I recently finished reading a book about Doggerland which is now the north sea between the UK and Europe. It hasn't always been sea. For long periods it was dry and inhabited by large animals, humans and hominids such as Neanderthals. Over the last half a million years the sea has advanced and retreated about 5 times over the area as temperature rose and fell and the ice sheets melted and then refroze. Looking at the charts in the book it seems clear that a new ice will arrive as sure as night follows day. This subject is not controversial. Doggerland has been studied for quite a few years now by Dutch and British scientists. You can look it up.
So...climate change is essentially cyclic and natural, and no matter what we do it is going to happen...so instead of trying to prevent it so much, why don't we focus on adapting to it?
Climate change has natural cycles, but human activities are speeding it up. We need to both prevent further damage and adapt to changes. Doing both gives us a better chance for a stable future.
@@InsaneCuriosity Hew Mannity emits 29 gigatons annually, nature emits 750 gigatons annually - we could stop emitting today and yet 750 gigatons would continue to enter the atmosphere annually we're not even a drop in the ocean
You do understand that the rates of CO2 fluctuations back then were at which organisms were able to adapt and evolve to climate change; right? 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 is irrelevant to bring up temps and CO2 levels millions of years ago for understanding current conditions, when solar irradiance was less, when the atmosphere was fundamentally differently constituted, when continents were in different places, and when the array of flora and fauna was fundamentally different and incompatible with today.
@@hotrodfeguy Of course we can adapt and it will an expensive venture, as the ecosystems, agricultural zones, and feeding grounds we depend on are not adaptable enough to the current climate change trend. Good thing is Climate models have given us a better understanding of the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere plus global patterns in the ocean, atmosphere, and records of the types of weather that occurred under similar patterns in the past, and they have reduced the uncertainty of climate change impacts, which aids in adaptation. You do know the there is a very narrow range of climates where fisheries, agriculture, and other systems of the human infrastructure can be expected to work well, and it will get even more narrow with the climate regimes we are creating. Brings to mind that fisheries are already collapsing all around the world and its not just due to overfishing and pollution, it’s also due to the RATE of increase of CO2, which is causing acidification, shifting ocean currents, and warming waters that are altering the structure of ecosystems that are preventing the recovery of fish stocks. It’s not the end of the world, but it is going to be an expensive venture to adapt to the changing distribution of fish stocks.
CO2 reached 10x higher in the Cambrian but that was a time when the sun was significantly weaker. It wouldn't cause the extraordinary warming that we'd experience with today's more evolved sun. Nobody in science is warning of the "end of the world" with global warming. They're warning of massive damage to human infrastructure, especially along coastlines as sea levels rise to flood stage. They're warning of intensifying hurricanes, expanding wildfire seasons, increasing drought and extreme precipitation events, and skyrocketing insurance costs as damage accrues. Not to mention lives put at risk. The earth will survive everything we do. It's people and animals that will suffer.
@@Poppin-Seeds I was chatting with some 40+ year old friends a few weeks ago and brought up the Earth's precession and changing orbit over time. Not one of them had even heard about it. Then when I asked about the pole flip all I got was an indignant, "That will never happen." When I told them it had happened many times they quickly changed the subject, lol.
Ending no those are long gone, i personaly was afraid, then in these video something, then another something else, patron emerge and then i realize is all the same, conflicting data, all videos said the same thing, and the most important, not a single video, document or even hipotesis against it, and finaly when in two videos show the same picture that methane come from you guess industrial areas, o no methane is coming from methane area and yes methane come from wet lands and marshlands and they show like is something new. Also after diiging i find that ice caps not onyl has not deminish in a couple of years, also, i love in not a single video offer solution when we have the tecknology to extract methane from the soil
Long enough that we as humans have really no idea of what to expect next, other than the powers that be, will use it against us! We are being taxed to EXIST, AXE the TAX!
@aaronrodgers9202 Just got to be like that? if you cant say something nice, dont say it all! A real intellect you are with your less then relevant comment! Bash away, lets see what ya got besides insults.
@@iamstewpead Well I'll have a go without insults. When the most powerful physical forcings at the time are cyclic, then the climate's response is cyclic. When there's a one time forcing, the climate change happens once. Between 1800 and today, humans have increased the CO2 in Earth's atmosphere by about 49%., which is not controversial in science. There's isotope evidence, and the increase closely matches the fossil fuels consumed during that time, minus absorption by the sea. It was a one time forcing. So the climate change that resulted only happened once. It wasn't cyclic. The last few glacial periods in the Pleistocene were synchronous with the 105,000 year precession cycle. They're in a cooling phase right now yet we are not in a global cooling trend due anthropogenic warming; the current rapid increase in CO2 is manmade. Keep in mind that the greatest natural forcings on the climate are the Milankovitch Cycles and changes in solar irradiance, which on their own are in a cooling phase, but instead we see global warming. The Milankovitch cycles are much weaker than the current manmade enhanced greenhouse effect, which is why the current warming is twenty times faster than the natural warming that ended the last glacial period.
Many people seem to think we are not currently in an Ice Age. I'm glad to see, this video states we are currently in an Ice Age. We will be until there is no Ice at the poles.
