Are humans really behind the extra CO2 in the atmosphere?

[@EricSaboya54]

Here I am quietly enjoying another Simon Clark video and it turns out to be on carbon isotopes! This is literally the field of research I work in. I keep watching. Wait, hang on I recognise those exact graphs. They’re from a paper lead by my PhD supervisor and I was at a conference with one of the other authors last week. It’s a small world

[@kalebmark2908]

If you suddenly received a million dollars to help fight climate change how would you spend the money?

[@richardallan2767]

I'll get my coat....

[@SocialDownclimber]

Out of interest, where and how were the geological carbon samples taken?

[@DanielSMatthews]

Subduction turns fossil carbon into CO2 that ends up in the oceans and that escapes into the atmosphere as the water warms. Most of the recorded warming is in the northern hemisphere where the CO2 is coincidently being detected. 😏 And then there is this inconvenient fact, which no doubt you will try to ignore or dismiss without actually doing the science involved. *If you can't show a correlation between the Keeling Curve dataset and the covid induced slowdown in economic activity then all of the other ways to guess what is going on are moot.* Do some actual science using real data, find the "signal" of the UN recognised reduction in human CO2 due to covid lockdowns in the UN recognised global dataset the Keeling curve. A wavelet analysis is one way to do that. So where is the approx 10% drop in the rate of CO2 production during that period of time, if it happened it must show up as a change in the data, except nobody seems to be able to find it, no matter how many people I ask about it. This little scientific exercise completely destroys all of the other elaborate and indirect methods for guessing how much CO2 humans are really contributing with regard to observable changes in global levels.

[@BladeValant546]

​@@kalebmark2908end the big oil lobby.

[@bubblegodanimation4915]

I swear if I have to hear about volcanos again I am gonna blow myself up.

[@SolomonMagnus819]

But what about…………. Volcanoes? Ever thought of that?

[@jasenanderson8534]

​@@SolomonMagnus819the video literally just explained that. Lol. Hint, it's not volcanoes. 😂

[@SolomonMagnus819]

@@jasenanderson8534haha. Might have been a joke. Maybe.

[@masternobody1896]

hoho i am back

[@jasenanderson8534]

​@@SolomonMagnus819fair enough. Emoji might have been useful 😂

[@parthkapoor7408]

as horrific as the whole global boiling/warming/climate change thing is, the way you put all the pieces together at 6:45 was incredibly satisfying

[@jaydenwilson9522]

its from elapsing solar cycles and the earth has defense systems against that sort of stuff... also water comes from the ground... google - primary water theory also google - earths geocorona sun heliosphere jupiter-sun barycentre fyi - their terrestrial models break the laws of thermodynamics, heat never seek WARMER temp, it always seeks cold.... heat always radiates upwards to the cold stratosphere... it never radiates downwards back to us.... it literally breaks the laws of physics lol

[@mikethebloodthirsty]

Yeh must have been horrific in the very warm early middle ages, all those factories and cars we had back them must have really contributed to global warming. 🤦

[@QT5656]

@@mikethebloodthirsty You also fail to address *any* of the points presented in the video that are supported by extensive data showing that the current warming is related to anthropogenic CO2 (regardless of what caused previous warming).

[@jameso1447]

@@QT5656 Satellite data is calibrated. A guy on Earth can say, "well, this thermal reading meant 2 degrees last year but it means 3 degrees this year" and satellite readings will therefore register a 1 degree increase. Scientists can claim they're correcting for instrument degradation, improved modeling, new equations, or some just make temperature claims based directly on CO2. Usually satellite readings are calibrated to surface measurements - another data set which is manipulated, with 85% of weather stations disappearing in the past 20 years with the survivors posted at airports and in major cities where temperatures and CO2 levels are higher. Step outside the 'science' for a moment and examine some history. Every time any government has claimed to be saving the people or planet from something they are destroying freedom and wealth to control and enslave the population.

[@QT5656]

@@jameso1447 Your gishgallop is full of basic errors.

[@martincrotty]

"Buuuuuut CO2=plant food" Dunning Krüger effect in the current era is live and well, especially with how so many deniers seem to think previous climactic changes are some deeply kept secret.

[@bartroberts1514]

Technically, not the effect Dunning & Krüger documented, but a different one more closely related to the work of Elisabeth Kübler-Ross. It's the 'bargaining' stage where deniers try to substitute a more palatable explanation in place of what they know to be true.

[@theeraphatsunthornwit6266]

It is not a secret to me and you but it is not blasted on your ears every day like natural disaster that currently happening naturally at a natural rate of occurence. This brainwashed the majority of the population to believe that current situation is catastrophic.

[@tedclapham4833]

@@bartroberts1514 Re Dunning & Kruger or Kubler-Ross follow the funding!

[@bartroberts1514]

@@tedclapham4833 Most research in the USA is ultimately funded by a committee of the US Congress, typically controlled by Republicans or Representatives from fossil-trade dominated seats. So.. what's your point?

[@martincrotty]

@@bartroberts1514 well that does have an impact among a good few, but there's also plenty of people who are totally ignorant of the topic where their only investigation has been reading literature and sources that have very questionable funding like the plenty of groups like heartland that are more focused on PR for their donors than actually doing accurate research. I'm not blaming people for being ignorant because ignorance is something completely normal and it's only with ignorance where we can learn more, but unfortunately most science education for the public these days is more about passing tests and learning off some trivia instead of learning about and understanding the incredible history of this ancient planet and the complex systems that influence it, so it makes plenty of folk easy pickings to be manipulated by the large disinformation bodies that wish the status quo to remain as it is.

[@TheLovescream]

This video is going into my argumentative arsenal for climate debates. Thanks Simon!

[@mariosvourliotakis]

It's a good video to use, but it's extremely disappointing and scary we even need to have climate debates ..

[@SpydrXIII]

you too?

[@GabrielPettier]

Have you ever successfully changed the mind of anyone in such a debate? Sadly it doesn't feel facts have a lot of effects on people who don't want to believe, which are the ones we usually end up debating.

[@TheLovescream]

@@GabrielPettier I figure I write up arguments and provide data primarily for the people who are reading the comments, not the ones debating. Just leaving some decent info for people to come across on the internet, instead of the misinformation many people seem to fervently spread.

