This famous climate graph is hiding a secret 🤔 

"Flatten the curve"? Where have I heard that one before. Oh, yeah, flatten the Economic curve.

No, we need to reverse the curve

Ain’t that what they said about COVID ?

On the correct axis this time

"flattening the curve" was about hospital capacity, which they quickly "forgot" when capacity went back to manageable levels.

We've cut half of them down lol

Sorry, rainforest couldn't reply because it had to step aside to make space for inefficient monocultures for factory farming.

whe.. where is forest?🥺🥺

Rainforest? Is he still alive?

Even if humans weren't here this graph would look very much the same😂😂 most people are too stupid to think critically about climate science

he meant the curve itself, not the line that constitutes it.

​@@andrewpak5035 He meant the curve's _je ne sais quoi_ not the curve itself

Notice how he didn’t zoom out far enough? This is not even a blip in earths history

@@cherokeerookie8973 It is, however, the part of Earth's history that is of concern to us, as well as all other life on Earth, because these are the climate conditions that the current species on Earth have adapted to.

@@cherokeerookie8973 did you miss the part of the video where he shows historic carbon levels and there's a massive spike in the last 200 years? Did you miss that ENTIRE part?

Answered it yourself! Both of course will have an effect and both are taking place on an industrial scale. Although we should note that there are some places in the world where the CO2 is locked up more and more in forests, peatlands and such but these can be more vulnerable and prone to wildfires when they grow TOO thick when there's no thinning done by smaller fires or big herbivores felling trees or partial wood harvesting.

Plants offset about 40% of the atmospheric CO2. Trees are literally carbon capture devices - take it out of the air and turn it into a clump of carbon. So, if we were taking that wood and storing it (like in timber constructions) then replanting the trees it would be good because the new trees will capture new CO2. If we don't replant the trees, then there is less CO2 capture and thus net positive CO2 which is bad.

@@pXnTilde Very true! However it's at this moment we have to consider how people use wood and wood products. If it is stored in a sturdy building which will stand for as long as that tree would have lived naturally on its own and we don't cut down a forest to clear land for that building then that's fine. However, if the products we make of trees we cut down decompose or are incinerated/burned in a fire before the tree would have died on its own we have lost out on some carbon sequestration power by cutting the tree. But we do need wood and paper so replanting is very essential to make the calculations work out in the end! The trouble is that a lot of logged forests are not being replanted but turned into grazing land for cattle, soybean plantations for cattle or palm oil plantations...

False the 'keeling curve is controlled by the Keeling family. CO2 was up to 380 during the 1800s. There is no "Climate Crisis" You are a shill for the United Nations...... Why do you lie to people?

Predominantly the removal of forest. It's absolutely astonishing the difference plants can make for the planet, but there's one problem: it's not profitable. In some places (I'm mainly going to be referring to my home country of Australia), there is higher incentive to use hectares of land, not for revegetation, but for solar and wind farms. Which on the surface it's all good and all for a "fight against fossil fuels," but underneath that "clean energy" moniker is the expansion of mine to find the increasingly rare metals required to make these structures, predominantly the backbone that is the Li-ion battery. Inland resources of this element is virtually all used up, and where are these mines being taken to? The coasts. Just something to think about because I'm straying from the main topic. Point is that we don't want to use this very easily achievable method that would majorly solve this climate problem, because it's not economically profitable to companies, especially to those with vested interests for pushing "clean energy."

That was done so the elites could take control of the central banking.

😂 that's was great one!

I realise this is kind of nitpicky, but the Titanic struck the iceberg. Not the other way around.

My uhhh, fellow Americans. Uhhh, Osama Bin Iceberg will uh fall.

and forests

that's just a type of graph, not a SPECIFIC one

The percentages don't matter. What matters is how much heat comes in from the sun versus how much heat is irradiated back out. Disturb the balance by introducing gasses that trap heat and the planet begins to warm. It warms enough to start melting permafrost and polar ice that trapped CO2 long ago, and you exacerbate the problem. It's a slow burn, but a burn we'll all feel eventually.

The funny thing is, of that 0.04 percent,we produce as humans(like burning coal etc) make up only 3 percent of that 0.04. The rest is nature.

You mean the world has been effected this much by such a small percentage of our atmosphere? Crazy. All the more reason to reduce the CO2 being released in the atmosphere. Also, 0.04% means it's gone up by 50% over just the last 150 years. That's a rapid increase. Interesting how you can frame such a large amount of change to look small, when you compare it to something not entirely relevant.