Thank you for clarifying that we’re in an Ice Age, many people in fact, do not realize that we are in an Ice Age but this video states that we are in an ice age if you weren’t aware…
"There are huge non climate effects of carbon dioxide which are overwhelmingly favorable which are not taken into account. To me that's the main issue that the earth is actually growing greener. This has been actually measured from satellites the whole earth is growing greener as a result of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So it's increasing agricultural yields, it's increasing the forests, it's increasing all kinds of growth in the biological world and that's more important and more certain than the effects on climate." ~Freeman Dyson, Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey.
Our planet is greening as predicted by mainstream climate science and most of the current global greening is due to China’s and India’s mega tree planting programs plus agriculture, 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. Increased CO2 causes increased cellulose production hence more tonnage of only certain crops, but a decrease in nutrional value.
Freeman Dyson knew very little about climate science. That wasn't his field. Here's the actual data and the mythology about "greening." 1. 40% of our emissions each year are never absorbed by plants. They're simply left to accumulate in the atmosphere, for decades, for centuries. What do we do about THOSE emissions? 2. NASA's original satellite survey in the 1990s indeed showed a greening up of the earth, which they assumed must be from CO2. A follow-up survey in 2019 revealed a far different story: mass plantings of billions of trees by India and China and intense new agricultural practices, opening up new fields and keeping them green constantly. The Sahel, just underneath the Sahara has also benefited from a massive planting program called the Great Green Wall, which crosses Africa, with millions of new shrubs and plants, in an effort to hold back the expansion of the Sahara. Europe has also undertaken new reforestation programs, as have other parts of the world. The climate denier blogosphere conveniently never mentions NASA's second survey. See HUMAN ACTIVITY IN CHINA AND INDIA DOMINATES THE GREENING OF THE EARTH at the NASA website. 3. The data reveal that CO2 fertilization helps WEEDS grow better than staple farm crops. The warming that accompanies rising CO2, actually hurts many farm crops. Photosynthesis itself breaks down at 104 degrees, and many seeds won't even germinate. 4. While fossil fuel industry propaganda diverts your attention with all that "greenery," it leaves out the fact that global warming is raising sea levels to flood stage; with high tide flooding already increasing by 400% and 1100% respectively across the American south and Gulf coasts respectively. In January, Maine suffered a record high tide that caused $100 million in damages. Queens, NY is flooding on a regular basis now, which is why New York has a new $50 billion flood mitigation project in the works. So does Louisiana, which has already lost over 8800 acres in its Lower Breton Sound area to permanent inundation. Miami Beach has raised 105 miles by two feet. Odisha Stte in India reports that it has lost not less than 16 coastal villages to permanent flooding. 5. Crop-decimating heatwaves have TRIPLED since the 1960s, according to the EPA. Droughts are also increasing, as is drought itensity and duration. See SECERITY OF DROUGHT AND HEATWAVE CROP LOSSES TRIPLED ACROSS EUROPE IN THE LAST FIFTY YEARS, in Environmental Research Letters. See also CLIMATE CHANGE CUT GLOBAL FARM PRODUCTIVITY 21% SINCE 1960, Science Daily, April 1, 2021. 6. Fish-killing marine heatwaves have increased 20-fold, according to the University of Bern. 7. Extreme precipitation events, resulting in mass flooding, have increased worldwide, according to the EPA. 8, Wildfire seasons have expanded by over a month, according to the U.S. Forest Service. 9. According to a NOAA study, Atlantic hurricane intensity has increased 8% per decade for the last four decades. That's because warming water and air produce stronger winds, more rain, and higher storm surges. 10. According to the UN, the number of major environmental disasters from 2000-2020 nearly doubled over the previous 20 years.
The extra greening is not from increasing yields, but increasing area planted. Freeman Dyson is an expert on theoretical physics, not botany or climate science. Your comments might have more credibility if you quote an actual expert in these topics.
NASA figures show the world is 15% greener than 20 years ago. Hardly surprising when commercial greenhouse farmers use over 1000 ppm of CO2. How can and increase in CO2 be bad when it benefits all plants and animal life while making the earth wetter and greener?
@@millenials_best there are obscure corners of the internet talking about it, but that's not enough. I can't assume anything other than it's on purpose
It would be easy to make an argument proposing that as the poles are currently mostly ice covered we are still technically in an ice age. This is because prior to about 45 million years ago the poles had been ice free for at least 200million years I beleive although I stand to be corrected. The information I sought was sketchy for some reason like it might be being withheld. I wonder why? Might it be because nobody is supposed to know the world is warming on a natural cycle. Would this be because big bucks can be made fleecing us all with the man-made global warming myth?
the last time it was that warm (in any kind of permanent way) was 3,000,000 years ago. There were temperate woodlands in north eastern Greenland. If that's what the north was like, what kind of inferno was the equator region?
If we know Northern Greenland was ice-free then, can we not ascertain how high the temperature was on the equator. Surely the simple fact that this event occurred at all three million years before industrialization points to the existence of underlying trends of which we have little understanding does it not?
I've been waiting over 50 years for the sea level to rise so i can buy cheap ocean front property. But the rich people keep buying it and the price keeps going up! If the rich people aren't buying global warming why should we?
