Geologists See Climate Change Differently
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 01. 2024
- This place explains why geologists see the climate change from a different perspective.
If you are interested in a perspective a little closer to the modern day, take a look at this video on my new climate issues channel • Climate Change in the ... - Jak na to + styl
For those interested in current climate issues, here is a detailed look at climate change in the recent past compared to now: czcams.com/video/B4awlqXpnOI/video.html
The discussion here has highlighted an important point in the climate debate i.e. there is little question that the climate is changing. The key thing of importantance to living organisms is the RATE of change (as the dinosaurs discovered when the asteroid hit at the end of the Cretaceous period). Most of the current debate is supported by drawing straight line segments on curved graphs with the slope to illustrate the rate of change. My discussion of the very long term perspective in this video helps to understand that: no matter what start point is selected for a segment, it is not a baseline, it is a point on a much longer curve.
The comments here also highlight a fundamental thing about human nature: Everyone makes some fundamental assumptions about the origin of the earth to support their view of the world. Everyone want's to believe that their own view is correct and that everyone else is wrong. Only when we accept that we might be wrong can we sensibly look at all the views and decide who might be right.
Thank you for the clarification. Have a good holiday and a safe trip home.
This is why we need experts like you, because you provide the vital context that most people lack. I happen to know about geologic timescales already, but that's solely because I love geology and read about it for fun. Pretty sure that's not a terribly common hobby these days, sadly.
As you stated the debate is not change but rather the rate of change and how best to determine what factors affect that change and at what rate. From the earths formation as a simi-molten sphere to a simi-frozen planet that transformation has been relentless although filled with starts, stops, and jumps caused by innumerable an often unpredictable variables such as the evolution of life which has drastically change the atmosphere and geology of our planet, the occasional meteorite and the recycling of its crust by plate Teutonic’s as well as the gravitational effects of the Sun and Moon, not to mention the radiation variations of the Sun. With so many constantly changing variables only very short term predictions are somewhat possible, well, kind of, maybe, as long as nothing unexpected happens. As always only GOD KNOWS for sure which way the wind will blow.
Yes. Slope matters. Which is why the almost vertical nature of the current rate of change (on a Megayear/cm scale) is very worrisome for many.
@@driftwolf Worrisome? Perhaps more like concerning. It was the sudden onset of the current ice age almost 2 million years ago that prompted our uncanny ability to adapt which brought us to the position of the dominant species on the planet. As individuals our survival is always transitory as a species we are more a danger to ourselves than from any external forces.
there was nothing controversial about what was said in this video, and even then YT felt the need to 'add context' because they are SO afraid of having their narratives questioned
Correct YT and FB are killing themselves.
@@paulwilson2651 exactly! every time they try to censor or control the flow of information like that I am reminded of this quote:
_"When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say."_
these are no longer platforms they are publishers and should be treated as such or be forced to act like platforms again
now ask yourself who owns these platforms and what other narratives they have been trying to control in recent years, you may start to see patterns
Information grounded in fact-based science, as opposed to the political consensus type, is borderline heresy in today's world.
You must follow the party line. No dissenting voices will be tolerated.
As a geo I whole heartedly agree. Further, the public doesn’t realize that about 12K years ago there was a mile high glacier on NYC, and much of the USA, that suddenly melted. Now, that’s global warming!
That is probably more relevant to modern day humans than continental drift. There are a few good videos on that subject on CZcams.
So now the plan is to melt what's left of them so much that NYC is submerged over the next few hundred years?
Nah just nature and climate change
Idk, there is a case to be made for the north pole solar oriented north polar to have have been in or around hudson bay, as the coldest section of the Northern hemisphere.
I'm more concerned about Hunga Tunga Erruption then human climate change, and why the older, younger dryas occured mid ice age, and why we are in a 12k warm spot in the ice cycle.
Something interupted the glacial cycles, and we still don't know what. Or Whatever that one interuption means for the cycles as a whole.
Change is a constant. If we want it to include ourselves we better decide to make it so. That would take a whole lot more honesty than we have given it so far.
There is a reason all of the geologists that initially were quite numerous on IPCC scientific committees have left in disgust when it turned out it was not the science of the earth but political “science” that was expected from them….
geologists are not scientists
@@user-wq9mw2xz3j💋🤌
😊
@@user-wq9mw2xz3j ?
@@user-wq9mw2xz3jand boiling water is cold
that's relative.@@sirefromtheshire
As an ex-geologist, I completely agree. I certainly view climate change very differently to others in my circle.
Respectfully, no scientist is ever an ex-scientist. Your knowledge base - and what it took to get there - entitles you to your title for as long as you live. Be well -
Geology is simply looking at rocks - there’s little useful knowledge that can be transferred to atmospheric physics by most geologists. And that’s ignoring who most geologists work for - oil and gas companies.
@@NapoleonGelignite- lots of geologists work for environment agencies, or the construction industry, or the space industry e.g. astro geologists, ocean floor and marine environment exploration e.g. geophysicists, or studying natural deposits e.g. geochemists, or the study of plant life and animal life on planet earth millions of years ago such as paleontologists. It's a very broad field (speaking as a geologist who trained in igneous geology).
@@Gandalf606 - if I told you that I know a climate scientist who thought geology was completely wrong and he had his own ideas - should I believe the climate scientist or the geologist?
@@NapoleonGelignite- speak to several scientists across a borad range of perspectives. Despite what the main stream media are saying, there is no 'consensus' on climate change. We are a broad discipline and despite what the uneducated or the foolish may say - doubt anyone who solely uses the term 'follow THE science'. Why? Because science is extremely complex, we don't know it all, and we have different theories to explain the facts that we currently perceive. After you've spoken to a range of scientists who come from different disciplines and different perspectives - then use whatever training, expertise, and wisdom you have accumulated ... and make up your own mind. Don't just 'follow the crowd'. There is too much of that going on right now. Especially in the main stream media. Good luck.
The average person on the street sadly believes whatever they're told by nefarious entities.
Part of the reason for making this video is to encourage "people on the street" to take a step back and see the discussion in a wider context. My efforts will probably be limited to people that the CZcams algorithm sees as interested in geology, but that's a start.
Thinking is hard work. That’s why so few do it.
Albert Einstein
The key element of social control is the strategy of distraction that is to divert public attention from important issues and changes decided by political and economic elites, through the technique of flood or flooding continuous distractions and insignificant information.
Noam Chomsky
@@chris4973
It warms my heart to see comments like yours growing in number.
There are a few clever (evil) people trying to derail our current post WWII western world golden era and replace it with a 1984 (saves writing paragraphs) scenario.
Comments like yours show a growing number of 'awakening minds'. Soon the few will be the vast majority and Klaus Schwab and his toads dispatched to oblivion.
Yup, most are "sheeple!"
People have lost the art of questioning what they are told they just blindly follow, if 10,000 people are wrong they are still wrong no matter how hard they try to convince others.
I like how the YT "Context" is vague & ridiculously simplistic explanation of, basically, how weather works; in a video given by an actual geologist.
And probably written by a 22 year old intern who just got done writing an op on p-diddys new movie just before that.
Last week I read a Vienna University scientific paper about The Alps during Roman Times, 2000 years ago. It has been well documented in ancient texts, and proven scientifically in the past decades, that the mountains were glacier-free, and that Roman legions, and others (Hannibal), were able to cross the Alps on foot once the winter snows had melted. Nowadays, when a glacier retreats 100 metres it's seen as some sort of end-of-world scenario.
The last time the polar regions were free of ice was 2.6M years ago, and if you believe ancient texts, remember that the bible was written about 400 years after the death of Christ by people who never knew him. You might also believe that the ancient Egyptians derived their civilisation from aliens.
We know that during the ancient Greeks and Romans, the climate was warmer than today. So elites crying doomsday and jerking around with the public on a global scale about fossil fuels, consuming too much meat, using gas stoves and heaters is all a way create THEIR POLICIES and to enrichen THEIR INVESTMENTS!!!!
Because someone has discovered how to make bank out of it.
Funny how global temperature records state clearly that 2000 years ago temperatures were exactly in line with pre-industrial averages. How do you explain that?
How do you explain that they were able to record temperatures before thermometers were invented? @@timothyrussell4445
When did we not have climate change, when was the climate completely linear and predictable. We still cannot live off agriculture in Greenland as we could a thousand years ago.
Did the acient Islandians had roads, that cost up to several million dollar to build per mile?