@@Panzerkampfagen885if you make one bag worth of garbage a day , and exactly one bags worth can be thrown out a day, making 3 percent more garbage and then lowering how much can be thrown a day (destroying oceans and forests ) then you start having garbage build up. If you still don’t get it your being an Idiot . We have gone over the cpaaoicty of co2 absorption , and we have lowered the capacity for co2 absortion. That’s why the increase in amount present is more important than amount produced by humans

Pumping c02 into the atmosphere ten times faster then the petm extinction event, what’s the worst that could happen?

@@STEAMerBear they aren't silenced whatsoever. It's just that the ones that do say that ruin their careers because there's such a blatant abundancy of data showing that climate change is in fact real and fully caused by humans, that even pausing to consider otherwise is so thoroughly seen as wrong (because it is) that they just get forgotten by academia. You know, knowledge is supposed to grow over time, and we don't want incompetent people polluting the timeline with trash.

​@@moron0000literally, the climate debate is over. Climate change is happening and it is caused by CO2. Any more time wasted on the subject is time not spent on more important things.

Yes. The cherry picking of data to spot short-term cooling trends (where each new trend starts slightly higher than the previous one started) has been dubbed "riding down the up escalator."

@@STEAMerBear If they were silenced you wouldn't know they had said it would you genius.

@@tims5268 Gosh you’re smart.

Rainforests in south america

@@chemplay866 aren't deciduous

I think he meant the siberian forests majorly. Thats just vast forests of trees

Deciduous

I misread ‘deciduous’ as ‘delicious’ and I was very confused until I reread (I may or may not be hungry right now)

The atmosphere is .0005% co2 of that, humans have added around 3% lolol and co2 doesn’t make it hotter, when it’s warmer the oceans release the co2 and when it’s colder it absorbs it again.

@@kalenlarsensource of your claims that dont make sense?

its because the climate has heated and cooled, up and down like a yoyo since the beginning of the planet. The only thing that is constant is powerful people telling the gulliable masses that its their fault that the weather is bad. "if u have sinned, God will punish you with bad weather and therefore bad harvests! "

@@MadCuzUBroke Look up the solubility curve for CO2 in H2O. Water at 0C will absorb 3.4 g of gas per kg of water; but water at 30C will only allow 1.25 g per kg. This is also why your soda goes flat when it gets warm.

A lot of major carbon emission sources still were in operation. Factories still ran, refineries still ran, power plants still ran, and cars still ran. Fewer of them? Certainly, except power plants maybe. But nowhere near carbon neutral levels.

thankfully since some years ago, regulations have come in effect to counter this

There is no space on the planet for the required amount of trees. Each person in the first world would have to plant a tree every day to offset their emissions.

@@pavel9652 Pretty easy for folks in the country side - we plant dozens every day.

@@OutsiderLabs How many trees your family members planted in total and is it equal to the combined age in years * 365 (for argument sake)?

@@pavel9652 "Their emissions". You're looking in the wrong place, since most emissions are released by corporations, factories, massive luxury items like private jets, and unsustainable sources of energy that release greenhouse gases.

Yep. If we ignored the economic effects that would be an incredibly good way to fight climate change. Unfortunately the economy would probably collapse if we were to do that long term, but if we didn't care about having to rebuild the economy it would absolutely work for reducing emissions.

As a local, dolphins were spotted regularly in the canals before the pandemy and the quarantine, but i get your point

@Gigachad-mc5qzpeople who want to be able to put food on their tables

​@Gigachad-mc5qzPeople who want to actually live? Live in Yemen or something if you don't want an economy.

Yes and the economic effects killed more people than the so called pandemic did thanks to our "efforts"

Load of cherry picked BS. Plant growth is affected by temperature and rainfall. Increasing CO2 won't help plants if the temperature is out of their preferred range or there is too little or too much rain. The projections for agriculture point to reductions in agricultural output greatly outweighing any regional increases.

​@@nerdyali4154so no correlation between wealth and increased CO2 ? ...which has gone from what % to what %?

​@@craigk621 Climate is changing rapidly and will make the living conditions rather bad this rather soon. So all the wealth gained the last decades will be washed away by hurricanes, extreme rainfalls, floods, drought, heatwaves ,...

@@Klimafutzi do you think the world will end in 12 years .... through CC or do you have a longer timeframe?

@@craigk621 The world will certainly not end but the time where we can live comfortably on earth. And yes my time horizon is about only some more generations, say 5 to ten generations of mankind. If we don't change things quickly, then time's up.

the guy using speedhacks be like

@@Killbayne Fr

@@Killbayne definitely not me(maybe only sometimes)

Someone noticed

lmaooo top tier comment

lmao and don't mind the endless tons of fiberglass debris and silicon waste left behind! It's for the environment! We're saving the planet!