Ben Davidson explains it all clearly and in great detail backed by regular data updates from many other reliable sources, on his SuspiciousObservers youtube channel. His playlist documentaries are the best place to start, and he has a new one in the works now which should be epic.
In great detail, for sure. Clearly? Not really. His vids are too long and clickbaity, and jumps to conclusions. Good he's getting info out, but he's not for everyone.
@@aaronh1372The disaster cycle series Ben Davidson has on his channel is very sobering. If you don't want to know what bad stuff is coming, think about it before watching. Otherwise, I have my eyes wide open. I am a subscriber of his.
I believe there was a LOT more volcano activity at that time,12,000 years ago. when I say a lot more think of thousands of times more volcano activity than we have today. It would make our volcanoes look like pip squeaks in comparison. Those natural changes aren't happening right now, so we should NOT be warming. We should be staying within the ups and downs we've seen for the last 10,000 years. We are not. We are now above all the previous high average temperatures of the last 10,000 years. The temperature seems to be rising still, with no sign of leveling out, or dropping. So draw your own conclusions from that information.
When I was in elementary school I was ver into dinosaurs. Science was sounding the alarm about the coming ice age . We were supposed to have mile high glacier in Vermont and northern New York by now . Canada should have been history
Very few Elementary school teachers have a background in science or mathematics. But sure take their word for it over experts who have studied this their whole working lives.
No consensus of mainstream scientists ever said we were headed for an imminient new Ice Age. The vast majority of scientists writing in the science journals of the days were warning about global WARMING, not an Ice Age. See MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society and put this internet mythology to bed once and for all.
@@travisrhodes1477 No, they weren't, and you should question your own memory, because no one but crackpots and outliers and sensationalist media were saying we were headed for an imminent Ice Age back then.
Yes, and when I visited the active volcano in Costa Rica, the signs said it was putting out 10 megatons per day. The only man made source bigger is the 16 megatons per day from 8 billion people breathing!
Last Summer was relatively cool and I think we owe that to the Tonga Eruption two years ago which, IMHO, was the closest to a modern day Super Volcano we have ever witnessed.
How did the end of large scale glaciation render areas uninhabitable? Surely more land mass became inhabitable? Most of northern Europe was under ice, that could be lived on after the glaciation ended.
That was pure tripe. Not only did glaciers cover much of the Northern Hemisphere, but deserts and semi deserts covered a much larger area than they do today and forests were minuscule in comparison.
Not much convinced reg. termination of Ice Age. Since 12800 years or so we are living in Interglacial Period. Those warmer periods used to end with abrupt rise of temperatures for a dozen or so years and then with total swing to sub zero temperatures for most of the year and regular Ice Age. In view of above I would rather learn how to build igloo.
For about the last 10,000 years the average temperature of the planet has gone up and down within a range. At the beginning of this century we moved up farther than the average has risen in any of the previous high periods in the last 10,000 years. The average high temperature is still rising and shows no signs of dropping. So it looks like we've moved out of an inter-glacial period and into a more permanent warm period. The last time Earth was in that kind of warm period was 3,000,000 years ago. There were camels, deer, and a whole host of temperate woodland plants and animals living in north eastern Greenland. That's very far north for temperate temperatures. I can't imagine what the equator would have been like back then.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 The Eemian ended when temperatures are thought to have dropped about 8 degrees over the period of 1-2 thousand years, but temperature proxies don't have the resolution of measuring temperatures with thermometers in real time.
@@whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Milankovitch Cycles work to increase or decrease solar insolation on timescales of tens of thousands of years, not 1-2 thousand years. Orbital eccentricity, for example, is on a timescale of 100,000 years. For the last several million years, Milankovitch Cycles have been the pacer for glacials. That makes the Eemian unusual, not the norm.
Plants lose water each time they open their pores to gather CO². When the levels get high enough the pores will stay closed longer and the plant will retain enough water to live in a desert. The earth will turn into a thick lush forest.
@@BufordTGleason That might not kill you, but it will definitely make you unwell. If small amounts of poison in foods can kill, and it does, small amounts of gasses in the atmosphere can upset a delicate balance. Remember, it isn't the overall amount that's so important as the change in the balance of gasses.
@@jimthain8777 The Earths climate isn't a delicate balance, CO2 has been as high at 3000 ppm and runaway green house effect did not happen, no reason to think that increasing CO2 to even 1000 ppm would have any significant impact on Earths climate.
Thank you for clarifying we’re in an Ice Age This video clearly states that many of us do not believe we are in an ice age. .. but in fact, we are… in an Ice age.
We are currently in the'' Pleistocene ice age'' which has been going for about 2.5 million years. the last glaciation finished about 18,000 years ago and the next one is due in the next 2,000 years . Since the last ice sheet termination there have been distinct warm periods like the Holocene 8,000 years ago which was the hottest about 5-8c hotter than today, The Roman, and Medieval warm periods all hotter than today's in fact we are in the coldest warm period for 18,000 years. This film is a bit misleading , Methane in the air is way too small to measure accurately and like co2 only absorbs heat in direct sunlight and releases it in the dark. Water vapour is the only and most important greenhouse gas of any quantity to absorb and retain heat , but no one mentions it because it doesn't fit with the man made global warming narrative of blaming co2. He said all the co2 comes from burning fossil fuels , no it does not , 97% of co2 comes from earth's natural sources , less than 3% comes from human activity, and they never tell you that co2 is a nutrient for all plant life , and at 400ppm the level is dangerously low . Fossil fuels is a misleading terminology , oil, coal and gas are Hydrocarbons . Climate change is a given.