[@Truth-And-Freedom]

​@@mariosvourliotakisyeah stifle app debate 🤣👍 That's how science works isn't it ?? You deluded chump

[@altareggo]

Exceptionally good summary of the basics. Kudos!!!

[@OilCanHarry2U]

The most unfortunate aspect about this brilliant explanation, is that those who really need to hear this…won’t.

[@MrDesmondPot]

It’s not as fun as volcanoes and aliens and cults. And it suggests lifestyle changes they are unwilling to make. There is no reaching them… until their house is underwater or their children are malnourished… at that point they will deny being deniers.

[@franckr6159]

@@MrDesmondPot Spot on.

[@emergentform1188]

You should probably listen to some independent scientists instead of IPCC paid shills.

[@OilCanHarry2U]

@@andrewcheadle948 Lindzen has been discredited and the fact that you elected him, proves that you are religiously connected to science denial.

[@emergentform1188]

Most of the CO2 climate change believers I talk to about this aren't even aware of the earth's wildly erratic elliptical orbit around the sun and how the distance from the sun varies by a huge amounts year over year and not all in sync with our seasons. The earths climate system is SO complex, so many factors involved, and yet the climate hustlers would try to have us believe that CO2 somehow controls the whole show. It really is silly and short sighted beyond belief. Meanwhile, there's a merry band of tyrants funding this "research" through the UN, hell bent on destroying the industrial revolution and ushering in global poverty and communism. Oh gee, I wonder if there's a connection there? It's time to wake up, people.

[@PremierCCGuyMMXVI]

I’m sure these comments will eventually be flooded by climate deniers that rather believe a blogger who makes things up than an actual scientist who reads the scientific literature. But this video was very good and appreciated.

[@DanielSMatthews]

That is a form of appeal to authority fallacy, you need only consider facts and logic, the source is not important, the validity of the argument is all that matters. It is a very foolish act to treat science like a church and scientists like priests.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@DanielSMatthews I've spent four decades studying logic, which does not make me any sort of authority; it does however allow me to identify your category error. You have mistaken "appeal to science" for "inappropriate appeal to authority". You see, citing a popular psychotherapist's views on climate science would be inappropriate, and so it would be a fallacy to lean on that authority. Citing peer-reviewed climate science interpreted by recognized scholars in the topic, while not a guarantee of correctness is not a logical fallacy. Speaking of church, renowned churchman Sir Isaac Newton laid the foundations for what we call science today, and was very clear on the distinction between acts of faith and obedience to religious hierarchy on the one hand, and developing precepts to understand phenomena by inference confirmed by induction in experiment on the other. It takes a special effort of sophistry to mistake the two as you have done.

[@DanielSMatthews]

@@bartroberts1514 Sir Isaac Newton practiced alchemy, so don't over sell the guy's importance outside of some maths that some other guy in Germany also solved. Lame Ad Hom. attack BTW. Predictable too. And yeah we are discussing your tactics elsewhere.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@DanielSMatthews Whoa. Uhm. Is the "Lame Ad Hom. attack" the one about Newton practicing alchemy, or the one confusing derivatives with integrals? Can you identify what words exactly you are referring to as "Lame Ad Hom. attack" to reduce the ambiguity for us? Also, if discussing "my" tactics 'elsewhere', could you quote what 'tactics' offended you so? So others can share?

[@DanielSMatthews]

​@@bartroberts1514 This is what I actually wrote _"That is a form of appeal to authority fallacy, you need only consider facts and logic, the source is not important, the validity of the argument is all that matters. It is a very foolish act to treat science like a church and scientists like priests."_ And you tried to make it all about me, pathetic, and irrelevant too. Perhaps you should spend the next 40 years studying honesty and integrity?

[@myrecreationalchannel7181]

Something I've never understood is why does it matter what the cause is, we know what to do regardless. So I'm a volunteer with Citizen's Climate Lobby and the other day at an event I was talking with someone who didn't think it was human caused and I replied "what difference does it make? If you saw a guy collapse and you call an ambulance the paramedics aren't going to choose to help or not depending on the cause of the guy collapsing. Regardless of the cause they'll get to it taking care of the guy." And he replied to me that I had a good point. The important thing isn't whether or not we caused it. The important thing is that we can do something about it.

[@MC---]

People really dont want to change their behavior. If it wasn't human caused then changing human behavior wouldn't be the solution.

[@myrecreationalchannel7181]

@@MC--- Well, perhaps. But that rule doesn't really fit reality. There are plenty of things that aren't caused by people that people still can and do do things about.

[@toni4729]

Your point was the whole point of his talk. Something has to be done, and we can't wait forever. I personally don't believe we're the first inteligent living creatures on the earth, which makes me wonder what happened to the last ones.

[@martincrotty]

Well it's also that we rarely consider the impacts of the modern world as we see it. Spoiled by new things to consume, new shows to watch, tasty junk food to eat, new clothes and toys to buy... To think that so much of it is dependent on emitting vast quantities of invisible gases that change the nature of the earth's climate systems is a bit harder as well as recognising that the amount of tasty meat we eat each year is an absolutely crazy amount of dead animals. This absurd world has simply become normal to us, making it hard for many people to see the need for serious changes We're a species that adapted to live in a much smaller world and focused purely on the immediate environment and what our senses tell us. We advanced like crazy due to our intelligence, ability to work in communities and a stable period in the earth's history suitable for agriculture, but we advanced far faster than we actually evolved. Thinking of things at this scale is an amazing feat as there's been no selective pressures to push it, but it also means this kind of recognition of the scale of the issue doesn't necessarily come easily to us (well it does to people being directly affected already of course).

[@toni4729]

@@martincrotty Quite right. Well said.

[@innerhonesty5046]

Thank you again. I am really happy that you are filming these amazing videos!😊

[@seaoftranquility7228]

“What the hell? I’m soaking wet.” “You jumped into the pool.” “Yeah, I don’t think that did it. We’ll probably never know for sure.”

[@QT5656]

Excellent video Simon. I will be sharing it online later today.

[@jimhood1202]

Thanks for this. Enjoyed the cabon isotope section especially.

[@OldShatterham]

Great video! I also really liked the visualizations.