Guess again. Microscopic phytoplankton in the oceans absorb as much carbon as all plants and trees on earth.

I sure do love vaguely gesturing at imagined hypocrisy

Great work addressing the actual issue team

Idk what planet you're from but on Earth we put solar farms in inhospitable deserts and wind farms off-shore or in fields...

oh, but thats not just it! its also: the industry, the power source, general transportation (cars specifically, even electric are terrible) general utilities and quality life (ac units lol), and much, much more!

@@sneakersneakersneakerindustry is the worst overall but celebrities definitely don’t help

​@@sneakersneakersneakerhow are electric cars terrible? 🤡

Yes and that's one of the problem's to address

My first thought is meat production.

also not a long term graph people who talk about this kinda of thing always fail to show the last 500 years or more its always recent

yep. And nothing in that graph justifies his "out of balance" comment.

@ReasonablySane very good point. You would think a guy like this would Have both the action y access marked, as well as having a large enough graph to show that the balances abnormal.

@@NEOgeek402 Except the last wide look at the graph actually shows the carbon trend over 800,000 years. And it shows how in. the last 50 years or so, we have left the trend line behind and are twice as high as the highest levels ever in those 800,000 years. Far more than your 500 year requirement. It's based on NASA studies of ice cores from the Antarctic and/or Greenland.

@@ReasonablySane Look at the very last part where the visual backs out to show that the whole of that graph (from a NASA study of ice cores from the Antarctic) covers 800,000 years. The carbon levels have travelled consistently between a high and a low point. But about 100 years ago, we reached that highest point, left it behind and are now twice as high as it has ever been in 800,000 years.

So I just have to believe you as a reliable source? Nice

@@Nicolau_Flameldo you even know how Wikipedia works?

​@@Nicolau_Flamelwikipedia cites its sources

Clearly someone failed maths class

This is CO2 in parts per million in the atmosphere.

@@jovicamateric7756 yes, but it only gives a number for the base level. It doesn't tell us what the final level is.

You can very easily look up the Keeling curve and see that it ends at 410 ppm. It’s generally been between 200 and 250 ppm for at least the last 800,000 years. We absolutely do know.

@@RayDon1 yes. I have looked it up. But that doesn't change the fact that the data are badly presented, in a way that suggests that levels have increased much further than they really have.

Depends on the context and the unit. The number 0 is not some magical base number that has the same relevance in every unit. But I agree, the point is to not display data in deceiving ways. Luckily the video features a complete graph "zoomed out" at the very end. Unfortunately, it's even more worrying.

​@TribalSMD I have trouble believing in that graph, too. I'm certain there are ways we can calculate realistic values for atmospheric CO2 800,000 years ago, but they are all still estimates at best, since, you know, people could not have tracked the real numbers back then. The sharp uptick could be the result of real data and our past estimates are way off on this graph.

Of greater concern for me is the lack of an upper bound on the axis. What is the scale of those tick marks? Is the trend over the last sixty years an increase of less than six hundredths of a percent? Definitely looks like data manipulation. Would love to see the raw myself.

@@Nekedladies Study Paleoclimatology yourself then and write a paper on how all data from a whole scientific field is to be discarded as inaccurate estimates.

@@Nekedladieswe can get very accurate data of past atmospheres in fact from the bubbles formed in ice in Antarctica which have formed millions of years ago and haven’t melted

ppm, or parts per million.

The phrase "climate alarmist" is so infuriating. Of course we're alarmed. The planet is melting.

Because it IS alarming. It SHOULD be taken that seriously

yes but the entire thing is a scam the current global temps are NOWHERE NEAR the highest levels in history not even close and its cyclical go look at ice core samples from the last million years the planet has been FAR hotter dozens of times before, and it always "resets" and starts a global ice age

Yeah it kinda makes me sad

​@@vinnycampbell2048tommorow the carrot will be shrunk due to shrinkflation

First of all English is my second language. Check out some of the earth documentary and you’ll see how the earth has changed over millions of years💪 the universe is way to big that humans can possibly control the weather😂 if the moon affects the ocean, don’t you think it affects other things? Or many other planets? We barely know anything about the earth, universe or climate. They are just trying to make it look like it’s humans fault so they can tax us more, and they have succeeded. There has been several encounters of government hiding evidence that could prove it’s all about the money. Money is a government first priority in EVERY country, without money they are weak and vulnerable. Since ww2 money was the only priority and thanks to the explosion in advanced technology they could much easier find new ways to get more money from us. It’s so obvious I don’t understand how more people can’t see it😅 My recent discovery is how they tried to hide that sport causes head trauma, because they make so much money of it and they need people to be distracted. Do you know why the colosseum was built? Yes to distract. Quick google shows: Built as a way to keep the people of Rome entertained and distracted from any ideas of uprisings. No way this is the only thing on earth made to distract😂

If you have to resort to name calling to argue your point, maybe your point isn't all that valid.

