Climate change: understanding the facts (Vostok ice core)
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 07. 2024
- Original graph with scales for reference: images.newscientist.com/wp-co...
In this whiteboard animation, I explain why global atmospheric temperature increases due to increased concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane. This is based on the Vostok ice core research published in 1999 and more recent research published by the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report published in October 2013. This data is climate change evidence and shows that climate change is human made.
Good read: This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate amzn.to/2VnKPVy
Want to learn more about Climate Change? The IPCC has put together 3 Special Reports that cover all aspects of our climate and its affects on Earth. Why are we talking about 1.5°C? www.ipcc.ch/sr15/faq/faq-chap...
Climate change is related to the concepts of sustainability, sustainable development, ecological footprint, carbon footprint.
**
Learn about sustainability for free with short animation videos!
Find all sustainability videos and join the community on sustainabilityillustrated.com and / learnsustainability
Subscribe to receive the latest videos: alturl.com/jc8u6
Become a patron: / sustainability .
Extra info & links below...
Twitter: / sustain_illustr
Facebook: / sustainabilityillustrated
These explainer videos are created by Alexandre Magnin using years of experience drawing and working as a sustainability consultant with businesses and communities: www.amcreative.org
**
Visit www.ipcc.ch/ for more recent info and reports.
Read more about the Vostok station here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostok_S...
The Vostok article can be downloaded here: Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica, Petit et al., 1999, www.nature.com/articles/20859
Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, 2013 report "The physical science basis": www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
Music by Huma-Huma
Thank you to our subtitles volunteer:
Spanish & Catalan: Josep Simona
Portuguese: André Ribeiro Winter
The University of Copenhagen found that the rise in temperature preceded the rise in carbon by a thousand years in the ice cores.
Yes. They all have the cause and effect relationship backward.
Agreed, ice cores show that in the last million years global warming occurred 700-1200 years before increased CO2. ie CO2 rises AFTER temperature increase but this won't perturb a global warmer. They explain that in the past the warming was for other causes but this time around its due to manmade CO2. To be honest I'm not too bothered about this, or counting polar bears, for me its failure to justify the unreasonable costs for the supposed benefits which are the killer.
This is the standard narrative, actually. Natural cycles cause SOME warming, which triggers greenhouse gases which then LEAD the process, until checked by the next cyclical change. You are not saying anything that we don't know. Sorry.
@@alanrobertson9790 by "unreasonable costs" you apparently haven't searched the phrase "biological annihilation" into googlescholar yet.
So if orbital changes did cause the recent ice ages to come and go, there must also have been some kind of feedback effect that amplified the changes in temperatures they produced. Ice is one contender: as the great ice sheets that covered large areas of the planet during the ice ages melted, less of the Sun’s energy would have been reflected back into space, accelerating the warming. But the melting of ice lags behind the beginning of interglacial periods by far more than the rises in CO2.
Another feedback contender, suggested over a century ago, is CO2. In the past decade, detailed studies of ice cores have shown there is a remarkable correlation between CO2 levels and temperature over the past half million years (see Vostok ice cores show constant CO2 as temperatures fell).
Rising together
It takes about 5000 years for an ice age to end and, after the initial 800 year lag, temperature and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere rise together for a further 4200 years.
What seems to have happened at the end of the recent ice ages is that some factor - most probably orbital changes - caused a rise in temperature. This led to an increase in CO2, resulting in further warming that caused more CO2 to be released and so on: a positive feedback that amplified a small change in temperature. At some point, the shrinking of the ice sheets further amplified the warming.
Models suggest that rising greenhouse gases, including CO2, explain about 40% of the warming as the ice ages ended. The figure is uncertain because it depends on how the extent of ice coverage changed over time, and there is no way to pin this down precisely.
Biological activity
The source of this extra carbon was the oceans, but why did they release CO2 as the planet began to warm? Many factors played a role and the details are still far from clear.
CO2 is less soluble in warmer water, but its release as a result of warming seawater can explain only part of the increase in CO2. And the reduction in salinity as ice melted would have partly counteracted this effect.
A reduction in biological activity may have played a bigger role. Tropical oceans tend to release CO2, while cooler seas soak up CO2 from the atmosphere as phytoplankton grow and fall to the ocean floor. Changes in factors such as winds, ice cover and salinity would have cut productivity, leading to a rise in CO2.
Runaway prevention
The ice ages show that temperature can determine CO2 as well as CO2 driving temperature. Some sceptics - not scientists - have seized upon this idea and are claiming that the relation is one way, that temperature determines CO2 levels but CO2 levels do not affect temperature.
To repeat, the evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas depends mainly on physics, not on the correlation with past temperature, which tells us nothing about cause and effect. And while the rises in CO2 a few hundred years after the start of interglacials can only be explained by rising temperatures, the full extent of the temperature increases over the following 4000 years can only be explained by the rise in CO2 levels.
What is more, further back in past there are examples of warmings triggered by rises in greenhouse gases, such as the Palaeo-Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 millions years ago (see Climate myths: It’s been far warmer in the past, what’s the big deal?).
Finally, if higher temperatures lead to more CO2 and more CO2 leads to higher temperatures, why doesn’t this positive feedback lead to a runaway greenhouse effect? There are various limiting factors that kick in, the most important being that infrared radiation emitted by Earth increases exponentially with temperature, so as long as some infrared can escape from the atmosphere, at some point heat loss catches up with heat retention.
Wait a minute. At 3.15 the young man shows a massive up tick in temperature that goes way above the previous inter glacial 120k years ago. This is NOT true. Average global temperatures have risen just over 1C since the end of the mini ice-age at the beginning of the 1800s and based on the scale of this graphic that temp up tick is equivalent to the total temp range of the current ice age (including its inter-glacials), which is about 10C . The last inter-glacial was and is still warmer than the current inter glacial. So why show such a massive temp rise which as he says 'we are already seeing this worldwide'? +10C? This Video does not show that CO2 is driving temperature and it is not scientific to simplify such a complex and open system as the worlds weather, which incidentally can be characterized by not one but several climate types. As temperature increases there are a multitude of things that will also increase particularly sea level and evaporation and rainfall. If CO2 is the main driver then what is making that increase and decrease as it has in the past?
This is absolutely true Stephen. This is why the on-screen text says "expect temp. rise" and the voice-over says "we can EXPECT temperatures to rise". They haven't risen to follow the carbon peak yet but remember the horizontal scale of this graph is in thousands of years and I am only suggesting that, in the next many years (50, 100 or 1000), we can expect temperatures to follow the CO2 increase. There is no way around it :-(
@@learnsustainability, Wow! I'm glad Stephen mentioned this. I thought that seemed off. Very misleading bro. "We are already seeing this worldwide" right next to that graph? Not sure if you did that intentionally, but its very misleading. This is exactly why so many people still can't get behind man made global warming. There is very clearly a disinformation campaign taking place, and people are not honestly sharing all of the facts. The government says they want to save the planet, meanwhile they've been suppressing energy technology for decades that would make gas cars completely obsolete. We are willingly walking ourselves into bondage. More taxes, less freedom while the solution already exists and they have been keeping it from us. But don't worry, cuz the bad guys ALWAYS lose in the end! And the truth is setting us free!!! :)
We are "already seeing this" bro.
You know, you can find out if global temperatures are really rising, outside this video.
I would also add that if co2 is the main driver of heat and in the past it has been multiple times higher than it is now then how did the planet cool down? In reality, co2 follows heat, not the other way around. The whole climate change crisis is a grift, follow the money.
if not engineered would be up 4 c
CO2 volume lags behind temperature change in the Vostok sample. Increased CO2 catalyses plant growth and increases humidity producing cloud cover ( however increased CO2 will also constrict the pores releasing moisture in some species ). Cloud cover reflects sunlight reducing direct temperature. The Earth will regulate herself as she has done to a greater extent before. Are we able to adapt is the question.
