cities stay hot and just keep getting hotter and hotter in the summer months. I would think this contributes to hotter summers and have little effect in winters. Does this effect the overall global temperature? Or an I misinformed ?

@T3hJimmer

4 жыл бұрын

It's a local effect. Cities become "heat islands", but it doesn't have a large effect on overall climate.

Great stuff! Something else I don't see being addressed is the weakening magnetic fields and the movement of the earths field possibly the precursor to a flip in the field itself. So if the field itself is what shields the earth from the suns radiation... why is that not a factor in climate? If it's changing shouldn't it have an effect?

@paulscottfilms

3 жыл бұрын

No Social scientists say it's all Carbon. He is sorry for saying that the sun is hot.

@anotsoshybear22

2 жыл бұрын

Those flips take 100,000 years or so to happen so yes the field is starting to flip but it doesn't happen that fast.

@venomousspecifics45

2 жыл бұрын

The majority of the energy coming from the sun is in the form of photons which have 0 electrical charge. Magnetic fields only act on moving charged particles. It doesn’t interact with photons. The sun also sends out massive particles (which are usually charged), this is called the solar wind. These are impacted by the Earth’s magnetic field. The charged particles are sent to the north and south poles where they interact with our atmosphere creating the northern and southern lights (or auroras). The magnetic field will slowly weaken and eventually flip (it’s done this before). However, the magnetic field will look messier, it won’t entirely disappear.

@nick4819

2 жыл бұрын

I don't listen to this garbage. These people STILL after all these years of studying weather...can't tell you with certainty what is going to happen tomorrow. We have an idea....but sometimes they are completely wrong.

@michaeldeierhoi4096

Жыл бұрын

@@nick4819 On the contrary, weather prediction has gotten much better. The path of hurricanes is often predicted very accurately as much as a week in advance. But of course it isn't perfect because there are so many variables in the climate making it hard to predict at times. Stop focusing only when the prediction is wrong and focus more on how often weather predictions are often very accurate and you'll see what I mean. After all airline pilots are very dependent on accurate weather predictions.

Awesome 👍

How did you make these animations? Very well done.

@ItsJustAstronomical

Жыл бұрын

Thank you! I use 3DS Max to do most of the animations. I recently started using Houdini in some of my more recent videos.

@fusion9619

Жыл бұрын

@@ItsJustAstronomical hey, thanks for the answer! Are you gonna make videos again?

@ItsJustAstronomical

Жыл бұрын

@@fusion9619 Yes, but not for several months at least. I'm currently extremely busy working on some original research and trying to get it published. No videos until that happens. But yes, I plan to get back to making videos. Thank you for your support!

Can you illustrate how a climate model is normally built?

@paulscottfilms

3 жыл бұрын

Carbon dioxide , according to this zombie he's been told what to say and write.

@mcloathin9684

2 жыл бұрын

@@paulscottfilms carbon dioxide leads to life, and they lie.

This is a great series. Stumbled across it and now have my kids watching too. Thanks for the information and learning.

His graph on CO2 increases looks alarming, until you realize that an increase from 280ppm to 500ppm is barely a bump on the scale of 0 to 1.

Temps are getting cooler, ocean circulation is slowing. Ice depth at the poles are building quite handsomely... approaching a "tipping point "????

Plants (agriculture) also transforms CO2 in O2. In fact, grass transforms way more co2 in o2 than trees per square foot. It shouldn't make a difference

@hosnimubarak8869

4 жыл бұрын

Currently, about half of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels remains in the atmosphere and is not absorbed by vegetation and the oceans.

@AdelindeVanDerHaar99

4 жыл бұрын

@@hosnimubarak8869 okay, but that doesn't change the fact that plants instead of trees is not the problem. Your argument is a fallacy.