No! They simply rebuild their dirt hut in the next valley, when the ground got instabile. Live in a dirt hut or shut the fuck up!
During the time of Henry the Eighth France put tariffs on British wine. The best in the world due to perfect climate.
Det var varmare på romartiden än nu dessutom. Jag har just skrivit en kommentar som handlar om att det står i bibeln om du har lust att läsa den och hittar den. Det finns i Sverige en förening som heter Genesis som man kan säga är kristna kreationister som studerar geologi utifrån bibeln och från observerbara fakta. Hellre bevis än spekulation. Dessutom har jag frågat Gud och Han säger att han har skapat allt. Vad mer behöver jag veta egentligen?
Exactly what I point out to people. They act as though the climate should be stable, when it never has been, simply because they are incapable of thinking beyond the time-scale of a generation or two.
The last 8000 years were a pinnacle of stability as far as climate goes.
The warming trend we are in isn’t even unusual. It’s happened many times in the last few hundred thousand years. There are some pretty convincing arguments in favor of the position that we are actually still in the ice age.
John Schellnhuber would disagree. It’s about rate of change now. And climate change is only one of the tipping points accelerating at non-linear rates.
As I understand it, we're in an "interglacial" period (between glaciers growing), though we're still technically in the most recent ice age until all of the glaciers and the polar ice caps have completely melted.
@@chris4973Using the words 'tipping point,' as you casually tossed out, on which has no scientific basis in theory or demonstrated fact, (except to pimp Terror-for-Grants,) makes you a Greta follower, a simp to that Paid Child Actress.
That's why people will shun you, the way they step into the street passing around a crazed meth head. _Read a book!_
@@chris4973 look at the rate of change over the last few hundred and you will see similar. The Beginning and end on the Younger Dryas are good examples.
@@ronaldlebeck9577 et al; and that’s if they do completely melt AND don’t come back in full force. At the beginning of the Younger Dryas things were heating up fairly quickly and quite nicely and then all of a sudden we get full on ice age conditions for another thousand years. All it takes is a rock from the sky, the sun to do something weird, or something we don’t even remotely understand. I kind of feel that way about the climate in general. We think we understand it to a great degree but the facts remains, every model for climate change since the seventies has made wildly inaccurate predictions. We were supposed to have an ice free Arctic every summer starting in 2013ish. The ice cap has been expanding since 2012. That’s the nonsense from the Inconvenient Truth era of misinformation. If you want a real laugh look into what the models were predicting in the nineties. We don’t really understand this stuff at all in my opinion but according to the best evidence we have we are fine. Looking at carbon dioxide levels since life began on this planet we see that up to around 1000ppm life thrives. At 1000ppm things get way too hot and for us it might be a little lower although it should be noted that humans can survive anywhere we can get water. We spend months at a time in Antarctica and there are nomads living in the hottest, driest deserts on earth. At levels well above the current (@480ppm ) we find higher biodiversity than we do now. I am not worried about climate change. I actually think it is a distraction from all of the pollution we are dumping in the environment. Big corporations and the government can make boatloads of money pretending to solve climate change with solar panels and carbon credits, etc. It’s very difficult if not impossible to make money cleaning up the 2500ish new, untested chemicals and compounds released into the environment every year. Smell that? You are breathing in RoundUp (by Monsanto) right now.
The fact that there's a UN comment is all you need to know people
we need people like you to tell this to politicians keep informing the public
I agree. Politicians have been bought off by fossil fuel companies to pretend there's nothing serious going on for too long.
with enough taxes and poverty the weather will get cold lol
the politicians just collect tax there not interested ? in fact the government body didn't know the amount of co2 in the air
You mean misinforming surely?
@@timothyrussell4445 so you think earth is static and stable? explain why we have salt on mountains
In science, geologists are considered to have very deep and comprehensive knowledge of the Earth's climate and how it works.
Except by climate scientists.
@@tonybloomfield5635If you still believe in man made climate change watch.
Tony Heller 777 imaginary thermometers
Blimey ...... time to insert some intersectionality and "climate realism" into the geology departments then, we can't have this sort of radical free thinking going unchallenged.
One of the main things I learned in my geologic education is the absolute power of time. Most people have no idea how much time has passed in the history of the planet and what small forces can do over that timeline. Climate change is real, it always changes and always will.
@@RP-ks6ly But what you apparently failed to learn is that the RATE of change during the vast majority of Earth's history was VERY much slower than at present. THAT is the crucial difference between then and now and THAT is what is causing the present problems associated with global warming.
As a fellow geologist I agree that the climate has been changing forever!
The physicists agree with this silly and redundant point that sidesteps the science of anthropogenic global warming entirely. Would you care to add anything with more substance?
its just changing 100 times faster than it ever did under natural systems besides cataclysmic events.
@@Method9what substance did you add there ?
@@Toggymok Other than pointing out that no one is disputing this? Yet it is used over and over again as some kind of counterpoint to the urgency to act to mitigate AGW.
@@Method9 what's to dispute? The climate HAS been changing forever. Case closed Sherlock.
And yet with a M.S. in Geology, I've had people that didn't even do well in grade school science argue with me that today's climate change is just so much more rapid and unprecedented than any of the past.
You embarrass yourself.
This is what the Geological Society of London concluded in 2020 after a major study into rates of changes during geological time:
"the current speed of human-induced CO2 change and warming is nearly without precedent in the entire geological record, with the only known exception being the instantaneous, meteorite-induced event that caused the extinction of non-bird-like dinosaurs 66 million years ago. In short, whilst atmospheric CO2 concentrations have varied dramatically during the geological past due to natural processes, and have often been higher than today, the current rate of CO2 (and therefore temperature) change is unprecedented in almost the entire geological past."
See: "What the geological record tells us about our present and future climate", Journal of the Geological Society, Lear et al, vol.178, 2020
The Geological Society of London is full of a bunch of pseudoscientists. I would be embarrassed to be apart of a pseudoscience organization. The thing is their IQs are probably not high enough to be embarrassed. But go on citing more papers. One of my favorite pseudoscience climate cult papers was the one that concluded that elevated CO2 killed tapioca. @@Tengooda
@@Tengooda By all geological metrics we are about to enter into the next ice age termination event with temperatures rizing naturaly in the next 50 years. And with all recent calculations by human made CO2 emissions we will never mathematicaly reach average 47 degrees Celcius for the Greenhouse effect to tip. Alarmists are making money of fearmongering for decades. We need to go heavy nuclear, develop solar and desolanation tech and not run around screaming the end is nigh.
@@kirillkokorev817;
1. "we are about to enter into the next ice age termination event with temperatures rizing naturaly in the next 50 years"
That is not true, and you will not be able to cite any competent scientific source making such a false claim.
Indeed, it has been known for around at least half a century that natural factors had been causing and would, in the absence of human influence, continue to cause, a very slow cooling leading to a descent into the next glaciation many thousand years into the future. See, for example,
J D Hays, J Imbrie, N J Shackleton, 1976:
"7) A model of future climate based on the observed orbital-climate relationships, but ignoring anthropogenic effects, predicts that the long-term trend over the next seven thousand years is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation."
2. "we will never mathematicaly reach average 47 degrees Celcius for the Greenhouse effect to tip."
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, but certainly global average surface temperatures will not reach 47C, and as far as I know, no-one has ever suggested they would.
@@kirillkokorev817
1. "By all geological metrics we are about to enter into the next ice age"
That is not true, and you will not be able to substantiate that false claim. Natural factors alone would cause a very slow cooling and decline into the next glaciation many thousands of years in the future.
2. I've no idea what your next point means. Certainly no climate scientist is suggesting temperatures will reach an average of 47C, or anything like it.
The fossils look fantastic, I even stopped the video several times to have a closer look. And the presentation is great - calm, collected and informed. That was one of the very best suggestions YT threw at me in years!
Many thanks. I stumbled across the site quite by chance. Fortunately I had my video gear in the travel bag! You might also like this video that covers the climate issue and some more fantastic fossils in more detail. czcams.com/video/B4awlqXpnOI/video.html
@@GeologyUpSkill Thank you very much sir for recommendation! Will certainly have a look🙂Keep up the good work!
I don't know why this appeared in my YT recommendations, but it was quite fascinating. Not just because there has always been climate change, but the presentation of the evidence for that here by a geologist was excellent. I've never seen such well preserved fossils and in such abundance.
“There has always been climate change.” Bingo!
Except that the above video provides NO information that contradicts the fact that the present RATE of climate change is dangerous and could be catastrophic.