[@minh-sanantoniotexas776]

I like Simon Clark's videos more and more. This video is one of the best, taking complex notions and bringing down to understandable, and fun explanations. Also helps that he is articulate, easy to understand and presents his ideas in a dynamic flow. Thinking about Patreon.

[@peterchandler8505]

Great summary of the fundamentals, hope this gets around to those who might benefit!

[@alyeanna]

I love your videos because they're always very clear and simple, you're able to take a complex subject and make it accessible for everyone. It's great! Thank you for all you do!

[@LudvigIndestrucable]

You missed a perfect Philomena Cunk line. Carbon 14, named after the line from that Sting song, which was named for the nucleus of that isotope

[@hannarosen5808]

Great that we had a short to tease this.

[@SimonClark]

Genuinely curious to see which one will generate more watch time!

[@ft3917]

the thing is. !!! it is not so important if it is humans or nature that is behind the CO2. because the solution is the same !!! if it is nature that causes it, the only way humans can do something about it, is to reduce more CO2 in the atmosphere. if it is humans.. we have to reduce the CO2 . the CO2 we get from fosil fuel. from animals and plants produced millions years ago . ( living things at that time made the CO2 ). that accumulated CO2 from that time, is the CO2 welead out in the atmosphere again. sadly there are politic parties, that loves polution, and uses every excuse they can, to polute more. there CO2 deniers. Actualy if it is nature that causes the extra CO2. we really only have one soluion. that is to stop leading more CO2 in the atmosphere. the only way nature can repair it self, if it is caused by nature.

[@woutervanr]

Clear and to the point. Great work!

[@dougbamford]

You're such an excellent communicator, Simon.

[@jasenanderson8534]

Excellent explanation. It's fact thing that climate contrarians can't escape.

[@DaveJ6515]

Why? Did you actually watch it?

[@SocialDownclimber]

@@DaveJ6515 Nono, the burden of argument is on you if you want to disagree with it. Did you even watch it?

[@bagel_deficient]

Unfortunately, you can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into.

[@nibirdtamuli8429]

@@bagel_deficient hey mate gonna borrow that line for later use...

[@DaveJ6515]

@@SocialDownclimber sure I did. Same as usual: no equations, no data sources, no measurements, no fitting, no confidence intervals, no validation. An interesting line of reasoning, if you ask me, but if you want to convince me to wreck our economy we are still very very far away. Especially when all we can achieve in Europe is a reduction of about 1-2% on the planetary scale in five years, which is nothing.

[@horridohobbies]

Very informative and insightful. Thank you very much.

[@danielbob2628]

I wouldn't fault anyone personally for thinking that conspiracies this large can happen (I believe they happen too), but climate change is not one of them. I really appreciate this video, because it explained the reasons better than I ever could.

[@martincrotty]

Exactly. I don't blame folk for distrusting our political systems that often seem to function mostly to maintain the interests and control of the powerful where there's so many hands at play in world events that it's often very difficult to truly see the objective situation. It's all about getting people to recognise that this happening above our little human bubble we've become totally immersed by.

[@willyhill7509]

You do know that the amount of Carbon in the atmosphere has been 5x higher than it is today ?

[@QT5656]

Please listen the podcast Drilled by Amy Westervelt. The real conspiracy is how big oil and big tobacco have continually conned the proles into boot licking for them.

[@QT5656]

@@willyhill7509 😂 It sounds like you don't know that when CO2 was 5x higher than today there was no human civilisation, no farming, and no humans. You are either referring to the Devonian (when there was barely any animal life on land) or the Jurassic (when mammals were smaller than dogs). The sea level was also much higher and the Sun was less powerful. Please read some science and stop posting sneaky bad faith motte-and-bailey fallacies. - Foster, G.L., Royer, D.L. and Lunt, D.J., 2017. Future climate forcing potentially without precedent in the last 420 million years. Nature communications, 8(1), p.14845. - Lacis, A.A., Schmidt, G.A., Rind, D. and Ruedy, R.A., 2010. Atmospheric CO2: Principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature. Science, 330(6002), pp.356-359.

[@willyhill7509]

Yes I did know that, thats the point, no humans.@@QT5656

[@richardnedbalek1968]

Your clear, informative style is why I watch your channel. 🤓👍

[@TheBachelor916]

Great video. Have to comment to feed the algorithm and spread the answers to ppl truly just asking questions.

[@doggonemess1]

Yes. And anyone who says otherwise is either lying or doesn't understand the most basic science involved. Unfortunately, the people who do either won't be convinced by this or any other argument, so I really have to wonder what the point of these videos is anymore? I love the content, it helps me form better arguments. But I'm tired of arguing, especially since the number of people who reject science and history and just regurgitate social media conspiracies has grown to unreal levels. On top of that, we have our own leadership egging them on to get votes. It's a never-ending feedback loop, and because humans are what they are, it will only get worse.

[@simontillson482]

And, just to add to your woes - if we stopped burning all fossil fuels tomorrow, the CO2 level would still continue to climb simply from our industries making concrete. Making the cement involves roasting carbonate rocks, mostly limestone, to release it’s carbon dioxide making it into lime clinker. It’s only 8 to 10% of our total emissions, but that’s still a lot of anthropogenic carbon. That’s just chemistry, so it doesn’t matter if you power a cement factory from solar - the emissions are still gonna happen. Sorry.

[@hedgehog3180]

@@simontillson482 Low or zero carbon methods for making cement do exist and there are also alternatives to cement, and we could just stop building so many new buildings.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@simontillson482 As has been pointed out, that's just the chemistry of Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) and other materials that rely on the liming process, or clinkering. Geopolymers, alkali-activated cements from metakaolin, can be made with net absorption of CO2 from air, and with so little heat needed that renewable sources are well-suited to the induction heaters best fit for this economical (as much as 70% cheaper than OPC) material. Also, you get metakaolin from dredging choked up waterways as part of hydrology practices that address precipitation changes caused by fossil trade.

[@markthomasson5077]

@@simontillson482we need to, and will, develop processes to utilise the C02. Say, to grow a super strain of bacteria/ algae that then has other uses and is commercially advantageous. I suspect one day, all that ‘waste’ C02 will become a valuable asset

[@toni4729]

Brilliant deduction. Keep it up, I'd like to hear a lot more of this. Thanks very much.

