Відео

We measure ancient CO2 levels via proxy evidence. Nature has some amazing ways it stores CO2 information over time. One way is in ice cores, which go back as far as 800,000 years. We use mass spectrometers to measure the amount of CO2 and other gases in air bubbles trapped in that ancient ice. The amount gives us a really good indication of how much CO2 was in the air then.

@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 you have to assume a whole lot of parameters that line up with an evolutionary world view to come up with the numbers, though, and we have no way of knowing what we don't know. A model is only as good as the data that is input to generate it. I dont think we know much. We have a lot of unproven theories, though.

@@jamesgoyette810 Skepticism and missing knowledge go hand in hand, James. Over 350,000 climate sudies have been published in the last fifty years. How many of those have you read? PhD-level scientists know far more than you realize. Eleven separate studies confirm the scientific consensus on climate change. Look them up by lead author on Google Scholar: Oreskes, 2004; Doran, 2009; Anderegg, 2010; Cook, 2013; Verheggan, 2014; Stenhouse, 2014; Carlton, 2015; Consensus on Consensus (multiple); 2016; Powell, 2018; Myers, 2020; Lynas/Houlton, 2021. In 2021, Cornell University surveyed the over 88000 climate studies published from 2012-2020 and tallied a 99.9% consensus that human activity, not nature, is driving today's climate change. Even Exxon's own scientists in leaked memos have acknowledged that combusted fossil fuels are warming the planet to a damaging degree. Over 80 academies of science and every scientific institution on earth, from NASA to NOAA to the World Meteorological Organization to the over 50,000 physicists in the American Physical Society publicly endorse the consensus position, which is precisely why every nation on earth is a card-carrying member of the IPCC.

The planet did not stop warming from 1998 to 2012. The RATE of warming slowed due to volcanic activity that spewed sun-dimming aerosols into the atmosphere, and to lower solar activity itself. You've also fallen for one of the oil industry's favorite tricks, to start a measurement at the year of one of our most massive El Ninos on record. El Ninos, of course, spike global temperature, and this one was a doozy. The years that follow that El Nino will by comparison appear to not increase.

All three Milankovitch Cycles are in COOLING phases now and have nothing to do with today's warming. Eleven separate studies confirm the scientific consensus on climate change. Look them up by lead author on Google Scholar: Oreskes, 2004; Doran, 2009; Anderegg, 2010; Cook, 2013; Verheggan, 2014; Stenhouse, 2014; Carlton, 2015; Consensus on Consensus (multiple); 2016; Powell, 2018; Myers, 2020; Lynas/Houlton, 2021. In 2021, Cornell University surveyed the over 88000 climate studies published from 2012-2020 and tallied a 99.9% consensus that human activity, not nature, is driving today's climate change. Even Exxon's own scientists in leaked memos have acknowledged that combusted fossil fuels are warming the planet to a damaging degree. Over 80 academies of science and every scientific institution on earth, from NASA to NOAA to the World Meteorological Organization to the over 50,000 physicists in the American Physical Society publicly endorse the consensus position, which is precisely why every nation on earth is a card-carrying member of the IPCC.

Global Climate Change Issues ❤🎉

2016 was a big El Nino year. But 2023 was also an El Nino year, and it was warmer than 2016.

It helps to actually read the scientific literature. Eleven separate studies confirm the scientific consensus on climate change. Look them up by lead author on Google Scholar: Oreskes, 2004; Doran, 2009; Anderegg, 2010; Cook, 2013; Verheggan, 2014; Stenhouse, 2014; Carlton, 2015; Consensus on Consensus (multiple); 2016; Powell, 2018; Myers, 2020; Lynas/Houlton, 2021. In 2021, Cornell University surveyed the over 88000 climate studies published from 2012-2020 and tallied a 99.9% consensus that human activity, not nature, is driving today's climate change. Even Exxon's own scientists in leaked memos have acknowledged that combusted fossil fuels are warming the planet to a damaging degree. Over 80 academies of science and every scientific institution on earth, from NASA to NOAA to the World Meteorological Organization to the over 50,000 physicists in the American Physical Society publicly endorse the consensus position, which is precisely why every nation on earth is a card-carrying member of the IPCC. All three Milankovitch Cycles, which are the pacers of Ice Ages and warm periods, are in COOLING phases now and have nothing to do with our current warming.