Water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas. The effect of methane and CO2 are almost negligible. Also, it’s not true that most of the atmospheric CO2 comes from burning of fossil fuel. In fact, it accounts for only 3% of CO2 in the atmosphere. Most of it comes from the ocean.
Brings to mind a common lie told by climate change “skeptics” is scientists ignore the water vapour in their analysis. By huge measure water vapour is the most powerful greenhouse gas of all, causes variations in atmospheric temperature variations, but water vapour is a feedback, not a primary forcing, to a very good first approximation, because it rains out. The arithmetic sign of that feedback is positive, which makes it an amplifier. Natural CO2 sources account for the majority of CO2 released into the atmosphere. Oceans provide the greatest annual amount of CO2 of any natural or anthropogenic source, but human activities are the primary cause of the increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere from burning oil, coal and gas, as well as deforestation. Oceans absorb 30% to 40% of the added CO2 They're absorbing CO2 because the partial pressure is higher in the air than in the water.
CO2-driven warming accelerates evaporation, which fills the atmosphere with additional water vapor, which then works with CO2 in a synergistic feedback loop to warm the planet further. No matter how powerful a greenhouse gas water vapor is, though, it isn't the control knob of the climate. CO2 is. That's because, as RPS stated, water vapor rains out, on average every 8 days, leaving huge holes in the atmosphere. CO2 molecules, by contrast, remain in circulation for centuries. The ocean is ABSORBING CO2 now, not emitting it. Before the Industrial Revolution, the ocean was a net emitter of CO2.
Funny how the science illiterates think they refute you simply by repeating what some other science illiterates write. In reality, there is no such thing as back radiation warming when a gas can freely convect. This is shown by math and proven by experiment - already known for decades.
@@rps1689 water vapour is the primary source of ghouse forcing - 'raining out' means absolutely nothing as the evaporation rate is almost identical to the 'raining out' rate! 95% of forcing is from water vapour which constitutes some 4% of the atmosphere and water also has the a very high specific heat index (1864) - seaohtwo makes up merely 0.04% of the atmospere and metha a mere 0.00017% nature emits 750 gigatons annually, hew mannity emits 29 gigatons annually - we could stop the 29 today and the atmosphere would continue to see a rise of 750 *annually* we're not even a drop in the ocen\an
@@andyman8630 If only we could demonstrate water vapour feedback (to the forcing by noncondensing GHGs) with a negative sign. We’d be famous and rich. Water vapour is a feedback; it amplifies the greenhouse effect.
People are always quick to discount volcanism as a source of change despite the fact that volcanism has been on the increase for many years however this video talks about "Ice Age Termination Event" and previous ones have happened without mankind's presence. 5 major Ice Ages but apparently mankind is responsible for the current one. 71% of the Earth's surface is covered by water, we know more about the nearside surface of the Moon than we know about the ocean floor of Earth in many areas. If we have increased volcanism on land then I think its fairly sensible to assume that there is increased volcanism at sea. We know all of our land based volcanoes and we can and do monitor their output. We do not know the position and real time output of every geothermal vent in the oceans. If 71% of the Earths volcanism is unmapped and and unmonitored then it is a little idiotic to dismiss volcanism as the possible source of methane and pin all the blame on mankind if "Ice Age Termination Event" have happened naturally before without any input from mankind. The El Nino/La Nina phenomena has geothermal vents beneath the section of water that heats during El Nino and cools during La Nina, is this not just changes in heat output from the geothermal vents? If you need to warm a large body of water is consistent sunshine and warm air blowing across the waters surface going to raise the temperature as quickly as having some geothermal vents suddenly outputting a larger volume of super heated water or even the same volume but at a higher temperature? During a La Nina it's not like the Sun shines less or with lower intensity on the water and it's not like the air above the water is suddenly dramatically cooler resulting in the localized ocean water cooling. If we are at the tail end of an Ice Age then why is anybody NOT expecting the temperature to rise?......or to ask it the other way......why in the World would anybody be expecting the temperatures to remain constant? All these natural cycles on Earth but everybody expects them to all neatly align so that we can have consistency. Variability is normal, consistency is abnormal, science tells us the Earth has at various times been hotter, colder, wetter & drier than it is today.
According to the Global Volcanism Program, there is no increase in volcanic activity. Through isotopic analysis of the CO2 molecules themselves, we can differentiate between how much volcanic CO2 is in the air and how much from combusted fossil fuels. CO2 from combusted fossil fuels is increasing while volcanic CO2 is not. Human activity spews about 100 times more CO2 into the atmosphere each year than all of earth's volcanoes combined, including the underwater ones, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. About five percent of the atmosphere's methane has come from submarine volcanoes, according to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Previous cool and warm periods, including termination events, were ushered in and out by Milankovitch Cycles, recurrent changes in earth's orbit, axial tilt and precession, which alter how much solar insolation is absorbed in the northern hemisphere. Centuries-long vulcanism from the break-up or collision of continents was also responsible for many long-term warm-ups. Calculating by Milankovitch Cycles, we're supposed to be COOLING now, not warming. We're actually warming over ten times faster than we're supposed to be cooling, which is a completely unnatural rate when emerging from an Ice Age.