[@MindlessSuccess]

Plant life absorbs more co2 when there is more available in the atmosphere, it is a self regulating system. Saying that extra carbon will lead to bad outcomes is a wild guess.

[@franckr6159]

It is NOT self-regulating, the CO2 excess is visible: 280ppm has now become 420ppm, not a minor increase !

[@fromnorway643]

Self regulating? i0.wp.com/timescavengers.blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/composite_800ky-011.jpg?ssl=1

[@trevinbeattie4888]

Already watched this on Nebula; I just came here to upvote it. 😊

[@RolfStones]

Thanks, I've used this argument for years, but I didn't really have a sci com source for it. Now I have!

[@melissamybubbles6139]

Thanks Simon. I had no idea there was a satellite tracking the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. I didn't know how scientists keep track of different carbon isotopes in things and how that could be used to measure the human impact on climate change.

[@michaelkhoo5846]

Very good. Thank you Simon Clark! Edit: The flavor analogy is really cool and useful. So maybe I could say - I can tell if you cooked your curry using curry powder that you have just bought, versus that old packet that's been at the back of the cupboard and expired five years ago (I never do that)? Also I prefer the landscape format as these videos are great to show in class, or recommend to students. I'm sure your content reaches a lot of people this way.

[@Feefa99]

Are available any public climate simulators where person could tweak percentage of specific gases in the atmosphere?

[@bartroberts1514]

Simon once did a video (The Decade We Lost..) where he explained how a powerful politician who believed he knew better than all the climate scientists in the world used his desktop computer, his limited grasp of the problem, and inadequate software to convince himself the models must be wrong, because he couldn't make his model work. Fortunately, your question has a 'simple' solution. There is a way to look up the effects of different gases by their "CO2e", and manually convert those concentrations to the equivalent CO2 percentage. You can then plot the relation of CO2 to global average temperature from actual data (Keeling and GISTemp, for example) and find the best fit logarithmic equation (Excel can do this for you), and find where that CO2 level is on the X-axis, to find the temperature on the Y-axis. There are plenty of simulations out there you can then look up to find what the climate is like at that temperature. See? 'Simple'.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@Stevie-J Several GCMs are open source. The code is available. Go to it! And yes, modern computers could be networked so a relatively small budget could perform some level of simulation. But as a former professional in the simulation field, I have concerns about such well-intentioned efforts.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@Stevie-J I believe Simon Clark has been working on such a project, though the details of that escape me presently.

[@jackdavinci]

It’s obviously an extremely small scale simulation, but you can play with a lot of these things in SimEarth

[@bartroberts1514]

@@jamescarter8311 For a number of years I supported simulation systems at the headquarters of some of the world's largest companies. Your claims are so wrong they are beyond arrogant. We don't say "correct", in the trade, by the way; we say "demonstrates skill". The demonstrated skill of computational fluid mechanics in GCMs' Bernoulli (Navier-Stokes) equations is what prevents aircraft from falling out of the sky, dams from breaking, and furnaces from exploding, consistently time after time. The same math goes into all of those. Claiming ALWAYS wrong is so vastly ignorant it defies easy description.

[@glennlee6987]

Excellent summation. Thank you! Glad to see you back. 🙂

[@musicoswateros449]

Amazing video with really simple explanation that the average person can grasp without extensive scientific background. Let's hope this educational material reaches classrooms too!

[@abdelrahmanmohammed9405]

Love that you are on ig reels now. I saw your latest reel, it feels like itsnon 1.5x speed

[@CaptainSpong]

Argued with clarity and passion for the subject; a masterclass. Thank you.

[@brucenassar9077]

awesome greta will tell you what to think

[@RonLWilson]

Interesting as well as quite informative!

[@glenndavis4452]

Very interesting discussion on carbon isotopes. Another fact of ice core data is that they have to wait until the ice has compressed enough to avoid atmospheric contamination of the comparison hardened levels. Some 30ppm of CO2 is squeezed out from a surface level of ice and a glacially compressed layer.

[@dtghanvey]

Great video Simon! I'll have to remember the main points when people suggest that humans aren't responsible for atmospheric co2 increasing

[@Dundoril]

Sadly enough... As someone who spend the last 10 years trying to explain climate misconception to people on the internet.... I can tell you: they won't care. Rational argument isnt the reason for them to believe their nonsense and they won't convince them otherwise

[@martincrotty]

​@@Dundorilfor the simply confused and manipulated folk that are reasonable but ignorant (ignorant in terms of simply not being overly aware of how these complex systems and things work, not as an insult) people that have just been persuaded that it's all a big plot against them by a political class that seems to do nothing about private jets, it may very well change their minds. I've chatted with plenty of them and been successful in helping some recognise that this is happening beyond our political systems. They often aren't even aware of the amount of dark money being funneled into many of the most prominent "skeptic" organisations. It won't change the minds of the hard liners though because they're often more obsessed about "winning" an argument against someone on the other side than actually being right.

[@fromnorway643]

@@Dundoril Put another way: You cannot reason people out of positions they didn’t reason themselves into.

[@HotdogwaterHotchocolate-qj7kh]

Reading words on a phon screen just don't seem to important to me. You have a phone, why can't I have one? You have a house and a car, why can't I have one? Go make deerskin pants and get back to me with smoke signals

[@QT5656]

Thanks Simon! Good job.

[@hedu5017]

I come for the accessible, clearly explained, engaging climate science. I stay for the pile of Warhammer boxes in the bottom right corner of your shelf. Now we just need a grimdark 40k climate change video to tie it all together.

[@user-vc5zt9ci12]

Good stuff - You are the best climatology channel on YT by far - hoping the algo starts acting in your favour soon

[@tomblaise]

Rather than believe in climate change I’ve decided to believe the earth is flat. 😃👍

[@MarcCastellsBallesta]

I've told many flat earthers that they should be the most active climate activists. If the Earth is like a pizza, their ice wall will melt and water will overflow and fall beyond the borders. If the flat dish has a dome, melting will flood the entire planet because water cannot escape. Both ways, their delusion is threatened by the climate change.

[@markwritt8541]

To build everything we've made, we cut down forests. The areas with cities, towns, etc weren't just fields with short grass. Take the Great American Chestnut tree. They were nearly Sequoia sized throughout areas of Appalachia but with lumbering and blight, are tiny and endangered. Ancient trees like that were food sources and huge carbon sinks.