And here lies the core of misunderstanding how the warming works. It is not direct sunlight that warms up the planet but the infra-red part of the spectrum that is re-emitted afterwards. That is why Venus is so hot - by your logic, due to its dense clouds, it should be very cold there... guess what, Venus is the hottest in the system. Even though it has probably the thickest clouds - because it is not direct sunlight that causes the warming but the re-emitting of infra-red part of the spectrum. Clouds don't help, sorry. They only have a temporary local effect.
Plus, water vapor is #1 green house gas. Increase humidity of atmosphere, the temperature will go through the roof. Moist air not only has much greater heat capacity, it actually keeps the infra-red part of EM spectrum from being irradiated away and keeps it in. You've just created a positive feedback loop, good job!
And that is exactly what the scientist warn about. Though understanding some facts requires some basic education.
maybe all the volcano eruptions, earth protecting herself
Co2 increseases do not meaningfully expedite plant growth, it is only one resource any plant needs to grow from many.
@@Wustenfuchs109 Maybe we don't have the foggiest clue and should stick to reducing waste and pollution. What if the whole solar system is heating up?
@@prpr8904 and yet greenhouse producers pump CO2 into their greenhouses and see an increase in productivity.
According to the heat graph we had much warmer periods. Then we currently are at right now.
Like to see this moron explain that one. Perhaps he will claim the industrial revolution started 400,000 years ago and man took a break in between cycles...
I’m on the fence about climate change being man made but the climate changers aren’t arguing this is the warmest it’s ever been. They are stating this is the fastest rate it’s ever been, thus life on earth can’t keep up and adapt to the changes
@@joedav02 if you're on the fence, take a look at any of Tony Heller's videos.
Troy Baker The earth has planetary movements all the time which bring it closer to either to sun or warmer objects. 400,000 years ago humans didn’t even possibly exist for all we know
Yes, finally the voice of reason
Seems to me a 60 year spike in a chart that goes back 400 000 years could be spurious. Might have happened dozens of times in that chart but over such brief time spans (say 200 years or less) we wouldn't be able to tell. But what we can see is we have been in this situation before
only the video clearly explains the spike in CO2 is already well beyond any previous CO2 maximum in all the ice age cycles of the past 800,000 years. So no it's not a spurious spike.
Why didn't he mention we are about to start another ice age? The trend is in the very chart he posted. We might be adding extra co2 but the climate is changing because we are at the tail end of our interglacial period
we're in the middle of a ice age now
@@Infamous41 , true.
@@Infamous41 we're in the Holocene I thought
We’re not. The next glacial period is not due to start for another 10,000 years approximately.
pole reversal
Classic bait and switch technique used by Michael Mann and here. Using historical records of ice cores is a good data set. But when you start mixing in actual present data to come to your goal corrupts your theory. Not all gases remain in the ice core sample from a particular historical time. So 100K years ago when the ice core shows 500 ppm of CO2 it could have actually been 1000 ppm.
Head5959
To confirm the historical CO2 record from ice cores, CO2 direct measurement results in ice cores needs to be validated by CO2 proxy data and by the findings of laboratory produced ice/gas bubbles. I’m not aware of any historical CO2 proxy data or of laboratory produced ice/gas confirmation studies. Please share URLs if you know of such studies.
Everyone assumes that co2 causes temperature rise. No one appears to considering that temperature rise might be causing an increase in atmospheric co2
What matters is that temperature and CO2 concentration (and CH4, etc.) are connected. So we know when we produce more CO2, we can expect higher temperatures as a result and prepare for it.
The fact that there appears to be some relationship between co2 concentration and temperature does not prove a causal relationship. In any case my question was is the increase in co2 the cause or result of temperature rise. We hear frequently about climate change theory from the media and celebs but they all seem biased towards co2 being the cause of rising temps. I am sure that climate control is much more complex than fluctuating co2 levels. I would like to hear a debate between climate scientists who support and those who oppose the importance of co2. We never seem to hear from the latter who do not appear to have a media platform.I know little about climate change but I have read that only 3% of atmospheric co2 is due to human activity.
@@patrickcollins9817 I totally agree: we need more debate. The current censorship in legacy media and social media essentially telling you to "trust the science" and if you don't agree you are a "climate denier" is terrible and not helpful. Some old school environmentalists like Bjorn Lomborg, Michael Shellenberger, Andrew Revkin and many others have very interesting perspectives on the topic. We need to be able to debate and disagree to access the human creativity needed to fix our problems.
Is this how typical IPCC scientists work? You have three curves. From the similarity, you conclude that one is the cause and the other is the effect. What if it is exactly the other way round? Without any further analysis, you declare one as the cause, because it suits you. But you have more in your curves. You see a steady decline of temperatures over 90.000 years and then you see an extremely rapid increase of temperature. As far as I know, you have neither a satisfactory explanation for the decline, nor for the rapid increase. Furthermore, you have a periodicity of 100.000 years in this curve. IPCC scientists already published, that the Milankowic cycles cannot serve as an explanation. Do you have another explanation? So I ask again, is this your typical method of approaching problems? Other fields of science would consider this as insufficient work.
Thank you for your comment. I am not a climate scientist but there are plenty of good ones at the IPCC trying to help us all and clearly, they don't do it for money...
This is a common graph that is shown to "the masses" because people seem to need some relation to time. A better graph would remove time and show a direct correlation between either temperature and CO2 or temperature and CH4. I have made such graphs directly from published ice core data, readily available on the internet. Before you say anything, I realize that correlation is not causation. If you examine Greenland data, you see that temperature rise and CO2 increase are nearly simultaneous - within a decade or two. Antarctic cores show a bigger lag between temperature and CO2 rise because the southern hemisphere is a big bathtub full of water with a continent-sized ice cube in the middle. Milankovitch cycles begin to warm the northern hemisphere (there is a greater proportion of land-to-water here), causing CO2 outgassing from the ocean, which warms the planet a bit, causing a positive feedback loop that melts glaciers, decreasing planetary albedo that warms the Earth even more. So you see, extra CO2 causes warming AND warming increases CO2. Both statements are true.
@@markthogerson4900 according to what you say
1. Milankowic causes warming
2. Warming causes CO2
3. CO2 causes more warming
4. More warming causes albedo change
5. Albedo change causes warming
6. Goto 4
If you are able to make logic conclusions, you could leave out step 3 and everything would evolve as before. So CO2 does not play a role in this description. You could also include the water vapor amplification in this loop.
6. Warming causes higher evaporation
7. Higher humidity causes more warming
8. Goto 5
Next problem: Milakowic changes last for 10000 years, therefore the Milankowic warming and the albedo warming and the water vapor warming are hard to separate. And then there is also the CO2 warming. Without quantifying each effect, no reliable statement can be made.
Thats why I studied the absorption properties of CO2 in comparison to water vapor and came to the conclusion, CO2 is negligible.