@@theplasmacollider6431 that isn’t name calling, that’s what is those posters are. Denying humans are causing climate change. Secondly please explain how the scientific evidence that humans are causing global warming not “valid”?

What policies would you attribute the slowing during the Obama era to? (If any)

@@wills242I know this is 6 months ago, but it was actually moreso due to the world economic downturn in 2008-2010. But the Paris climate agreement gave good benchmarks for countries too, and there was a bigger push for European governments to switch to renewables.

No, they just change the colors on Summer temperature graphs to make it seem like each year is getting hotter and hotter. But when you look at historical data; the oceans haven't risen, the temperatures are nominal, and CO2 levels; historically speaking, aren't rising out of control.

​@@Keys879well thats a steaming load of crap

@@eebox1 Disprove it then.

Then stop eating meat its incredible harmful to the environmental and completely unnecessary in the diet

Climate change will get so bad that eventually all pop tarts on earth will be toasted perfectly

Oh, it’s actually much worse than that. We’re not turn in the world into a toaster. We’re turning parts of the world into a toaster and believe it or not, we’re actually making certain parts of the globe significantly colder. This is why most scientist of shift away from using the phrase, global warming, and instead are using the phrase climate change. Causing it to be hotter in certain parts of the world messes with all of the weather patterns and causes other parts of the world to actually wind up being significantly colder.

​@@SonnyD223the only upside to climate change

Still not as warm as the Roman time.

Something doesn't add up.

Won't add up much in the grand scheme of things

They're more of a symptom than a cause

Arguments aside... most the wildfires in Canada eight now have resulted in arson charges. Theres ironically a graph showing forest fire destruction by acres by year... the year preceeding and year of elections have gigantic spikes. The other 2 years are about 5% of acreage destroyed. It's a pretty consistent 4 year trend since the late 90s

Wildfires are natural too. If it does cause a perturbation, it will be temporary.

@michaelenquist3728 oh yeah, makes sense. I remember learning that. Funny how when you say it a different way (focusing on the flora and vegetation), it can sound like a brand new fact haha

It doesn't, not necessarily. The foliage in Equatorial areas is always there. It doesn't die like it does in the north, which is why the graph follows the northern hemisphere seasons

Probably the sawtooth follows Northern Hemisphere seasons is more likely due to the reading being taken in Northern H. (Hawaii, I think).

@@ernestsmith3581 No, it follows Northern hemisphere seasons because the majority of the world's landmass is in the Northern hemisphere. Most of the Southern hemisphere is water.

@@tonymurphy2624 Water plants photosynthesize too, you know. Aamof, it was suggested about 3-4 years ago by Climate Change scientists that aquatic plants scavenge much more CO2 from the atmosphere than all the world's forests. I am still not convinced the sawtooth reflects N. H. photosynthesis for any other reason than because the readings are taken near the center of the N. Pacific High.

If it makes you feel better, most people against the climate change doom cult do believe it. They just either don't agree with the doom cultiness that climate change activists tend to have or they just don't believe that humanity (or the things climate change activists tend to want to target) are the main causes.

I don't believe stupid graphs made full of nonsense.

​@@Red-Check-MarkYou don't understand graphs because you didn't go to sixth grade. Got it.

​@@lazdahumani was told that Florida would be underwater by 2013 and that was SCIENCE. . .

@@Red-Check-MarkI’ve never seen someone so proud to be unable to understand simple graphs 😂

The idiots speak louder than the majority. 60-70% of Americans believe that climate change is real. If we work together, we can get the misinformation off of the internet, and off of cable.

Get off the internet then😂

But you’re not the problem right? Everyone else is the problem?😢😢😢😢 get rid of all electronics, your car, vacations. Most likely your job, grow you own food and ingredients. No?? Then stfu Buss, train or any other transport than horses is allowed either!

Find a safe space already.

I wouldn't be complaining too much about heat while living in a 🏜️ climate state. It's like saying the kitchen it's hot. 🙄

​@@GIGABACHIExcept the kitchen, while hot, doesn't melt you down for just staying in the room.