So in other words, you're cmpletely unfamiliar with the scinetific literature. Let me give you a tutorial. Eleven separate studies confirm the scientific consensus on climate change. Look them up by lead author on Google Scholar: Oreskes, 2004; Doran, 2009; Anderegg, 2010; Cook, 2013; Verheggan, 2014; Stenhouse, 2014; Carlton, 2015; Consensus on Consensus (multiple); 2016; Powell, 2018; Myers, 2020; Lynas/Houlton, 2021. In 2021, Cornell University surveyed the over 88000 climate studies published from 2012-2020 and tallied a 99.9% consensus that human activity, not nature, is driving today's climate change. Even Exxon's own scientists in leaked memos have acknowledged that combusted fossil fuels are warming the planet to a damaging degree. Over 80 academies of science and every scientific institution on earth, from NASA to NOAA to the World Meteorological Organization to the over 50,000 physicists in the American Physical Society publicly endorse the consensus position, which is precisely why every nation on earth is a card-carrying member of the IPCC.

Physics doesn't care about oligarchs.

Oligarchs don't conduct the science. Independent scientists from around the world do, and all of them must PROVE their findings with empirical evidence.

Nope. Scientific consensus is the widespread acceptance that all attempts to refute a hypothesis or bust a theory have failed. It can only be observed long after it has formed.

Eleven separate studies confirm the scientific consensus on climate change. Look them up by lead author on Google Scholar: Oreskes, 2004; Doran, 2009; Anderegg, 2010; Cook, 2013; Verheggan, 2014; Stenhouse, 2014; Carlton, 2015; Consensus on Consensus (multiple); 2016; Powell, 2018; Myers, 2020; Lynas/Houlton, 2021. In 2021, Cornell University surveyed the over 88000 climate studies published from 2012-2020 and tallied a 99.9% consensus that human activity, not nature, is driving today's climate change. Even Exxon's own scientists in leaked memos have acknowledged that combusted fossil fuels are warming the planet to a damaging degree. Over 80 academies of science and every scientific institution on earth, from NASA to NOAA to the World Meteorological Organization to the over 50,000 physicists in the American Physical Society publicly endorse the consensus position, which is precisely why every nation on earth is a card-carrying member of the IPCC.

Or planet is still in an ice age called the Quaternary Period because there is pack ice in both polar regions year round. We're in an interglacial period called the Holocene Epoch, but it's still an ice age.

Always a good thing, but it would take 4 times more land than exists on this planet with new trees on it keep up the current rate of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, but most of that land would require irrigation with fresh water.

Contrary to popular belief, trees less than 20 years old actually emit more CO2 than they absorb, according to Oregon State University. Just digging a hole to plant a tree releases more CO2 from the organisms in the ground than the tree will absorb in several years. The most useful thing we can do then is to dilligently preserve our old growth forests, where most CO2 is absorbed.

LA is not the globe.