@@maxtabmann6701 you read me wrong. Milankovitch cycles cause initial warming which causes outgassing of carbon dioxide from the ocean. This causes a positive feedback between warming of ocean and atmosphere and Increase of CO2. The decrease in Albedo is just a secondary source of warming. The shortest of the Milankovitch cycles, procession, is a 24000 years cycle. The axial tilt Cycle takes about 41,000 years, and the eccentricity cycle is about 110,000-120,00 years. Ending a glacial cycle and going into an interglacial requires lining up all three of these Cycles, so that there is maximum difference between summer and winter temperatures. If there is a large seasonality Factor, less snow falls during the winter and more melts during the summer, causing glaciers to recede and air and ocean to begin warming. Once the carbon dioxide starts to be released, the climate warms, causing even more carbon dioxide to be released, causing it to become even warmer. As it warms, the ice melts and Albedo is decreased, warming it even more. Yes, water vapor content in the atmosphere increases with temperature roughly 7% per degrees Celsius. This also adds to the greenhouse effect. But what tips the balance is carbon dioxide. My point is that we can control carbon dioxide but unless we either plant or cut down billions of trees, we have no effect on water vapor. Therefore there is no reason to consider it as a possible way of slowing down global warming.
@@markthogerson4900 I repeated exactly what you were saying, but in a compact form so that you do not lose track and can see the feedback mechanisms as they are. But you keep on blurring things, twisting things. Intentionally misunderstanding things. The Milankowic kickoff was not an instantaneous event, Such a phase of increased insolation takes 10000 years. You confuse it with the periodicity, which has nothing to do with the deglaciation. This tells me that your abilities to read text, your abilities to understand arguments are just not enough to justify a conversation.
In the records you present I read that the CO2 trails the temperature by about 800 years, so how can it be the cause?
Can you please share the source of where you read that? Thanks!
Exactly.......heat goes up which releases more water vapour and your right, the Co2 increases after, a self regulating system,
You’re backwards and wrong. CO2 follows temp and not the other way around.
Warm water releases CO2. Cold water holds more CO2. Think of a hot flat beer vs a cold carbonated beer.
Thus the as the global temps rise, the oceans release more CO2. And when the global temps cool, the oceans can absorb more CO2.
CO2, man made or other wise does not drive global temps.
Well, CO2 does. And the way it does is by its ability to trap radiant heat in the higher part of the atmosphere. So the loop and feedback repeats itself, making it more intense with time.
@@dayooladipo2992 welp. That's what you say. But the evidence, as shown by Vostok Ice Core data, show that CO2 lags behind temps by about 800 years. www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/
And CO2 is only 410 ppm or .0410% of the Earth's atmosphere. That's it, a lousy .041%. Water vapor accounts for between 2% and 4% of the Earth's atmosphere. CO2 can only "trap" and reflect 4 narrow bands of the radioactive energy from the sun. And guess what, the water vapor, which is about 100 times more abundant than CO2, overlaps the CO2 spectrum and then some. wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/19/radiative-heat-transfer-by-co2-or-whats-the-quality-of-your-radiation/.
But you can't tax or demonize water. So you have to go after the big oil and their money by demonizing their product.
And if "CO2 does" as you aptly say create a "loop and feedback repeats itself, making it more intense with time", then how come, 450 million years ago, during the Ordovician ICE AGE, CO2 was at 2000 ppm? stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/ice-age-at-2000-ppm-co2/. Why was there an ICE AGE when CO2 was roughly 5 times higher than it is now? And how did the Earth get so much CO2 with none of us pesky humans around burning our fossil fuels? And if CO2 "loop and feedback repeats itself, making it more intense with time", then how did the Earth recover from having so much CO2 in the air at that time? Wouldn't we be well on our way to Venus level temps with our CO2 5 times higher than it is today?
Mars' atmosphere is 95% CO2 and their average temp is -80 F. Why is Mars so cold when CO2 "loop and feedback repeats itself, making it more intense with time"?
Come on back when you can answer these questions.
Yea I was thinking this when I saw the graph in this video, he is basically showing that C02 follows temperature and in effect disproving his own argument without even realising it. Epic fail :D
Exactly
Patrick Henry aww man he never responded. Thank you for consolidating this info and breaking it down so well. These people pushing this are crooks or sadly naive.
Look at your graphs carefully. Even though the scale was such to make it not as obvious as it could be it clearly shows CO2 following temperature change. This means CO2 is not the driver of Climate but is a reaction to Climate.
I am not sure what you mean about the scale. The graph is to scale.
+Sustainability Illustrated i posted a serious question about a year ago and just realized today that I never received an answer. I am not a climate change denier. I am trying to make sense of the data presented here. Why does no one address the fact that the ice cores clearly show a cyclical change in climate, long before the industrial revolution and current population booms? Won't the planet just go through another ice age?
Hi TheZenbudda, I am sorry I missed your question the first time. the point of this video about the ice cores is actually to address the fact that there has been climate cycles over the last 800,000 years and yes it is likely that the planet will keep doing that and go through another ice. But what is interesting here, is the fact that since the industrial revolution, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere went way over and above any previous recording from the last 800,000 years. Therefore, it looks like our human activity has done something to the system we live in. The intention is mostly to demonstrate in a scientific way that we, human, are responsible from climate change. Does that help? Is it any clearer to you? Feel free to ask again and I will make sure to respond more promptly this time.
Thanks! So with the proposed theory, are we going to plunge into another ice age or are we going to skip an ice age and go into a greenhouse effect?
Well, I am not a scientist myself but at the current rate, I am pretty sure we will face major issues due to climate change much earlier than we will reach the next ice age unfortunately...
@@learnsustainability "CO2 concentration in the atmosphere went way over and above any previous recording from the last 800,000 years."
That's just not true. CO2 and temperatures were higher about 750 years ago just before the mini ice age. You can find that information in the Vostok ice core data. Did you not see it or are you ignoring it?
@@edwardsmith7031 he's ignoring it, like most climate shills
You never mentioned that rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature, not the other way around. As the oceans, which represent 71% of the planet's surface area, warm, they release CO2.
As explained in the video and with the Vostok graph images.newscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/dn11640-1_800.jpg CO2 and global temperatures are connected, when one goes up (or down), the other does too, regardless of which ones goes up (or down) first.
@@learnsustainability And that proves what exactly? Correlation is not causation. If increasing temperatures are causing the increase in co2 levels via the oceans then the whole AGW scenario is invalid. Besides, how can we be certain that the release of co2 from the oceans is not the main contributor to the increase in global co2 levels.
Looks like CO2 levels have a slight lag effect compared to temperature and methane has a slight lead...
People in the comments writing massive long-winded paragraphs, expecting people to read them:
This is quite typical of climate change content, 70% like ratio but all the comments are from the deniers...
Sustainability Illustrated
Ah. I feel sorry for you, as I quite enjoyed the video for my schoolwork. Oh well.
@@gracethegiraffe27 No, no worries... It is just the nature of the polarization on climate change, I don't take it personally 😉
What are the effects of increased food production world wide on co2 levels?
I don't know about "increased food production" but studies show that livestock farming produces 20% to 50% of man-made greenhouse gases and Food accounts for 10 - 30% of a household’s carbon footprint on average. Does that help?
Quick question...if the earth had a self regulating system....wouldnt it want to get colder to trap the excess in Co2?
Unfortunately, it works the other way around...
But plants like CO2 and heat so they help to consume some of the CO2 and heat. Not mentioned.
Co2 is the political myth….it’s a muse used by the political system as a fear trigger…this is the worlds greatest controlling con that has created a cult of mis direction and fear….it’s appalling…it’s a path to western communism.
@@jetb179the optimum level for plants is 1,4000 parts per million, so an increase may not be a bad thing
In response to your video ... Two things: 1. You failed to provide any explanation why the temperature drops rapidly after each temperature spike. Are we going to experience another ice age soon? 2. If man-made C02 is creating more heat, why is methane increasing?
1) I don't know that there is a reason for temperatures to go back to normal after each ice age, I guess this is just the nature of these cycles. I don't know if we are going to experience another ice age, I would recommend reading specialized literature on the subject.