@@Tengoodawhen people say "catastrophic" they are only thinking of themselves, the world will go on no matter what we do, even if we let off all the nukes, the world will go on. Give it a few million years and things will get back on course with all the flora and fauna and maybe even a version of us. As for climate change, it is only a minute change in the world's history and the world is still here, if man gets wiped out, no great problem as it is inevitable anyway, no species is immortal.
Having said all that, fossil fuels are a limited resource which should be used sparingly while we find better renewable sources of energy. The but is that even if we stopped using fossil fuels the climate will still get hotter, till the next ice age begins which will have a much larger effect on the planet than man-made global warming is capable of.
It’s beautiful and glad he captured it on video, such beautiful examples usually don’t last that long, due to weathering or human interference.
same for me, it is because he is talking about a subject they like to push. pretty sad really.
You probably won’t ever get to south wales where I live. But the Severn Estuary has cliffs and the geology is fab. Great long layers of ORS (old red sandstone) and then on the top a grey layer ( relatively thin) Cretaceous I think. I’m an old lady who wanted to be a geologist in school when I was 16. And the teacher joined in - so I just ended up as a teacher. But I can imagine the area of south wales as a huge desert for millions of years, and then suddenly, for some reason becoming a massive shallow sea. I will never cease to be fascinated and remember a 16 year old girl fossil hunting near Bristol.
Watch: "Earth Disaster is Coming | ALL The Evidence" - Davidson. May explain some of this?
Thanks for adding to the discussion. I'm a geologist, too (an old one, now), and I married a geologist. Geology surely does change the way one looks at the world. I worked in the minerals industry for 40+ years. You never really retire from being a geologist, you're just not working regular hours nor bringing in a nice check.
When I started in the field, the split was about 80:20, M:F, and the schools were not a lot different. Now I see lots of women geologists.
It's a good thing. I don't think there will be AI core loggers or AI beer drinkers for a while yet, so I don't think we'll be obsolete QUITE yet.
Kilve is fun to wander around. Though, it's a while since I was there. With all the fossil hunters, maybe it's been cleaned out.
Goodtimeg, in the unlikely event you , or any other reader who shares the interest,have not read Simon Winchester’s “ The map that changed the World”, it is a wonderful story of William Smith ( the inaugural Nobel prize for geology, awarded in 1805) produced the first geological map of England, Wales , and Scotland, which, I understand is still hanging in the British museum in London, that is , unless it has sufficiently upset the sensibilities of some “ who must be obeyed” to have seen to it being shelved ? Perhaps I am being a tad conspiratorial?
. He started , like you , finding and collecting fossils in Dorset, as a young boy. Then later as the canals were dug in places like Somerset, to transport coal. The culmination of his work was pilloried by many of the then zeitgeist creationalists of the time, but Joseph Banks , the then president of the Royal Society, acknowledged the value of Smith’s self taught observations and leant his support.
1805, the year of Trafalgar, saw a then Royal Society willing to laud Truth and Reason, supported by verifiable evidence. Times have changed. Smith would have likely invited any modern challenges to refute his work. He would , now,still be waiting.
Any geological I have ever met, just shake their head over the futility, and the cost, to achieve a sense of control over climate. Mother Nature has her head back, laughing.
If you enjoy fossil hunting, you should consider Western Australia, The Pilbara Craton’s Dresser Formation is a 3.48 billion-year-old hot spring deposits in the Pilbara, researchers from UNSW found traces of geyserite, a rock type found only in terrestrial hot springs, the presence of geyserite in these deposits indicated that the volcano originated on land and not in the ocean making it the oldest fossil evidence of life on land.
Excellent coverage. Pointed out to a person one time that where we were standing had been under water back when there were no Ice Caps. They had been telling me it had never been this warm before and that the planet was coming to end if we did not stop using all fossil fuels. I then pointed out that the planet would not end. Regardless of what happened it would go on its merry way and a new species would arise. It was then I realized that the vast majority of people only see back to the beginning of their birth and the old days are their youth. Never realizing the breadth and depth of life on Earth. The simple fact that less than 1% of the fossil record is available to us because of natural geological process is unbelievable to most people. This and finding out that the number of people who believe the Earth is flat, and this number is increasing I find stunning.
I am guessing that your presentation about past sea level change was not received well. People tend to agree with things that fit with their existing beliefs and reject anything that doesn't (as you can see from the bulk of comments on this video)!
I live in Michigan, which has an even colder climate than Iowa. Our official “state rock” is called the Petoskey Stone, and it’s basically fosilized coral. It’s found around the state. I love to think of my home state being a tropical paradise with palm trees and coral reefs! The main difference between us is, I don’t think it was that long ago, and I’m not worried about the rate of change being too fast.
I bet you're a Christian
And where are all these corals? They are extinct. As well as all the troppical species which lived there. So change in Climat is a problem. And if we know the reason, we can stop it. The problem is, that we are the rason so refuse to belive, that it is a problem at all because it is easyer for us to ignore our faults, than change our behaviour.
@@fratz3859 Obviously Michigan used to be much warmer than it is, and life thrived. So what is the "correct" climate?
@@ethanlamoureux5306 Objectively speaking, there is no right climate. But there is one to which cities, people, the economy, animals and plants have adapted.
Why do you think it should be "stopped"? You can't control the climate anymore than I can control what you eat for dinner. Dude, I recall the 70s well and all the hype about the looming ice age. It used to keep me up as a child, this future doom and gloom. It was all BS then just like it's BS now. Scientist have absolutely no idea what's going to happen naturally to the climate nor with our input. There are literally millions of variables that cannot be accounted for in any kind of climatology study. Therefore, they are omitted, thus the conclusions from the available data are worthless. Omitting variables is not science. Research the variable that were discarded from the original IPCC study, that they've been busted omitting to reach the desired (read- paid for) conclusion. We're always told to believe that the scientist now are smarter than the scientist before that sold their version of the destruction of the planet, but in truth they aren't even close to understanding anything. It's all a bill of goods to steer the public into or out of purchasing and using certain products. Follow the money... study scientific history. It's all the same song, this is just a different verse. This pompous belief that our activity plays a significant roll on this planet is lunacy. @@fratz3859
The more you know about geology and in particular paleo geology, the harder it is to swallow the extremist nonsense about the Climate Emergency. Not only has the earth been far hotter than it is now, life flourished abundantly during those epochs.
Ever wondered why the climate people never talk to Archaeologists either? It wasn't until the fifth or sixth IPCC report they bothered to ask an Archaeologist what the climate was like 2,000 years ago.
@@JohnJ469 just checked the very first report and they referenced historical temperatures and rates even further back than 2000
@@FishSticker They didn't reference "historical" temperatures at all, they referenced "modelled" temperatures. There's a big difference.
Here's the thing if you want to know what the conditions were in Roman times why not ask someone who reads what the Romans wrote? But the IPCC didn't do that, they instead chose to use statistical models and ignore any and all contradictory evidence. There's a saying in science "All models are wrong but some are useful". They didn't reference facts or actual readings, they referenced proxies and computer models.
Now if you want to see the problem plainly then compare the third diagram in Figure 7.1 on page 202 of WG1 of IPCC Report AR1 with Figure 2.2 on Page 134 of the IPCC Third Assessment Report. Amazingly the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age have vanished.
You might want to read some of the research of Dr. Syun Ichi Akasofu as he lists the problems with the IPCC approach and provides evidence to back his ideas. Most people aren't aware for example that the modern Warming Period started in the 1600s in Japan, well before industrialisation. If you do a search you will also find a lot of places calling him a "denier". They don't provide evidence that he is wrong, just call him names. Make of that what you will.
Hang on a moment... did humans flourish in the places we are living now, or further away from the equator? Because a lot of us live right by the ocean, and a lot of us live near the equator, and a lot of places are starting to have "wet bulb" events in which the human body cannot cool itself any longer, and people are dying of heat exhaustion in those places. These folks are going to start evacuating their homes to survive, eventually. Will we care then?
@@TheJesusFreeke Oh look a new thing to panic over. It has to be people in a cool climate thinking temps over 35 degrees for 6 hours will kill a human.
The idea is so stupid as to be funny. If it had reality then I should be on the floor by now, 5 heart attacks and it's been 34 degrees for hours. 35 degrees and hotter is called "Summer" in Queensland.
And the answer to your first question is "both", people flourished pretty much everywhere. BTW, extreme heat kills less people each year than extreme cold.