[@Dragrath1]

Another major carbon sink which has been lost is the soil biosphere which is or at least was largely composed of fungi "protists"(Eukaryotes that aren't animals plants of fungi) many small animals bacteria & archaea. Much of the smaller carbon spike we see in the archeological record around the time where we developed agriculture appears to be a consequence of our disturbance of the soil (tilling digging compactification etc.) effectively killing the biosphere down there and thus reemitting their carbon stores into the atmosphere. This along with deforestation the extinction of megafauna and smaller animals and overfishing has caused a substantial decrease in the living biomass of the planet which means their carbon has largely been reemitted into the atmosphere. The fact that we measure a global decline in insects which by location ranges from anywhere between 60% in low disturbance areas to over 90% in highly disturbed urbanized environments is terrifying as the loss of the bottom of the food pyramid threatens everything above it.

[@DJRonnieG]

At this point I focus whether any of the propsoed solutions are actually capable of addressing the stated issue. Secondly, I question if there are other solutions that will get us closer to such goals. My own issue is that I might put too much focus on solving for the energy production side of the equation.

[@bartroberts1514]

I shared your thoughts, a decade ago, and delved deeply into solutions, finding most are just bad and literally make the situation worse while wasting time and resources. Before meaningful solutions can work, the significant cause -- the fossil trade -- must be curtailed and halted, and that can be done at a rate of 2% of today's level per month down to zero by 2030. The 33 nations responsible for 99.75% of the permits and licenses can be convinced of the benefits of this curtailment by economic facts, I believe. There are eight current fossil hegemonies, soon to be fewer if BRICS+ recruits the two other fossil trade blocs it is after. And while it may seem hopeless to try to convince their leaders to avert more Lahaina, more Idalia, more destruction to Canada, Italy, Greece and Australia by fire, they too are vulnerable and pay the price in extreme weather disasters equally. Besides curtailing fossil trade, also prioritizing an end to methane emissions both from that trade and from natural emissions by diverting biomethane into either flaring or replacing fossil methane is important. As is replacing systems and mechanisms that use fossil products with fossil-free ones, and decommissioning the fossil versions so they are removed from the marketplace. Those three steps set the stage for three other measures: 1) drawdown of CO2 from air directly, mostly by planting a trillion new trees globally by 2060; 2) conserving biodiversity eqial to 40% immediate halt to ship traffic; 3) energy efficiency increase 8%/year. After these CARDBE measures, the market of ideas, the businesses, institutions and governments of the world will have to play in a new fossil-free sandbox, and they will do better than fossil ever allowed them.

[@alttabby3633]

@@bartroberts1514 lot of hand waving going on there in your 2% of today's level per month down to zero by 2030 without addressing how to feed 8 billion people. The fact is we are in this position for a reason, and that reason is the energy density of ff. Absolutely needs to get done but very unclear how to get there from here without a lot of pain for everyone especially the most vulnerable.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@alttabby3633 I think you are using "hand waving" differently than the conventional understanding of the phrase. The SMART 2% of today's level down to zero by 2030 was deliberately worked out to be the rate we can transition from fossil without economic hardship, and while producing better economic effects like better feeding 8 billion people. The fact is we are in this position for a reason, and that reason is that there are about 1,000 public servants in 33 nations in 8 international fossil trade hubs who continue to license and permit fossil trade despite that it is not the most economical form of energy, by far, and despite that we know to a certainty that cases like Lahaina and Idalia will continue to multiply because of fossil trade. The energy density MYTH is a complete red herring. If you need energy density for some specialized function, get it from biofuel instead of importing new carbon from underground into the air. The ones taking the most pain from Idalia? The most vulnerable. From Lahaina? The most vulnerable. In Canada, Greece, Italy, Australia where whole nations are facing extreme wildfire weather? The most vulnerable. See, that would be you whose handwaves have been examined and shown overgeneralized stereotypes without appropriate nuance or forethought. It's very clear the first step to getting there is curtailing fossil trade 2% of today's level per month, sending the clear signal to everyone that they need to get their energy other than from fossil, and on the tight schedule we who study these things know is possible.

[@DJRonnieG]

@@bartroberts1514 It seems that you prefer to ignore the need for growth, and how implementing your plan would have the opposite effect. Heck, at the end of the day extreme weather has an adverse effect on many populations, so we need to fix it to make the world safer for our kids, right? On the other hand, we need less kids to reduce the consumption of resources which lead to increased carbon output. Maybe you are not intentionally being disingenuous, but your response is another example of solution to climate changes that amount to be a non-starter. A ridiculous idea like tapping nuclear fission sources, and building a space elevator with a radiator at the top would be more feasible than what you propose. I can't guarantee we would get it done by 2030, but anybody who clings on to an arbitrary date in can't honestly do so either.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@DJRonnieG *sigh* Not this "need for growth" myth again. And not this pulled-out-of-nowhere misunderstanding of how ending fossil works. See, ending fossil is trimming the inefficiency from the economic system. If you're throwing around terms like "growth" and "consumption", you should be familiar with the term "ROI". Return on Investment is the ratio that shows which of two options is better to pursue. The ROI of fossil is net negative. The ROI of renewable is net positive. So the rational thing to do is to curtail fossil and transition to renewable. This is basic BCG Dog-vs-Star stuff. The world needs zero fossil emission by 2030. You can't population control our way to that. The disingenuous? That'd be someone claiming against all evidence that you need fossil trade to support a growing population or a growing economy. And 2030 isn't an arbitrary date, but that determined by the calculations of scientists like Lenton and Steffen of the risk of Runaway to Hothouse Earth. Why not ask specific questions about how CARDBE works, rather than making inane assumptions about it and comparing it to space elevators and fission? Is this how you approach everything in life? Offered a taste of a food for the first time you vomit and retch rather than trying it?

[@andrewdunckley]

Your videos are always so insightful .... thanx for explaining it so thoroughly...

[@p_mouse8676]

I think there is a more overlapping question. Aren't there just simply to many human beings to sustainably live on this planet? If we look at the predictions for the world population for 2050. (and growing) Even if we would be 50% more efficient today, would this still be enough for 2050 and later?