The thing is that when these scientists do all these studies they don’t take in to account what other climate science is saying or other scientific research like solar energy that affects the climate and so many others things that affect the climate like how all the trees and plants use co2 as food , and put out oxygen that we need to live . Co2 isn’t the problem that’s causing our climate change . Our planet and the sun have cycles 6000 years 12,000years 26,000 years and so on , if you look back at the geological history they have you will see that massive changes happening every 6000 years . The planet is in an active geomagnetic excursion the north pole moves to the south and the south pole is moving up to the north this significantly weak our magnetosphere that protect us from the harmful particles that are coming off of the sun, not only that, but there are scientists that believe the sun has a micro nova . There are nova level isotopes that can be found on earth and the moon. The only place that those isotopes could’ve came from was the sun , if they came from any further away. The half-life of those isotopes wouldn’t have made it here there’s so many things that they are not telling us About this planet, we are living on like when those poles snap back to where they are supposed to be. There’s some major extinction level events that will happen. Don’t believe me you just head over to suspicious observers on RU-vid Ben Davidson has compiled all of the relevant scientific data to prove his theory yeah I know there’s a few people calling bullshit on this, but it makes a lot more sense to me than what mainstream science is trying to tell us about our climate and Ben is using their science mainstream science he’s not making any of this stuff up. This is all stuff that is used in mainstream science. They just don’t put it together the way Ben Davidson has using common sense and logic because they have all the evidence that is needed to prove this planet is at the end of a cycle and the historical geological records show it , not just that but look at what all of the billionaires are having built an no it’s not because of the wars they started building bunkers any how Suspicious observers check it out
Exactly! Finally a video that wasn't pointing fingers at particular political agendas, or ideologies. People act as if only certain countries, governments, or political parties are solely responsible for climate change, and won't even consider the possibilities that there are other causes, and therefore solutions to an event that has happened before and will happen again. Rather than try to find a solution, they are hell bent on finding a villain. We can find solutions to help mitigate to a certain degree the severity of climate change, and we can find common ground to lessen the effects of global warming on our lives and economical viability, and still grow as a society if we remove the personal agendas, set aside our personal biases and focus on the things that are important. Right now have people denying global warming and refuse to even take simple steps to stop it, and then we have those that want to return to the Dark Ages and end society as we know it. There is a middle ground and we can find it if we are honest about it to each other and more importantly, to ourselves. As you said, "actually saying it as it is." Who am I kidding? We're fucked. People are stupid.
The climate is changing, just like not everything is caused by some crazy government conspiracy theory...Ice cores show several ice ages in the last 500,000 years. They show we are probably in a short warming period of up to 11,000 years. We are in the Quaternary ice age. Humans are not helping, but we can't stop it. Increased co2 promotes plant growth. Warmer means more food.
Interesting speculation, but looking at the graphs of glaciation and warming cycles, it looks like timing wise we are closer to going back into glaciation than to an ice age termination event.
That would be correct if it were not for all the greenhouse gases humans have pumped into the air. Now nature is kicking in, so this will not be a routine cycle.
Except that there are "super interglacial" periods that correlate to extremely low eccentricity - which we currently have. They can last much longer than the typical interglacial - up to 50,000 years.
My opinion is that nobody knows yet. The idea that policy doesn't need to consider whether anyone knows how to achieve it is a marker of ideological contamination.
Major Icelandic volcanic eruptions, such as those from Hekla and Lakikagar, have had significant climatic and agricultural impacts, leading to global cooling, sunlight blockage, and famines.
How do you literally say that HALF the methane emissions are from natural processes and then ask "uhhhh where ya think its comin from folks?" LIKE DID YOU NOT JUST TELL US!!??
The Finns are now looking at their peatbogs to get a more accurate picture ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-m7d1hCf_q2U.html , the findings will probably apply to other regions. Some bogs emit methane some don't. Methane persists in the atmosphere as a forcing gas for 30 years apparently. Some surveys do not include this time period. This is weird?