My garbage can is not melting. Perhaps you need to buy another garbage can?

@@eraldway is it normal for a minority of garbage cans to melt while they use a perfectly respectable building material?

​@@0ninja213yeah the important word is minority the majority are melting in the hotest summer on record beating last year and the year before that

Not sure about that one. It's definitely killing a lot of species.

Plant more crops! Take advantage of the carbon to make us food!

nope, wrong again. More trees will just make the problem worse. What you need to do is process Organic Waste into Worm Castings and spread those castings out over some land, every single year for your entire life. Planting trees is completely meaningless if there is no Rhizosphere beneath them to feed.

Theres no land because we're farming animals on it. Animal ag is a major source of deforestation. Joseph Poore Oxford study shows if everyone in the world were Vegan wed free up an area of land the size of Africa and still have enough food to feed 2050s population. All that freed up land could be used to regrow the forests and woodland destroyed for farming.

That's more of a band-aid fix to the underlying problem

@@abuBrachiosaurusagreed! More nuclear power stations! A hundredfold will solve the problem!

Just accept that global warming is happening

And if we wanna look at the entire history of Earth we will see that -500 celsius and 3000 celsius are pretty normal at different points in time. But humanity would prefer that we not go into these areas just because "Well, this is within the range Earth has been in before!"

@@PhoenixFires lol wtf are you talking about?

yeah and a spike that big in just 8 earth milliseconds is insane.

​@@dbneptuneexactly, which is why I wished he'd talk about that instead of a 60 year graph that functionally tells us nothing on a climatealogical scale

It's almost like this guy doesn't have any idea what he's talking about and the words of anyone who names their channel "besmart" should be taken with a grain of salt.

Actually when the leaves rot they do release loads of CO2, it's the literal product of plant material being broken down. Ask anyone who has ever measured the gas output of a compost heap.

that's what oil and coal was supposes to be, until we started harvesting and burning it

This is the idea behind carbon capture and sequestration. It's being explored and is even implemented in some prototyped machines (I want to say in Australia, but not sure). But it's expensive and there is *so very much* carbon to bury. It takes a lot of energy and resources to filter the air of carbon and securely bury it on a meaningful scale and such that it doesn't leak out. It would be especially dangerous if it leaked out in a very short period.

@@Krranski Carbon capturing is a scam

​@@astrovation3281if you say so buddy.

@@astrovation3281 It's certainly very inefficient and probably not a worthwhile solution. But to say it is a scam, I don't know enough about it. Do you have an article in mind? Title, author, and date will be sufficient, since YT doesn't allow links.

If humans are causung the rise, doesnt that mean the equilibrium would be all humans dying on earth

@@Daveeeeeeyhowyoudoing Fun fact, way more people die from the cold, each year, than the heat. Heat can be regulated by simply wetting yourself down, the cold requires specialized clothing, buildings, energy; in general it's much more difficult to deal with. That's why humans started out in Africa (where it's warm) and migrated north over time. People will adapt to the heat in the same capacity they adapted to the cold -- hot regions on Earth will have building codes that require thick insulation and reflective roofing, people can't go outside without specialized clothing, etc. Meanwhile, the cold areas of the world will mellow out, more land will be habitable in those regions, and fewer people will die from the cold. It's not exactly the "crisis" they claim it is. It's obviously going to cause migration and lifestyle changes, but is this an existential threat? No.

​@@Entropic0Yet it is not about the heat, but the water and food shortages that heat causes. Direct deaths from heat are obviously low.

@@otherhouse The amount of farm land will increase with CO2 because it allows plants to tolerate a wider range of conditions (they can occupy higher altitudes, for example). Earth isn't headed for a "dry desert" climate, it's headed for a "tropical rain-forest" climate, which means the amount of plant life is going to go up. This theory that there will be food shortages is pure conjecture and highly biased at that. The reality is that Earth has a naturally changing climate and that life on Earth has been adapting to these changes since life began. There is such an incredible amount of biodiversity on Earth that, no matter what happens, life already has the solutions on hand and will quickly equalize via natural selection.

@@Entropic0 Sure nature can adapt, but it adapts slowly asf. With the speed we are changing the earth, there is nothing than mass extinction awaiting us around the corner. Species just dont change immediately. They dont have time to adapt, they go extinct -> food shortages.

Good thing this graph has a Y-axis, then. Maybe you're a one-dimensional entity and couldn't see it?