[@hedgehog3180]

I mean the answer is no. There exists many models for how even the expected peak human population of 11 billion could live sustainably on this planet at a decent standard of living. The IPCC reports do discuss them.

[@underpauler9096]

"Aren't there just simply to many human beings to sustainably live on this planet?" Now think 2 steps further and answer yourself following questions truly and without mental borders: "How can we reduce population?" and "How many population is ok?" And then check your answers with those who already did answer the question ... But asking questions means you deny science. So be careful where you want to go.

[@jjohn1234]

I really like the video summary in a short, where you can continue watching the full length video afterwards

[@heronimousbrapson863]

Potholer 54 discusses the difference in carbon isotopes between volcanic and man made CO2 emissions in one of his videos.

[@JorgeAMelendez]

I don't know if you @hankschannel, and @astrumspace all planned to release a climate change video at the same time, but if you did, bravo. We need more of this. thank you for giving a new perspective in what i believed to be an exhausted topic.

[@pjhgerlach]

Answer: yes, humans are the cause. Next video.

[@TheDoomWizard]

It's gonna get so bad that you don't even want to go outside.

[@samgrainger1554]

Co2 rise also slowed when we stopped burning as much in covid lockdowns

[@jaykanta4326]

Not by much, since power generation is a major component of overall CO2 emissions, and power generation didn't slow.

[@samgrainger1554]

@@jaykanta4326 true compadre. Why I mentioned it was that we saw our actions having effect on CO2 rises plain as day

[@gottagowork]

Never heard of that having an impact on CO2, but the lockdowns sure had an impact on other pollution. Some cities with massive pollution problems could see mountains in the distance they've never seen before. Pollution, CO2 or not, is also a major health problem.

[@rossignolbenoit210]

Good and clear. Thank you !

[@marialauraweems7553]

And that's why advanced science courses should be mandatory.

[@scottabc72]

Excellent, Im saving this to share with others who need to see something like this

[@swapshots4427]

I'm so tired of people arguing these cycles are hatural. YES they are! over Millenia NOT centuries!

[@Azknowledgethirsty]

I usually like your videos but your first old town graphic is HORRIBLY wrong 40GT is 19 times smaller than 750GT, this means that the small cube should have a length of 2.7 times smaller than the large cube HOWEVER it is almost 8 times smaller, this makes it seem like our human contributions are a order of magnitude smaller than they actually are Very very bad graphic, this only misleads people

[@punditgi]

Sumon sez and we are convinced. Bravo, sir! 🎉😊

[@generationfallout5189]

Humanity is not superior to nature. We are completely reliant upon the natural world. Natures inventions are still superior to our technology. a fighter jet is not superior to a human body. The human mind is the most complex invention on Earth. A computer that can heal. The meaning of life to the natural world is perseverance. Nature wants to keep life living. That’s why all the plants and animals are trying desperately to raise the next generation. Too keep the chain of life going. Humanity has let its greed thrive above all else. Above logic and reason. Stop worshipping the wealthy. Greed is destroying us. The world has enough for human needs, but not human greed. Because that is unrealistic and unreasonable. Fight for your future humanity. Take the power back. Work with nature. Rebuild the glory of the Earth. What could be more important?

[@dacutler]

OK. Let's start with the over one billion cars that each put about 5 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. That's 5 Billion tons per year from cars alone.

[@bartroberts1514]

Why start with cars? Individual end users in no nation on Earth are responsible for more than 1/4 of their nation's emissions. In 33 nations most responsible for fossil trade, that ration plunges to 5% or less for most. Start with the public servants issuing licenses and permits for fossil trade.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@jamescarter8311 Only someone working in complete ignorance of the scale of the whole energy market compared to the much smaller scale of fossil trade could make so embarrassing a claim as yours. There's plenty of technically available energy in a wide variety of forms deployable in the 2-5 year timeframe. Energy efficiency can address nearly 70% of what fossil supplies. The only thing holding back vendors to supply fossil-free is the oversubsidized fossil trade standing as an obstacle to the overhaul of a woefully inefficient corporate communist market.

[@AORD72]

Either way does it matter? A slightly warmer climate is better, look along along the equator green, lush and full of life. We will have more abundant life and have to spend less energy to fight of the cold. At the glacial minimum countries like the UK and Canada will be covered in ice. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere may prevent the next glacial minimum.

[@themathics-yt]

It matters because as shown in this video, previous CO2 emission and absorption were balanced and were stable, but we broke that balance, the balance that every ecosystem on the planet has been adapted to is broken. This is leading to the warming of ecosystems at a rate too quickly for animals to adapt in our already challenging world, endangering more species of plants and animals. In addition, this is leading to the melting ice caps leading to higher water levels whose negative effects are already being noticed as rising water effects people's homes. Along with that, the disruption in climate doesn't just affect temperature, but whether events too, increasing the degree of natural disasters all across the world. I would also like to note that its the glacial maximum rather than the minimum which causes the increase of ice, and technically speaking we are still in the last ice age. That being said it will be a very long time before the next glacial maximum, you will never live to see it, neither will your children, or their children, or even a hundred generations down the line, so far from now that by the time it comes the UK and Canada will likely not exist as countries. However, climate change is creating noticeable negative impacts within generations, I can tell the weather patterns and annual temperatures have changed where I live. This WILL affect further generations of people, exponentially so as the temperature continues to rise.

[@AORD72]

@@themathics-yt "balanced and were stable", no it wasn't it was cyclic varying from about 175 to 300 ppm over the glacial periods (that is what NASA says). How adaptive do you think animals and plants are? An increase of 2-5 degrees C isn't going to cause everything to die off. Natural daily variations at a single location on the planet can be easily be 20 degrees C. The average planet temperature is only 15 degrees C. The current rate of sea level is 3mm per year, in the melt water pulses it was up to 60mm per year (14,500 years ago). Even the scientists studying Antarctica talk about thousands of years for all the ice to melt (not surprising when the temperature is as low as -65 degree C). "I would also like to note that its the glacial maximum rather than the minimum which causes the increase of ice", o so I was talking in terms of temperature sorry. I should have said "glacial minimum temperature". "I can tell the weather patterns and annual temperatures have changed where I live", that is always the case. Do you think the world is static? That is anectodical evidence anyway, have you (or anybody else) monitored the weather where you are for the last million years? Thousand years? What was you location like during the medieval warm period? or the Maunder minimum? "This WILL affect further generations of people, exponentially", rubbish. More nonsense, if climate change was going to be "exponentially" the IPPC climate change charts would show exponential growth and they don't. The word is just used for more hype and sensationalization by the media so you buy their product. I hope you are young enough to see how normal the world will be in 50 years time.