The discussion around climate change, ice ages, and volcanic activity is refreshing, yet we must move beyond the oversimplified narrative that man-made CO2 is the primary driver. While CO2 is a factor, data shows it is neither at dangerous levels nor the sole determinant of temperature fluctuations. Geological origins of phenomena like El Niño and La Niña are often overlooked, with media typically attributing them solely to atmospheric conditions. Periodic volcanic heat pulses, occurring roughly every 100,000 years, significantly contribute to glacial melting and influence ice ages. For example, the Thwaites Glacier, or Doomsday Glacier, exhibits high heat flow due to geological activity. Research from the University of Texas reveals this heat flow is three times the normal rate, underscoring the impact of geological factors. Volcanic eruptions play a crucial role in climate dynamics. The 1963 Agung Eruption caused the driest year on record in Hong Kong, the 1982 El Chichón Eruption led to global temperature declines, and the 1991 Pinatubo and Hudson Eruptions resulted in significant global cooling. The 2008 Chaitén Eruption triggered the worst rainstorm in Hong Kong's history, while the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull Eruption caused major flooding in Central Europe. The 2022 Tonga Eruption led to record rainfall and flooding in Australia and New Zealand. Mount Erebus, a continuously erupting volcano, illustrates how volcanic activity can sustain long-term climatic impacts. The high surface temperatures in West Antarctica, compared to East Antarctica, are due to heat flow from numerous faults and volcanoes. To fully grasp climate change, we must consider these comprehensive geological and volcanic factors beyond the simplistic CO2 narrative. Orth Dorito on mid-ocean geothermal flux and global climate. James Cus on plate climatology theory. Dr. Wiis Yim on geothermal impacts of volcanoes and oceanic phenomena. Brian Cat on submarine volcanoes and climate change. Additionally, insights from Willie Soon, Will Harper, and Tom Nelson's podcasts offer data often overlooked by mainstream media. To fully grasp climate change, rely on comprehensive, scientifically backed information beyond media narratives.
Why oh why do they always blame the farmers? They raise animals which have always roamed the earth. Custer described herds of bison on the plains that went from horizon to horizon. I bet they emitted some gas, ripped up some ground making dust baths and more than a few drowned in the springtime floods which probably caused soil erosion. Plants thrive on the gasses animals emit using them to grow and converting them to oxygen. Things always balanced out before so why not now? The only big change that is obvious to me are the massive trails countless planes leave across the earths sky. I wonder if that cloud cover they make might have something to do with the change in numbers. Maybe it blocks the greenhouse gasses from leaving. I wonder if the carbon taxes will cover the cost of the geo-engineering we witness nearly every day. But of course it will- the tax payers pay for the geo-engineering but who will collect the carbon taxes. I hear Al Gore has his fat finger in that pie. I think the cause for global warming or climate change, whatever they call it can be found by following the money$$$$
The present Ice Age started 30 million years ago, many million of years before much present species existed. Humans are determined to return climate to 30-52 million years ago. It's what is known as an "interesting" uncontrolled experiment being done. I wish I could live a few hundred years or be the final human, whichever comes first, to watch it unfold and be fascinated.
"... ice-age termination event ..." Does that mean the end of an ice age? Or the termination of a period within an ice age? All I know is that this planet swings from hot to cold and vice versa over ages; and (I believe) we are technically within an ice age right now.
listen closely to what he says, it is a theory, a best guess that no one else can answer. fear tactics like this well made video that took time with computer graphics and a soothing voice as the narrative voice. this is just entertaining at the most, don't believe anything like this video, these are meant to see how many gullible people are out there by the comments posted, I don't claim to be intelligent, any idiot can eventually figure it out.
Because on average methane molecules break down (oxidize) to CO2 and water in the atmosphere in just 12 years, the GTP-100 for methane is 4, meaning that after 100 years have gone by, a ton of methane emitted today will “only” be warming the Earth 4 times as much as a ton of CO2 emitted today.
Good info and simply explained. Have you given thought to ECD? Charles Hapgood, along with Albert Einstein proposed that the earths crust undergoes violent shifts every 40 000 yrs or so?
Man i had to listen to this all the way through the 70s, back when we only had twelve years left again, and we had to switch from paper bags to plastic at the grocery store ,because we were cutting down all the trees and were going to run out of oxygen,and now plastic bags are the Scourge of the planet now.
Nice video presentation. Seems to present a nice overview of what we know and don't know about our planet's climate cycles. Given the existential risks of climate change, especially the effects global warming, it would be great if all humans could get on the same page with their basic understanding of the processes involved. Observing our species on social media, I expect that we will argue over the data, the proportions of the various contributors, the lessons of the historical record, the relative size of human vs nature caused impacts, the costs of mitigation technologies, the urgency of collective & personal action, and who is the smarter, more informed & politically savvy nerd. Like folks gathered in the bar on the Titanic, we'll probably argue about everything but not actually do anything that would be sufficiently effectual.
If you are going to espouse the theory that the mega-fauna of, say, The Americas disappeared, partially due to climate change as we left the most recent glacial period and entered the present interglacial period, then to make this theory at least plausible, you have to present some explanation of why this same mega-fauna survived between 30 and 50 similar climate change events, leaving a glacial period and the reverse (entering a glacial period) over the 2.6m years of the present ice age. Until I hear a plausible theory, I will continue to believe that man was totally responsible. Incidentally, coincidentally (if you like) the same extinctions happened in Australia, Europe and New Zealand and a bunch of other locations with the introduction of man into the area in question. The one in New Zealand happened some 700 years ago so climate change was not a candidate to explain the demise of New Zealand's mega-fauna.
Methane and CO2 levels have jumped off the scale in the last 5 years. A good bit of it might be coming from underground permafrost being devoured by microbes. The biotic activity produces heat that is kept in by the insulating effect of the ground overhead. This produces a feedback the more heat you have The more bioativity. And because of the insulating property, it is allowed to continue while the ground above freezes. The good news is that methane and CO2 produce aerosols they may end up shading the Earth and producing another glacial period.