@danaldtrampf6717

4 жыл бұрын

@@AdelindeVanDerHaar99 It's not about output of O2 and absorbtion of Co2. Plants break around even with their output of 02 compared to what they consume themselves. It's about forests and other vegetation "storing" carbon as plant matter. Wild vegetation is often much more rich in plant matter than agricultural areas, so if you get rid of wild vegetation to plant crops you'll release the stored Co2 of the wild plants into the athmosphere

@AdelindeVanDerHaar99

4 жыл бұрын

@@danaldtrampf6717 Yupp. And then these crops will grow very well due to the high amount of co2 in the air which they'll transform into o2. It's basic chemistry. Wild vegetation or crops, it shouldn't make a difference. Obviously, there are other arguments why deforestation is not a good idea, but it's definitely not this one...

@yakoobski

4 жыл бұрын

@@AdelindeVanDerHaar99 You don't seem to understand what's the deal here. Numbers are made up just to visualize the difference. Let's take a 10 m^2 area. Lets have there a lawn of grass that weights lets say 100 kg. In the same 10 m^2 there could be growing a 1 ton tree. 10x more CO2 absorbet in the plant itelf as it is built out of carbon which it takes from the CO2 in the atmosphere. It's not about which plants breathes more or less CO2. It's about which ones stores/traps more carbon mass per area used. There's another problem with your grass. During fall/winter time most of the grass mass rotts out, only roots survive to regrow in the spring. The huge 1 ton tree will lose substantioaly less mass as it only drops the leaves and keeps the whole core of the tree during the winer. And conifer trees don't drop the "leaves" so they keep even more carbon trapped in them during the winter time.

The position of earth within the Milankovitch cycles wil have an effect when also an Grand Solar Minimum and a Geomagnetic Excursion Event takes place , it seems very likely that this takes place right now .

Chapter and verse from Plows Plagues and Petroleum by Ruddiman. An interesting aside. When the black death occurred and the demise of the population of the Americas (from European Diseases) the forests recovered and we just slid into the next glacial period. Then it was reversed by our increased output of green house gasses. This can be seen up around Baffin Island.

Excellent

Why do they tamper with historicalTempeture data? That’s what I’m looking for.

@freeamerican2708

4 жыл бұрын

They tamper with the data because it doesn't prove their radical position.

@michaeldeierhoi4096

4 жыл бұрын

@Brad Butler What evidence do you have that scientists or whoever you are accusing have tampered with the temperture data?? I have seen none and I have followed this story for decades.

@fordtechchris

4 жыл бұрын

@@michaeldeierhoi4096 look up noaa homogenization. they have a nice faq page explaining how they adjust the data to show warming.

@michaeldeierhoi4096

4 жыл бұрын

@@fordtechchris That narrative comes from the AGW denier sites you like Anthony Watts or Richard Spencer. If you look closely at THEIR so called science you will find that it quickly falls apart. I have no respect for the psuedoscience out there. Those sites are intended to misinform and deceive people exactly like Trump does and has always done!

@fordtechchris

4 жыл бұрын

@@michaeldeierhoi4096 I'm not talking about any of those sites. I was taking about how NOAA modifies the data because they believe thermometers were read wrong or placed improperly in the 1900s. Like from 1900-1999 they find a fault with every year, and coincidentally all of the faults error on the side of being too warm. NOAA website is a pain to navigate, I can't find the FAQ page I usually reference..www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ushcn/introduction They really do adjust the data. If you look at the raw data for a well placed station, they never show warming.

I dont want to see the opposite of ice ige if we are in ice ige right now😑

@lotusfrucht111

3 жыл бұрын

For now I'd call it lucky. Since the Cold is devestating for humans. But I guess we'll see how hot it'll get. We're at an average temperature of 15° currently and in most historic warm phases it was at 30°.