[@BlazeMakesGames]

the simplest argument I always liked was simply pointing out that like: Okay even if the state of the world's CO2 isn't entirely caused be humans, it's still clearly obvious that burning fossil fuels adds even more CO2 to the atmosphere. So best case scenario, we're just making an existing problem even worse. It's still reason enough to stop using fossil fuels and invest in technology to try and reverse their effects.

[@denzilpenbirthy5028]

@blazeMakesGames The trouble with that is that the CO2 was Much higher before humans were even around. Lets say humans have increased CO2 by 150ppm to around 470 ppm.. Back during the Cambrian explosion it was approaching 7000 ppm, not only did nature survive, it positively flourished. On this scale its hard to believe that 470ppm is a problem.

[@Zeroground300]

@@denzilpenbirthy5028 It's a problem for us, we're not Cambrian life forms. Plus we've built our societies around the current geography which will change due to rising sea levels just as it did during the Cambrian period.

[@denzilpenbirthy5028]

@@Zeroground300 What's your evidence that its a problem for us?

[@johnnorman2036]

Excellent video. Thank you.

[@DisOcean8]

always a pleasure

[@davelloyd-]

Awesome vid. I've heard/seen the carbon isotope levels being bantered about, but not explained. You explanation of diluting C14 etc is simple enough for anyone to 'get'.

[@YingYang-t4z]

Thank you Simon! Simply and clearly put

[@QT5656]

Simon, the link for reference 6 doesn't work for me. Please update. Many thanks and keep up the good work!

[@josephbelisle5792]

My main argument to climate deniers is that it took the earth a billion years to sequester all that carbon in fossil fuels and we are releasing wholesale. Say we only used 10% of stored fossil fuels so far. Thats over 100 million years of sequestering in just a couple hundred years. You cannot think that releasing that much co2 that fast will not have an impact. They still reach for right wing talking points and change the subject. But at least some logic reached them.

[@bartroberts1514]

It was actually "only" bout 60 million years, ending about 300 million years ago, that laid down almost all the coal in the world. Oil and gas had similar "short" periods of time. At current rates, fossil CO2 is being released into the atmosphere a mere 100,000 thousand times faster than the process that buried it underground. This is comparable to the difference in speed between an infant crawling on their hands and a predator drone.

[@Zift_Ylrhavic_Resfear]

Thanks for the video

[@jamespeterson7125]

What a wonderful way to present the data! I have family and others who present particular arguments against climate change by saying that the research only says carbon is increasing but then say there are other sources or that the effect will be mitigated by plant uptake. Or they will say "how do you know x" in an attempt to weaken the evidence, not recognizing that we actually have answers to those questions. I appreciate your presentation demonstrating how the uptake is not moving to match the production and we have ways of determining current circumstances as well as looking into the past which answer some of their legitimate questions that they stop at. Just because the question is complicated doesn't mean that we haven't figured out ways to remove as many variables as possible to where we can be reasonably sure in our answer.

[@DanDeLeoninthefield]

Great video. I have one critique to offer. A couple of sentences that explain the reliability of the C12:C13:C14 measurents over time would be helpful.

[@pageek3487]

I feel like at this point, does it matter if we caused it? If it is happening, and we are on a path to a climate that is not livable, then the question is will actions now to get off fossile prevent or mitigate the impacts of climate change. I know they sound similar out are two different questions.

[@timbushell8640]

Plenty of other better chefs than Guy Fieri. : ))))))) Nice one - with a good layering of info, details and how it is done. More please, in this format... as for horizontal v vertical, I don't care. But I'll share both around, the spam spaces.

[@terrencezellers9105]

As a plausibility argument, it's the 40 human beings for every square mile of earth surface - land, sea, mountaintop .... all of it. This is a higher pop density than our size pure herbivores in their natural environment (the herd is more dense ... but the herd moves over hundreds of square miles in its grazing migrations.. and again we're including the 80+ % of actual planet surface where we can't actually live ... yes we're over 200/mi^2 over habitable areas). You look at the pure numbers of our population density, and you can't help but realize that we're necessarily a dominating influence over the biosphere of this planet. We're waaay overpopulated for what a natural environment could sustainably support on this planet ... by a factor of 10 or more. We only maintain that population by "unnatural" means ... and by simple second law of thermodynamics, we can't extract those resources at 100% efficiency. We're generally less than 1% efficient in the energy conversion of agriculture.... including all human comforts, we're a fraction of that tiny fraction. .... Just the energy as waste heat is a significant factor in environmental degradation. Consider that most of that waste heat comes from carbon combustion and there you go..... The numbers don't lie. We **CANNOT** escape having a major influence over the environment of this planet until/unless we literally decimate ourselves. Given that most of us don't want to be among those decimated, the only real choice is HOW we choose to influence our planetary environment.

[@ThePereubu1710]

Sorry if this is a stupid question but what is "vertical form content"?

[@samiraperi467]

Those carbon cubes in the beginning are WAY out of scale. 40 vs 750 is 1/18.75 which gives a ratio of roughly 2.7 for each dimension.

[@ReynoldsGarrett]

When you said “billions of tonnes,” it really puts it into perspective when you think of it as “quadrillions of grams.”

[@davzer3773]

You can also put it in perspective by stating it is an increase from 0.03% to 0.04% or 300 parts per million increased to 400 parts per million……doesn’t sound quite so much now does it?

[@Zeroground300]

@@davzer3773 It's still more than the Earth can naturally sink therefore having a huge impact on temperatures.

[@davzer3773]

@@Zeroground300well if the scientists on the gravy train are correct, which is no where near proven, then an increase of 1.5 is not exactly “huge” is it? Some scientists (those not on the gravy train) are advocating that a c02 increase is good as plants benefit enormously which in turn creates more 02 reducing the proportion of c02 in the atmosphere

[@xMaskman.]