2) Methane does not increase as a result of CO2 increase, it increases due to human activity as well (organic waste in landfill generates methane for instance but there are many other sources) and, like CO2, increases atmosphere temperature but more rapidly (i.e. a pound of methane increases temperatures a lot more than a pound of CO2)
So where is this hokey stick exactly? Was this theory developed before or after finding a P-38 under 300 feet of Greenland ice?
Beginning of Industrial Revolution.
I looked at the actual video and the graphs are shown. They don’t match his conclusions. They clearly show normal periodic temperature variations
It just looks like a regular cycle, it will just go down again won't it?
Thank you for your comment. The problem is that we altered the cycle with an important increase of greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution.
Its so high that even if it went down it will still be very higher than normal
As long as the co2 increased 50% in 150 years, which is a millisecond in geological time, for sure it is not a "regular cycle". It's more like a climate bomb that humans just detonated.
My friend lives in NUUK , Greenland and says the ice shelves have not changed . These videos are made in Summer when ice melts but freezes in Winter.
the arctic is about to be ice free in the summer for the 1st time in 3 million years as per the CO2 level increase. The volume of ice is over 75% gone already and the multiyear ice is over 90% gone already.
@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 , not true. The Arctic ice is increasing this Summer.
@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885nonsense.......
The Artic has had its warmest year in recorded history in 2023. The ice is disappearing.
What causes the "natural" spikes?
+TheZenbudda That I dont think is known, but seeing how regular the pattern is whatever caused the previous temp spikes is causing the current one, most likely.
Hmm. I'm confused. A simple look at the ice core charts shows that CO2 levels regularly spike. What are the chances that the older the data is, the harder it is to get accurate year-to-year statistics? I'm 100% for controlling pollution. But throughout history, people with knowledge have used that knowledge to control people. I can't help but see AGW as a HUGE power grab. I've read as much data as I could find. The results in this chart undeniably show that earth (with or without humans) is in a high CO2 phase. We are obviously in a climate change phase but how much of it is really man-made?
+TheZenBudda Good question. The past glacial cycles have been caused mostly by two drivers: 1) changes in the amount of solar energy received at the Earth's surface, as related to it's angle of tilt and distance from the sun. These are the Milankovitch cycles. and 2) variations in atmospheric CO2.
The GREATER part of the change is caused by variations in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The Milankovitch cycles have enough influence to START the cycle... but they can't produce such a large change in temperature as we see in the ice core records entirely on their own. They need help, and GHGs provide it.....
In past glacial cycles, there was approximately steady amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere and hydrosphere (oceans)... and the CO2 would exchange back and forth between oceans and the atmosphere at intervals spanning several 10s of thousands of years. Warmer intervals (interglacials) are associated with higher atmospheric CO2 (lower oceanic CO2), and glacial intervals by low atmospheric CO2 (high oceanic CO2). We are presently in the midst of an interglacial interval. Since the 19th century, however, we've completely upset this balance by adding MASSIVE amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere. This cannot have no effect on surface temperatures, as it would violate nearly everything we know about Earth systems. This scientific evidence has been accumulating since the 19th century. You can't just make this stuff up. Scientific facts have to make sense, and fit together in a coherent system... which they mostly do.
The CO2 we are presently releasing into the atmosphere (from combustion of fossil fuels) was captured by living organisms through the process of photosynthesis 10s to100s of millions of years ago, and has remained entrapped within rocks in the Earth's crust for all this time, until we recently figured out how to get it out of the ground, and burn it to release the entrapped energy. This CO2 hasn't seen "the light of day" in millions of years... but now that it's in the atmosphere, it's doing just what CO2 does.... trapping outgoing radiation and causing the atmosphere to get warmer. (It's the law!)
These are simply scientific facts. The specific details remain to be fully elucidated, but the fundamental scientific facts are well established.
I don't understand plz.. more tips about 항상성 of CO2
If you are trying to tell the story that a rise in CO2 leads to a rise in temperature then you need to draw a bit more accurately, or perhaps a bit less accurately, depending on what outcome you wish to present.
Maybe you need a little more time.
Can you explain where you got the data for the recent Co2 levels from? I ask as this appears to be highly disputed that Co2 levels are far higher than at any time in the history of the planet and it is stated by some scientists that we have had far higher levels in the past. We really need to see the actual data and not the propaganda "data" that is not helpng anyone make any sense of this matter.
Thank you for your comment! The CO2 levels are not really disputed, EPICA and Vostok ice cores are quite similar and can be seen and compared en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Project_for_Ice_Coring_in_Antarctica We is and should be disputed is the fact that climate change is the end of the world and that anything at any cost should be done to stop it. Climate change is human made, it is a problem, we need to fix it but it's not the end of the world!
@@learnsustainability Its all disputable. Regardless of the political propaganda and the "science" and it would appear that even the IPCC agree. I can send a link if you like.
Today, we have a huge number of sensors in operation with more coming online as time passes.
However, 50 years ago, we did not have nearly as many sensors than we do now. A hundred years ago the number of sensors were even more fewer. Regardless, we cannot compare all of the high tech sensor and processing of today with that of the ice core temperature proxies.
It takes a couple of thousand years for snow to be sufficiently buried for compaction to occur and seal CO2 and methane gas bubbles. In other words, the gas bubbles are always younger than the ice containing them. There are analytical techniques used to deal with this but the age difference between the two is always uncertain.
If you notice, I said "it takes a couple of thousand years" not one year and certainly not one day like we do now.
The ice core data smoothes out the temperature data over a couple of thousand years. In other words, there could have been gross temperature swings, both up and down, far exceeding anything we have experienced over the past two thousand years that we will never know about.
Basically, I am not convinced in the least bit that there is anything special about our current climate change.
Did anyone else come to opposite conclusion after watching that video and seeing the graphs
What is the opposite conclusion? That temperatures are going down globally?
@@learnsustainability are you telling me that graph doesn't look like we are do for another ice age
@John Vandemark Jeez! An ice age! I hope not. At least not too soon 😱
How about the periods in geological history when it was 4,000ppm carbon dioxide? Temperature was much the same....they don’t like talking about that part
Your diagrams have no vertical scale !!
There is no way to validate your statements of increasing effect, as the temperature increases you specify by drawing upward trending lines at the end are not to any calibrated scale
You are absolutely right! The diagram should have a scale in the video. It is inspired from this graph images.newscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/dn11640-1_800.jpg from the Vostok research.
uuuuh, this video is a bit problematic.
it ignores the lag of CO2 seen in the ice core. and your example of body warming and sweating is the wrong way around.
1. the lag. past deglaciations seen in the ice cores were caused by the Milankovitch cycles, so temperatures rose before GHG's rose.(deniers love that part) so the GHG increase was a reaction to the warming, a positive feedback. it amplified the warming.
today we are increasing the GHG concentrations and this causes warming. tis is not directly the same of what we see in the ice cores. (also in the past glaciations, most of the warming came from GHG increase)
2. body sweating. Sweat is a negative feedback. it counters the warming of the body. what we see in the ice core however is a positive feedback, its more like, body warms and do to that you sweat less and your body warms even more.
you should probably extend this video a bit.
Thanks for the feedback Aanthanur DC!
1. Thanks for the clarification. It's true I did not get into positive and negative feedback loops and I am planning to post new videos about that
2. I agree. The example did not mean to be literal but to connect the self-regulating system phenomena with something people are familiar with.
Alex
This Guy works for Al Gore!
