Mistake just before 2.28

Love these videos!

This is the best explanation on this I have heard, better than my lecturers

Can we please appreciate that this guy writes everything mirror inverted for us?

Maybe it is because I am stupid, but I do not see how the ratio of 018/16 would go down in the ice sheets during colder periods. I can see how more 016 gets deposited in absolute terms when it gets colder and as less 016 returns to the ocean via melting and the 018/016 ratio would increase in the oceans but not that the ratio per se would change in the ice. In fact, over a longer cold times the evaporation enrichment that operates on a gradually increasing O18/O16 ratio in the ocean would slightly increase the 018/016 in the ice too. Older layers of ice would have lower O18/O16 ratios than more recent layers over a cold period.

Am i the only one noticing he is writing backwards for himself so its right for us?? what a chad

Global warming has been dead at about 1°C since 1992. Global warming is tracked by official averaging. This video contains the UN Climate Change disclaimer. Global warming was officially stated at 1.1°C in 1991 and 1.06°C in 2022. There is no mechanism that would allow greenhouse gas behavior to cause global warming. The back of the United Nation's IPCC science report states it took its greenhouse gas samples at 20,000 meters altitude where it is common high school level knowledge there is no greenhouse radiant energy. This is typical practice for deceptive marketing to state legal data transparency protecting the perpetrators from fraud prosecution. Earth's greenhouse effect is frequently used as a primary example to high school students of a system always in saturation from the strong greenhouse gas water vapor absorbing all the greenhouse radiant energy from the earth with greenhouse gases within 20 meters of the surface that is all around us everyday and can't have its overall effect changed. There is no further greenhouse radiant energy to interact with greenhouse gases. At 1% average tropospheric water vapor over 99% of earth’s greenhouse effect is from water vapor. Water vapor would hold earth's greenhouse effect in saturation if it were the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Arctic warming is taking place with the proving mechanism being warm Atlantic Ocean waters migrating deeper and more frequently into the Arctic Ocean warming it and the region. That warmer water is causing a few weeks less of reflective snow and ice coverage resulting in more solar heat gain to the Arctic region surface. Atmospheric CO2 levels of 1200 ppm about three times what they are today would greatly invigorate C3 plants the majority of plant life on earth greatly greening the planet. 0.4% of the atmosphere is CO2 and on average 1% is H20 water vapor. (1% H20)/(0.4% CO2) = 25. Water vapor is 25 times more present in the atmosphere on average than CO2. Water vapor has an CO2e of 18, 18 X 25 = 450 CO2e total for water vapor to 1 CO2e for CO2. The Earth’s oceans have 3-1/2 million sea floor volcanic vents warming the water and changing it’s chemistry that have not been systematically accounted for.

i had learned that because O16 evaporates faster that O18 increases and O18 is more present in cooler climates because it condenses easier

2:21 shouldn't it be O16 that's lighter and evaporating more? Seems like you're following it up with O16 but maybe you dusted said the wrong thing?

I am an earth sciences student. Thank you for cutting through all the white noise, and making isotopic fractionation and carbon exchange concepts easier to understand.

fantastic video! thank you!!

life saver! Or well course saver :) Thank you very much!

Thank you for you clear explanation.

Thank you for the explanation! It was very helpful.

Bro looks excited like uncle who’s about to tell an amazing story

Diasppointing. Why are there no number values given for the ratios.......these are much more informative than vague "more", "less", increased etc descriptors. What about the other source of Oxygen 16 and Oxygen 18 ...ie CO2 (since rain and now are carbonic acid and so must contain CO2)..... Also, how old must the ice be before this type of analysis can be used?.... can it be used for ice from, say, 1700's ?

What is the accuracy of this system to measure temperature in the past ?

Was straight to the point... Helped me understand a topic super fast that had came up in my physical geography class!

Audio way too low

Fantastic explanation, thank you!

Why is the volume so low?

Thank you so much.

Great explanation thank you

Something I have wondered since studying this in uni - we say because O18 is heavier more O16 will be evaporated in colder climate cycles, therefore from the ratio in ice cores we can infer warm v cold climate. Surely the difference in mass between O16 and O18, effectively 2 neutrons of mass difference is irrelevant when considering the energy involved from sun's radiation?

How can you determine temperature from this process?? It’s extremely inexact. There is also no way of empirically testing the validity, especially since oxygen is part of CO2, indicating that CO2 levels would naturally correlate to O-18 and O-16 levels as a result of temperature not the other way around.

Are we talking about water containing the isotopes of oxygen evaporating? Or just O2? forgive me I'm not a chemist

Thank you for the explanation. I look at the Oxygen isotopes changes during the last glacial-interglacial changes. I see that marine sediment were heavier (enriched in 18O) during the interglacials and lighter during the glacials. Shouldn't it be the other way? As during the glacial ocean get heavier??

Hmmm, I have a question though, are you implying that the starting ratio of the ice sheet of 18/16 is greater than the one that snows on the ice sheet? Bc otherwise if it were the same ratio, you would not see a difference, so my question is, why is the base starting ratio of 18/16 isotopes on the starting ice sheet greater, if it was formed through that same process?

Identifying a sophomoric physical-chemistry trend is not impressive. No Data. No Data Analysis. No uncertainty. No experimental Error. No Calibration Metrics. No Science.

Really interesting video that explains a lot...I am not sure what sort of GPS you tend to use, but for the folks using a regular hand held consumer grade unit, one suggestion I would make is to show what I call the calibration details of the GPS that is being used.....To explain, using my Topo map I would find an easily identifiable known height like a spot height or trig point, and when at that location, I set my GPS altimeter so it's correct. I note the location, time, and altitude along with the weather conditions at the start of my entry...If the weather (pressure) is very variable or I am changing altitudes in the course of the day, I will repeat this....Additionally when noting down the UTM grid ref of a location, I always note whether it's estimated ie Topo derived, Resection, or as is most likely these days, GPS. If is from a GPS, I included the quoted accuracy ie +/- 3m or +/-5m ect at the end of the grid ref....On a consumer grade GPS, giving a 10 figure grid ref can be deceptive if the GPS is only giving accuracy of say +/- 10m....

Mistake in this video - you say more O18 is evaporated while circling O16

awesome video

ARE YOU ACTUALLY WRITING BACKWARDS LIKE THAT AS IF ITS NOTHING ? YOULEGEND

Perfect class, love it.