@luigi2k

2 жыл бұрын

From climate records the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has no correlation to global temperatures. The increasing trace amount of CO2 follows the increasing amount of Earth's biomass. Below 150 ppm of CO2 all plant life dies. The increase in CO2 from human activity has had the effect of unintentionally saving Earth's plant life and by extension all life on the planet. The Carboniferous (450,000,000 BC) and the Ordovician (300,000,000 BC) were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the late Ordovician Period was an Ice Age and CO2 concentrations were 11 times higher than today - 4400 ppm. In the words of Patrick Moore, “This climate change thing is the worst thing to happen to science and the enlightenment since Galileo.” Enjoy his keynote address to the 2019 Economic Education Association of Alberta's 6th annual "Freedom School" conference. kzread.info/dash/bejne/h4uVyq2Cd5eodZc.html

But Al Gore, The High Priest of The Church of Climatology said we would never see snow ever again and that the Obumers ivory tower at Martha's Vineyard would be under the ocean by now.

This has more holes than the ozone layer.

But the difference is that farming releases C14 isotopes and fossil fuels do not, and what we're seeing from the 1800s to now is a dramatic increase in C12 and C13 in the same ratio as in plants, but not a proportional increase in C14, demonstrating that the main modern GHG emissions are from fossil fuels specifically.

And the sun? I'm afraid your explanation is far too simplistic.

@andrewbeattieRAB

4 жыл бұрын

JB DAMN STRAIGHT

@freeamerican2708

4 жыл бұрын

They keep it simplistic because they think we're simpletons.

@hansproebsting7391

4 жыл бұрын

@@freeamerican2708 - It's kept simple because it is important that it be understood.

@freeamerican2708

4 жыл бұрын

@@hansproebsting7391 they keep it simple because when they get into the details their theories fall apart and people who don't do their own research just believe them. In the scientific method first you see if your theory can be easily disproved. Then you see if your evidence fits better into another theory then it does in yours. Then you invite other people's criticism of your theory, and try to prove their criticism correct. (Yes you try to disprove your own theory) Before you have done these things you really haven't proven anything. You can do an experiment and get the same results over and over, but that doesn't mean you analyzed the data correctly just that you repeated the experiment with the same results.

@hansproebsting7391

4 жыл бұрын

@@freeamerican2708 - and yet, I am reminded of the words of Albert Einstein: "If you can't explain something simply, then you don't understand it."

This channel deserves the highest praise IMO. All of it’s videos that I’ve seen r grade A+. The narration and imagery makes it so easy to quickly gain an understanding. At the end of this video u mentioned greenhouse gasses being a factor and I’m quite curious what ur take is on the role nuclear testing plays in the grand scheme of climate change. There have been more than two thousand documented manmade nuclear explosions since 1945. What r the effects they have and/or will have on earths ozone layer and climate?

@ItsJustAstronomical

Жыл бұрын

I'm not an expert, but I'm not aware of any significant effects. Nuclear explosions are big when you think in human terms, but when you compare them against the gigantic Earth's climate system they're relative small considering the insanely large nuclear explosion in the form of the Sun.

What caused the Last Glacial Maximum? High eccentricity coupled with north hemisphere away from the sun in the summer?

@ItsJustAstronomical

Жыл бұрын

The tilt was lower and the axial precession meant cool summers. The eccentricity wasn't very different.

I think it’s also important to note that even without humans the Holocene interglacial we are currently in would last another 20ish thousand years but with us adding CO2, it’s causing a break away from old trends. Thanks for the video, I think it’s important to illustrate how complicated our planet’s climate really is and how the slightest changes from an unnatural force could overthrow the delicate balance.

@vanillaclown1597

2 жыл бұрын

Are we thus implying that Global Warming is a good thing?

@PremierCCGuyMMXVI

2 жыл бұрын

@@vanillaclown1597 well it (greenhouse gases like co2) would delay the next glacial cycle, but unfortunately it would bring us into a hot house not seen in tens of millions of years maybe even ending the whole quaternary ice age as we know it

@vanillaclown1597

2 жыл бұрын

@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI Imho melting ice caps is good, I always wanted to fish from my porch.

