Global Warming: An Inconvenient History
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 06. 2024
- This is the story of how we discovered the planet was warming, and why. Learn the building blocks of climate science with Brilliant: www.brilliant.org/simonclark
The climate crisis is caused by a build up of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere, which traps energy and raises the planet's average temperature. This was discovered over the course of 200 years by a large cast of chemists, physicists, geologists, and other scientists. Some of them you may know, such as Joseph Fourier and Charles Keeling, but many of them are less well known. This video tells the remarkable story of men and women like Eunice Foote, Roger Revelle, Guy Callendar, and James Croll. But there's still more to be told! If you would like to see part 2 of the story, focusing on the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, let me know in the comments.
With thanks to BobbyBroccoli for the inspiration and help: / @bobbybroccoli
Our Biggest Experiment: geni.us/biggestexperiment
Discovery of Global Warming: geni.us/weartdiscovery
Firmament: geni.us/firmament
You can support the channel by becoming a patron at / simonoxfphys
Check out my website! www.simonoxfphys.com/
--------- II ---------
My twitter - / simonoxfphys
My facebook - / youtubesimon
My insta - / simonoxfphys
My goodreads - / simonoxfphys
--------- II ---------
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com
Written by Simon Clark.
Directed and edited by Luke Negus.
This science documentary is about the story of global warming, how we discovered global warming, the beginning of the climate crisis. Who discovered CO2? Who discovered global warming? Who was Svante Arrhenius? Who was Eunice Foote? What did Charles Keeling do, and what is the Keeling curve? The video essay is about how climate change was discovered. If you enjoyed videos like The man who tried to fake an element and other science documentaries from BobbyBroccoli or Kurzgesagt you will enjoy this video essay about the history of global warming.
Huge thanks to my supporters on Patreon: Ben Cooper, Mark Injerd, dryfrog, Justin Warren, Jack Grimm, Angela Flierman, Alipasha Sadri, Calum Storey, Mattophobia, Riz, Jan Krüger, The Confusled, Wessel van der Heijden, Conor Safbom, William Pettersson, Paul H and Linda L, Simon Stelling, Gabriele Siino, Ieuan Williams, Candace H, Tom Malcolm, Leonard Neamtu, Brady Johnston, Liat Khitman, Kent & Krista Halloran, Rapssack, Kevin O'Connor, Timo Kerremans, Ashley Wilkins, Michael Parmenter, Samuel Baumgartner, Dan Sherman, ST0RMW1NG 1, Adrian Sand, Morten Engsvang, Cio Cio San, Farsight101, K.L, fourthdwarf, Daan Sneep, Felix Freiberger, Chris Field, ChemMentat, Kolbrandr, , Sebastain Graf, Dan Nelson, Shane O'Brien, Alex, Fujia Li, Cody VanZandt, Jesper Koed, Jonathan Craske, Albrecht Striffler, Igor Francetic, Jack Troup, HandsomeCaveman, Sean Richards, Kedar , Omar Miranda, Alastair Fortune, bitreign33 , Mat Allen, Rafaela Corrêa Pereira, Colin J. Brown, Mach_D, Thusto , Andy Hartley, Lachlan Woods, Dan Hanvey, Simon Donkers, Kodzo , James Bridges, Liam , Andrea De Mezzo, Wendover Productions, Kendra Johnson. - Věda a technologie
Love how this turned out! The timeline really comes together, and the one continuous shot looks great
Thank you so much for your great videos and inspiring Simon Clark to do his own spin on it, it really made this video a lot more interesting and attention keeping.
I hope more people follow this style of educational videos .
I was thinking about you during this whole video
I knew I recognised the video style!
A shame about that scientist that ended up as a Foote note...
I never write comments. But this is a masterpiece of pedagogy. As a uni lecturer, I am in awe. I wish more could see and appreciate this and read the books that were used as a source. And yes, a follow up on the efforts to educate (for some) and deflect or deny (for others) would be completely appropriate. Fantastic visuals!
For some good debunks and explanations of climate change I can also recommend potholer54. He always gives link to any sources
Feed the Al Gorethm
A lot of this video is talked about in more detail in Simon's book Firmament. If you want to recommend a book to physics laymen (or climate change deniers) who actually want to learn something new, this is the one to go!
@@kevinpils4716 Added to my wishlist 👍
Also it says "inspired by Bobby Broccoli" whose documentaries I can also warmly recommend.
As so often in theories of people who propagate the co2 story, this promotion does not mention the (also by scientists) so-called Little Ice Age.
A (with fluctuations) cool period of about 400 years, which ended about halfway through the 19th century.
The glaciers in the Alps reached their maximum over a period of 3000 years in 1859.
This study included several alpine glaciers and they all showed the same pattern.
No wonder people began to experience the weather milder at the beginning of the 20th century.
Since there were hardly any meteorological temperature measurements before the mid-19th century, these glaciers are very important proxy for an indication of the climate during the past 3000 years.
The study also shows huge fluctuations over that 3,000-year period.
The period about 2000 years ago during the Roman period is striking.
A period of several centuries when the glaciers were so small and receded that they were virtually non-existent and therefore smaller than today.
But during the Little Ice Age, Iceland was usually inaccessible to shipping during the winter months because it was surrounded by sea ice.
The settlers in New England also had a hard time, because at that time frosts in June or July often destroyed the crops in the fields.
This is known from chronicles of that time.
The settlers could make do with hunting, which the common European people could not do, because here there was still a feudal system in which the people had to hand over the harvest to the elite.
The common people could not/were not allowed to hunt, it was regarded as poaching.
As a result, massive famine with attendant debilitation, disease, and early death.
The average life expectancy in 1800 was 45 years.
It is known from chronicles that children in the Alps began to eat grass out of sheer misery and hunger.
It is widely believed that this miserable condition was part of the cause of the French Revolution.
The Little Ice Age is, of course, not a true Ice Age. (but got that name)
Nor the "past ice ages" mentioned in this video.
These are glacials within the Ice Age.
We are now in an interglacial in an ice age.