Yes we love that part. "so the GHG increase was a reaction to the warming, a positive feedback. it amplified the warming." Look at some graphs and describe where the forcing happens, you will not find it. So it must be tiny or none existent. I always wonderd why the majority is satisfied with the simple claim that CO2 amplifies, without ever pointing out when. The only ones who analyse these graphs seem to be sceptics and even they are rare. At this point warmists use to say that historical data is not accurate enough.
@@nyoodmono4681 I am not rare.
I am pleased to see you have a variety of fruit in your bowl.
What? Clear?
I teach this subject and would disagree on this "clarity" STRICTLY BASED ON THE INFORMATION YOU ARE PROVIDING.
*If the temp lags the CO2, (according to this, and other sources), we haven't seen a proportional uptick in temp that would reflect the uptick in CO2.
That simply hasn't happened yet. It's predicted, but hasn't taken place.
Also, I've heard that the vostok sample revealed that CO2 lags behind upticks in temp. You didn't mention that.
*I'll move on to another video source for my students. This is bunk.
Correlation dose not mean causation. Carbon and Methane most likely went along with temp, not because of it!!!
the increase in temperature causes oceans to warm, when this happens the solubility of co2 decreases, hence co2 in released, hence atmospheric co2 increases. temperature increase causes co2 to be released, this does not mean co2 cannot also caaause temperature increase also. (i.e. positive feedback)
yep... This Guy works for Al Gore!
How do you get 400000 years old when yous say that earth was ice free 125000 years ago
This isn't the issue, I have no problem accepting the correlation between CO2 and global mean temperatures. The issue is what is worth doing about it. Note also the 1.5 degC imposed limit isn't connected with this aspect but as an arbitrary safeguard against tipping points. In summary this video does give a fact but does not justify the wrecking of global power supplies that we are seeing.
I totally agree with you! Climate change is blown way out of proportion by media and politicians to grab power. I also agree that the 1.5°C is arbitrary and almost impossible to achieve anyway. As Bjorn Lomborg would say, it would be like limiting speed on the highway to 3 mph to make sure we have zero death.
So what needed the cooling cycles 400,000 years again?was it my car?hmmmm not sure.maybe the earth goes through these cycles on its own?or the true source of heat the sun?maybe solar flares?because there are some really hot days,where does that come from did carbon levels raise for a week when we get heat waves?
Why don't you show the actual graph that illustrates co2 and temperatures,another channel showing the actual graph explained temperature lagging co2,well in fact he was reading it the wrong way around ,something I think you have done aswell even though you represent atmospheric gas and temperature as all correlated which is false
The question remains does CO2 levels influence temperature or vise versa?
As explained in the video and with the Vostok graph images.newscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/dn11640-1_800.jpg CO2 and global temperatures are connected, when one goes up, the other one does too, regardless of which ones goes up first.
@@learnsustainability I would think it would make a big difference which comes first, since the current strategy for controlling temperatures is to cut CO2 emissions. A paper entitled "Time series modeling of paleoclimate data" published by Enviormentrics seems to indicate a rise in CO2 follows temperature increases. If that is the case, then were tackling the problem from the wrong direction?
@@timmcclure2096 I will look that up, thank you!
Outstanding! Thank you.
I’m not sure how you make the correlation between talking about 800,000 years of climate data, and “therefore”, as the IPCC declares, our current warming is caused by humans….
It seems self evident (from your own graphics) that temperature has always changed, and seems a stretch to blame the last 70 years on human activity.
Since the industrial revolution, CO2 concentration left the range of the previous 800,000
First temp rises; then CO2 follows. Cause, then effect.
Can you please explain how and why you feel that way or share a resource on the subject? Thanks!
@@learnsustainability I think your response should explain why you think hes incorrect. You talk in your video as an educated person on this subject.
You do not suggest that the last 100 years of human activity is going to keep an ice age away are you?
Yucatan blast killed all larger species on the planet, yet here we are today. The earth recovered fine from that massive event. If the earth was so fragile, you would think the earth would have turned into a cold ice covered rock after Yucatan. So called experts say a rise by a few degrees is going to kill the planet. It cant work both ways.
¡Gracias!Muy ilustrativo y fácil de entender.
Look closely at the graph... co2, follows temp increase..not the other way round..
CO2 and temp are connected. If CO2 followed temp, who do we explain that temp are going up? And is it a coincidence that it started when we started burning fossil fuels?
@@learnsustainability do you suggest that temp has been consistent throughout history? if not, why previous historic warming periods and variations?, .. ie milankovich cyles, solar activity ..prior to 1960s and mans contribution to co2- co2 lags temperature rise and is released as temp increase. Has co2 been historically higher than present?...
@@chrisculpt57 Not at all. On the original graph images.newscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/dn11640-1_800.jpg we see clearly that temps and gas concentrations have changed a lot (and that there is a correlation between them) but this is over 400,000 years. When the change is larger over just 100 years then one has to ask why.
@@learnsustainability we should ask .. when did we begin measuring temperature,.?. at the end of the little ice age.. so a proportion of the increase is inevitably natural cycle , sick of all the doom mongering pseudo political/ ideological nonsense.
@@learnsustainability to follow this ideology, you have to explain the Mann at al, 'hockey stick' graph' and the controversy and discussions between it authors, the 'climate gate' emails between Mann and the University of East Anglia, where there is obvious disagreement prior to publishing the graph.. it is a political statemnt, not a scientific one.
The ice core data show temperature variations are followed later by CO2 rises. A lag of 800 years. Correlation not causation.
I think you did well with the presentation! Thank for you spemding this much effort to make the video
This video is laughably unscientific and amateur. Why not be honest and state the facts and data, not how YOU interpret the data.
+Sam g Thanks for your comment Sam. The facts from the Vostok ice core are public and presented in this video as honestly and simply as possible. My interpretation of the facts is my right as I am the one publishing this video and it is for everyone to agree or not with it. You are most welcome to create your own video and share with people and viewers how you feel about it :-) This was one of the first videos I created two years ago when I started. I agree with you than it is not as professional as what I create nowadays but at the time, it was the best I could do.
AMEN! This Guy works for Al Gore!
You did not show all the Vostok data. Latest temps showed dropping temps - you cut this off.
Thanks! Please feel free to share the rest of the graph with everybody...
@@learnsustainability It's on Wikipedia under
File:Vostok 420ky 4curves insolation.jpg
You cut off the descending temperatures occurring most recently.
What are the benefits of increased CO2 levels?
Increased plant growth.
Right on!
This guy's not an idiot but definitely dishonest. Notice how he doesn't indicate the ppm scale on the vertical axis and then conflates "rate" with "level" at the end to make the gullible panic?
Show me a vegetation curve corresponding. The warm and cold periods appear anyways in their cycles.
The temperature curves from core samples always show a very jagged shape with quick changes. Why are you afraid of the change? If you die or your children further in the future anyway? Just live and learn to adapt. Like moving to a place where we know the changes are not as large as in europe, where an ice age kills all.
Either way we can't control the weather no matter how smart the comments section thinks they are with fancy corny cheesy words
Let's not conflate climate change solely with carbon dioxide. Let's be humble and admit we don't have the foggiest idea about it.. We can all agree that we need to reduce waste, pollution and power hungry oligarchs.
Agreed! :-)
IF CO2 IS THE CAUSE OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE AND SINCE 1960 WE ARE OFF THE CHARTS , LITERELLY, WITH CO2 .... WHY AREN'T WE DRAMATICALLY MORE WARM THAN WE ARE? IT SEEMS THAT THE SYSTEM IS MORE CAUSE AND EFFECT AND TEMPERATURE IS DRIVING THE METHANE LEVELS HIGHER NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. CO2 MAY BE ELEVATED DUE TO FOSSIL FUEL BURNING BUT IT'S BEING GIVEN WAY TOO MUCH CREDIT FOR TEMPERATURE CHANGE.