The y-axis is shown at 0:14 to be CO2 concentration in parts per million. In the first year (1960?) the measurement was 310 ppm. Today the value is up to about 420

False

@@ReidRed1 The only thing false is your parent said it wasn't your fault when they decided to divorce.

@@ReidRed1 Keeling curve is originally observed by Charles David Keeling, and his son Ralph Keeling continues this project since the old Keeling pass away in 2005. One of my college professors was literally the young Keeling's student, who the hell are you to think you have any authority to say this is false?

That's every poor person struggling to feed their family too. Collapsing the economy to save the planet doesn't seem like a great idea when starvation is at the door.

hmmm maybe all those billions of dollars shouldn't be in some fat old demon's bank account collecting dust and actually be used to fix problems like that@@OutsiderLabs

​@@OutsiderLabs just a matter of postponing the inevitable. No way a 2-3 C hotter planet can support 8 bn people. Couldn't even support 2bn today, if they all lived the American lifestyle.

Maybe but there isnt much drama in nuclear its basically the safest energy source now days short of fussion

@@theironqueen2386 no debate in science, but a ton of people still think it's dangerous. The issue is lack of knowledge from the public.

@@analogicparadox yeah its really sad because of no longer present flaws and the power sector besmirching its name people are scared for no reason but cooperate greed

​@@analogicparadoxpls tell that my country😭😭

@@analogicparadox I'm a huge fan of nuclear energy, I don't think it works everywhere (see fukushima daiichi) but it works most places, and is safer once you look at the cost of lives / TWh

It would even out quickly if you stop the emission of fossil fuels at the same time. But we're still increasing that, despite all great plans. Short-term money is more important, instead of more time to spend it.

That would be interesting to see. I suspect it isn’t right now due to the rate of industrial expansion steadily increasing, staying just ahead. Comparing numbers of aggregate economic production… normalized in some fashion to counter the effects of inflation… might reveal something interesting. Once the world enters population decline and the third world is satisfied, then general industry may fall or become more steady. Maybe.

No, because the rising temperature kills off a lot of plants. If we plant enough trees then they can absorb a lot of the CO2, but a single tree only absorbs around 167kg of CO2, which means that (assuming that the trees would never die, because I'm to lazy to calculate that) you'd need to plant around 89 trees per year to combat the CO2 of just a single American.

It doesn't spur on plant growth its more food do people have more chuldren when surrounded by food? And they also breath oxygen at night more co2 does not equal more plants

CO2 causes a bunch of other things that kill off plants, so it won't even out.

Based.

Based.

No, instead, we can do nothing and strawman arguments until we all roast. Can't have an economy if everyone is dead.

Pretty sure we're in a cooling phase according to the Milankovic cycles

@@jpheitman1 we SHOULD be, but we're not. We have literally broken the cycles, about half way through a cold phase.

@@sbkenn1 The Milankovic cycles are a consequence of the Earth's rotation. We are not breaking them. Rather, their effect is minor compared to anthropogenic carbon emissions.

@@jpheitman1 OK. Clarification: We have broken the link between global temperature and the Milankovitch cycles.

Just planting trees won't solve the dying of plains and ocean life

​​@@ZombieJWRWhere is this evidence of anything dying? CNN? Plains become deserts due to overuse, not CO2.

The wave shows how little the carbon cycle changes the problem.

@@jamesphillips2285 what problem?

CensoredTube. RU-vid stopped being RU-vid a long time ago.

​@@josueveguilla9069 CorporateTube *You* r Videos cannot be found. Take any natural disaster and search for video, and YOU can't find posts by people. Only posts by media. I generally only use Twitter to search RU-vid now. That's not good, but at least it isn't censored.

@@paulsnowlol

what does this even mean?

@@jakob7116 Becoming educated about the physical world has an attraction via curiosity. This learning experience can be an unending attraction to your real world.

Then why do they only talk about co2?

@@yoeyyoey8937why do you even ask questions like this when you clearly don’t care? I don’t understand the motivation to be willfully ignorant.

@@Dontreallycare5 the motivation is to make people think about what’s actually going on and inspire them to acquire knowledge

@@Dontreallycare5 the truth is that CO2 fear mongering moves the goalposts of the effects of pollution. Human pollution is killing us everyday and giving us health problems, so the powers at be want us to talk about the least harmful aspect that may or may not have bad effects in the future. If we did what we had to do to get rid of the pollution we suffer from every day, then CO2 wouldn’t even be an issue to begin with.

​@yoeyyoey8937 I mostly hear about "carbon" these days, which includes methane and refrigerants. Besides, CO2 is far and away the largest contributor by sheer volume.