Because as long as there are ice caps on Earth, we are still in an ice age.
don't forget the mid evil warming period as well, which happened right before the little ice age. A period of time hotter than it is now, yet was also prosperous. I do believe C02 can be correlated to the warming of earth right now, but I also believe we could be missing other things contributing and don't have enough time to actually prove the theory that strictly gas emissions are to blame. Only time will tell I guess, it's also hard to not question science after seeing how money/corruption works in the field. The past 20 is years of Alzheimers research/data has found to have been fabricated.
And we are going to get cold again,.......soon
Yes, we are entering a colder period. What global warming?
That's right, you can't have global warming on a flat Earth.
@@daizyflower272 Some colder, some warmer. Global warming refers to the rise in global temperatures due mainly to the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases, climate change refers to more than just temperature ie precipitation, wind, sea levels etc. Some dummies think global warming as a phrase was replaced by climate change because of some places getting cooler- really can't explain the ignorance and poor education of those people.
"Sidenote: eww." Yeah there's a few moments like that in science history.
Excellent vid, very well presented. Thank you.
I'm looking forward to the next episode. Thank you for your effort in producing a great video.
Next Episode another 12 years to save the world Greta get Deleting .
Very well presented - thank you. I began to research the link between CO2 and temperature rise in the early nineties. At the time there were many detailed meteorological studies and studies of ice cores, which showed no link, at least at the scale of the atmosphere, between CO2 and temperature rise. If there were even a slight link, it was that temperature rise precedes an increase in CO2 levels over a period of 800 or so years.
Sadly, the demonisation of CO2 has become dogma, and no debate is permitted. CO2 is a trace gas, 0.038% of the atmosphere. At this level, it cannot have any influence on global temperatures, I would argue (though it may be different in a vessel full of CO2, when heated).
We must allow debate to resurface on this, because we're about to plunge ourselves into a dystopian future of restricted food, energy and consequent poor public health. After all, CO2 is plant food and for plants, 380 parts per million is pretty low - some argue practically starvation level.
Science is a method of systematic observation of the real world in order to draw tentative conclusions, always allowing those conclusions to be scrutinised. Science is not an oracle of wisdom, but it's the best system we have and we shouldn't abuse it with crass assertions such as 'the science is setttled'. That should never be the case.
Climates do change! 12,000 years ago, there was an ice age. Now there isn't (although the period we find ourselves in is called an interglacial, somewhat worryingly). That is a rather simple statement, but it is an observation and can be debated. We must not rush headlong in any direction (unless there's an asteroid headed our way!), lest we engender untold misery for little or no reason.
We now have a new term - 'climate emergency'. Emergencies are a brilliant way to shut down debate. We have been presented with many questionable emergencies over the past 30 years and all have fizzled away to nothing, but have led to restrictions on our freedoms, if you think about it... This worries me far more than the latest worrying concern.
Exactly Steven, Great comment
Good post but I believe we are currently still in the 5th ice age, as there is still ice. Please correct me if you have a source saying this is mistaken.
Thanks for writing that. Simon is a full dogmatic person, that despite of being a so called scientist he is not presenting the things right. I don't know why he does that because I like his other videos.
We don't know how global climate really work's and we need more investigation, but I don't buy the narrative of Global warming. We need more people like you.
Thank you, Steve. Send this comment to youtube to replace their woke "context" that no one asked for.
Well said. Open discourse without demonising a finding or opinion that doesn't align with your own is what's lacking in our society.
When it's said that "the science is settled", you quite often find power and money collaborating to get a desired outcome in their own interests.
The problem with much of the science around CO2 is that it has always failed to factor in biomass - and continues to do so. So ocean acidification will release CO2 back into the atmosphere, but at the same time Coccoliths will absorb that carbon (via algae) and concert it to calcite, which (in turn) is deposited on the seabed and eventually becomes chalk. Geological features like the chalk cliffs at Dover, were created as a direct consequence of the massive increases in CO2 levels at the end of the Cretaceous (caused by the eruption of the Deccan Traps in what is now India).
Can you explain this "ocean acidification" to me ? If you're gonna start with "warmer oceans contain more CO2",than don't waste my time.
PH of 7.8 instead of 7.9 is not acidic at all. We are talking about salted ocean here!!! Stop using acidic when it’s a bit less basic. Peter Reid said that within 24 hours the ocean ph can dropped by 0.4 night/ day and everything is find. The best coral since loooong time is flourishing.
@@ms-jl6dl lol what a way to start a conversation with someone
I can't believe people still buy this nonsense.
Actually, that is factored in when they make carbon budget calculations.
Excellent! Bored, I searched most viewed long “history” videos for this month and found yours near the top. We are truly in a golden age of video options, thanks to services like CZcams and creators like you. Subscribed!
Why do you talk like a robot
Absolutely, Simon! Please tell us about the '70s, '80s, and '90s.
If I’ve heard one sky is falling story over the past, pushing 50 years, I’ve heard them all.
And still here.
Hey now!! That acid rain/killer bees/amazon ants. Will be here any day, Amy day...then you'll see. By the year 2000, the oceans will rise, the higher latitudes will start to freeze over, and everything in between will be nuclear acid raining killer flying amazon ants...and that...would be mankind's fault.
@@roostertn you forgot the massive crop failure and the ice age that was to occur in North America only around the year 1980.
Maybe you have not heard the first anthropogenic climate change scare, from the cold summer of 1816, where the Year Without a Summer was blamed on Ben Franklin's lightning rod. Ironically, Franklin himself was one of the first people to speculate that volcanoes could cause drastic cooling.
@@roostertn ...and one of the most earnest agenda-pushing Presidents of the last few decades proves his adherence to the faith by buying a $15million beachfront property...
@@ladymacbethofmtensk896 I believe, without verifying it however, that Mary Shelly's Frankenstein was a product of that same period. She was on holiday with her husband and another author and the poor weather kept them inside most of the time, which they spent writing.
How come the heat absorbing capability of Atmospheric water is never discussed in these climate discussions? From my work with FTIR, I know atmospheric CO2 is heat absorbing but it has a very narrow absorption spectrum while atmospheric water vapor has a very wide and deep absorption spectrum that will engulf a CO2 peak.
water vapor is also not limited to 400ppm but more like 10-50000ppm
Yes water vapour is a major greenhouse gas. CO2 is a trope that doesn't really figure in the equation.