@PremierCCGuyMMXVI

2 жыл бұрын

@@vanillaclown1597 yeah but millions even billions of people who live in costal cities will have to relocate and there will be mass economic damage

@vanillaclown1597

2 жыл бұрын

@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI The US prints 2 trillion a year, might as well print another batch to help actual people. Plus I love Venice.

I think I prefer slightly warm vs under a few hundred meters of ice... my house is where the last ice sheet ended more or less....

is there any scientific speculation further? It almost seems as though C02 rise could be good if controlled

Is there a reason why you talk about summer without specifying if it's in the northern hemisphere or southern? Or is it just because you are from that region?

@ItsJustAstronomical

2 жыл бұрын

I explain why summers in the Northern hemisphere have a greater impact on climate in the previous video.

This needs to be taught along with all the usual climate stuff. This makes global warming far more dire if we are supposed to be in a cooling period.

So you’re saying CO2 is a good thing? And the medieval warm period?

@ItsJustAstronomical

4 жыл бұрын

Yes, CO2 has been a good thing for us historically. The medieval warm period was a period of economic growth. But you can have too much of a good thing. What's worrying is how quickly it's rising. It's not that CO2 is inherently bad.

@WCMurphy19

4 жыл бұрын

It was a good thing until it wasn’t, like now with the emerging global heating... likely to be beyond anything our civilization is set up to handle.

@fordtechchris

4 жыл бұрын

@@WCMurphy19 meh, we have air conditioning.... I run mine with the windows open to help slow the warming.

@TotalSinging

4 жыл бұрын

Michael Mann erased the Medieval Warm Period - didn't you hear? That is the problem with blaming CO2 for warm trends. The planet has seen very warm periods and very cold periods with much lower and much higher CO2 levels than today. They are not tied together. CO2 was chosen as the enemy by the UN to control population growth and keep poor countries poor.

At the beginning of the video, you manetioned three cycles combining... What's the third?

@ItsJustAstronomical

Жыл бұрын

There's the amount of tilt, the axial precession and how eccentric the earth's orbit. This is explained in more detail in my first video.

How about something on the earth magnetic polar shift cycle?

So mechanically speaking its all about the plants. Cutting down trees released their trapped carbon, and later burning them released even more carbon. Even later we started "freeing" the ancient carbon that was stuck in coal and oil. Nuclear power suddenly seems so inviting now doesnt it?

What happens when the cycle takes us back to a warm cycle and we are still farming? Even if we made all other practices carbon neutral farming alone according to how this info is presented here will fry us all… Alternately what if we counter the carbon situation and we enter a full ice age?

@abebuckingham8198

2 жыл бұрын

The industrial revolution happened at the peak of the warm cycle. It was incredibly bad timing.

@haven216

2 жыл бұрын

@@abebuckingham8198 ??

Milankovitch cycles are changes in Earth's orbit around the Sun that can affect the amount of solar energy received by the Earth and can influence long-term climate patterns. The three main types of Milankovitch cycles are changes in the Earth's orbital eccentricity (how elliptical the orbit is), changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis, and changes in the direction of the Earth's axis (precession). These cycles occur over periods of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. It is not possible to determine exactly where we are in any given Milankovitch cycle at a given time, as these cycles take place over such long periods of time. However, scientists can use various methods, such as analyzing sediment cores or ice cores, to study the patterns of these cycles and their impacts on the Earth's climate over time. Understanding these cycles can help us better understand the long-term changes in the Earth's climate and how it may be influenced by factors such as changes in solar radiation and the Earth's orbit.

@davidmcchargue8427

4 ай бұрын

Calculations of our current position in the orbital mechanics of our procession are quite concise, we know exactly where we are....it doesn't fit the political position to tell our citizens the truth of the soon to be next great ice age.