The Earth under our feet is heating up faster than our atmosphere. Oil is a coolant and we've only been draining it for 100yrs or so. That's the turning point, we've never really accepted the Earth as an equal, let alone a necessity for our mutual existence We've just usurped it and all it's inhabitants by choosing Wealth over Life. Look at the Volcanic and Seismic activity today. The Earth is Cooking and we will just be crispy garnish🤔🤗🙃
The current warming has thwawed the permafrost around the world , this will release large amounts gasses in the atmosphere. There is also frozen methane in the ocean that can be released with climate change. Methane is more powerful but not as long lasting co2.
Because on average methane molecules break down (oxidize) to CO2 and water in the atmosphere in just 12 years, the GTP-100 for methane is 4, meaning that after 100 years have gone by, a ton of methane emitted today will “only” be warming the Earth 4 times as much as a ton of CO2 emitted today." There's 1200 gigatons of pressurized methane in the world's largest ocean shelf - the East Siberian Arctic Shelf - that's the real concern. Read Natalia Shakhova for details.
Try making an exact scale model of the earth the size of a bowling ball, accurately depicting the tallest mountains and deepest ocean trenches. Put in the tallest land made structures and deepest wells. The result would be the smoothest bowling ball ever made by man. Why do I point this out? Because humans have literally only scratched the surface of the earth. Only hubris would lead someone to think that humans have any say as to what Mother Nature decides.
Not a bad base model. Do you have more advanced information on what triggered cyclical disaster signatures? 3k 6k 9k 12k? Its a reset of stage counting. Over and over like a cosmic waltz fulling up more and more with angry kicking dancers. . That's how I see it.
Most CO2 is released from the oceans. Fossil fuels produce much less. And, if methane is increasing, why has the average temperature of the earth remained stable since 2004?
Human activities add a lot more CO2 to the atmosphere. Methane levels have been rising, but temperature changes can be influenced by many factors, and short-term stability doesn’t mean there isn’t a long-term trend. Thanks for watching!
The global warming rate since 2010 has accelerated to 0.32°C per decade, 78% faster than the 0.18°C per decade rate in 1970-2010. Temperature has not remained stable.
The oceans emitted more net CO2 before the Industrial Revolution. Today they're absorbing more net CO2 than they're emitting. When that process stops is when we'll really be in trouble.
When natural gas is burned, it turns into carbon dioxide and water. A methane boom can occur if there's a large release of methane during extraction or if leaks happen. Thanks for watching!
Mass methane releases are coming from the melting perma frost. Why no mention of this in the video, I have no idea other then a continued push against human activities narritive. The various cycles explained in your video are correct. With one exception of the causation of the Magnetic Excursion. This in turn is causing the rapid melting of glaciers and the release of methane from the permafrost. This Magnetic Excursion also has the effect of shutting down the AMOC, thus causing fierce imbalanced weather conditions. Plase revise your video to reflect this information.
Permafrost shouldn't be melting. It hasn't melted for the last 10,000 years in spite of the fact we've been in an inter-glacial period. So why is it suddenly melting now? Maybe because we have made it warmer, and it is now warm enough to melt even the permafrost?
Humans have little to nothing to do with climate change. Climate change is obvious and is cycling like everything else. Mostly to do the Sun, space weather and currently on Earth... Out waking mag fields. Pollution and environmental catastrophes, yes. Climate no.
@@LeastBeastHowdydoodle I watched the video. He glossed over permafrost, while saying they can't explain the sudden rise in methane. I suspect methane is rising from a number of sources, some man made, and some natural. None of it is good news.
@@jimthain8777 Huge areas of permafrost melted at the end of the Pleistocene and most of the permafrost currently melting is about 7,500 years old after refreezing at the end of the Holocene Climate Optimum. The taiga region, the largest ecosystem on the planet if I recall correctly, is covered with pingos. Those pingos show the area where permafrost melted at the end of the Pleistocene.
We are still in the Pleistocene Ice Age. That’s why we still have ice sheets around the world and we are in a warm spot called an interglacial, also known as the Holocene Epoch. Interglacials are typically 10 to 15 thousand years long and we are around 12 thousand years into this interglacial. When the cold returns it will be harsh and all life will suffer. Worship the warmth and fear the cold. The only climate change you need to fear is when it turns cold. Humanity and life in general has always thrived during warm periods for obvious reasons. Plants love the warmth and lots of plant food also know as CO2. This video has little to do with facts and more to do with scaring you into believing CO2 and warmth are bad for your future. Methane always breaks down into CO2 and H20 when it enters the atmosphere. Both are essential for life.
There is no reason to expect the forcings of solar irradiance and Milankovitch cyclles, which are in a cooling phase, can overcome anthropogenic green house gases. The last glaciation of the Pleistocene will be the last until CO2 goes back down, if ever.
@@rps1689 We are in a cooling phase. The Holocene optimum ended 5000 to 6000 years ago and the cooling trend has been relentless. Cooling trends are always punctured with warm spikes that last a few hundred years before the cooling trend resumes. Examples of warm periods include the Minoan, Roman, Medieval and now the modern warm period which started approximately 330 ya after the Maunder Minimum during the peak of the Little Ice Age. This warming started at least 150 years before human CO2 emission’s were noticeable. CO2 is called The Gas of Life and is 100% plant food. The media and western governments will never mention any of this because the climate change lie is good propaganda for them. Everything I have said is easily confirmed and 100% fact.