Oh but it is certainly discussed. Aircraft contrails is one of the more publicly known parts I would say. I also think that most of the water that we add to the atmosphere down at lower altitudes doesn’t stay for long at all and so the effect is quite limited compared to the co2 we are emitting. Still if we are talking overall temperature of the earth then I think water vapour is a much bigger contributor than CO2 but for the part that we humans have emitted and the part that has actually changed over the last century or so co2 is playing a bigger part
@brucepeterson3246 Exactly! No one knows the feedback effect of water vapor. Also the self- proclaimed Oxford "expert" failed to mention the studies demonstrating that as CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the rate at which the additional delta of CO2 contributes to additional warming gets smaller.
@@thurbine2411I don't think anyone knows or can predict with any accuracy the combined effect of water vapor and CO2 on long term climate.
I have a degree in science and I’m scratching my head
Yes. Part 2 please. I find both science and history fascinating so this combination is great. being about climate change adds to it even more. Thank you for your videos and I look forward to more.
Damn straight I need Part 2. Climate Town already covered a lot but I just want to have as many channels have their take as possible. Can always learn something new.
Stay in school.
@@papertowelthe6th105 two, multiple sources is always fascinating and great to have.
@@rimbusjift7575 schools don’t teach climate science as they should, same with a lot of subjects.
@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI
Physical science is mandatory is most of the western world.
It's sad seeing how many people in this comment section think their smart yet can't comprehend basic climate science. I only wish more people challenged their ignorance instead of festering in it and making the world worse.
Fantastic lecture, I'll be watching it on and on till I'll fully memorize it. Thank you
This is the best overview I’ve seen on the science behind AGW. Bravo, Simon.👏
I’ve recently watched a video by a channel called Astrum which seemed very comprehensive
Please make the second part! Thank you
I look forward to your explanation of the warn period in the Neolithic and early Bronze Age, the subsequent decline in temperature and increase in precipitation in the later Bronze Age, The Roman Warm period, the subsequent cooling, the medieval warm period and the cooling into the little Ice age and then the increase in temperature which brought us out of it?
You won't get any of that, naturally! That's the ACTUAL inconvenient truth, which this guy wouldn't touch with the proverbial ten foot pole.
Global Temperatures were warmer during The Medieval Warming Period….This is quite clear based on Irrefutable Proxy Evidence.
I'm a simpler man than you are, I look forward to an explanation of why the forecast say it's partly cloudy when it's been raining for almost sn hour already. I'd also like an explanation of why I should trust the predictions about climate when they clearly don't have the means to predict weather yet.
@@lenlooksback7981 That's what I keep telling everyone especially Al Boor's infamous "hockey stick" graph which "conveniently" left out the Medieval Warm Period which was warmer than now MINUS massive urbanisation no coal or gas fired power stations no cars no millions of international flights .
He never will because that's the REAL inconvenient truth.This presentation is affirm the climate bed wetters , bed wetting .
Wonderful presentation of selected historical events of climate information that are claimed but not proved to be caused by humans.
Confirmation bias science is the only science. Isnt that the rule? 😂
Did you even bother watching the whole thing because it literally doesn't say that.
@@distantraveller9876 Technically it doesnt half to 'say that'. If you only present selected pieces of science in your statement, video, presentation or whatever one is doing that's what it is. Why weren't any of these numbers in video link in this video? They were conveinantly left out of this video were commenting on. czcams.com/video/ttNg1F7T0Y0/video.htmlfeature=shared
It feels that you vilified James Watt a little. He was a genius and without his inventions we wouldn't have any of the technology that surrounds us today. (If Watt was never born then it could have simply delayed the industrial revolution he kickstarted by 50 years, because someone else would have eventually made the same discoveries.)
Watt is a fantasy figure in a falsified history from the victor. Humanity had electricity and a highly advanced society on a global scale. The victor had destroyed it all and the rest is "his story"
I really do like Bobby Broccoli's style and content! Fun to see this sort of crossover. :)
Yesss! My thoughts exactly
Thanks for standing up for Eunice Foote's legacy as the first person to propose the "greenhouse effect".
Eunice Foote’s “legacy” 😂
All her work was destroyed in a fire yet it was rediscovered much later during the WOKE decades. I wonder if she was of African decent as well? Perhaps we will discover her secret ethnicity during the next Democrat Presidency.
Ever been in a greenhouse in the nighttime, they are still lovely and warm but when the sun goes down here it's bloody cold , just a observation
Most definitely part two you’re leaving me hanging here. I need more please please do a part two as it is needed for full comprehension.
I can’t believe that, until the 60s, no one had bothered to factor-in acid buffering. It’s such an important chemical property in so many industrial and biological processes. Also, if you did the math on ocean acidification sans buffering, the oceans would’ve been a pH of 5 in the 70s and 3 or 4 today, inhospitable to life. And the reverse would be true as well, lower CO2 in ice ages sans buffering would have resulted in inhospitably alkaline oceans. If they gave it even a shred of thought….
With no CO2 in the atmosphere, ocean PH would be around 10 or 11 IIRC. Don't think we would care much since we would all be dead. The acid effect as well as the buffering in the ocean is vital for life, and not surprisingly in our blood too.
Nonsense... It would have been absorbed by photosynthesis and the calcium carbonate cycle...
Here's another inconvenient truth, hemp was supposed to be the next industrial revolution. Imagine a much cleaner environment if big oil and forestry managed to lose the lobby war back in day. The Bush family gained significant power and influence, but that's another story, but we know how that dynasty ended. Instead of focusing on the average every day individual, as they like to do, focus on the real issue and follow the money instead of following the carbon footprint.
Well said!
Beautifully done. Awaiting part 2.
Please make more of these!
There is a large body of scientists (they must not be government funded) that disagree with these conclusions on the basis of these points. First temperature measurement has significant inaccuracies that dwarf the claimed increases in temperatures (measuring devices / micro climates / methods of measurement / selection of measurement data to get included in the average). 2. The effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. The models create estimates of that function, but that driver is created through the "observed" increases in temperatures. In other words the models are ordained with a predetermined conclusion that CO2 is the cause - but its effectiveness as a greenhouse gas on climate has never been demonstrated. 3. Climate Modeling is wholly inadequate and has not correctly predicted any change in climate. 4. Time windows are always picked that ignore massive previous shifts in earth temperatures warming and cooling where CO2 was not a factor. In other words warming/cooling has happened a lot in the past well before there was a human factor and the current warming if there is any is just a part of a longer term trend. Hot or Not: Steven Koonin is a good resource. PS NOTHING predicts a chatostraphic outcome in fact the UN Models predice worst case by the end of the century (75 years from now) a 3% impact to Global GDP. Intellect not emotion must be applied to this discussion and the fear mongoring must end.