We don't measure the entire planet's average temperature in Los Angelas. 1.2C is the global average, but the average over land alone is 1.7C (3.1F) Northern hemisphere land even higher at 1.9C. The Arctic has warmed by 3C or 5.4F since 1980. Areas in the Eurasian sector of the Arctic Ocean have warmed up to seven times as fast as the globe. What's the big deal, right? It becomes a big deal when you realize that the icecaps are melting at rates unprecedented in recorded history, which has driven sea level up four inches since 1993, with a doubling of its rate of rise. That in turn has increased high tide flooding, by 400% along the American south and 1100% along the Gulf coast since the year 2000, according to NOAA. In January, Maine suffered a record high tide that caused over $70 million in damages. Queens, NY is flooding on a regular basis now. So is part of Annapolis. Miami Beach was forced to raise 105 miles of roads by two feet. Louisiana has lost over 8800 acres to permanent inundation in its lower Breton Sound area, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Odisha state in India, meanwhile, is reporting that it has lost 16 coastal villages to flooding over the last several years. Now add in the damage from a tripling of heatwaves since 1960 along with an 8% per decade increase in hurricane intensity, and worldwide increases in damage from extreme precipitation events and droughts. There's also increases marine heatwaves, ocean acidification and rapid spreading of tick-and-mosquito-borne diseases. This is much more than the media trying to tempt you with clickbait.

Most researchers and instructors in universities where physics is researched and taught, are not on climate related research grants. They could easily get rich and famous if they could refute any the principal findings from mainstream climate science; no grant, loss of tenure, or job would deter them.

@@rps1689 Actually they would be ridiculed and called a climate denier by people like you.

@@terryfunk2483 They would not be ridiculed if they pulbished their findings in peer reviews; the worst that would happen is if there are any errors and bias, then most scientists plus leading working scientists will pounce on them be it an honest error or not; competition is way too fierce in this field.

@@rps1689 keep dreaming...

@@terryfunk2483 Can't refute a word I said so resort to being indolent. You clearly know nothing about how science is vetted.

Increased CO2 causes increased cellulose production hence more tonnage of only certain crops, but no increase and even a decrease in nutritional value. Current rate of global warming brings a loss of global biodiversity. When food is grown at elevated CO2 levels in fields, it becomes less nutritious and lose significant amounts of zinc and iron plus grains lose protein. Because of this you need more fields to produce more volumes to make this up and more greenhouses, as you decrease the amount of nutrition you can produce per acre.

It is taken into account. There are over 17,000 platfom/stations plus 1000 upper air stations, 4000 ships, 4000 aircraft, and a dozen satelites collecting data. Thousands of stations south of the Arctic circle and north of the Antarctic circle is more than sufficient to get a picture of the current rate of global warming. In the troposphere, the increase in carbon dioxide leads to a heating effect, while in the stratosphere and mesosphere, it causes a cooling effect. As predicted by climate science, increasing CO2 puts upward pressure on temperature in the troposphere, and creates cooling in the stratosphere. Adding energy to the atmosphere destabilizes the atmosphere and can cause upper air currents to swing wildly off course and can even lead to the Gulf Stream slowing down. Only the tropical lower stratosphere stopped cooling.

There is a reason why some climate deniers start their trend line in 1998; because it was the strongest El Nino of the 20th century, but of course they also didn't notice or ignore the fact the the next El Nino was much stronger. La Ninas and El Ninos cancel each other out, except for the long-term trend, which is warming. El Ninos are growing stronger, La Ninas weaker. The trend is global warming.

Plants do not die just below .02 percent. We're in an interglacial period called the Holocene Epoch, but it's still an ice age. In the last deglaciation of the Pleistocene, CO2 led at the beginning, and then its own water vapour feedback got ahead of it. When a change in CO2 is forcing the change in climate, CO2 leads. When something else is, like global dimming or Milankovitch cycles, CO2 lags the forcing. China is using solar and wind as a stopgap like they are with using coal as a bridge-fuel to power its electric grid while the nuclear industry is developing its new technology. At least China with all its faults, is doing more than Canada and the US is doing and already have some ultra high voltage transmission - DC and AC, which requires less fuel. They also emit half the amount of CO2 emissions per capita than the US does. Whining about China and India is folly, when one considers no lack of Western Nations offshore their manufacturing to these countries especially chemical production.

None of those ever a prediction from main stream climate science.

It is always taken into account and discussed, but on time scales relevant to human history solar irradiance is practically constant. Even near solar minimum, when galactic comic rays have easier access to Earth, and during the solar maximum, their spectrum remains relatively constant in energy and composition, varying only slowly with time. Just as the solar cycle follows a roughly elven year cycle, so does galactic cosmic rays with its maximum. No mechanism has been discovered for variations in the solar wind or magnetic field to affect Earth's climate significantly. The steady decline in energy output, the 11 year cycle in sunspots, and the variations in the solar wind shows no correlation with climate on annual, decadal, nor century scales.

Time to take off the tin foil hat. Most researchers and instructors in universities where physics is researched and taught, are not on climate related research grants. They could easily get rich and famous if they could refute any the principal findings from mainstream climate science; no grant, loss of tenure, or job would deter them. In the real world, a field like climate science is too competitive to avoid getting called out by their peers and scientists get fired fast for lying or fabricating. The risk to their institutions from the scandal is too great to tolerate It’s pretty much nearly impossible to fabricate a study in a field like climate science that receives such high levels of scrutiny not to mention is fiercely competitive. For one to presume that the entire discipline, involving thousands of scientists around the world, would be based on fabricated data and the coordinated pushing of false science pretty much borders on the imbecilic. You should know that the high level of scrutiny the field receives guarantees that funding sources can't buy predetermined results.

Some of the things that were predicted by main stream climate science that materialized: Planet greening, global average surface temperature will rise due to added greenhouse gases, nuisance flooding in low lying cities will get more frequent, sea level rise will accelerate due to thermal expansion and land ice melt, CO2 fertilization, agricultural hardiness zones and wild species ranges moving poleward, the Arctic warming faster than the equator, the stratosphere cools while the troposphere warms, marginal farmland going out of production, causing refugee flows and political instability, increased rate of species extinction, tropical pest species invading the subtropics. Subtropical pests invading temperate zones, and permafrost melting. More predictions are still on track.

If you can't spell "activists" correctly, perhaps that's a sign you heard rather than read your talking points... In which case I would recommend doing less watching and more reading.

Anyone educated in Earth sciences knows where land uplift is at the same rate of sea level rise and also know how long it will take from nuisance flooding to major flooding.

Do tell what years in human history had a higher global mean temp.

@@rps1689 how old is the earth and how long has the temperature been recorded ? I’m sure it was much hotter when the co2 levels were double and there were no humans around

@@christopherton Yes the earth has has higher global mean temps, but the rates of CO2 fluctuations back then were at which organisms were able to adapt and evolve to climate change. Basically enough time for the the oceans to absorb CO2 to maintain an equilibrium in the atmosphere, enough time to suck CO2 out of the air through the weathering of rocks, and enough plants to absorb CO2; all these mechanisms relatively not disrupting plant growth and life. It’s not rocket science; evidence of the global mean temperature is attained from measurements from ice cores, tree rings, the chemical and structural signatures of rocks, crystals, and ocean sediments to name a few from all over the world. The age of Earth is estimated to be 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years. There is a book you might be interested in by Douglas Palmer called A History of Earth in 100 Groundbreaking Discoveries.

@@rps1689 so looking at the ice cores and tree rings leads to the conclusion that the last 10 years are the hottest on record ?

@@christopherton It takes more than that.

The rate of change of temperature since 1980 is three times higher than since 1850, and 2023 was the hottest year on record. If you haven't seen the changes it's because you're not paying attention...

You've had about 40 years to research that myth exactly one time and learn that it was never taken seriously at any point by climate scientists.

There never was a scientific consensus about an imminent ice age in the 70s. There were two papers, by Schneider, Kukla, and Rasool, that made headlines when the reporters misread them. They predicted the slow cooling of 1940-1980, which was caused by global dimming might continue. Their papers said that If that trend had continued, the ice sheets would be back, in 20 to 40 thousand years. But the reporters missed that part. The tabloids ran an imminent ice age scare and the newspapers picked it up from them. Then it went to The Late Show and there were references in sitcoms, and that silly show with Leonard Nimoy.

No one ever from main stream climate science made such a claim.