@indianastones9884

4 ай бұрын

The Milankovitch cycles, which refer to changes in Earth's climate patterns over long periods of time, can be influenced by various factors. These factors include: 1. Changes in solar radiation: Variations in the intensity and distribution of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface can affect the climate system. 2. Earth's obliquity: The tilt of Earth's axis relative to its orbital plane can change over time, affecting the amount and distribution of solar energy received by different latitudes. 3. Precession: Earth's axis also undergoes a slow wobbling motion known as precession, which can influence the timing and intensity of seasons. 4. Eccentricity: The shape of Earth's orbit around the Sun can vary from more circular to more elliptical, altering the amount of solar radiation received at different points in the orbit. 5. Feedback mechanisms: Climate feedback mechanisms, such as ice-albedo feedback and greenhouse gas concentrations, can amplify or dampen the effects of the Milankovitch cycles. 6. Other factors: Volcanic activity, changes in ocean circulation patterns, and variations in atmospheric composition can also influence the Milankovitch cycles and their impact on climate change. These factors interact with each other and with the overall climate system, leading to long-term climate variations and ice age cycles.@@davidmcchargue8427

Can you do a video on the other, shorter term cycles, like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Solar Minima?

@ItsJustAstronomical

4 жыл бұрын

Maybe, one day, but I don't want my astronomy channel to turn into a climate change channel.

@ecthelion1735

4 жыл бұрын

Good point... the Maunder and Dalton minima and the little Ice Age are pretty fascinating though.

@DadBodDrumming

3 жыл бұрын

He could but that would start to disprove the theory of Climate Change being man made. So he won't. Gotta keep that funding going!

There may be three separate cycles. 1.Milanvokitch orbital. 2. Oceanic Thermohaline circulation. 3. Sun spots. Wouldn't it be insightful if people had a comprehensive image? Could you make a video that examined the relationship between these three cycles?

@abebuckingham8198

2 жыл бұрын

It's unclear to me what you think the relationship might be. They're all caused by completely different phenomenon.

@robertbernard651

Жыл бұрын

The sun oscillates every 11 years, the poles flip at the change points when goes from maximum to minimum, we are 3 years into a maximum cycle were every day we have flares and CME's, in minimum cycle there's almost no flares and CME's, I can tell the difference in how hot it is standing in the sunlight

@aaronjennings8385

10 ай бұрын

@@abebuckingham8198 true.

How dare you?!

My only complaint is that the host spent a few minutes on the fact that farming rose atmospheric CO2 levels from about 250-280 PPM over a thousand plus years, but only a few seconds on the fact that modern fossil fuel burning rose CO2 levels from 280 to over 400 PPM in only 120 years.

@jb-xc4oh

2 жыл бұрын

Also forgot to mention that millions of years ago CO2 concentrations were in the 800 PPM range and life went on its merry way.

@santaclaws1501

2 жыл бұрын

@@jb-xc4oh you forgot to mention or understand that life at that time had adapted to 800ppm of CO2 and its effects.

@granitfog

2 жыл бұрын

@@jb-xc4oh Perhaps you didn't notice, but 800 million years ago, there were no millions of people living along the coasts, there were no farms to feed millions of people, (just for starters) I give the poorly informed two chances to get educated, but your statement is so off base, this is the only one I will write.

@jb-xc4oh

2 жыл бұрын

@@granitfog If you care to reread what I wrote you will notice I said life went merrily on its way. Are you so educated to believe there was no life on this planet when CO2 concentrations were 800PPM......I did not say human life, I said life. Human life is just a drop in the bucket compared to plant life, bacterial life, mammals, reptiles and insects.

@jb-xc4oh

2 жыл бұрын

@@santaclaws1501 Crocodiles have been around basically unchanged for 240 million years and still breathe the same air as humans today. Even humans suffer no effects from 800 PPM concentrations of CO2. However at CO2 concentrations of 150 PPM all plant life will die and so will humanity. Low CO2 levels are not a good thing.

Did you include the Younger Dryas event

@abebuckingham8198

2 жыл бұрын

The Younger Dryas hypothesis is still speculation. I wouldn't put much weight on it until we have better information.

great vid, but its getting colder in usa and west europe ??