All we know mammoths lived far north, and they had fluffy furs. But many of us dont clearly understand how much grass and vegetation must a mammoth eat every day. Under glacial conditions there were not enough resourses to feed thousends, or maybe millions, of mammoths during such a long period of time. And mammoth mumies found in Siberia proves they died by a cataclysm, not from starvation. Conclusions - it was much more warmer than now in subpolar regions. Climate changes - nothing to worry about.
That's a much shorter time frame than I'm talking about here, but it does illustrate big changes on a time frame that humans need to be more concerned about regardless of the cause.
I’m not clear how you reached your conclusion that climate change is nothing to worry about. Do please elucidate
@@chris4973 I would say while it might be something we should consider, there's little we can _actually_ do about it. Even the "climate scientists" cannot say whether reaching emissions target goals will make any difference at all.
What we really need to be concerned about is the health of the oceans. 90% of CO2 absorption on earth is done by phytoplankton and plants in the oceans, with forests only contributing about 10%. The oceans are being polluted with pharma and chemical run-offs and dumping, PSFAs, and microplastics, which is leading to acidification, killing off phytoplankton -- the problem is more about the removal of the earth's natural ability to balance atmosphereic carbon than it is about the average person's carbon footprint.
This little known tidbit is never publicized though because the "carbon footprint" aspect helps push another, entirely unrelated agenda, so that has been pushed as the focus. The solutions that actually stand a chance to make a difference are being ignored, because they do not support that agenda, which betrays the fact that "saving the planet" with carbon hysteria, has little to do with improving the earth's condition.
Ironically, the mega-corporations, and their multi-billionaire owners and controllers that are pushing the climate hysteria and the need to "save the earth" are the ones who basically contributed to the current state, indicating that they don't really care about the environment, the agenda is about something else entirely.
At the end of the day, there's a few considerations we must all keep in mind:
- all the planets in the solar system are warming - this has nothing to do with humans, but something to with the sun or something else
- we are technically still retreating from the last ice age, in the large span of earth's history, ice caps are not the norm
- CO2 levels have been almost 20x higher than current, the earth didn't need saving then and during those times the earth went through a great "greening" stage as CO2 is the primary nutrient for plants
- average temps on earth have been far, far higher in the past (again, ice caps are a relatively new phenomenon) and the earth didn't need "saving" then.
@@chris4973 Look at the temperature record for the last 400k years, even the Younger Dryas some 14k years ago. Temps changed by over 10 degrees (in Greenland) in under 100 years. Compare that to modern warming of a degree or so in 150 years. Then there's the Dansgaard-Oeschger events, the huge spikes we see in the ice core record.
The Holocene Optimum of 8k years ago was warmer than today and there was no mass extinction or anything like it. (Although sea levels were some 2 metres higher) The bottom line is that current changes are within natural levels, ergo there's nothing to worry about. If the changes were outside natural variation and there was evidence we could do something about, then we should worry and act. However that is not the case and worrying about it is about as useful as worrying about the sun rising in the morning.
The current panic is based on an unfounded assumption; That natural climate is either always stable OR changes naturally very slowly. Therefore ALL rapid change is _by definition_ unnatural and therefore man made AND bad. But the basic assumption is wrong. It essentially follows the principles of Malthus (1766-1834) who was predicting disasters way back then. For example, living in Napoleonic times he predicted that the demand for ship masts would cause all European forests to be cut down. (Sound familiar?) His ideas are most often adopted by those who wish to impose restrictions and population controls.
Consider that the alarmists will tell you "The planet is too hot" but can't tell you what temperature is the "right" one. They will tell you that "It's warming too fast" but can't tell you the speed warming is supposed to happen at. These are all sales techniques, not scientific arguments.
@@WaspMedia3D And it's just amazing how many of those multi millionaires pushing the climate story and talk about sea level rise happen to own ocean front properties.
A mere 12.000 years ago, a blink in geological time, there was an ice sheet a mile (1.6 km) high where I'm sitting right now.
and a mere 8000 years ago it was gone and temperatures levelled off around the world, allowing for the creation of agriculture itself, until the industrial revolution.
The industrial revolution has nothing to do with it. Tis but a mere burp compared to a tiny volcanic eruption.
If anything it has permitted our species to have a way to survive the next climatic event but even with that we are small and insignificant when compared to the planet and climate and it's geological processes.
Loads of loud people could do with a visit to the Total Perspective Vortex.
The only constant in climate is that it has always been changing all the time. The Dutch geologist Salomon Kroonenberg is very good at putting things in perspective.
Does he have any videos up on CZcams? I would like to hear what he has tio say.
The climate has NOT "always been changing all the time". There are vast stretches of time - millions of years - when climates hardly changed at all.
The present rate of change of CO2 and global average temperature is unprecedentedly rapid, save for during one mass extinction event.
@@Tengooda Your right about climate change being induced by human activity but this statement "There are vast stretches of time - millions of years - when climates hardly changed at all." isnt completly true if your not refering to hadean or archean time
@@fewihjyplobnmkasd4501 Yes, I was just referring to the Phanerozoic eon, ie since the beginning of the Cambrian, some 539 million years ago, after which complex multicellular life was abundant and the atmosphere was at least somewhat similar (ie contained substantial amounts of oxygen and relatively little CO2) to that of the present.
Compared with the huge climatic convulsions of the recent Ice Age, let alone the present very rapid changes, rates of atmospheric and climatic change were very much lower over much of the Phanerozoic, as attested by huge thicknesses of similar sediments produced over several millions years with little change in the fossil fauna preserved therein. Times of more rapid change (albeit slower than present) occurred during previous times when ice occurred (ie ice ages with changing albedo) or mass extinction events usually involving rapid increases in atmospheric CO2.
It's refreshing so see level-headed perspective and not hysteria.
Try this guy below he is level headed and factual.
Tony Heller 777 imaginary thermometers
Thanks. That is my aim here!
YT will be along shortly to demonetize and hide his channel. Can't have the public getting themselves educated outside the narrative, you know. 😋
@@GeologyUpSkillAs a fellow Scientist I was upset to see YT post a context add on to your excellent video. It is asinine that they can get away with that. Impinging on free speech in any way, but in this case scientific, is just plain wrong. Classical and Modern Science (except for the mid evil/dark ages ofcourse) was always about debate and openness to varying views, except for the last couple decades which is very concerning for our society and advancement. Not just talking about climate change but for other crazy things like Covid.
@@letsgobrandon987 well said. Science is being policed by social media, with them obviously pushing their view of "science".
I can only expect things to get worse,vefore they get better, unfortunately.
History tells us that's the way it is with control freak cretins at the helm!
Grew up in northern Indiana and remember finding fossilized sea shells in the gravel on our driveway that came from a local limestone quarry. This told me that at one time that area had to be underwater at some point. That northern part of Indiana is also very flat because at another time it was under a glacial sheet of ice. Weather forecasters have varied amounts of success when it comes to their forecasts yet climate doomsayers will claim a particular year or certain weather events are indicative of (manmade) climate change but when predicted weather events do NOT occur they will claim that weather and climate are two different things. The Great Barrier Reef at one time was above sea level and the Aborigine people have an oral history of the great migration inland as the coastal water rose. How did the sea level rise if there was no “ manmade” climate warming. I believe that we should protect our environment but I have a difficult time believing climate fanatics when the facts I observe indicate a constantly changing world in terms of geological time.
The ignorance displayed in the above post is breathtaking.
Ignore the mindless "no content" bot replies.
I'm down in the southern part of the state, same fossil limestone everywhere. Thinking the Lurentide ice sheet of the last ice age stopped just a little north of us down here by the Ohio River.
Science is never 'settled'. That's a rhetorical device to shut your opponents up. Settled science used to be that the Earth was at the bottom of the universe, and all the nice parts were away up in the sky; settled science was that the universe was eternal, and nothing ever changed; settled science used to be that continents didn't move.
It's a sad fact that 97% of scientists will agree with whoever is funding them at the moment, because their kids have to eat, too.
Even in historical time, Britain has been warm enough to grow grapes in Yorkshire (the Medieval Warm Period), and cold enough for the Thames to freeze over in winter (the Little Ice Age). When talking heads declare how much warmer the UK is than before the industrial revolution, it bugs the hell out of me: the Little Ice Age only ended around 1850, you idiots, of course we're going to be warmer!