@@user-ww5oc9bh1e Solar energy output varies one part in a thousand from the mean, on an eleven year cycle. Sometimes it skips a few of those cycles, and you get another one part in a thousand variation. That's what the Maunder Minimum was. There is no correlation between those cycles and Earth's climate. Bringing up the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval periods are irrelevant, as those periods were not climate epochs and were not coherent phenomena across the globe. Nor were they cyclic events. wheywere anomalies just like the LIA. CO2 is not only a life giver, it is also a waste product from fossil fuels that has made some ecosystems, agricultural zones, and feeding grounds we depend on not adaptable enough to the current climate change trend caused by human activity.
@@user-ww5oc9bh1e The Earth has at times been at thermal equilibrium with surrounding space. A prime example is the "Holocene Thermal Optimum" period. As you know there are 3 dozen temperature reconstructions, that all find a slow, nearly imperceptible decline in temperature from the Holocene Thermal Optimum about 9000 years ago to the mid-19th century, followed by a sharp uptick in the 20th century, blowing past the asynchronous Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warm Periods and still rising. 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. Human activity has change the euilibrium point. If you anyone could refute that, they'd be more famous than Einstein and the next rock star of applied physics.
@@user-ww5oc9bh1e In science, the Holocene Thermal Optimum is considered an era with no climate change. Science moves on from well established conclusions to areas of less certainty such as quantifying AGW in the presence of large feedbacks like clouds and water vapour. Anthropogenic global warming is hardly the most important or interesting area of climate research because it is occurring and is settled. i.e., it’s a baseline. Just as evolution is the baseline for evolutionary biology.
In an other video You mentioned that the ocean's curent globaly power is 50 times the global human produced power in one year. Do you think that human activities are enough to effect positive or negative the climate changes witch happened periodicaly even from the eras when did not existed hummans? You dont take in account the volcanic and sismic activities and the motion of geological plates , wich can very easy effect declination and revolving speed of Earth wich have serious impact on climate changes. The only humman power wich can be comparable with the huge nature forces is the nuclear power and this only by nuc detonations on the air , which produce serious effects on the upper atmosphair and can drop the global temps producing the "nuclear winters" . But even the effects of nuclear detonations, are absorbed after three or four years and the climate coditions turn back to their previus coditions. I think that we must start studing more acurate and efficient how to cover the humans needs for food and frech water, how to reduce the cost of energy and how and where we must transfer the vulnarable towns to protect their citizens from nature disasters. We have to break the politician's resistance and push them to make better plans based on scientists studies to shield every citizen from nature desasters. Politicians all over the word must stop using the climate change as excuse for more taxes and less preparation in state level. As you mencioned in the video clima chainging continiusly and periodicaly between frozen and warm periods and will not stop to change whatever humans do. We must prepair for the worst and hope for the best if we want to survive. I think that if we put on a x-y axis all these factors as sinusoids we can extract their sum which will present the times with max , min , and zero effects on climate coditions , and that will let us to know what to expect for the future. Of cource this prediction line will has a lot of "noise" but deeper and more detailed studies will clear it . Earth has life and all live creatures produce green house gases . So do not blame the life for the climate changes , but try to understand why this happens and how you face it.
Thank you get to Suspicious observers. To see we are in a pole shift Ben Davis has all the links to see what's going on Eyes Open No Fear Be Safe Everyone ❤
We should be more concerned about adapting to climate change than trying to change it. The Earth's natural cycles cannot be realistically changed by humans. If we concentrated all our efforts to adapting to natural changes we stand a better chance of surviving comfortably. We also all need to be less wasteful and less materialistic the world over. We need to stop fighting, stop greed and work together towards common good goals.
Yes, we have to learn how to adapt to AGW, but at the same time try to reduce our infuence on climate. The current global warming is happening at an unnaturally fast rate, because it is being driven by a manmade forcing more powerful than the current natural forcings - the MIlankovitch cycles and solar radiation patterns, which are both in cooling phases,.
no offense but I'm pretty sure you just ripped off dr ben miles video and got to the points quicker and paraphrased others..... which actually made it much easier to watch tho
It's not just about tilting and about our cycle around our Sun. No way! There should be some outer things which can modify our climate. There should be meetings of other celestial bodies what causes massive changes, meeting with another Star System maybe.
The greatest natural forcings on the climate are the Milankovitch Cycles and changes in solar irradiance, which on their own are in a cooling phase. If anyone had a better correlative explanation they could back up, they'd be the biggest name since Einstein and the rock star of applied physics.
Great question! Yes, lightning can burn off some methane, but it's not enough to significantly reduce the amount in the atmosphere. Thanks for watching!
Yes, the Earth's poles do shift over long periods of time, which is called 'polar shift' or 'magnetic pole reversal.' It's a natural process and has happened many times in Earth's history. Thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts!
The planet is indeed ending the current ice age, but scientists don't predict another ice age in 11 years. The sun's activity does affect Earth's climate, but it's unlikely to cause a new ice age soon. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