Well, it has. Its just that such drastic changes were typically before life was around.

@@PhoenixFires: sorry my friend; it hasn't (except maybe ephemerally during the Chicxulub Meteorite impact) - not according to the Chairman of the London Geological Society.

@@Julian_Wang-pai That's while life was around. I'm talking before life when the planetoid before Earth proper was being bombarded with asteroids and in a chaotic flux

@@PhoenixFires : oh dear - seems like our planet isn't the only thing that's been bombarded. Bye bye.

@@Julian_Wang-pai Auf wiedersehen, rando. Hope your english improves.

You don’t need to know 4.5 billion years of atmospheric data to understand that what is happening now is an anomaly. CO2 does increase and decrease but it hasn’t done so as fast as now and it is perfectly in line with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution

How did humans record CO2 pevels if they didnt even know how to use math 4.5 billion years ago... Oh wait, human are not 4.5 billion years old so you have no prrod of your claims

With the current low birth rate we are experiencing it's going to diminish but first it's going to hit us hard.

Bringing it down to preindustrial times is hard, but since most of the CO2 is emitted by the richest people, it is more a question of lifestyle in industrial countries. Overconsumption is not necessary per se, but in our system, growth isn't up for debate.

@@IlovRoflevr Even if the rate slows, the effects will linger and as long as we output more than can be reabsorbed, the temperature will still rise, just at a slower rate.

@@IlovRoflevrlow birth rates aside our energy generation capacity will still increase 2 or 3 fold in the next 50 years

ICEs?

@@jackr2287 Internal combustion engines

@@Cykz. oh! 100%!! They're cheapness and resource efficiency is something to be marveled out. Don't need anything complex... just a hunk of iron, aluminum, or steel. The push that we should electrify is iritating considering how difficult and rare (and morally black) the extraction and processing of the rare resources are.

@@jackr2287 Yup, but its Taboo to say

@@Cykz. frustratingly so.

So you didn’t watch the video? Because at the end he zoomed out and compared it with the last 800k years. It shows that the current rise definitely is significant. Sorry but why are you making such a fool of yourself by claiming that something is insignificant while a 48 seconds video shows something completely different.

@@YraxZovaldoYoure the only one making a fool of themselves. He clearly states in the video that these atmospheric carbon measurements only began being recorded in 1958 the chart at the end represents data from glacier ice cores which have its own methodology and limitations. In the video, the narrator also states that the increase in atmospheric carbon is due to humans without providing any evidence.

​@@IluvinortheIneffablethe increase due to human activity is already a proven fact, it's accepted by every scientific organisation in the world, if you disbelieve it you have to disprove it

@@IluvinortheIneffable Sure, proxy data will have some problems and limitations. That doesn't mean it's meaningless and can't be used. The person I responded to stated that it is insignificant when you zoom out. To determine if the current rise we are observing is significant or not, you need proxy data. So what you essentially are saying is that I'm making a fool of myself because I used proxy data to refute a point that relies on proxy data. Really? Do you think that David is also making a fool of himself, or is it only a problem when someone doesn't agree with you? And naturally, he doesn't provide evidence for everything. It is a RU-vid shorts video, not a research paper. You can't provide extensive explanations for every point you make in less than a minute. He discussed evidence for this in previous videos. Look, I get it if you don't like short videos, but maybe stop watching things called RU-vid shorts instead of complaining that they are doing what the name promises.

@@YraxZovaldo Then dont jump to conclusions. If you dont acknowledge the limitations in the data or extend the data to your own conclusions without sufficient evidence, you are liable to make mistakes.

For real. It would take thousands of years for our level of co2 to be priduces just from erosion and natural causes. We just speed ran the whole thing.

@@overtoke That is a ridiculous argument. Most crops in the entire world are grown in temperatures within 20 degrees of 77 degrees. The benefit may peak at 77 degrees, but it is still a benefit from 57 to 97. The average air temperature of the near surface atmosphere is 57 degrees. If it warmed 3-5 degrees, with increased CO2 it would be a huge benefit for agriculture, humanity, and the entire biosphere, according to your own argument.

​@@jimclarke8260Not really, youre taking this in a vacuum. Thats not how the world works. While plants may photosynthesize better, that's not the only thing we measure the worlds state by. Whats the ooint of optimal photosynthesis if species go excting left and right ?