Yeah, but geologist know fuck about roofing or how to build and keep a road🙄
No one in there right mind tries to tell you that climate change produces unnatural condition. But do you know what the dinosaurs or bus sized millipede don't had? Roads and roofs and insurance claims on destroyed housholds🙄
1) don't listen to "doomsayers," listen to real scientists, who do not predict weather but predict climate change with great accuracy. Because it's fairly simple physics
2) the fact the earth has been warmer is how we know what's coming. It's come before
3) it has never ever come at anything close to this speed. Because before it was natural processes that could happen again and, over tens of thousands of years, would make coastal cities irrelevant and give species time to adapt. Beneficial mutations happen slowly. But it would be a problem *for us* even if nature caused it.
4) your inability to understand that man can do what nature can do, only faster, means you have very poor comprehension skills
I have seen the CZcams “context” definition several times and have wondered how the definition would change if the time frame was expanded to include the times the earths climate has drastically changed (warmed and cooled) before the presence or influence of Homo sapiens?
That context box illustrates precisely the point of my video that the words "long term" have a quite different meaning to geologists.
The reference is sometime 1850, sometime 1970... Before, earth didn't exist!
I live about 35 minutes away from this area. I remember the fossilized coral on these rocks as a kid.
It's is a great place for kids to get interested in rocks and very easy to access.
Ever since I’ve been into geology, I find it to be a field of research with many thinking people who operate at a different level then most of the population. Bravo and thank you for the hope I get from seeing people acknowledge climate fluctuates without human influence.
Yeah, over millions of years minus cataclysmic events, such as meteor impacts, volcanic eruptions, changes in solar activity, such as the Younger Dryas barely 12,000 years ago. Minus such tremendous events, the changes are very slow indeed.
It does. Only this time we can prove it is entirely down to human influence.
@@methylene5 and when did the meteor impact or the vulcano erupt? It is the billions of Cars and millions of planes and millions of Ships and millions of factoris and millions of Coalpowerplants and billions of Oilheaters, burning fossil fules for decades now. If you understand, that a vulcano can chanche the climat, why do you refuse to accept that all the things I listed in this comment can too?
@@fratz3859 I actually said the opposite of what you think I said.
Fossils far more recent than those at Coralville Dam can be found on Ellesmere Island. A variety of reptiles including alligators, and mammals including primates can be found there. Back in the '70s Mary Dawson found those and many more warmth-loving critters on Ellesmere Island at a location about as far above the Arctic Circle as Buffalo is north of Savanna. The biota dates to the Eocene, about 50 million years ago.
Hell, they found native artifacts under a melted glacier bed , stated 6000 years ago this was their hunting grounds... but no explanation how the items got there if the glacier is supposedly ancient or if carbon dating is wrong if artifacts are possibly older than the supposed glacier..
Yeah, but geologist know fuck about roofing or how to build and keep a road🙄
No one in there right mind tries to tell you that climate change produces unnatural condition. But do you know what the dinosaurs or bus sized millipede don't had? Roads and roofs and insurance claims on destroyed housholds🙄
And it was discoveries like that which led to the first proposal of continental drift.
Fantastic, love how you named all the fossils too. I think I’ve found some of those crinoids on a rock in my irrigation before.
Crinoids were hugely abundant for a long period in geological time and their hard bony stems made good fossils so they are one of the most common finds.
As a layman in the field of geology, I can relate. I reached a point where my perspective on global climatic change has shifted as my understanding of deep time and the phases of the earths geology has increased. Earth has been through every phase imaginable up to this point. It's not at all surprising that humans alone can shift the climate by our activities on the surface. It's not the first time an organism has shifted the global climate. It is still all the more terrifying to be living through a time in which we are that organism.
And that was exactly the point of this video. That wider time perspective allows you to see the problem quite differently.
@GeologyUpSkill if anything, I believe habitat loss due to human activity and the proliferation of forever chemicals and plastics into our environment are much larger threats. If we have resilient biomes full of biodiversity and a thriving ecosystem, then the life on planet earth would be much better prepared to handle the stress that is global warming.
Succinct, concise, factual, science -based, without music or drama .Excellent visuals and clearly named fossils. Subscribed for this truthful, unadulterated, educational reporting. Kudos to this Geologist. From Canada.
Thanks very much. I try to make my videos concise, particularly when they cover subjects as complex as this one.
@@GeologyUpSkillHave you seen the work on CZcams by the American geologist Tony Heller? He has some great content science/history and reality.
@@Matty18795 Tony Heller? You mean the guy using the pseudonym Steven Goddard that believes that climate change is a scam and also promotes conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook?
I enjoyed this video very much. Excellent delivery, very engaging personality. Looking forward to seeing more!
This is how a real scientists communicate science. As opposed to all the self-described “climate communicators” out there.
JUST remember that Liberty Island (the island where the Statue of Liberty is) it's coast line is STILL the same 160 ish years later.
160 ish years is a fraction of a second in geological time.
@@bobbailey7024 Yet according to climate alarmists, the climate is now 1,5 degrees warmer and around 2000 the widely accepted truth was that by 2023 the sea level would have rised by 20 inches and the Maledives are now under water.
Aren't they under water LOL! Why why happened to stop the sea rising? Magnetic Pole dancing? @@Munakas-wq3gp
@@Munakas-wq3gpcitation needed
average sea level is not consistent across the globe
I like the context box at the top of the page. Did Al Gore write it?
Yep, saw all this around bluffs of Decorah, Iowa, where my dad grew up.
Really a great place to see fossils "in the wild".
It’s all happened before & will continue regardless if we are still here or not
True. The important thing is can we adapt in time?
@@GeologyUpSkill Absolutely, And I would be more worried about mankind ending itself by other means than warming. WW3 is brewing on the continent right now.
@@GeologyUpSkill You are promoting a lie. There is no climate crisis.
@@will7itsNuclear winter has been an immediate threat every day since, what, the 1950s? Climate change and collapse are also existential threats.
It's mostly happening because we've burned a massive amount of fossil fuels and doing so produces carbon dioxide. And it's about seven times more carbon dioxide molecules. If I recall correctly, seven is on the lower side.
One thing the geologist missed was that the Devonian had very high levels of CO2 -- around five times higher than today. You'll find this in any modern geology textbook, but I guess in a 2-minute video there isn't enough time to explain paleoclimatology 101.
I did mention that the climate had been changing for a bunch of reasons, but yes. Short videos are my thing and it was seriously cold out there!
So if it was 5 times higher and the earth survived. Why are you ascared.
@@user-ft3nm1ue2l1. Sea level rise. If we melt All the ice, we can expect the oceans to rise well over 100m over the next century or three. Earth will survive, our cities will not. 2. Extreme weather threatens our food supply. The harvest from the world's breadbasket region risks simultaneous collapse. 3. Destabilization of entire regions through resource shortages, including water and food, leading to war and mass migration. Agriculture itself was established in the last 8000 years of stability. 4. Mass migration of non human populations spreading diseases worldwide. The new demands on infrastructure for where people flee too overwhelming what's left. 5. Ancient diseases thawing from the permafrost. 6. The spread of disease from the mass migrations of non human populations around the world, from insects and pests to marine life.
There is plenty more, but having evidence for the climate having massively and in some cases rapidly changing before isn't reassuring anyone about the trillions of dollars in damages that our economy is looking at worldwide, nor the cost in human lives, especially if war is the result, whether it be regional conflict or nuclear.
@@user-ft3nm1ue2l Because us humans didn't evolve in those conditions. The earth will continue to be fine - us however, not so much.
potholer54 this particular video has many comments from people that, rightly or wrongly, believe that the creator is making a point on top of what is explicitly stated: the explicit point being that the geologic record shows climate has varried over geologic time. Because climate, lifeforms, continents, etc have all evolved over hundreds of millions of years (a geologist's perspective), many believe the geologist is making the point that the current ongoing climate change cannot be a problem for humans and/ or is natural and cannot be influenced by humans and/or the best course of action is to ignore it and/or there is some ongoing strong debate regarding the cuases.
Very nice to finally hear this from a Geologist point of view in contrast to the more commonly expressed politicial view point. Thanks.
As a sapphire miner i see the change in climate in the rocks everyday and chase them , we just came out of an ice age like yesterday and the the only constant is change.
'Yes...but how can that help us mine and sell lithium, cobalt and copper in large quantities?'
Don't mine for those minerals ! Not necessary.
@@ImaOkieoh? Gonna give up the smart phones, EVs, and every other high tech product? Gonna convince everyone to give up their phones? Good luck sir.
Society has plenty of other needs to fill.