@JasonVectrex_187

4 жыл бұрын

No its not

@JCO2002

4 жыл бұрын

You're joking, aren't you?

@724parsec

4 жыл бұрын

dont worry, the current cooling - which has NOTHING to do with decreasing Solar output, i promise! - can be reversed by sending more of our GDP to developing nations

@fredblogsmac.5697

4 жыл бұрын

@@JCO2002 im 64 years old, and iv seen more snow here in the last 10. years than all my previoues 50 years

@JCO2002

4 жыл бұрын

@@fredblogsmac.5697 I'm 67. Where is "here"?

Could trees and plants be growing larger with more CO2 in the atmosphere? Kind of like how dinosaurs were huge because there was more O2 in the atmosphere?

@CarlosAM1

3 жыл бұрын

no and yes because the extreme change in temperature would kill many of them.

@abebuckingham8198

2 жыл бұрын

There seems to be no change in size but they grow and die faster with more CO2.

@ands246

2 жыл бұрын

Not really. It makes sense to say that because trees need carbon from the atmosphere to grow, but they also need water, and other micronutrients. Those other needs turn out to be limiting factors, so the increase in CO2 doesnt really help plants grow faster. There was plenty of carbon to photosynthesis’s with prior to humans dumping tons of the stuff in the atmosphere, so it really hasn’t helped plants out

@whatabouttheearth

Жыл бұрын

Even though that is often repeated there was not more oxygen in the Mesozoic era, but there was more in the Carboniferous era before the Mesozoic I suggest Dr. Christopher Whites historical geology videos on the eras (further down the list past Aron Ra's 'Systematic Classification of Life') with the blueish thumbnails: kzread.info/head/PLgRoK-eyLjomaNEGNHjb1r8YWbUzVIskd

@whatabouttheearth

Жыл бұрын

And no, it would drastically wear trees down. Keep in mind that trees basically respire just like us at night, at night they output CO2 in cellular respiration like we do, they do photosynthesis, the opposite, in the day time.

When the axis tilt shifts to the opposite angle how does that mean it's warmer or colder on the earth? Doesn't that just replicate the same as when we have summer and winter solstice in the northern hem its the opposite in the southern hem?

@ItsJustAstronomical

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, it has the opposite effect on each hemisphere. Right now the earth is closer to the Sun in January, so the Southern hemisphere has warmer summers while the Northern hemisphere has more moderate summers. When the North has warmer summers more of the ice melts in the Northern hemisphere when ice melts it reflects less of the sunlight away so the climate as a whole is warmer. The difference is that more of the Northern hemisphere is covered in ice than the Southern hemisphere because it has more land area. So this has a bigger impact in the North. I discuss this more in my original video: kzread.info/dash/bejne/m3Vrmpquo7y0h6Q.html

@grindupBaker

2 жыл бұрын

I haven't listened to the video (I'm way past that since 8 years ago) but if it doesn't explain that it's only the SUMMER sunshine at specifically latitude 65N and latitudes near that (where ice can form in vast enough quantities on mountains) then the explanation was pretty much worthless, because what I just typed is exactly what it is, and can even easily find on internet a plot of SUMMER sunshine at specifically latitude 65N because scientists understand it.

@ItsJustAstronomical

2 жыл бұрын

My first video explains that: kzread.info/dash/bejne/m3Vrmpquo7y0h6Q.html

It MAY be true that Milankovitch cycles have had no effect on climate in the last 9k years but then how well do we know whether they were significant or not in previous changes of the earth's atmospheric temperature? What is the quality of our climate data set going back 100s of thousands of years? Is it good enough to say whether Milankovitch cycles have been significant at all times in the past? Also, there's a whole field of solar insolation variability beyond just astronomical-orbital-mechanics factors. There are cycles in the sun itself that must be considered, and there are even cosmic influences.