@@flavorlessquark8614 How many straw men do you have lined up? Overtook made an argument, and I refuted it. You then said something like: "Well, what about species going extinct?. You ignored that!" Yes, I did, because that had nothing to do with his point or mine! We could talk about species going extinct, and you will not be able to name hardly any of them, and the few that you could possibly come up with, I could show that their was no evidence of climate change leading to their extinction, much less man-made climate change, (which is not discernable). Then you would put up another strawman argument that I would have to destroy, and so on, and so on. Eventually you will invoke the precautionary principle by saying "What if you are wrong?" Then I would have to point out that the precautionary principle is neither a principle or precautionary, because it is self-contradictory and usually results in great harm when it is used as an argument. Over the last 35 years, I have heard all the logical fallacies and strawman arguments. What I haven't heard is any scientific data that supports the man-made climate crisis narrative. That is because there is none, and why every alarmist must invoke logical fallacies and a series of strawman arguments if the engage in a climate discussion with a crisis skeptic, like me. Most alarmists do not engage, but resort to name-calling. That saves a lot of time, and they can get on with trying to control populations with their fear porn, which is the whole purpose of the narrative.

@@jimclarke8260 Yet NASA says the earth is greener than it was 20 years ago.

@@TheCompleteGuitarist Mainly due to agriculture, which is (in terms of capturing carbon) the bad kind of green.

Well the feared fossil carbon had to be part of the naturally occurring free carbon cycle in the "carbon" era. How comes the earth didn't baked back then when all that fossilised carbon still circulated in atmosphere?

You can’t just plant any tree, but you need to plant hardwood trees. Only trees that have a long life cycle actually store CO2. Trees that get cut down 5-10 years after they are planted actually release more CO2 than they store, especially softwood trees.

The issue is, that most of the carbon we are putting into the atmosphere is very long carbon storage i.e. fossil fuels that take millions of years to form. Planting trees is a short term form of carbon storage as they all will die and decompose releasing carbon back into the atmosphere.

And then what? Ice age?

​@@beanoboy62but if you make sure that you create a healthy forest, then you do have a long term storage.

@@deusexmachina5769 not comparable to crude oil, it's substantially shorter

Or a couple hundred, or a million. When you see the bigger picture it becomes a lot less scary.

We need more carbon. Yay carbon! Warm it up baby!

oh when carbon gets high enough apple wont be a problem anymore.

A 50% increase in a substence elemental for our climate is extremely important. The numbers need to be interpreted with the context of the subject.

Yes that’s why countries are trying to get to 0 CO2 output by 2050(unfortunately the things most countries are doing isn’t nearly enough to make it for that goal)

@@hydromic2518 It would have to be less than zero actually bc the CO2 wont go away on its own. Some kind of CO2 absorption technology

No we’re not

We are, but it’s important not to get too negative. You as a citizen can do almost nothing to help with this beyond minor changes and voting, so just keep your head up and live life.

Not that fucked -- we are on track to peak out at ~1.7 Celcius increase in global average, which is not as good as the plan (1.5), but still way fewer people dying compared to worst case scenarios … yeah, way fewer. there will be an excess of deaths and we could be among them.

I've come to accept this already but if you need help just look at Florida. Perfect scope to look at us as a species when you come to terms with our stupid extinction.

@@a2e5 sadly that is not true. 1.7 is only possible if we go net zero tomorrow or better a year ago. That means every country using oil gas and what not to create energy, like idk more that 60% of the energy production must stop or quasi stop and produce only clean energy with no co2 emission and all the co2 emissions must be offset. That's impossible literally. How can you get Saudi USA Russia India to drop everything and go co2 net zero? It's impossible. With the current pledges we are stearing at 2.6°C or something. With the "promised" changes its around 2.0. Imo this scenarios are way to optimistic. We are in for a wonderful ride the next 100 years because a lot are going to change. The ball is rolling and it's to late to get 1.5 or 1.8 or 2.0. The chain reaction has started, insects, wildlife are dieing, droughts and natural disasters happen like every day and it's only the beginning.

I prefer numbers. Visual representations can be manipulated. Just ask any 1st year marketing student.

I'm a geologist and it has happened all befor for millions of years and global warming is not man made. It's just the cycle we are in. If you want to be stupid and believe wealthy people that have a vested financial gain to be had then feel free to remain uneducated in this field. Thats of course if you are open to being educated instead of manipulated.

​@@bobmalooga7249we are still leaving the ice age so the temperatures are naturally gonna go up and the poles are gonna melt. It's expected

End of ice age=good. Not going to kill us.

@@LieutenantPhys Bro what, the ice age stopped at least 10'000 years ago. This has nothing to do with the ice age.