Conspiracy NOW! Conspiracy FOREVER! Fick dich if you think any of my measurements are fucking influenced by "funding"
“Amazing, every word of what you just said was wrong.”
I was a teenager in the 70’s and the only thing we heard is that we were headed into an Ice Age. Funny how what people say about what was said then doesn’t match what we know we actually heard back then.
Climate cooling is mentioned in my high school year book, 1974
Are you going to believe the climate hysterians or your own eyes? Come on man FJB and FAG
It's almost like the "experts" don't know sh*t...
@@lisaac9477 facts don’t mean anything. The only thing we hear is the political agenda
@@jeffwalker1322 That's all there is today. No science. Just politics. Anyone with a shred of common sense knows when science becomes political, it stops being science.
Woo for part 2! Wonderful stuff Simon 👏👏
Crop yields per acre continue to increase, forests in BC are increasing their growth rates between 1% an 3 % per year, life expectancy continues to increase and less and less people are in extreme poverty. All due to the burning of fossil fuels.
All true, and all PROOF that The Oil Will End numbnuts.
Great video. I learned a lot. Thank you.
I love how Simon mentioning Bobby on the wikicast to making a whole video in his style. Feels like a Disney channel crossover.
gotta give some love for the originator of this style too, Jon Bois' chart party series. It's such an exceptional way to tell a story.
@@Altobrun Before there was Chart Party, there was his series "Pretty Good" in which this style became the consistent Jon Bois style
Shoutout to Bobby for giving folks a tutorial for it.
Yeah, the style seems a bit unusual for Simon's channel, but it is a great homage to BobbyBroccoli.
Disney is poison.
Good thing CZcams is there to put a context label on your video so we can understand what's going on. Like they are some kind of authority of knowledge.
I know doctors who appreciated CZcams's expertise in censoring what other doctors were allowed to share concerning their findings dealing with COVID patients.
exactly big tech trying to control the narrative by removing content that challenges their false narrative
An absolutely brilliant video. Great setup following the timeline!
Soo good. Thanks for this!❤
Well someone has to say it, climate change will impact the economy
*Not to mention the trout population*
"impact" is one way of putting it!
Fourier was not killed by heat, he was killed by gravity!
I hope your parents are proud of you
Your wrong of course. What killed him was the sudden stop of his inertia.
@@cryyc Well, I am.
@@boogathon You are what?
@@ErikDPhillips If you look close, you can see I was replying to Cryyc. I understand, because, I've made the same misteak (but I never misspell a word).
Conclusion is terrifying . Arguments easier to understand and the evidence very convincing . Thank you
This was great. Thank you
Warm weather has Saved lives and that is also a fact!
Yes, I want part 2! 😍
This was so informative and entertaining, mixed in with the few snide remarks here and there. 🧐
Also, Simon, idk what to say, but your voice is so soothing that I almost fell asleep, take it as a compliment or a complaint. 😁
27:34 'let me know if you'd like to hear it.' yes, please feel encouraged to talk about it and make that video too. first time I learned about Ms Foote and greatly enjoyed this clip.
Excellent! Bring on more!
Brilliant. Two thumbs up!
Thanks for introducing Eunice Newton Foote , very interesting
I commend this effort of correcting this historical injustice by raising awareness of Eunice Foote's trailblazing but forgotten work.
Unfortunately, it seems that there aren't even any photos of her. The image used in the video is actually of Foote's daughter, Mary.
Let us not forget that - AL GORE was a son of a N. Carolina TOBACCO FARMER, worked the fields himself helping to increase carbon footprint, cigarette smoking, pollution, etc ..... and then of course once a Politico himself .... had the gall to suggest THAT OUR SHORES WOULD BE INUNDATED BY THE OCEAN .... by the late 1990s early 2000s ..... of which NOT A SINGLE prediction was correct. There ya go.
How is tobaco farming increasing the carbon footprint?
And yes, the oceans are rising.
trust me when I say: I've read a myriad of summaries and introductions to climate issues, but this is by far the best short form summary ever!
Thanks Simon!
Fourier was one of the greatest scientists in history. His discoveries were key to development of digital music, digital video, cell phones, computers and just about everything that sends, receives or processes digital data. He was even the lead on the development of the metric system.
Yes, he invented what probably is one of the most important mathematical algorithms.
And Eunice Foote was just a chick.
@@ceeemm1901 oh no , Sir, she was more than a mere chick. She was a rather hot chick.
@@areyouavinalaughisheavinal5328 Yeah,and as someone said in 1967, "What she did was a gas, man".
@@ceeemm1901 I hope you're being sarcastic. She was extraordinary, despite everything stacked against her. And note that her accomplishments weren't limited to just discovering the most important issue of the following centuries, but she also was an inventor. What have you done?
roughly 1200-1800s was a mini ice age , occasional hot summers but freezing winters . with the thames freezing over and markets held on the frozen river , we are exiting a mini ice age it can only get warmer , we have been here before many times , only we didnt have phones or sensationalism
You could say that Foote's discoveries were... noteworthy. :3
Very informative it is !!
What a phenomenal video! And please, I would love to see follow-up! Keep it up man, great work!
after rewatching this video I just have to appreciate the visualization, sound and storytelling. It never gets bored and is soo nicely presented with that timeline
Thanks so much for this excellent presentation. I just watched the follow-up video on Nebula. Will there be anymore to come?
Yes, today as a matter of fact ;)
The summer of 1932 set new highs we've no hit again. Temperatures gave been declining very slightly since 2014. The models have failed to accurately predict. Cloud formation, solar variability, axial tilt and long time scale orbital eccentricity changes have far larger effects than greenhouse gasses. Urban heat island effect is by real and significant for urban populations. CO2 is logarithmic greenhouse effect so, as CO2 increases a given quantity it's effect is smaller than that of the previous quantity of increase. Humans are not responsible for the large majority of CO2.