Comment for the great almighty Algorithm. Keep up the great work Simon.

[@gallidebona]

I appreciate to find content that matters in the virtual realm, and thank you Simon Clark for the explanation. Pardon my level of ignorance however, what caused the global warming during the ice age?

[@rps1689]

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

[@bobbobby3085]

That would be the kroll-Milankovitch cycles

[@Spectacurl]

Engagement engagement I just wanna help

[@michaelbindner9883]

What does data show about how Barents Sea was warmed?

[@DouglasMoreman]

In Baton Rouge. Underwater volcanoes and cracks on the spreading ridges -- show up as "point sources"? Outgrowing from oceans due to their warming must be taking place (see the Vostok graphs). Why does it not show up in NASA's presentation?

[@fromnorway643]

CO₂ emissions from volcanoes: ~ 1 % of human emissions. Global geothermal heat flux including volcanoes: ~2.5 % of the climate forcing from one doubling of CO₂. Climate change from steady geothermal heat flux: None.

[@ubermensch0072]

Also, why did the oco2 stop giving data after 3 years circa 2017?

[@mb-3faze]

7:02 the dangers of stock images :) What has Yosemite got to do with this? (I assume you realise that is mist, not smoke)

[@pavel9652]

Haha, death by stock footage ;)

[@Falco.]

Hi, not really relevant to the video, but i saw some people being skeptical about the temperature measurement done by weather stations in airports. What's the problem with those? I couldn't find any evidence online, but i am mostly curious on why they think they are not accurate. To me it seems like they should be the most accurate because you have to know the perfect condition to land a plane.

[@Stratosarge]

It's called the heat-island-effect. The tarmac on airports absorbs sunlight really well and then radiates heat around. That is why cities and airports and army compounds etc tend to be hotter than the average countryside. We have known this for decades now, and as such any measurements are quality-controlled to account for that change, using other measurement stations to balance it out. As with everything in science, raw data always has issues, which is why there is quality-control in place.

[@altrag]

@@Stratosarge There's also the small problem that it doesn't really matter (with respect to climate change). We're interested in the differential over time, and that's consistent (on average) whether you're in a heat island or not. It would only be a problem if someone build an airport under your monitoring station from one year to the next, creating a heat island where there wasn't one before (or I guess alternatively doing a nature restoration project after an airport was decommissioned. Quite a bit less common of a scenario though!)

[@bartroberts1514]

You can find exhaustive debunking of the "heat island effect" from the good folks at Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project, who did a very thorough collection of all available instrumental temperature data globally and ran multiple statistical analyses comparing stations known to be free from that effect to stations affected by it, and proved mathematically that the heat island effect is moot. There's a comparable "urban shadow" cooling effect that is about the same size, and also moot BEST also looked at.

[@spookus5430]

@@bartroberts1514 i dont really have time to look into it super thoroughly, but all im seeing is that the heat island effect doesnt have a global impact, but that it is significant on a local scale, which is what is relevant to the original comment

[@altrag]

@@spookus5430 People are just trying to apply some context since the original question is kind of meaningless (as I already noted). A heat island doesn't magically make the thermometer less accurate. Sure it'll give a higher reading than if you didn't have a heat island but that's kind of an irrelevant point as the heat island does indeed exist there. Ignoring the heat island would be the incorrect thing to do. So the responses are latching onto the "some people being skeptical" bit, as that "some people" is almost certainly implying climate change deniers. Simply because there's not a whole lot of other reasons for randos on the internet to "question" the accuracy of temperature readings at airports or anywhere else beyond than their immediate vicinity.

[@ravenragnar]

Serious question. If we are all going to die here in the near future... What is the point of signing up for brilliant?

[@Crispr_CAS9]

Serious question: Who said we're all going to die in the near future?

[@ericjohnson6665]

Nice! Well done!

[@PeterOzanne]

Hi Simon, I love what you are doing, and your clear presentation. Have you dealt with Climategate, and the extent to which it does or doesn't invalidate observations of the warming trend? Also the disputed/adjusted temperatures in the 1930s, for example.

[@fromnorway643]

A former sceptic that unlike many other so-called "sceptics" (deniers) had the scientific understanding to examine the climate issue himself: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iZ7IaYqHabyVa9k

[@laletemanolete]

Excellent video!

[@jean-pierredevent970]

I wonder now if the collisions between CO2 and the other air molecules or the absorption and re-emission of a infrared photon is lossless, so 'elastic". Perhaps the one who is hit, always keeps some energy. That's how it goes in the macro world but down there, I don't know. Who knows there are even rare cases where the outgoing photon has more energy than the incoming one . The total sum of the energy of all air molecules + photons must be conserved, at least that is certain. Another interesting question is what exactly happens when light hits the ground and is being converted into infrared.

[@bartroberts1514]

Optical etendue. That's what you're asking about.

[@LoremIpsum1970]

I'd love it if you took the UK as a working example, especially with your championing of solar at our high latitude, on how we're actually going to make that transition work. With our lack of hydro and nuclear, and reliance on imported biomass (nice CO2 accounting thereby kicking it into the long grass!), how do you see the UK not being reliant on natural gas to make up for demand due to weather changes (Dunkeflaute being one example) and then coal when natural gas prices are high. Intermittent natural gas usage to be a fallback is too expensive, so it should be made a constant input for the time being because of consumer costs... One last thing, any opinion on the risk of temperature rise due to loss of aerosol masking? Asking for a friend...

[@martymoo]

This is great!

[@PlayNowWorkLater]

It looks like the short won. Though personally I preferred this one

[@SebastianLundh1988]

My favorite isotopes are The Springfield Isotopes.

[@Quadr44t]

I have a question about 14C. Why is there a difference observed from different sources? Is there a process that replenishes 14C? Cuz, with my lack of nuclear physics knowledge, I'd assume that during the creation of carbon (e.g. via fusion/supernovae from 2nd generation stars) you had a certain ratio. That ratio would only go down over time. It would make way more sense to me that everywhere on earth the ratio would be more or less the same. How come there are differences observed on earth?

[@0topon]

14C gets replenished in the upper atmosphere through cosmic rays. The difference comes because if an organism dies he cant take up more of C14 and the C14 concentration decreases because of radioactive decay.

[@Quadr44t]

@@0topon aaah, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks!