Massive thanks to Gavin Foster, who helped hugely with access to data, and feedback on the script twitter.com/@theFosterlab Thanks also to Lina Sitz twitter.com/lina_sitz for helping me hunt down additional data. And thanks to all the internet tutorials for helping me work out how to make graphs in After Effects. Finally - thanks to all of you for getting this channel to one MILLION views. Genuinely hard for me to fathom!
This video is childish. Oh, Ice Ages are now gone! HAHAHA. Right. Young people who were born after 1980 don't remember our brush with another Little Ice Age. I lived through many a blizzard even in super warm TUCSON AZ which is desert. The storms in NY were epic, very cold and very deep. Then we had this warm cycle due to increase in solar energy as the sun became more active again. The clockwork of the Ice Ages is not just due to orbit of the earth around the sun, the sun's activity shifts and changes, too, along with this rhythm. It is inevitable. Most 'global warming' is due to URBANIZATION. Cities are hotter and hotter and bigger and bigger. I live in NY in the countryside. NYC is 10 degrees or more hotter than where I live. Right now it is 64 F here while it is 75F in the metro regions.
@@emsnewssupkis6453 If most global warming is due to urbanization, how do you explain the massive increase in ocean heat content over recent decades, along with the rising frequency of marine heatwaves, and the fact that the polar regions (with notably few cities) are warming more rapidly than everywhere else?
@@emsnewssupkis6453 Which ocean data are you using? Because according to both NASA and NOAA the long term trend clearly demonstrates the oceans are getting hotter...
@@signsofbias9640 : That is complete nonsense and so easy to look up Future global climate: scenario-based projections and near ... Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Jun 5, 2023 - Modeling of solar radiation management: a comparison of. 14 simulations using reduced solar constant and stratospheric sulphate aerosols. Clim. Dyn. 44, 2909 ... Do climate models project changes in solar resources? IPCC Report, Working Group I: The Scientific Basis 6.11. Solar Forcing of Climate.
@@signsofbias9640 it took me less than 30 seconds to find models that explicitly mention sun's variability and other measures in the IPCC. Not considering the sun would be something so stupid as trying to model the single pendulum motion without gravity. The energy balance of the planet is built upon the energy flux of the sun. Have you read the IPCC or are you parroting some idiots? Please, the only thing I ask of people is to do some actual scientific reading before they comment, you have no idea how stupid some of these comments sound.
I thought the magnetic field might have something to do with climate change, but nothing can be done about that, so they blame CO2 from cars and planes to cows farting
I like this calm and sympathetic way of presenting apocalyptic facts very much. It's like one of those scenes where the protagonists sit huddled together on the beach, watching an asteroid impact on the horizon and knowing it's their last hours.
@@tomnelson2080 Indeed, the Egyptian Warm Cycle then the Minoan Warm Cycle and then the Roman Warm Cycle and even the Medieval Warm cycle all of which are 1,000 to 2,000 years apart, shows us that today is no warmer and is actually colder than the previous warm cycles and that this is totally normal. The warmest warm cycle was 10,000 years ago and it spawned the first agriculture by humans instead of hunter/gather food.
Hey Adam, Congratulations, Very pleased to learn of your success and that your climate messages gain viewers - Have had the pleasure of being with you for several years ❗️ Stay Strong for your niece, Sir & Onward to 2 million views🎉
The Roman and Medieval warm periods were much warmer than today. They weren’t regional. Grapes were grown in England and the Danes settled in a new land called Greenland, but then it turned cold and they had to leave. CO2 is not in lockstep with temperature. Watch some videos by Tony Heller, he shares historic evidence over the past 170 years where floods, droughts, heatwaves, forest fires, hurricanes etc were all much worse than today. Most of the USA state temperature records are back in the 1930’s or before. The June of 1846 was hotter than the June of 2023 in England.
WOO-HOO! you totally deserve this! I just looked n the first vid of urs i saw was 4yrs ago explaining extinction rebellion. I then 'dabbled' with viewing vids until about 1.5yrs ago and ever since i try to catch them all XD
The Younger Dryas was actually caused by a huge comet slamming into the North American glacier that covered what is now Michigan, creating Saginaw Bay, the North Carolina Bays, and the first iteration of the global flood, particularly the legends in eastern North America.
Came to this channel a couple of weeks ago, I can’t remember the exact keywords I typed in. A conversation with a family member who had been (probably) listening to a Jordon Peterson podcast, they started talking misguided nonsense to me about ice cores. Conversation took me off guard and I didn’t want to start yelling at my iPad at 9pm on a relaxing Tuesday evening. I’d been following PotHoler54 for years and have an interest in earth/human history, but I wanted to make a further effort to educate myself and sharpen my arguments to combat ignorance with family members and colleagues. This channel was what I stumbled into - and what a great find!
Ice cores are nonsense now? Wow. Ice cores tell the story of only recent conditions. During the Egyptian/Minoan/Roman warm cycles there was little ice in the Arctic regions perhaps no ice. Even during the Medieval Warm Cycle farmers built farms in Greenland! These were all destroyed by the Little Ice Age from 1400 to 1800. No one survived. Ice buried everything. Now it has melted partially again.
@@emsnewssupkis6453 no, ice cores are not nonsense. The point I was making is that I am dealing with a science denying member of my family that doesn't understand what scientific consensus is or how it is arrived at. Hence they are being fed 'misguided nonsense about ice cores'. So when they are talking to me about something they've seen on a JP podcast, aka 'the stupid persons thinking person', I'm concluding that it will be very likely be wrong. I need to gear up for calm arguments, which is why I sub to channels like this. As usual, when you encounter someone ignorant of science, you have to find out what the actual science is - which takes time. This is the same for dealing with COVID 'hoax' claims, moon landing and 911 conspiracies.........
Thank you very much, Climate Adam and congratulations! You are doing a great job! I've been watching you for a long time and sharing your videos on different platforms. Your explanations and creative approach are great! Keep going this way!
this video was really great as an explainer. I found your videos over a year ago, probably suggested by the algorithm. I met a woman who was a climate denier the other day and could explain why i do believe in global warming thanks to the information you share, not that I managed to change her mind probably lol. Thankyou for your work, congrats on 1,000,000 views, you should have a million subscribers!
ah that's lovely that my videos helped you feel you could have a conversation. and even if such chats don't switch someone's mind, they're often still worth having. glad you found my channel!
@@ClimateAdam You are very young. You grew up during a warm cycle. I was born at the end of the 1930's warm cycle and during my childhood it got colder and colder and colder so by 1964 we were having snow storms in Tucson, AZ. This is a hot desert! And we were colder and colder especially at night and I bought some used mink coats at Value Village to turn into blankets so I could be warm at night, it was so cold.
Thanks for the humor and knowledge as always, Adam. The Younger Dryas is fascinating. The Dryas is a flower that grows in cold temperatures. This was an extinction event for many megafauna. There was also an Older Dryas (shorter).
Megaflora had very large stomata on their leaves. Stomata (plural for stoma), which means "mouth" (Greek), and they allow for the ingress and egress of gas. Long ago, these stomata were far, far larger, as found of megaflora. These days, comparatively, stomata are very small. Why were they so big once upon a time? How did these plants get so large? What are the implications of having so much gas available? What is the upper limit of gas types in the atmosphere?
Also a catastrophic event for all men woman and child living around the globe at that time... Also this type of event will happen again... In our lifetime!!!!
You are wrong. CO2 concentration on your curve is always a little LATER higher, when temperature rises. So it can't be the reason for temperature rises, it's vice versa: If it gets warmer, CO2 concentration rises.
It’s a myth that CO2 always comes after a warming period and not before. "CO2 always lags temperature" is a popular talking point, but it's incorrect. Sometimes CO2 leads, sometimes it lags. According to ice cores and other evidence. It depends whether CO2 or some other force is driving. CO2 lags when something else (even water vapour feedback) is driving climate change. CO2 leads when it's the driver. For example. at the beginning of the last deglaciation of the Pleistocene. And for example, right now.
- We live in the same climate as it was 5 million years ago - I have an explanation regarding the cause of the climate change, it is the travel of the universe to the deep past since May 10, 2010. Each day starting May 10, 2010 takes us one thousand years to the past of the universe. Today March 31, 2024 the state of our universe is the same as it was 5 million and 74 thousand years ago. On october 13, 2026 the state of our universe will be at the point 6 million years in the past. On june 04, 2051 the state of our universe will be at the point 15 million in the past. On june 28, 2092 the state of our universe will be at the point 30 million years in the past. On april 02, 2147 the state of our universe will be at the point 50 million years in the past. Mohamed BOUHAMIDA.
Mr Climate Adam, Thank you for your Video. The content is very much spot on and timely. What I discovered was your fabulous presentation. Really outstanding. Warmth, wit, sincerity and totally relevant to promoting the awareness that is essential to every single one of us. Very much appreciated. Thank you so very much for keeping the message fresh and supportive.
I am glad you acknowledge the Milankovitch cycle contribution to earth's temperature changes. In Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" he overlayed the Milankovitch temperature cycle with CO2 concentrations from ice cores. He strongly implied that the CO2 changes caused the temperature changes, when in fact the temperature changes caused the CO2 changes due to ocean warming and outgassing of CO2 (the solubility of gases in liquids decreases with increases in temperature and the oceans contain ~50x as much dissolved CO2 as exists in the atmosphere). This was well know at the time. Intentional deception?
What’s interesting is that during the last interglacial period before this one (the Eemain) 125,000 years ago sea levels were 6 meters higher than today. Really shows how paleoclimatology can teach us so much about our own future. The fact that the “climate has always changed” is just examples of mama Earth’s younger times that is warning sign for our species. This was an interesting video thank you. There other hot houses I’ve heard about too such as the PETM and the Late Permian when earth was completely ice free and that was due to higher amounts of co2. Pretty fascinating. Also wouldn’t it be more accurate to say those “ice ages” were glacial periods considering we are still in the Quaternary Ice Age, just in warm stable interglacial period? Because I know there were four other major ice ages in Earth’s history before this one, also interestingly enough caused by a drop in CO2 levels.
As far as I know, they are in different scales. There is an bigger scale, ranging from hot house earth(no ice) to snowball earth(everything under ice), with the freezer earth in the middle(permanent ice in the poles). While the glacial and interglacial periods are in a smaller scale, with more modest changes in the current freezer earth. Also, they only exist since there is ice in the north pole. This is what I remember from a state university of Ceará's course.
@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI Pretty sure ice in the top of a mountain is not enough to constitute an ice age. There is the thing, I didn't use "ice age" in the previous comment. If any type of ice on Earth's surface is an ice age, then we are in a ice age in the last 34 million years, since in all interglacial periods there was ice in both poles.
Absolutely brilliant as usual Adam! One of the main rebuttals to the last million years of temperature/CO₂ data is that CO₂ lags temperature. Which is true. But only in the Antarctic ice cores. In Greenland ice cores the opposite happened. Just some prebunking for the comments.
yeah I've never really understood that rebuttal, though, because I'm not sure what it's rebutting! I've never heard a climate scientist say that CO2 triggered those paleo-processes - rather than it acted to amplify and create a global pattern of change... so of course CO2 lags the initial change! but thanks for the pre-bunk nevertheless!
@crystalgiddens7276 I can cite some examples, like a hurricane hitting California or the extreme heat seen in the mid US. Several days I saw the same temps in TX as MN on the same day. Triple digits for 3 months straight is abnormal where I live during my 47 year lifetime. We were relieved to finally see temps drop into the 90's. There's also the high water temps off the coast that are akin to a hot tub.
@@Hei1Bao4 If climate change caused that hurricane, what caused these? Since 1850, only eight tropical cyclones have brought gale-force winds to the Southwestern United States. They are: The *1858 San Diego hurricane that was reconstructed as just missing landfall in 1858, the 1939 Long Beach tropical storm that made landfall near San Pedro in 1939, the remnants of Tropical Storm Jennifer-Katherine in 1963, the remnants of Hurricane Emily in 1965, the remnants of Hurricane Joanne in 1972, the remnants of Hurricane Kathleen in 1976* You can't have it both ways. Obviously they are natural. Blaming every catastrophe on AGW is a blatant lie!
@@crystalgiddens7276 It makes extreme events more likely. Which have been increasing world wide. But arguing with you is pointless. See Dunning-Kruger effect.
I was at a resort in Key Largo that started as a fish camp in the 1930s and I asked if the sea wall was original. He said yes it was and I asked him if the sea level had risen? He answered not here, but he said it was rising on the other side of the island because it was sinking over there and that's where the news media went. Just like why are the glaciers melting in one part of Greenland while where they landed planes in 1942 gained 80 meters of snow?
Thanks for the perspective on climate change. I was interested to learn that changes occurred due to cycles of instability in the earth's rotation around the sun and was curious about whether there is any indication that the world is heading closer to the sun as part of this system of cycles?
YES! So much push back comes from " oh but in the past it was way more X and Y" These people seem to forget that millions of years ago there were no people, our species and all we rely on are recent. The planet will survive, life will persist, that is not the thing, the thing is that we kind of want our species to survive.
I found you today, by one of my FB friends that posted this video. I agree with you and I got rid of oil last yr. I have cold climate heat pumps and solar. I live in NY. If our government is serious, they need to help everyone to change with the products or money. I was lucky. No one I know could afford what I did to my home. It was tthe silver lining in a devastating house fire at the end of 2020. I used contents money to switch the heating and cooling system. No tax incentives for me as I'm old and I really am not concerned about the RIO. I'm concerned about future generations and of course what I can afford monthly. Best decision ever. I wish you luck in all that you do to help.
Wow, comparing that carbon dioxide graph with the 1 million years of climate change one really hones in how different the causes are to our current problem.
A collateral consequence of mounting temperatures is the alarming loss of biodiversity, disrupting ecosystems and jeopardizing delicate ecological balances.
Reducing the paradoxical cooling affect of our atmospheric aerosals at this point is not a good idea, & will only help increase global temperatures. This was well documented when flights were grounded after 911. We are well above 2c. When calculating the more than 40 green house gases, including methane, nitrous oxide, & water vapor. & a guaranteed ice free Arctic Ocean next year will send the latent heat no longer melting the ice, soaring, adding to the already unprecedented ENSO. Time to finish that bucket list everyone. Pronto!
Zooming out to a hundred million year time window, or longer, rather than focusing only on the current million year ice age, would have been useful, and provided more context.
Can you debate someone on the subject please? This could give the 'deniers' something to ponder. Without debate we get nowhere. Im on the fence bro,cheers.
There is no question that the Earth has been getting warmer over the past century. And there is no question that carbon has increased, from .03% to .04% of the atmosphere. But correlation doesn't prove causation. What I would like to see is a video of how a trace element that has increased one hundredth of one percent could be so cataclysmic. I have yet to find a video on this topic. The other question I have is how much carbon is necessary to keep the plant life alive? If we are able to reduce carbon, is there a danger to life if we reduce it too much?
The increasing co2 both locks more of the solar radiation, and in concert with h20 vapor creates addition heat, as the co2 makes the h20 molecules more energetic
150 ppm is the threshold for most plants and at around 500ppm it starts to cause damage to certain plants. Most of the plants living today developed to live in a co2 eviroment between 225ppm and 380ppm
@@oleonard7319 I could see that if carbon increased to 10% of the atmosphere. But how does a mere .01 increase cause so much heat? I can't find any explanation. The amount of carbon in our atmosphere is still a paltry .04%.
The technical challenge is trivial compared to the social challenge--which we are badly failing. Knowing how to do something and actually choosing to do it are two very different things particularly when social capacity is pre-invested in existing adaptations. Adaptability is inversely proportional to the level of specific adaptation. To use our technology to correct climate change will take giving up nearly all our existing adaptations including our current economies to build our lives around extraction and sequestration of greenhouse gases and restoration of the biosphere. Are you ready to give up everything you have and do now to make the world livable again? Keep in mind that eventually we will have to give up everything just to survive.
ClimateAdam I still don’t understand the correlation vs causation, 5:30 you mentioned the shift in temperature first causes the change in co2, not the other way around?
The initial heating is caused by changes in the Earth's tilt and orbit. This warming leads to the release of CO2 from the oceans, which subsequently contributes to further heating of the planet.
During the Stone Era, abundant trees and plants could be seen everywhere, gradually making the Earth colder. However, in this era, logging and wildfires🔥 are reducing oxygen-producing trees, leading to climate change. Planting more trees can help reverse these losses and cool the Earth again. 🌲🌳🌴
I began viewing your wonderful presentations around 3-years ago. Thank you for covering this lengthy time span. It appears to me that you've come to recognize that the current situation is more dire than you once believed.
Are we able to see short term fluctuations in the historic record? For example, if global average temperatures rose as much as we have seen within the same number of years and then returned to baseline, would we be able to see that? More generally, I'm curious to know how precise the record is? Do we know the temperature for all 1,000,000 years individually or is it more like 5yr averages, 100yr averages, etc? Obviously seasonal fluctuations within a year are ruled out. I'd like to know how we know what we know as well as what do don't know, ya know!?
we would struggle to see that the further we go back in the temperature record, but with the data we have, we can be confident it hasn't happened since the last glacial maximum at the very least and that warming like we could see by the end of the century (if we don't get emissions in check) would show up basically anywhere (since it would effectively appear as a sudden global step change in temperature)
Gotcha, but doesn't that suggest that our heating may not be unprecedented? My other main question about climate change is how is plant growth accounted for in climate predictions? I read that studies show improvements to plant growth at higher CO2 and that forests have net increased over the last 35 years in spite of deforestation. How do we know that extra CO2 in the air isn't an overall a good thing? Do we even know? @@ClimateAdam
I discovered your channel when looking for a summary to share regarding IPCC AR6 WG1. I read it and became quite... sullen. Videos like yours, Zentouro, Just Have a Think etc helped immensely. I have a good education but finding a non doom way to explain what I had read was amazing. I'm still very sullen when it comes to climate change but I have shifted career trajectories to help directly to advanced policy to be climate active in engineering.
What about the idea that prior to the global flood that happened about 4400 years ago, the earth's average temperature was a uniform 70-80 degrees and now after the adverse effects of the flood, we are seeing the earth restoring its self toward this “natural” temperature range?
Shifting of ocean circulation patterns does seem to be happening in both N Atlantic and the Southern Ocean. This could however produce local variations in the impact of changes rather than a cooling of the whole globe
Melting sea ice adds fresh water into the mix which changes the current flow rate , in turn effects such things as the Beaufort gyre , which in turn effects the air currents lowering the polar vortex to mid level latitudes , thus , due to water vapour, the biggest driver of climate change, massively drops world wide temps , thus making us vulnerable to an approaching ..... Ice age
Referred here by Hank Green of hankschannel and vlogbrothers. I'm rather enchanted by imagining Tom Hiddleston talking to me about climate. (I'm sure you've NEVER heard that before.) Cheers, and I'll be listening.
You showed that current carbon in the atmosphere is higher by a huge scale than at "any point in the last million years" then you conclude that if we stop increase this we will be able to reduce its affects. How do we know what effect stopping or even reducing this would have considering we have already blown any prediction power of historical records?
Thank you Adam for your videos. I have a question about it. How much is the resolution in terms of time regarding the carbon dioxide data sampled from the air bubbles trapped in the ice sheets? Nowadays we are measuring the levels of carbon dioxide every year since 1958 (even monthly), but if we talk about past records how much time in beetween on concentration data to another?
Hey Adam, can you list the good universities in Europe to study Climate Science & has an affordable tuition fees? I ain't from Europe so I don't have much idea.
I just watched your response to Hank Green and found your way of explaining things interesting and engaging. I subscribed and now I am binging your videos ;)
You say that CO2 and temperature have been in lockstep in the past. Actually that’s not true. If you look closely, temperature rises first. CO2 follows a few hundred years later, indicating that temperature drives CO2 levels, not the reverse.
That's Visibly not true on the presented graph, peak atmospheric CO2 happens before peak temperature, but regardless, as we know, for a fact, CO2 traps heat. You can test that with sunlight, 2 airtight jars, a co2 canister and a pair of thermometers, what it actually suggests is that there's a feedback loop at play. Some warming causes an increase in CO2 because of various reasons, which causes more warming because basic thermodynamics which causes more CO2 release which causes more warming and so on until something breaks that cycle, historically speaking usually shifts in earths orbit and tilt. This one is a little different though because instead of natural processes releasing CO2 from the oceans and whatever as they warm, we're digging up billions of tons of random carbon we found in the ground and pumping it directly into the atmosphere.
Really good video. I'm glad that you've covered this topic. In certain parts of the internet they use the argument of "well, but if we've lived through hotter eras in Earth" to try to dismiss modern climate change. Keep the good work
Yes, ALL the previous warm cycles during this short Interglacial were warmer than today's warm cycle. Duh. The graphs, before 2000, showed this clearly as a steady decline in 'warm cycles' over the last 10,000 years. All Ice Ages started suddenly, by the way. During each of these, the climate would swing wildly from cold to extremely cold over and over again. Each Interglacial is about 20,000 years and each Ice Age is over 200,000 years which is ten times longer! Think! That is super scary!
@@emsnewssupkis6453 you are wrong on ice ages happening suddenly, go read up on the Milankovitch cycles if you want to learn how we go from glacial periods to interglacial periods.
I wonder whether our use of electrical products adds to this, as there is always heat as a by-product, millions of people use TVV's computers, electric vehicles, etc. not to forget a lot of energy used is from fossil fuels
Here are some thoughts; every hydrocarbon molecule in the earth’s crust will be pumped or chiseled out and turned into energy. The uncertainty lies in who will be using that energy. Any notion that energy hungry humans are going to walk away from hydrocarbons is foolish. Once you’ve accepted that reality you can move on and start worrying about something else.
How much further back does historical data go beyond one million years? Anything that correlates with the complete rotation of us within our Galaxy? Or greater?
I have something kind of anti global warming to say. Before I say that. I'm not saying c 02 levels are not going up. You reference the one hundred thousand year cycles that the earth goes through. I have seen charts of this where the co2 is closely married to the temperature. So what I want to say is our interactions with the sun is changing the temperature not CO2 then our increases in temperature makes the CO2 rise and our decreases in temperature make the CO2 decline. This is in opposition to what I keep hearing from everyone say. Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but this may be the first time CO2 levels are rising without temperature nudging it. This might be why all of the past predictions for temperatures are so high in comparison to what the temperatures actually became Also this guy seems genuinely upset that temperatures aren't going to fall back down into an ice age I would say this is a good thing not a bad thing I know we're talking thousands of years but even then an ice age would be catastrophic we need to avoid it
predictions of temperature are not high in comparison with changes: www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/
@ClimateAdam I'll address the biased predictions first, but the more important point that I brought up was about how the temperatures proceeded the changes of CO2. Earth's temperature has risen by an average of 0.14° Fahrenheit (0.08° Celsius) per decade since 1880. Observation scrapes the bottom of the most modest predictions. If you continue to use modest predictions, you will not see there's any emergency. If you're interested, we can have a high-level discussion that you're probably not used to. I have some very good science-based reasons, and that there's no need for emergency measures