Yes please. I REALLY want to hear chapter 2. Well done Simon.
Great vid.. I learned a LOT
Now all that's need is for the scientists to explain why over the past 600 million years the planet has experienced carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations exceeding those of today by a factor of over 10. This while temperatures varied with no apparent connection whatsoever to CO2 levels. Let's also recall that Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" stretched the truth far past the breaking point multiple times, so much so that British courts ruled that those inconvenient truths had to be pointed out to children being shown the film. It also needs to be remembered that during the Cryogenian the entire planet froze over on two occasions with CO2 levels at around 40,000 parts per million. So while the collective west is bankrupting itself hyperventilating over reducing atmospheric CO2 output the BRICS nations are on a power plant building spree with the vast majority of those being clean-coal burning.
"Now all that's need is for the scientists to explain why................"
Go and ask the scientists, that strangely enough, have affiliations with fossil fuel industry funded lobby groups. They have already told you everything you want hear, so you may as well ask them to feed you more of what you want to hear.
🤣🤣🤣
China and India are heavily into solar energy at the moment actually .
*It's window dressing. The amount of energy generated from solar are minuscule, compared to the needs of China & India.*
*The cost of creating the infrastructure to harness "solar" is astronomical. It would be nothing short of an environmental catastrophe to mine the materials needed. Hydrocarbons are very efficient and do not in any way contribute to "climate change.* @@persona250
@@persona250 because they are making billions off idiots in other countries. CO2 isn't the threat that Climate Change purveyors keep trying to claim.
Ironically the Methane levels over the last decade are indicative of markers similar to that of leaving an ice age. Which also brings the Younger Dryas into question as it could have been an anomaly that brought the end of the previous ice age to a close early by around 11,800yrs.
As such the interglacial we are currently in, may well have only just started as far as the last 1M yrs of cycles go.
Dude, too much reality there, you're going to explode the heads of the brainwashed sheep, lol.
I would like to see part 2. I would also like to hear part 3 which would address issues such as science being almost entirely funded now by politicians with agendas often unrelated to science and how that affects the research results presented. And take a serious look at the arguments made by scientists who disagree with the basic global warming premises and conclusions. As many of us know, often it is the scientists on the fringes who end up being correct in the end.
it is all about control
@@bradmcclure4945 just like organized religion
@@deathryder711 false analogy watch and lean czcams.com/video/9LAFlQ7csc8/video.html
Fringes are often right but not rich.
@@woodsghost9088 True. Scientists get rich by following the government or big corporate narrative. Ask Fauci.
There are some unanswered factors in climate change, such as; are the rays of the sun always consistent, is the earth’s orbit around the sun always in the same track, does the earth’s wobble have any impact on climate change.
In the 60’s it was said that we were coming out of a mini ice age. Back in time there were far more serious ice ages. What caused these to disappear. Another interesting fact is ice cores from the Antarctic found tropical plants below the ice cap. Also, to what extent do the natural emissions of gases and pollutants from volcanic activity and forest fires have on the planet.
LOL. Literally all of those issues are actually very well understood. We have pretty solid records of insolation over the decades (it's been DECREASING as the planet has been heating rapidly). The earth's orbit is very eccentric and varying, but that happens in well understood patterns that were characterized extensively in the mid 20th century by Milankovitch. It's the REASON we understand the ice age cycles. Long term climate change is understood via a variety of temperature proxies, and we also know what drove the changes. And volcanism's contribution also is well studied. For instance, all the volcanoes in the world release less than ONE PERCENT as much CO2 as humans do.
@@markw4206
Okay, thanks, although you didn’t explain tropical plants under the Antarctic Ice cap.
Also if we are coming out of an ice age then temperature’s are definitely going to increase.
I have yet to see what the perfect Co2 level we are shooting for, is 0 an ideal number, it’s definitely low enough.
It’s interesting to know that greenhouse’s increase Co2 levels upwards of 1000ppm for a higher quality crop.
What if we trigger a super ice age like the one that covered most of North America, yikes 😱
The biggest problem I see is when using computer models are very unreliable, especially when dealing with data that is manipulated to reach a preconceived conclusion.
Any time I see mass hysteria it throws up a red flag 🚩 as to the groups involved and what they’re real ultimate goals are.
Like Bill Gates goal of reducing world population to 500 million, now that is a cause for extreme concern.
Yes please - I would like to hear the sequel
yes, more please, especially the recent history from the 1970's and 80's.
Currently watching and still waiting for a mention of periods of warming on the planet 'before humans burnt all the coal and wood etc' can't wait for the explanation
you really believe that CARBON is the ONLY factor?
The video isn't a comprehensive explanation of climate. It's about climate history. You might crack a climate textbook though, where you'd read about Milankovitch Cycles, and how the periods of time they act on are about 4 or 5 orders of magnitude too slow to be even remotely relevant to the sharp warming of recent decades. Or, you can remain ignorant and just spill your derp on comment boards looking foolish.
@@markw4206 What is this sharp warming you speak of? We have no instrument records beyond a relative snap-shot of history. For all you know this 'sharp warming' is normal or even slower than previous warming. And never forget...we're in an inter-glacial period so we're destined to freeze over again sooner or later. After which it'll start getting warmer! You see a pattern emerging?
@@markw4206 Hey Simon, can't figure out this rant can you? Seems to be upset that you gave a history of man's understanding of climate change, for some reason expecting a comprehensive explanation of climate?" Bizarre? or just on drugs??
Then rants that you missed the Milankovitch Cycles (there are 3 of 'em) but then rants that they are "too slow to be even remotely relevant?" Bizarre? most likely drugs?
These precious "Milankovitch Cycles" are ACCOUNTED for in the climate models because they in small part add to the Energy received by Earth from the Sun.
So funny when the cult members can't understand how YT comments work and get at each other.
Odd that you don’t, perhaps letter, explain the oddities of this “Carbon Credits” which seems to be strangely reminiscent of the Catholic practice of selling forgiveness.
I look forward to hearing about that from an Oxford guy.
Jay Warren Clark, Concho, Arizona
Terrific summary!
The earth's climate has been changing for billions of years
The Earth's climate and atmosphere have changed drastically over the last 4.5 billion years. Today's global average temperature is around 59°F, but scientists estimate it has been as low as 10°F1 (during “snowball Earth” events) and as high as 95°F or above2 (so hot the Arctic North resembled today's tropics)
besides extreme events like astroid impacts the climate has never this fast and even if it did it's still a bad thing
Yes correct and that is the real inconvenient truth
@@Lord_Rowlet Well, there's nothing we can really do to stop it and likely not even slow it down. Humankind will die off one way or another, perhaps another massive volcano eruption, possibly in the Western US causing a cloud which would block the sun for many years. Everything dies. It's happened before.
Except this? This isn't the Earth changing, this is *US* changing the Earth. WE are responsible for this sudden warming, and we'll all suffer the consequenced if we don't take action now
Hands down your best video. Please, release part 2, this topic is fascinating
Part 2: Ronnie Raygun was elected and the possibility of addressing Global Warming died
The author of this video noted that the “story of climate change is that of science, biology, and statistics”, but he left out “and politics.” With ”climate change” being used as a blunt instrument to advance the argument for a world government and regulation of every aspect of our lives “to save the earth,” people are rightly wary of the term “climate change.”
Nailed it. What may have started as science is now political. "Science" is just a wrapper to make the political goals appear unassailable.
Great video.
I'd love to hear the story of those lost decades!
I like how everyone in CZcams comments is an expert
Pdf: 📑⛰🍙 Mines, Minerals , and "Green" Energy: A Reality Check 💸🎇♨ 🏴☠
I like this etymology of "expert": it's formed from two words, "ex", meaning former, and "spurt", a drip under pressure.
If you look at the temperature change in one of the many historical cycles - say 1700 BC to 1100BC, there was a similar temperate increase, I blame the Nomadic and Roman Empire consumption of fossil fuels.
I absolutely loved this historical perspective. IMO this information is important to understand the present situation. I’m looking forward to the continuation of this video. Finally, concerning the aerosol masking effect, I understand that sulfur dioxide is not the only substance that causes aerosol masking. In addition to sulfur dioxide there are particulate emissions which are emitted mostly by combustion of diesel fuel. Some climate scientists believe that a sudden cessation
all economic activities could give rise to a catastrophic increase of global temperatures by approximately 2°C within one or two months following the cessation of economic activity. Can you comment on this possibility. Thanks
I'm not a scientist, but what you're talking about is how particulate matter introduced to the atmosphere by combustion has a net cooling effect, but only stays airborne for a few weeks, so if combustion were to stop the earth would lose that cooling effect in the same time frame. But don't forget the atmosphere and oceans are very massive, and would take decades to warm up and come into equilibrium, so global average temperatures would not so suddenly increase. I believe the estimates as to how much net cooling aerosols provide are uncertain, but in the range of .2C - .5C, rather than 2C.
@@robertcartwright4374 Thanks for your input. I suppose that even a sudden increase of 0.5 C could be catastrophic. I understand that it takes about 3-6 weeks for the paticulate aerosolized matter to fall to the ground.
This video style was better than your normal ones
I followed the science and found out there was none. I followed the money, and I found the science!
You followed no science. And when you follow the money, you'll find the millions that the fossil fuel industry is pumping into the denial and disinfo websites you've probably consumed.
Great work! I've read a fair bit in this field and I still learned a thing or two. Very well put together. Would love to see a part 2.
Water vapor is a GHG as effective as CO2 according to GHG Theory. There is 50 times as much water vapor in the atmosphere as CO2.
@@msimon6808 But it precipitates out relatively quickly, meaning that any shift in water vapour concentration is very short-lived. Thus, it responds to and amplifies the warming effect of longer-lived GHGs (like CO2 and CH4), without itself being a forcing.
This has all been extensively studied and is well-integrated into the mainstream understanding of atmospheric physics.
@@byrongsmith Yes of course. Going from 50 times as much to only 45 times as much is going to make a HUGE difference? What about when it goes from 50 to 55 times as much? Besides the Earth handles the variations the same way mathematicians do. Integration. Unsteadiness is no longer the difficult mathematics problem it was 600 years ago. Mathematicians can now do it almost as well as the earth can. It is difficult to cover up an order of magnitude or two with hand waving.
@@byrongsmith Uh. No. If a joule of heat evaporates x amount of water vapor, it does not matter if the heat came from water vapor or CO2. I keep seeing the hand waving you propose being presented. It is an obfuscation. It does not negate elementary physics. If heat from CO2 causes water vapor to increase so does heat from water vapor. Mathematically it is solved by integration. Which is effectively what the Earth does with all the little bits.
@@byrongsmith The theory needs this hand waving or it breaks. " If heat from CO2 causes water vapor to increase so does heat from water vapor. " - the theory is broken.
Fabulous! Part 2 PLEESE.
One of the big picture pieces missing are geological experts to show how the Earth has had periods of thousands of ppm of CO2 in it's atmosphere before and how the oceans turn it into carbonate rock.
Oh wow. They're saying it's been warming since the end of the little ice age. Imagine that.
this is important work, Simon, please do continue
Taking the end of the little ice age as the starting point for these predictions is short sighted to say the least.
relax, they go back at least a million years.
@@mrunning10 most of the data used to show a warming climate starts in around 1750 the end of the little ice age. Can't think why 😂👍
Gets some more recent science. Is There a Climate Crisis? The Science Says Not Now and Not in the Future | William Happer
William Happer is Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor Emeritus in the Department of Physics at Princeton University. He is a specialist in modern optics, optical and radiofrequency spectroscopy of atoms and molecules, radiation propagation in the atmosphere, and spin-polarized atoms and nuclei. He is also noted for work in climate-related physics.
Dr. Happer received a B.S. degree in physics from the University of North Carolina in l960 and the Ph.D. degree in physics from Princeton University in l964. He began his academic career in 1964 at Columbia University as a member of the research and teaching staff of the Physics Department. While serving as a Professor of Physics he also served as Co-Director of the Columbia Radiation Laboratory from 1971 to 1976, and Director from 1976 to 1979. In l980 he joined the faculty at Princeton University. On August 5, 1991 he was appointed Director of Energy Research in the Department of Energy (DOE) by President George W. Bush. While serving in that capacity under Secretary of Energy James Watkins, he oversaw a basic research budget of some $3 billion, which included much of the federal funding for high energy and nuclear physics, materials science, magnetic confinement fusion, environmental and climate science, the human genome project, and other areas. He remained at the DOE until May 31, 1993 to help the Clinton Administration during the transition period. He was reappointed Professor of Physics at Princeton University on June 1, 1993, and named Eugene Higgens Professor of Physics and Chair of the University Research Board from 1995 to 2005. From 2003 until his retirement in 2014, he held the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Chair of Physics. From 2018 to 2019 he served as Deputy to the President and first Senior Director of Emerging Technologies at the National Security Council.
From 1987 to 1990 he served as Chairman of the Steering Committee of JASON, a group of scientists and engineers who advise agencies of the Federal Government on matters of defense, intelligence, energy policy and other technical problems. He was a trustee of the MITRE Corporation from 1993 to 2011. He served as Chair of the Board of the Richard Lounsbery Foundation from 2016 to 2018. He was the first President of the CO2 Coalition. From 2002 to 2006 he chaired of the National Research Council’s Standing Committee on Improvised Explosive Devices that supported the Joint Improvised Explosive Devices Defeat Organization of the Department of Defense. He was a Co-Founder in 1994 of Magnetic Imaging Technologies Inc. (MITI), a small company specializing in the use of laser polarized noble gases for magnetic resonance imaging. He invented the sodium guidestar that is used in astronomical adaptive optics to correct for the degrading effects of atmospheric turbulence.
Having published over 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers, he is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, National Academy of Sciences and American Philosophical Society. He was awarded an Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship in 1966, an Alexander von Humboldt Award in 1976, the 1997 Broida Prize and the 1999 Davisson-Germer Prize from the American Physical Society, and the Thomas Alva Edison Patent Award in 2000.
czcams.com/video/jIMpjh_7-bw/video.html
Happer is not a climate scientist. That's why he published on right-wing blogs and media sites.
Happer has an administrative honorary title position for the last 10 years. He has zero credibility in the field of climate science today. He gets indirect funding and direct support from the Cato institute and Heartland institute that get most of their funding from fossil fuel investors; heck I even know as a fossil fuel investor. Happer was a particle physicist, not an atmospheric physicist. He has been lying about scientific consensus for quite some time and his claims about satellite data are still cherry-picked and out of date.
His only notable achievement in science is he is one of the pioneers in the field of optically polarized atoms.
Let's see, trust the paid-for by the Oil Lobby Happer or Simon Clark the PhD in Atmospherics Science from Oxford University? Gee! That's a "tough" one!!
Happer is a LIAR.
From 1991 to 1993, Happer served as director of the Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of the George H.W. Bush administration. He was dismissed from the Department of Energy in 1993 by the Clinton Administration after disagreements on the ozone hole.[4]
Happer, who is not a climate scientist, rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. In 2018, Donald Trump appointed him to the National Security Council to counter evidence linking carbon dioxide emissions to global warming.[5][6] He resigned from the council in 2019.[7]
Sorry you made a mistake. You don't mean more recent science. You mean the personal opinion of someone I agree with. Please provide a body of recent research that proves your point.
Nice work. I look forward to hearing about the 70-90's I remember in the 80's how we were told we would not be able to walk outside by the 2000's due to the fact that there would be no ozone (because of humans) and our skin would melt off due to all the acid rain that was going to be everywhere (because of humans). Seeing as we have only recorded weather for about 100yrs and only accurately for the past 30, we know there are 50yr storms and 100yr storms... it is speculated that there are 500 and 1000yr storms... it seems a little arrogant to think we understand the global weather cycles that can span 10s of thousands of years... but I have an open mind and wish to hear more on what we know at this point.
Yep! I can attest all that is true!
If you go back 18,000 years in human history, where I live in NH was under a mile of ice. As late as 15,000 years ago the sea levels were 200 feet lower than today - that's an average rise of 9 inches a century. 8,000 years ago, the Sahara desert was grasslands and forests. 1,000AD was called the 'mediaeval warm period' with world temps over 1 degree hotter than average now. it was followed by the 'Little Ice Age' from 1500-1900AD and then this manmade catastrophe of Global Warming. Obviously, the Earth has warmed significantly in recorded history, and it cant all be explained by CO2 emissions.
Humans DO tend to think that we are the cause of everything unusual. Hundreds of years ago, civilizations would perform ritual sacrifices when a comet or lunar eclipse occurred, because we didn't know what was going on and blamed ourselves. So, given the wild temperature swings that we have seen in the last 20,000 years, how can we be so positive we are to blame for climate change?
@@pattonpending7390 Correctomundo, compadre. I agree with your analysis. The only quibble is with "...it cant all be explained by CO2 emissions."
Actually, almost none of the observed global warming corellates with rising CO2.
The ozone hole discovery and the subsequent banning of a refrigerant that had just gone out of patent set the template for manipulating "science" to affect a desired policy.
@@jonmcdaniel8492 I take it that you have talked to The British Antarctic Survey. And know all the facts.
I really enjoyed this overview of how how these processes were discovered historically. It gives you a much deeper appreciation of how many people were involved and how much previous work our current theories build on!
Global warming: An inconvenient pile of bull sh!t. Sorry lemmings, you've been had (again).
That´s just the laast 200 yrs. What does the paleo-proxydata over the last 25-30 thousand years indicate?
@@andrewrourke9519 Marcott et al 2013.
Yeah in 1912 they also believed the Martians were an advanced race of beings which created expensive canals in order to fight climate change on their planet.
@@chinajoebinlying1773 Who is "they"?
2 Thousand years ago Hannibal traveled with his soldiers and elefants over the alpes beating Rome. There was no snow in the hills, the temperature was 3 degree or more warmer... Then came back 1450 a cold period till 1850 sand since this time the temperature is grown 1 degree maybe.... But it's by far not as warm as it was in times of Hannibal.
Exactly so. Later, when Rome had colonised Britain, they were cultivating vineyards here.
@@johnhudghton3535... Because the climate was warm enough for their wine....
@@michaelscore6763 spot on.