@@stillcantbesilencedevennow or anything related to electricity. No copper = the end of life as we've known it since the industrial revolution began. Anyone touting that as a solution is either a hack or a fool.
@@GeologyUpSkill indeed. Which are being used against us. I.e Bill Gates buying up prodigious amounts of farm land to let it sit and NOT grow food. Heck "wage slavery" is 3/4 of what keeps things so "civil" and "polite". We stop so much as just the truckers and watch them turn back into feral hogs. 😔 Humans have needs, and they're being used against us at every turn. Ssdd.
Amen fellow geologist. I get a chuckle out of the hysteria concerning this topic. All in all, the earth has had much longer periods of warm than periods of cold. Even in the Cenozoic, the trend was warm through the Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene and Miocene. And then the Pliocene and Pleistocene cooler. What is the ideal era the climate change people want to take our earth back to?
*The Cryogenian.*
What do you mean? It's obviously about *not* taking it into an era we don't want. They're not trying to "take it" anywhere, they're trying to change it from what it is.
@@Bloink have you ever considered the effects of the sun upon our planet? All that arson fire burning this year and the volcanic eruptions probably negated all the efforts of the people thinking we have control of our climate.
Actually more time is spent in ice ages than out.......
anything pre humanoid.
I feel a lot of the issues we face were created by big corpos that don't want to change their ways because they'd have to spend money. You see the way we've developed our cities and how the heat is absorbed into roofs, trees are removed, and the temperatures end up murderously intense.
Everything except planting trees and increasing gaps between buildings.
It's the cars at fault ... your and mine ability to travel while bug corpos use private jets and countless other evironmentaly unfriendly goods.
In the Cretaceous period sea levels were believed to be 100 to 200 metres higher than today. The temperature was also about 7 degrees warmer in the Cretaceous period than today.
It’s still hard to imagine continents just… moved… across the planet. But you can’t deny that they fit together like puzzle pieces when you look at a map 🤯
Absolutely. The Himalayas are still rising.
They move at a few centimetres a year. I'm always amazed to think Scotland used to be part of North America until two plates collided and split away again...but the rocks and fossils don't lie!
The world is expanding and evolving which it has done for millions of years only now has man found away to generate tax from it.
The fountains of the deep opened up.
No, Scotland has never been part of North America. Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom, located in the northern part of the island of Great Britain. The idea that Scotland was once part of North America is not supported by any historical or geological evidence. Scotland and North America have distinct geological histories and have been separate land masses for millions of years. Try the Caledonian orogeny for the correct 'believed' event you seek.@@peterjohnston2196
Check out the huge palm tree fossils found in Golden, Colorado and the dinosaur bone fossils found just west of Denver, Colorado. We are having a completely average winter in colorado.
My wife and I spent some time in Ouray, Colorado recently and we were privileged to see some Sauropod tracks nearby. By serendipitous timing I had the opportunity to attend a lecture in town to hear more on the subject by one of the geologists who studied the tracks. It was a real thrill to see such a thing with my own eyes.
I grew up in and lived most of my life in Michigan, I’m very familiar with climate change. They call it Michigan weather. I’ve seen the water levels of the Great Lakes at both record high and record low levels in my short lifetime. There were fabulous explanations for both (both wrong) but as it turns out the fluctuating levels are actually normal, they just don’t have long term data because a hundred years ago people had better things to do than sit and worry about things they can’t control. The earth WILL be destroyed again someday and no climate change activists can change that.
Yes, Kevin, but how would you like that to happen in your own lifetime, or maybe your kids if you have any?
This used to be common knowledge 50+ years ago, it heats up and the water disperses to everywhere, that's what I thought
I've been in the building trades for over 20 years, after eight years in the military, I'm in desperate need of a career change and I'm seriously planning to start a geology degree, this video was a nice one to find whilst having my morning tea before heading off to work.
I have studied Geolgy with the O U and enjoyed it. I had a Physics degree already but didn't finish the Geology but this man made climate change nonsense is obvious if you have even a basic level of science knowledge
Stay with the trades. No need going into debt for a college degree.
Of all the courses I took in college geology was by far the most interesting other than languages. I actually thought about making that my major but couldn’t figure out where or how I could make a living out of it
@@shirleyashton3597 Not so fast shirley, you missed the point of the video completely. Makes me wonder about all your views after missing such an easy one. Bet you believe the science is settled too. Oh dear, break out the geology books.......
Do check out the introductory video on my channel. It offers some perspective on what is involved in the career (at least on the mineral exploration side). czcams.com/video/lus-pRPpFok/video.html
Great video. Next, please explain the relationship between subsidence and "sea level rise".
When I was in school, when it was called Global Warming and nobody had remembered the fears of an oncoming ice age in the 70's, I was taught about the large timescales in Geography classes routinely. Then all the political and religious like hype around short term variability kicked off and I never was able to agree with it. Simply because I saw people flapping about banning this or that making laws and taxes that cause pensioners to freeze with the only evidence being a short term uptick. The hokey stick graph is nothing basically, it's a mere blip on the timescales.
It's like complaining that it was raining at 9AM and now it's sunny at 10AM and then concluding that the reason why it's not raining is because everyone brewed a cup of tea, so you then go out at 11AM when it's still sunny and ban tea, ban debate and even threaten to arrest or fine anyone saying that tea is fine, all before lunchtime and while raking in millions of pounds worth of funding and fines, none of which is accountable and anyone who wants to know where it came from and where it is going is treading a fine line of being labelled a tea lover... 😂
"Its just a blip", you know what else would be a blip, an asteroid hitting the earth and wiping out all life. The fact that the change is happening so fast is the problem in itself that could cause irreversible damage, it already has actually.
Also your comparison to make climate change seem unrelated to the emissions we cause is absolutely misleading. Theres a reason why its called "greenhouse gasses", because we've figured out they work in the same way that greenhouses stay warm inside. Its not close in the slightest to being some pseudoscience.
Another geologist here albeit retired after a 40+ year career. I have been more succinct about the issue. Climates change, always have always will. Humans have been blessed with two parts that allow us to adapt better than most: big brains and opposable thumbs. These, for example, allowed inhabitants of the British Isles to migrate across dry land that is now the English Channel to the South of France where they created cave paintings. They ultimately returned when the climate once again became suitable. A similar event had people from near Lake Baykal cross the Behring land bridge and become “native Americans” at about the same time during the last global glacial maximum. These “native Americans” stayed though eventually migrating down the iceless coast as the ice receded displacing the real native Americans! These migrations have been proved using well preserved tissue specimens and y- DNA. My Scottish and Irish ancestors originated on the Asian Steppes for example.
Accept and plan for change.
Feel the same about Alberta Canada,was once tropical. Seems to me it could make a come back.
With Albertans in 4th place for world's largest producers of oil and gas and refusing to do anything but increase production as fast as possible, all while denying anthropogenic global warming with conspiracy theories, it sure looks that way.
The current conversation is just a thin layer in our human history too.
I don't question what you have said, however it might be worthwhile to mention in more detail that what you are talking about is tectonic plate movement which took specific location from one place on Earth (equator) to more northernly region and hence the climate of that location has changed.
That is exactly correct and I did mention it briefly in the video. There is a delicate balance between including enough detail in a video to make a point and limiting the length to avoid turning off people with a casual interest in the subject.
In the end the "Planet" will be just fine.
It will fall into a black hole at some point
@@bennichols1113Eaten by the sun, actually.
Here is a little perspective on that from an even wider perspective. czcams.com/video/uD4izuDMUQA/video.htmlsi=Ajnn9fZj_Xcb2_Xc
@@cezrs8573 lol doom cultist.
Well, when I said the Planet will be fine, I wasn't looking forward to the point that it will be consumed by the sun. 😀
Careful “Winston” (1984 reference), you’re at risk of disturbing the official narrative. Best check with the “department of truth” on what you should be seeing and how to interpret it with the latest edition of New-speak.
Nothing wrong with what he is saying, but it doesnt explain what happens in the span of 100 years, or even 5 years which is the level of impact we are having.
Also, just curious, was George Orwell a conservative or a Democratic socialist? Any time I see his name I just want the record straight on that lol
@@nothingreally8247 Complaining about 5 year weather variability is on geological terms like moaning about the fact the wind blew a second ago and now in the next second it blew slower.
Did you watch the video? 5-1000 years is a mere blip on the timescales of climate. A blip. We have only even been recording and learning based on a tiny fraction of a blip of the end of the last ice age.
Thank you mate! I’ve been spouting this for years😂
I studied geology in college in the 90s, and we learned that hundreds of millions of years to billions of years ago, animals and dinosaurs were huge because of much higher levels of radiation and heat. Approximately twenty-five degrees Celsius on average globally. That's a lot higher than just two degrees. You won't hear that anymore because it doesn't fit their narrative. There's also evidence that the tides about two billion years ago were a lot higher. More so than they should have been given how far away Luna has been moving away from the earth. There are a lot of mysterious things going on back then that we just don't understand.
It does help to understand that there's a lot that we don't understand.
Huge because of radiation and heat? Not because of higher oxygen levels?
Sea level was indeed significantly higher in the distant past. Exxon themselves did a study in the early 80s showing over 200m of sea level rise at different points in time. Further work increased their estimates.
Climate scientists advocate mitigating and avoiding this scenario. Usually the response is that the public doesn't believe water can go this high, or that the few mm of rise in the last century can be used as a proxy for what to expect in the next. Like driving with only your rearview mirror.
I applaud you for taking timeout of your holiday to share this perspective with the public. Geologists are uniquely equipped to provide the public with evidence of the chronology and scope of the earths changing climate. The rock record shows that the earth has undergone many cycles of warming and cooling since it formed over 4.5 billion years ago. Data shows that we are currently emerging from the last ice age, and are experiencing a normal warming that has been repeated many times in the earth's history. People need to understand that the time scales in which significant climate change occurs are measured in tens of thousands of years, far to long for any single generation of humanity to experience them first hand.
😅 A sane person telling facts based on scientific data, well that is not allowed in climate science business. Thank you, stumbled on your video by chance, and definitely subscribiing.👍
Exactly what “facts” aren’t allowed in the “climate science business”?
@@jamesmorrow1646Wel that we are not all doomed..... Due to global warming... 97% of scientist agree... The ones on the funding agenda!
@@jamesmorrow1646The fact that once upon a time, the earth was much warmer than it is today. The fact that the climate and the temperature of the earth have always been changing.
@@jamesmorrow1646 Well, there's the fact that thete's no evidence of a climate catastrophe or climate crisis.
@@jamesmorrow1646 The fact that humans will never be capable of altering the perpetually changing nature of climate. That's an important one to deny, in the climate "science" business. 🤫😷
As a 43 yo man, i see my country's weather becoming milder from when i was young (Speaking about Romania - when i was a child, the snow fall was huge and temps under 10 degees Celsius so often), while the climate in other countries becomes harsher - the cold weather goes East from Romania - see China these days. In my view is not "climate change" but "climate shift", wich is a normal thing for a living, breathing planet.
It's not just shift. Overall the planet is very rapidly warming (on a geological timescale). Best seen between 1960 - 2022. In that period the sun was on the downside of an activity cycle. Yet instead of some 0.6C cooling we got 1.2C warming. And there's the little added iissue of the Arctic warming 3x faster than average.
If you study geology or paleontology, you will inevitably come across the term "ice age" as well as things like "warm period". Many people don't realize that there were actually MANY ice ages, not one, and we aren't even sure how many total dramatic climate shifts have occurred in earth's history, but we know that many major climate shifts did absolutely occur multiple times -without any help from humans whatsoever.
It's true that the current warming is just a very thin layer on top of geological-scale changes -- but this thin layer had warmed our climate in the past 20-30 years, to grades which haven't been seen on earth for the past 800,000 years!
And what´s the problem with that? And are you sure that the climate is warmer now than in the Medieval Climatic Optimum? In any case, this is better than the little ice age of the 17th century that caused a lot of problems.
@@leatherandtactel Yes. This has been proven by ice core samples.
How can it be that this year has been hotter than the Medieval Climatic Optimum if we are not in a climatic optimum like at that time? And even if that's the case, what's the problem with this year being the hottest? In many places it is still snowing and temperatures are below zero. Besides, who can believe these people when all the apocalyptic predictions they have made since the 60s have not come true? He said 20 years ago that the Arctic ice was going to melt and the sea level would rise and flood cities like Venice and New York, it hasn't happened. Furthermore, the ice at the North Pole is floating ice, it is already water within water, if it melted the sea level would not rise because that ice is already part of the sea and already influences its level. It's basic physics, and they shamelessly lied to us about this issue.
@@amos083
You’re right, 120,000 years ago there was hardwood forests in Norway and hippos in the Thames river. At the same global temperature we’re at now. It’ll be quite interesting seeing how 8 billion people try to live under those same conditions now and then some as the delayed climate heating becomes more apparent over the next 50 years.
Anyone taking a message of hope from this video thinking it’ll be indicative of them living a comfortable life is delusional, the benefit of geology is it shows us what’s in store for us and we should all be horrified.
My video is not intended as a message of hope. It is designed to provide perspective so that we can make the best analysis of the rates and causes of the current changes. Only then will we be able to allocate resorces effectively to respond.
I love Geology. At one point in time. Just a mere 250 million years ago my house would be sitting in a vast Coal Age Swamp. Fast forward a couple million and my house is under a mile of Ice. Fast forward some more and we are using that coal for electricity. I had a Geology instructor explain Geological Time this way. If you stacked nickels as high as the old Sears Tower in Chicago. Humans would be the top nickel.
Reminds me of all the shells and fossils around Jackson, Ms. Almost like it was under water millions of years ago.
Has everyone forgotten the mammals topping up their tans getting flash frozen with their lunch undigested on the Siberian plains? 😂
There are different theories regarding that, one is that they were killed instantly for one reason or another, not that they were necessarily instantly frozen.
Thanks for this good, concise video; it's helpful.
Very interesting, we have been given only one side to the cc story. Will look into this more.
Some people will get it, some won't....but a nice short informative piece that demonstrates how wonderful out planet truly is. Take care of it. ✌️🙏🌲🇺🇲🔵
Thanks very much. A lot of new viewers haven't appreciated that my channel is all about the interesting things in geology. Climate just happens to be an interesting facet of this one.
As a student of geology all my life. I have always felt these processes were not static and varied tremendously determined by conditions at the time. Spent most of my life traveling the American southwest. Humans want everything spelled out no mystery because we are keepers of the universe. Right 😅
That’s how everyone wants it, plain and simple. Sadly that’s not how life works, it’s mysteries and multiple solutions to multiple problems. And when it’s not plain and simple they throw a fit.
The Coralville dam is at lattitude 41.8 degrees N.
What was the lattitude of this rock deposition during the Devonian?
Very close to the equator www.pinterest.com.au/pin/307089268318042269/
What happened to the "runaway greenhouse" effect? I haven't heard that one for awhile.
This video explains it really well czcams.com/video/oWS48a3LmR0/video.htmlsi=fxUyXRspy_pdOmcN
@@GeologyUpSkill And we all recognize that the climate catastrophes on the particular planet we currently occupy have occurred when it got too cold, right? Please tell me we all get that.
@@reedschrichte800 The ice core data from Antarctica shows that we have had an extreaordinary period of "interglacial" stability of climate for the last 10,000 years and that has allowed us to build what we have today, but prior to that, there were at least half a dozen periods in the last 1 million years where the earth slipped back into full ice age conditions. Humans survived those periods, but it certainly wasn't a fun time to be alive.
@@GeologyUpSkill Thanks for the input! From what I've read, there was a period of severe overheating when the Siberian shield volcanoes warmed up and released the soil-based methane.
And as a geology guru, you're aware that 10,000 years in Earth terms is the blink of an eye.
In terms of human impact, we could look at climate similar to economics: things will change, and there will be winners and losers. People build houses on seashores, earthquake faults, and the sides of active volcanoes. S--t happens!
I remain 100% lined up against the cause of global warming, which is fossil fuels consumption.
But I have an honest (not leading) question: where do YOU draw the line between weather and climate?
@@reedschrichte800 The Siberian volcanic event that you mention was back at the end of the Permian (roughly 250 million years ago) and it was even more deadly than the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs nearly 200 million years later. The flip flops between ice ages and interglacials are relatively mild by comparison. My next video will cover a comparison between a natural climate change and what is happening now.
A Geologist wrote that the UK is billions of years too late for fracking. We mustn't frack out little Islands. Geology is fascinating, so subscribed.
Brilliant. That was good enough for me. Just subscribed.
Many thanks!
@@GeologyUpSkill You forgot to remind tommacegan19 that:
"People tend to agree with things that fit with their existing beliefs and reject anything that doesn't (as you can see from the bulk of comments on this video)!"
Yes, because the dinosaurs of that time used internal combustion engines and raised too many cows and used a lot of oil.
I try to explain things like this to people. They seem to not understand the climate always changes.
Have you explained this to those people - The things that cause climate change are called forcings. Planetary climates are the result of a thermodynamic equilibrium. They only change when some force changes the equilibrium point, thereby forcing them to change. When the forcings cancel out, climate doesn't change. For example, the Holocene Thermal Optimum, which happened ten thousand years ago to five thousand years ago; basically five thousand years of essentially no climate change, which allowed humans to develop an agricultural civilization. Just one of a few examples of climate not always changing.
@rps1689 that's more in depth than I know actually, very interesting. I only use what I know about geology as in ice ages, volcanic, and obvious in land seas ect. Kinda the basics of some mineral deposits. I have known that some forces brought on ice ages absolutely. It's a very interesting subject and I appreciate your response!
@@nhragold1922 So much great info out there.
Looking up competitive high-impact science journals is a great way, which are not hard to access today considering it is easier to get around paywalls to check out what top leading working scientists publish in peer reviews like that of Kevin Trenberth, Ben Santer, Katharine Hayhoe,, Kerry Emmanuel, Klaus Hasselman, Giorgio Parisi, and Syukuro Manabe to name a few.
@@nhragold1922 Maybe you should learn this also: the Geological Society of London concluded in 2020 after a major study into rates of changes during geological time:
"the current speed of human-induced CO2 change and warming is nearly without precedent in the entire geological record, with the only known exception being the instantaneous, meteorite-induced event that caused the extinction of non-bird-like dinosaurs 66 million years ago. In short, whilst atmospheric CO2 concentrations have varied dramatically during the geological past due to natural processes, and have often been higher than today, the current rate of CO2 (and therefore temperature) change is unprecedented in almost the entire geological past."
See: "What the geological record tells us about our present and future climate", Journal of the Geological Society, Lear et al, vol.178, 2020
Whenever one comes across a dinosaur museum, I've often noticed an oil field nearby - go figure.
Since the temp dropped 9 degrees here since yesterday, it's clear to me and Greta that global warming is no longer an issue.
Not very bright, are you?
@@jb76489 Sarcasm isn't your strong suit, eh ?
Tell you what, can you name 3 or 4 predictions of the climate alarmists like Al Gore and Greta that HAVE come true?
You should check out western Michigan with the Petoskey stones (coral) and all the limestone quories and petrified coral around the coasts.
in there heads "its so hot today therefore it will never be winter again"
I was always told that the only place you could find Petoskey stones (Devonian coral) was in Michigan. But these corals sure look like Petoskey stones to me! Also crinoids are very familiar to Michigan fossil hunters. Same type of geology.
damn coal power plants of 300 million yrs ago....
Observations in deep time tend to change one’s perspective.
It's just unfortunate that we are moving the world back to temperatures similar to 5 million years ago, when the range of climate suitable to humans was a lot more limited than today, plus more wildfires, and crop failures.
As a geologist I can’t agree more. We don’t think in 150 year time frames like the climate folks do.
A wider view of the world is always helpful when you are trying to interpret the detail. That was the underlying message in the video.
The comet impact 65 MYA took but seconds. Insignificant on 4.5 billion years. Yet I think that if you were alive back then, you would not have glossed over those few seconds. I assume you get my point.
Thank you for this. It's good to see another voice talking about cyclical change .
Creative Society studies
geologist Elizaveta Khromova and Egon Cholakian team, also Douglas Vogt 😮
My purpose was to encourage people to step back and see the debate in a wider context. Most geological cycles are too slow to have immediate influence, but it helps to understand that the issue is much more complex than the simplistic arguments presented by in much of the current discussion.
@@GeologyUpSkillWhat is your argument (in this video and in general) regarding anthropogenic global warming?
@@synupps877 The video makes no inference about anthropogenic global warming. It merely illustrates that the time period concerned is a very small segment in a much larger picture and that is why geologists often see it differently. That perspective allows geologists to see the current science and public debate a little more rationally.
@@GeologyUpSkill What supposedly makes your view more rational?
Anthropogenic global warming is due to the Industrial Revolution, which is less than two centuries old. You're talking about geological timescales.
I appreciate your expertise and what you can add to the conversation, but we also have to acknowledge the impact of geoengineering and weather modification practices.
Thanks for pointing 👉 this out about climate change 👏 it is natural and has always been happening 👍.
The thing when you look at things at a geological time scale is you see the adaptation over the years. When you have sudden climate change, there is much less time for adaptation, and so you'll get more sudden extinctions.
Adaption can be much faster than evolution. A great example is the extinction of the American megafauna at the end of the last ice age 13,000 years ago. Humans adapted and survived. The mastadons and sabre tooth cats couldn't evolve fast enough and went extinct.
@@GeologyUpSkill Yep. Humans don't need to adapt as much, but there are lots of other animals and plants that will have problems which in turn will likely make it harder for poorer people to survive.
One of the stark differences differences between 13 000 years ago and now is that the steepness of the temperature curve is way higher now, meaning even less time for adaptation. The temperature rise then was around 5,5°C over 6 500 years, where we've already seen a 1°C increase in 120 years with projections to take us up another 3 degrees in 80 years.
Nice video and what a great location. I’ve recently been to fossil Cove in Tassie. It’s a spectacular place but fossil wise it doesn’t compare with this.
Yep! The planet doesn’t need us and is not afraid of us at all😊
I was quite surprised also and the access is very easy. Just don't go in spring time when the river is in flood.
It was like that around 5000 years ago before a great flood encased all that in mud but to the point here: we've only lived and recorded temperatures for a very very brief slice of time but from geology we can see there has been some vast swings and ups and downs around the world over the long run. 1 or 2 degrees warmer in the far north and south over a century is NOT something wild and unusual by earth's longer runs.
In such a short time span it is actually... Furthermore while the planet will always be doing good, humans are way more vulnerable and man made climate change will / proabably already has cost the live of many people through heat waves, droughts, extreme weather in general, etc.
Now, now.... there's no $$$$$ or control benefit in that kind of reasoning! Stop using logic, please.
@@sevent1116 According to a 2021 study published in The Lancet Planetary Health, cold is far more deadly. For every death linked to heat, nine are connected to cold. - Forbes Website.
@@sevent1116 If we didn't have the systems in our world to multiply our work with fossil fuels and provide enough for everyone to sustain them then there would be billions more that would not be here today. But I suppose you think that would be better anyway.
"It was like that around 5000 years ago before a great flood encased all that in mud"
That is just wrong. Even astonishingly wrong.
Boom goes the dynamite. I don’t know how many times a month that I try to explain to people that we can’t think of compare change on a 100 year scale.
"From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh, It disgusted me..."
Thanks mate, semblance of common sense shows clearly here, well, more than semblance, it's clear obvious fact.
Hope you took time for important stuff like building a snowman.
Of course!
What a great testimony to a recent global flood with rapid burial providing all these fossils. Thank you!
Geologic time scale and distance in outer space are likely two of the most difficult concepts for a human to wrap their brain around. The spans are just staggering to contemplate.
A thin piece of paper is about 0.05mm thick. If one page records a year, then the Devonian to now (380 million years) is a history book 19 kilometers thick!
@@GeologyUpSkill Here's another mind-boggling fact about big numbers:
Copper is a fairly soft metal, so if you rub it with your fingers you will remove some of the copper atoms.
Suppose you had one gramme of copper (about the size of a small pea) and you rubbed it so as to remove one million atoms of copper every second. How long would it take you to rub away all of the copper?
Answer: 300 million years.
The current climate change story, as it is told today, butters a lot of bread for many people. They are going to say whatever will make them money and help their careers. The story (that is what the overused word ‘narrative’ really means), serves a lot of different people and their ulterior motives and agendas. Climate change is 90% about politics, economics, ideology, business, social and market manipulation and money. The remaining 10% is about the environment, if that.
Over the past 20 years climate change has grown into a global billion dollar industry that is churning out scores of experts on everything to do with climate change. Interestingly most of these experts have very little to no expertise in actual climate science. Yet, they seem to know more than actual climate scientists and they can tell us everything that we need or should know about it.
Unlike our forebears, we are surrounded by experts and there is no escaping their expertise because we live in the age of the expert. Experts are lurking everywhere. On tv, social media, CZcams, behind the sofa and in all kinds of places. Yet, everything seems to be going to 💩 regardless.
You do seem to be an expert on being full of shit