Thank you for your comment and sharing your opinion!
Sooooo… how were humans responsible for the previous peaks…🤔 let’s just use for example the peak occurring 110,000 years ago.. I’m not getting it🧐
Humans were not responsible for previous peaks, the idea behind the ice cores is that we now reached a level higher than previous peaks.
According to your Graph, CO2 Follows Temperature Rises,
So How can CO2 be to Blame for a warming atmosphere ❓
You leave out the fact that temperature drives both C02 and CH4. C02 and CH4 lags temp by 800 years;
RIGHT. Research the ice cores. C02 always lags Temputure
RIGHT principia-scientific.org/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-lags-temperature-the-proof/
Yes! His fucking graph was BACKWARDS. Temp BEFORE CO2.
the graph was RONG!
How about an elaboration on why he is wrong Mr.Spaceman?
Thank you so much I’ve been looking at graphs on Vostok and global temps for my assessment on ice cores and tree rings, this one finally makes sense 👌🏼
That's good to hear. I know it is very specific but very interesting too. Thanks for commenting!
@@learnsustainability , you are manipulating the figures.
@@learnsustainability "Good to hear" people swallow your disinformation about what Vostok really shows? (i.e. CO2 lagging temperature)
The problem is that the period he points to as rapid rise is NOT taken from the ice cores but from mechanical measures. For consistency he must have continuous ice core measurements. Dispersion of materials during compression mix one level with another giving more an average or smoothed reading over time rather than an absolute annual temperature or gas measurement. So rapid rises and falls are smoothed as different periods blend.
The glacial ice record ends in 1855 due to inconsistency, It does not match mechanical measures which in itself is a reason to not paste the two together. Modern measurements in Vostok do not begin until about 1957. So a 100 year gap. He also failed to mention that by Vostok ice cores measurement temperatures rose and followed by CO2 with about an 800 year lag time. Using the same lag as an assumption we could say that the CO2 levels today are influenced by temperature rise in 1200 to 1300 CE.
@@starleyshelton2245 Thanks for the explanation.
Co2 levels above 300 .13000 years ago wooly mammoth roam around the northern hemisphere. It makes since we are in a ice age
The presenter only had 4 minutes but glaringly missed a great deal. Temperature and CO2 are correlated but a finer analysis of the curves confirms that temperature drives CO2 (CO2 lag is 800 years) not the other way around (ocean-atmosphere CO2 equilibrium with temperature). Ice core bubbles under represent CO2. This is due in part to the solubility of CO2 in water in the snow and slushy ice before the layer gets locked in at depth as hard ice yielding lots of time for "trapped" air to intermix with the atmosphere. Modern science says there were many years over 400 ppm (not the 280 we hear about) before the industrial revolution and periods of time farther back in the multiple thousands of PPM. Leaf stomata seem to be a better basis for CO2 proxy data. Some research suggests that high CO2 actually causes net cooling due to decreasing dust transport from the Gobi Plain to the arctic ice thereby increasing albedo of the arctic ice causing less year over year melting, increasing ice and snow accumulation and greater cooling of the land mass in the northern hemisphere. When CO2 is high vegetation growth on the elevated plain increases reducing dust entrainment in the atmospheric wind and transport to the arctic ice. Cooling starts in 2024 mathematically if you project the 235 year cycle of warming and cooling. The Antarctic had its coldest winter on record in 2021 and the Arctic had its coldest spring-summer on record in 2022 so the cooling may already have started. Ice sheets have been stable the past 15 years in the Arctic and have increased slightly in Antarctica over the same period. Since the earth warms or cools first at the poles we may actually be entering a cooling period. Then there's Climategate, hide the decline, WEF autocratic globalism, Milankovitch Cycles, solar radiation cycles etc.
Thanks for sharing your opinion! How would you explain that, in a system where CO2 and global temperatures are connected, a rise in CO2 today would not be followed by a rise in temperatures?
Thank you for all your comments! 😀Please stay polite and constructive for your comments to stay visible. Insults and aggressive language will be removed immediately.
Correction: it is a mistake to not have a vertical scale on the graph. Please see the original image for reference here: images.newscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/dn11640-1_800.jpg
Although I agree that climate change is not nearly as bad as legacy media and politicians like to paint it (for clicks and political gain), I also strongly believe that global atmospheric temperatures are going up with greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change is a problem, we need to fix it, it is not the end of the world.
Vostok data :
temp cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat
CO2 cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/vostok.icecore.co2
cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html >> [...]the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations. >> it is ALWAYS the TEMPERATURE that drives the CO2 and NEVER the CO2 that drives the temperatures. Al Gore has been condemned in UK for 9 lies in his movie "an inconvenient truth" and that one was the most important lie.
www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/vostok_T_CO2.png (the red line happens BEFORE the blue line, mind the direction as 450,000 is in the *past)*
You know what ?! Rajendra Pachauri who was IPCC director for 12 years has always lived on petrol business, and was at that time living on petrol search :
www.businesstoday.in/magazine/features/teri-ongc-rajendra-pachauri-glori-energy-statoil/story/208617.html
web.archive.org/web/20160316221346/www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=9089242&privcapId=27919769
*Ordinary lies of NASA*
photos.app.goo.gl/1UQTNZLsxpEwfm9w5
Source 1998 web.archive.org/web/19991003042001/www.giss.nasa.gov/research/observe/surftemp/1998.fig3.GIF
Source 2019 data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/U.S._Temperature/graph.png
the Vostok ice cores show temp increase followed by co2 increase, you show the opposite ..why?
@Sustainability Illustrated " we need to fix it, it is not the end of the world." What do you think the odds are that the problem of climate change (man-made) can be solved? In just this country (US) alone , 350 million souls and 535 politicians who want to mandate our very existence and they can't agree on what day it is. How can you even think it's possible? Good luck convincing Russia, China, and India. The end of the world may well be nigh, but not for the reasons you think.
Because he is a manipulator.
You forgot to mention that the CO2 peaks clearly come after the temperature peak and not before. Why didn’t you mention that?
Love the way he never answers these questions
If we are on the precipice of a climate disaster, that infers that everything done up until this point to mitigate the problem has been an abject failure.
Absolutely! Politicians talk a great deal about climate but they are not doing much that makes a big difference. But I don't think we are on the precipice of a climate disaster. I think it is one problem that needs fixing among hundreds of others.
Good to see so many people in the comments section not falling for this garbage
Nice to see that people are commenting and sharing their opinion. If you are going to come here and call me video "garbage", please be more respectful and explain what you mean with arguments. Or make a video yourself to explain your point of view.
@learnsustainability maybe my use of the word garbage was to strong but the comments that look at the flaws in your clip are doing the job for me, take a look there are many of them, as for making a clip myself I don't think there is much point as there are many very well qualified people who we can listen to on CZcams and have not been deluded by the global warming scam
Climate change or global warming? Quit moving the goal posts.
And the answer to your question is NO.
400,000 years on a chart 8" wide. Nice. IDK if data has been retroactively changed, but warming PRECEDES CO2 increase by hundreds of years. At least, that was the conclusion decades ago when this data was first released. Why would that be? Have you ever left a soda out on the counter over night? CO2 is LESS soluble in water as the temperature of water increases. It comes out of solution into the atmosphere AFTER it warms.
Thanks for sharing your opinion!
He completely fails to mention what caused the other 4 cycles. If you notice on his graph cycle 1 has higher CO2 and temps than any other cycle. This guys a complete dimwit.
Please disagree without being insulting or rude. In the future, I will delete all comments containing insults so if you want your opinion to be visible, please watch your language. Thank you.
Definitely not carbon dioxide Geo engineering
You're not even close to draw such conclusions based on your argument it would suggest we are approaching the cooling off portion of the naturally fluctuating self regulating dynamics of our mystical planet.
Cool representation of the evolution of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over a million years: twitter.com/OceansClimateCU/status/1237069561364545537?s=20
Alex, I shared your video links with several LinkedIn groups totaling more than 83,000 members about two weeks ago. Hopefully you saw a spike in your viewership as a result. Keep up the good work!
Thanks a lot David for your help! The traffic and subscriptions have definitely seen a nice boost the last 2-3 weeks. This is super helpful!
Two observations. In all four Vostock climate cycles. Clearly the rise in CO2 followed not lead temperature rise.
Second, you didn't say anything supporting why human activity causes climate change. If fact dudnt say anything to explain why the four 100k year cycles repeated
Your statement of the increase of 70 ppm of CO2 since 1960 implies 1) All the CO2 came from mankind; 2) All of the resulting global temperature increase is from that CO2 increase. Do you have any proof for these implications?
There is plenty of proof for that. Check any reliable scientific study on the subject.
Correlation is not causation. Any decent scientist isn't fooled by simple correlation. The problem is far more complex than two trace gasses composing less than 0.5% of the atmosphere.
Thank you for your comment! Can you please explain what you mean, what your opinion is on the subject and why?
@@learnsustainability It's not possible to determine whether CO2 levels are a cause or if they are a result. CO2 leaves solution any time the temperature rises (as do any dissolved gasses), so the rise in CO2 is easily explained by a rising temperature. A rising temperature is not easily explained by an increased concentration of CO2, when the primary forcing gas in the atmosphere is H2O. Less than 1% of atmospheric gasses are other than nitrogen, oxygen, and water vapor. CO2 comprises 0.4% of the atmosphere, and methane is measured in small numbers of parts per billion. Neither of these even if quadrupled could hold a candle to water vapor in terms of impacting surface temperatures. So it's very difficult for me to accept these trace gasses being the forcing agent of climatic change. If you really want to change climate, take control of the cosmic rays that create cloud cover. That will make a huge impact very quickly. When our atmosphere has sustained abundant life at more than 10x the CO2 we have today, and we know this from ice core sampling, it's difficult to believe we are all lemmings headed for a climate cliff.
The correlation between temp, CO2 & CH4 is interesting, but you give no evidence that the temp increase is caused by the CO2 increase. The graph doesn't indicate this.
The graph clearly shows that in all four periods both the temp and CO2 increases follow the CH4 increase. You do not discuss this.
You use the EPICA ice core temps to support the Vostok ice core data, but you don't discuss why the EPICA temp peaks occur somewhat earlier in two of the periods and somewhat later in the other two. At the scale of this graph, we're talking about thousands of years difference.
Thank you for your comment! The graphs show that GHG and temperatures are connected. We would know why GHG concentrations went up at the beginning of the industrial revolution. I don't know why temperatures would have started going up at the same time.
I think it’s clear that humans in recent history have impacted the greenhouse gas emissions of our planet - even if we are still within our previously experienced range. What I’m curious to know more about is the relationship between these gases and temperatures. Do we know that it’s a causal relationship with co2 preceding the temperature? Or are we just certain of a correlation? I’m curious what the science shows.
Yes, we are certain there is a correlation: when CO2 (CH4 and others) concentrations go up, atmospheric temperatures go up. The IPCC has many reports available on their website if you are interested in learning more: www.ipcc.ch/
Appeal to authority at the end there. I don’t see much change in climate since the 1960s.
Wrong, when temperature goes up, CO2 goes up. At this scale, you don't show the time lag between T and CO2. In addition, why don't you show the T and CO2 correlations from at million years scale. You will see that indeed, the correlation between T and CO2 is not the obvious. There is very little amount of CO2 in the atmosphere compared to previous earth ages.
As explained in other comments, the part that matters is that greenhouse gas concentrations and temperatures are connected therefore if we increase our GHG concentrations, we should expect temperatures to rise and get ready for it, don't you think?
Your 'expect temp' isn't happening.
BS. Temperatures go up and CO2 follows. CO2 is not the driver but the follower. Humidity and clouds define the climate.
The article is being dishonest. The graphs show the dramatic increase in CO2 but the graph showing simple cyclical temperature changes and not and increase commensurate with the CO2 increase. Please be honest and fair when discussing a topic like this.
The thumbnail and graph represent CO2 concentration in 2020 (420ppm) compared to past 400,000 years when it never got higher than 300ppm (see graph here images.newscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/dn11640-1_800.jpg)
Thiz always frustrates me. When one looks closely at the data on that 400000 year graph, you can see that carbon spikes occur 700 to 3000 years after the warming spikes. It's just dishonest use of statistics, insisting that the data show carbon spikes commensurate or preceding temperature spike. The relationship could not, under any circumstances, be causal.
It is causal. The earth gets closer to the sun, the ocean warms up, then the co2 increases with the quantity that is released from the warm ocean (just like from a bottle of coke taken out of the fridge). As this Earth's movement is very slow, and the oceans warm up slowly, the time between temperature rise and co2 increase is large. That's what normally happens. Nowadays is different. We put a huge amount of co2 into the atmosphere in a very short time, and the co2 is driving the temperature increase, not the other way around. This process is proven not by past history, but by a very simple experiment that anybody can do, which proves that co2 is a greenhouse gas and, as such, causes warming of the object underneath, in this case, the Earth.
@@raduungureanu2080 but that doesn't uniformly describe the data from thr core. At times, CO2 increases hundreds of years before warming.
@@raduungureanu2080 and, perhaps you hadn't noticed, but the Earth has more mechanisms involved than you do in your greenhouse.
We produce 35 times as much CO2 now than 100 years ago but the temperature as not augmented 35x as much since then. This is because CO2 follows temperature, not the opposite. How can you do research for your video and ignore this logic. It's honestly scary
You have the timing wrong. The planet warms then the CO2 increases because the oceans warm and the CO2 bubbles out of the oceans. We are looking at a simple physical property not climate change.
Can you expand on this or share a resource to understand it better? Thanks!
Great work, Alex. It's astounding how this very important set of findings is ignored! Keep up the good work!
+GuanRytheFantastic Thanks! Very much appreciated.
A) I don't think ice cores are ignored B) Ice cores show that in the last million years global warming occurred 700-1200 years before increased CO2. So although I believe in global warming, because of other references, ironically the evidence within this video points the other way. If you regard yourself as a scientist then make a valid argument and don't simply be agenda driven, otherwise it may backfire as is the case here.
the vostok cores show the last 420'000 years. the current ice age has been ongoing for 2.5 million years. a relatively short time for ice ages. they can last 100 million years. humans have never existed outside of this ice age, the quaternary ice age.
{There is overwhelming evidence that increasing CO2 concentration since the industrial revolution is the result of human activity. If you would rather think that CO2 increased as a result of increasing temperature, I can't stop you. Trust me, I know the reality of climate change is hard to face every day.}
Obviously you're not prepared to face contrary evidence. You start with a predefined premise (that CO2 is the driver of temperature) and look for your evidence to support that.
1. Yes, CO2 has increased due to natural and human activity
2. Yes, CO2 can contribute to a warmer planet. If it didn't, the Earth would be a cold, desolate place like the Moon.
3. No, CO2 cannot be the main contributor for several reasons. a. Its small concentration in the troposphere. b. its extremely poor ability to absorb/scatter IR and 3. the earth has both very warm and very periods of climate with very low concentrations of CO2
4. CO2 proponents do not factor in the contribution of oceanic cycles, solar cycles, magnetic fields, cloud albedo, nor atmospheric pressure.
5. CO2 proponents cannot explain either the warm period of the late 1930s/early 1940s or the cooling trend that happened during the late 1960s-late 1970s. If CO2 controls climate and it exponentially causes warming, it cannot explain the cooling of the 1960s nor the centuries of cooling know as "The Little Ice Age".
The Vostek Ice cores actually tell us that CO2 increased FIRST, followed by temperature - by HUNDREDS OF YEARS. CO2 cannot both lead and lag temperature of you believe CO2 drives warmer climate in a matter of decades. The data simply doesn't show CO2 leading anything in a consistent matter.
Besides, explain how something that is 0.04% of the atmosphere warms the other 99.06%.
Thank you for taking the time to write a long message. I am doing my best to answer messages even when I don't agree with them. I won't get into another explanation today but there is plenty to read for those who want to understand more on the IPCC website: www.ipcc.ch/
That's not what the data says at all. You are assuming correlation between the variables drivers because there is correlation in the variables data. You are assuming the drivers are also correlating. By the way, global temperatures have not increased. The corrected temperatures have. The corrected temperatures have been "corrected" by the CO2 level. Why is this important? Because if you just make these assumptions and then take action on them without really understanding what is happening, you could trigger a real catastrophy For instance, we may be in a cold cycle that is artificially stopping an ice age with the CO2....or do something like Bill Gates wants to do and really trigger an Ice Age. We need some dispassionate and non-political study of the subject and the causality between CO2 and temperature. What we have is a bunch of people making assumptions. Personally, I don't want to see only statistical correlation with something so important. I want to see the Physics and thermodynamics behind it, without agendas. You can't seem to see that anywhere. I just hear that the "science is proven", by people with known political agendas.
This is another "It is this way because I say it is." "Proofs".
I feel like the Vostok and EPICA research are quite interesting and provide an interesting explanation to what we've been seeing over the past 60 years.
Wrong! Like others have said, CO2 does not drive climate, it has a 800 years lag behing temp changes. CO2 level was much higher in the past, more than 3 million years ago... The red temp graph, at the end when you say it's much hotter now is wrong, temp are up 0,8 oC in the last 100 years not +8 oC !! The temperature was higher during the medieval times and colder during the little ice age witch ended around 1875. The earth has a natural cycle and humains cant change it, its going the get very cold in the future, that is the only certainty! CO2 is food for plants, that's why they pump it inside greenhouses growing, up to 1000 ppm!
AMEN! This Guy works for Al Gore!
Prior to about 450,000 years before present time (BP) atmospheric CO2 levels were always at or below 260 ppmv and reached lowest values, approaching 170 ppmv, between 660,000 and 670,000 years ago. The highest pre-industrial value recorded in 800,000 years of ice-core record was 298.6 ppmv, in the Vostok core, around 330,000 years ago. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased markedly in industrial times; measurements in year 2010 at Cape Grim Tasmania and the South Pole both indicated values of 386 ppmv, and are currently increasing at about 2 ppmv/year" (Carbon Dioxide information Analysis Center). In May, 2018, we have reached the highest levels yet at 412 ppmv, that is why we are having the hottest yrs on record.
Yes, but the problem is, NOBODY BELIEVES US! Because they're all so single minded as soon as they hear a controversial topic that gets out of hand, so they don't get true scientific evidence.
The temperature went up first then the co2 levels after that proves co2 does not cause the temperature to rise.
Many of the comments below have pointed out that there was a flawed analysis of the data. Not only has the data been forced (all the recent CO2 data is coming from a site next to an active volcano so should be included in the Vostok data) but most of it is based on models which don't include solar forcing or the self-regulation the planet does with water vapour (clouds). The irony is that the greenhouse effect has caused a 70 percent increase in vegetation in many near-desert areas. Both the biosphere and the humans living in those areas are benefitting from the increased climate change. The incursions by polar vortices can be attributed to diminished Hadley Cells ... caused by the recent solar minimum cycle. While increases in CO2 are associated with increased temperatures in laboratory settings, the effect is very nuanced. It is necessary to double the concentration in order to derive a single degree increase. We are approaching a climate change disaster - a perfect storm - which will make us wish for global warming. We have entered the transition period between the Modern Solar Maximum and the Modern Solar Minimum. In other words, we are approaching the Modern Little Ice Age. The last one killed over 50% of the population of North America, Europe and Asia. Additionally, we are traversing a galactic dust belt, which is predicted to make our sun a little unstable within the next few decades. The last time this happened coincided with the Younger Dryas. Whether the next event will be an Ekpyrosis or a Kataklysmos I will leave to my descendants to record and hopefully survive.
What you said is WRONG, temperature goes up first , then the CO2. Is the way around.
Evidence?
Isotope ratios do not directly convert into temperatures without a number of assumptions. The temperatures also are some sort of local temperature rather than a global one. Far more interesting to me are the CO2 levels. Those do represent global conditions fairly well. From those levels you can calculate how much carbon is flowing into and out of the atmosphere. We need to control CO2 levels if we are ever going to stop the rise in temperatures, and we cannot do that if we do not understand the natural flows.
Thank you for your comment!
You miss to explain the correlation between CO2 an temp. In the past first the temperatur rises and with a shift of 700-800 Years the CO2 follows. This is a effect of the oceans which have a lot more CO2 40 times higher as the atmosphere. During warming cycle the oceans give CO2 to atmosphere and to cycle all water from all oceans took around 800 Years in time. This video is not helpful to explain the clime and their history.
Wow. Vostok data clearly shows we are well within normal Interglacial cycle with temps, even if temps went up by a degree or two from where we are now. And you somehow manage to ignore that.
+Jorma 1974 I won't get into this argument here Jorma. You are welcome to believe that climate change does not exist. I know it is much more comfortable...
+Sustainability Illustrated Climate is always changing.. as the data shows.
Not this quickly though, remember when you look at this data, this is just your feelings.
"not this quickly though"? I'd say the temp rise during the warm period 120,000 years ago was more rapid than todays rise in temperature, was that warm period 120,000 years ago caused by man made climate change also? Or could it be that we're in a normal cycle and the current rise in temp would of happened regardless of human activity?
The problem is that the temperature should have already peaked, as you can see. But instead what we see is a continual (and increasing) rise in temperature.
The presenter of this video is lying. He's claiming that carbon the the study shows that the carbon levels go up first. I've seen the study. It stated that the heat level went up first. I've been looking for the information on the internet and CZcams and can't find it. Now this presenter is trying to say the carbon levels go up first. That's not true. Just like when our body temperature goes up we release more carbon, the earth temperature goes up before carbon levels go up which shows that man ain't responsible for the increased carbon levels. It's caused by the increase in solar flares from the sun.
The order does not matter. What matters is that 1) There is a correlation between CO2 and temperature in our atmosphere and 2) we are emitting a lot of the CO2 so you can draw your own conclusion.
Yes the earth has been very rapidly cooling for well over 100,000 years
Can you please share resources/studies showing this? Thanks!
@Sustainability Illustrated and it isvery well documented that between 200 and 800 years after it cools the atmospheric CO2 decreases and it increases 200 to 800 years after the climate warms. So in essence the alarmists are saying ducks flying south cause winter.
Climate change the 400,000000 year problem that can only be sorted with your taxes 😂😂😂
Unfortunately, some governments are using climate change as a way divide people and charge the least wealthy of us. But the good news is that people have figured it out and are pushing back, like the "yellow vest" movement in France.