If the CO2 concentration on Earth would be reduced from 0.04% to 0.03% green plant life, which depends on CO2 would die off. Lately, Revelle has renounced Al Gore's conclusions about global warming. The so-called temperature increase in the past 200 years can easily be dismissed due to the inaccuracy of thermometers in the past plus the fact that thermometer calibration standards have changed at least twice during that time.
0.04 percent, which is an increase of 50 percent since 170 years ago. A very fast rate geologically, and even on scales relevant to humans.
There is a reason why global warming is not estimated in in degrees per decade; it is estimated in watts per square meter or total watts, which we know you have no clue why thus your nonsense about thermometers.
If you or anyone else can show that the methods used to determine the increase in global mean temp can be dismissed, you'll be the next rock star in applied physics and rich to boot.
This video was amazing!! I hope there would be a second part. Greetings from Colombia!!
So they already knew in the 1920s, yet a hundred years later people still have their head buried in the sand...
Yes. Humanity is a siknes.
The first pondering on the matter were quite long before that.
It will take 50 to 100 years to deal with greenhouse gases, meanwhile, we are suffering the consequences right now. We need to stabilize the temperature of the earth using techniques of solar Geo engineering while we deal with greenhouse gases.
As Melissa Fleming head of digital media UN says “ We own the science”
Very interesting and informative. Another inconvenient truth is that as global warming became a topic of study, we learned that the climate of earth was much more complicated than had been formerly realized. So many factors other than CO2 were at play. Actual climate study is a relative new science compared to other fields of study. Currently there is an amazing amount of data being produced every year. As we move forward, ideas that have been considered as fact are many times found to not be true. One of the most important truths in science is that the more you learn, the more you realize what you don’t know. Absolutely nothing in science is carved in stone. This an important fact to remember.
it is far more complicated than most understand it to be anyone who studied chaos theory
is familiar with what is called the butterfly effect which is why all computer modeling of climate fail
Unfortunately, we haven't been studying the planet for the last 40,000 years.
So the best thing to do would be to leave it alone, and let it do its own thing
@@ronaldss859 we can study the last 40kyears by carbon dating and analyzing the tree rings of petrified wood from a petrified forest
@@bradmcclure4945 do you remember mount Saint Helens or Upton and causing devastation in a matter of hours not thousands of years to create caverns much like the Grand Canyon..... so much for tree rings...
My point is this go on in living room life do your own thing and the planet will take care of itself until such a time that God the creator is done with it .....
@@ronaldss859 absolutely lived close enough for ash to fall down around my house
Amazing video Simon. Can't wait for part 2
I realize there must be an explanation, but can someone explain why there was no greenhouse effect in the Jurassic period when CO2 levels were 10x higher than they are now, and there was an ice age?
Because you start off with assumptions and thus a question that is wrong to begin with. (there was no "ice age" during the Jurassic) (you work for an Oil lobby perhaps? they like to do this mis-leading shit)
1. There was and always is a "greenhouse" effect on this planet.
2. Jurassic did indeed have MORE carbon than today (reaching 10x, but not staying there) (the Earth takes a LONG time (millions of years) to react cyclically.
3. Jurassic period showed mostly continuous average global WARMER temperatures than todays'.
4. Jurassic period was at the end of Pangea breakup, (that's where the increase in carbon came from) where the surface area of the oceans was greater than today and their were no land masses at or near the poles, there was no ice at the poles and little if any "albedo" increase and although some evidence of ice is possible little formed to call it an "ice age" (sounds like you got this from a right-wing climate conspiracy deniers website?)
Do you know the difference between “there” and “their?”
Unfortunately for Gore and the climate loons before Revelle died he made the statement that carbon dioxide had as much effect on the climate as him spitting out of the window. Gore tried to pass this off as the ramblings of a demented senior but he was sued for defamation and lost after Revelle's family said his mind was sharp up until he died. Revelle's interest in atmospheric CO2 was a contract from the US Navy to study how atmospheric carbon dioxide would impinge on the IR missiles of their fighter jets not initially die to any interest in the science.Högbom and Arrhenius both conveniently ignored the fact that prior to the widespread use of coal, humans had been burning wood and lightening whole forests and that ruminants had been putting methane into the atmosphere both of which activities diminished significantly with the adoption of fossil fuels. More significantly they ignored Croll's work on the impact of inclination and precession on where heat falls on the Earth and is absorbed into the oceans so affecting the balance of CO2 between ocean and atmosphere. It was a good example of making a theory fit the selected facts not facts being the basis of theory. Keeling picked the two most extreme places to measure CO2 that are subject to errors - on top of a volcano in Hawaii in a part of the Pacific Ocean where CO2 emission is affected by ENSO and in Antarctica rather than the Arctic where absorption is depends on the deep return of the Gulf Stream and its temperature that in turn depends on the on-ice cover. Their successors continue the practice of using biased data by measuring temperatures at the end of runways and in areas dominated by the Urban Heat Island effect. All this bias shows up in the IPCC projection that fail to reproduce even the biased temperature data of the past thirty years.
Fascinating, cannot wait for part II ❤
While in college in 1990 one of my professors, a respected researcher on the ecology and economics of forests, flagged me down and related his recent experience at a major global scientific conferences on climate change. He was clearly rattled by what they had discussed, telling me how serious scientists were throwing out such insane ideas as the feasibility of dumping millions of tons of sulfur into the atmosphere to cool the planet. He finished by saying that when the best qualified people to examine the issue on the planet are reduced to throwing out such fantastical ideas as our only possible recourse, we can conclude that we are truly fcked.
As a side note, anyone who has studied forestry or wildlife management can attest to the fact that professors in those fields ain't libs by any stretch of the imagination. I'm not talking philosophy of post WWII French literature here. Quite the contrary, they are shockingly conservative... or were back then at this college, who got their position by being very good at researching how to increase the profitability of natural resource extraction through a very narrow anthropocentric perspective. To them the word conservation quite literally meant manage for long term profitability with concepts like endangered species being nothing more than a legal inconvenience. That discussion has been seared in my memory, and I've seen very little since then to suggest his conclusion was wrong.
Part 2 please 🙏🏻
The original video picture showed flames shooting out of the earth. Love it!