How do we know climate change is caused by humans?

[@SPMacIntyre]

PLEASE do more content like this--how did we learn X, how did we come to discover X, how did we figure out X. It is so good and it is a type of content I've been looking for for years

[@michaelmr101]

or maybe you should go to school

[@donpedro00769]

​@@michaelmr101except they don't teach you that stuff. They only tell you definitions, give you formulas etc, but rarely will they give more details. Let's be real, it would take too long or to advanced for the students to learn at pre college level

[@csgowoes6319]

Agree, it's actually hard to find condensed explanations like this that you could convey to someone else easily. Same with the flat earth thing, I don't actually bother debating those people, but it's actually surprisingly hard to cut through the crap they believe with some simple facts when you haven't got them at your fingertips.

[@limatngho9428]

solve for X

[@cloudpoint0]

What's causing global warming? Explained in less than two minutes. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qXyniIpvjNGDicU&ab_channel=CarbonBrief

[@richard84738]

I have heard the phrase "carbon dating" for YEARS and never once made it into a pun. I feel ashamed and bow at the snarky genius of Sabine.

[@sUmEgIaMbRuS]

There's a radio ad in GTA San Andreas that's based on this pun, so the idea is definitely not new.

[@gmcjetpilot]

What is the IDEAL TEMP? What is IDEAL CO2 level? What is biggest green house gas? WATER VAPOR by many factors greater than CO2.

[@gmcjetpilot]

All of CO2 only 2% is man made. About 0.04% of atmosphere CO2 and the man made. CO2 is 0.0000008% of atmosphere. CO2 LEVELS HAVE BEEN HIGHER IN PAST AMD IT WAS COLDER, BEFORE HISTOR OR MAN... SO WHAT...

[@gmcjetpilot]

Hoax because of the POLITICAL POLICIES and obfuscation, outright LIES. Yes CLIMATE is changing, always has always will. HOW MUCH IS DUE TO MAN? ??? 1% 2%. GIVE ME A NUMBER!!! HONEST SCIENTIST SAY WE DO NOT KNOW, NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION.

[@gmcjetpilot]

If no fossil fuels useful by man today. EXPERTS WITH MOR PHD's THAN YOU say yemps might drop 1 degree? Yawn. What is the IDEAL temp? WHY DO YOU NOT MENTION SOLAR ACTIVITY, PLANETARY ORBIT VARIATIONS THAT REALLY CHANGE TEMP??

[@ccmzadv4879]

Fantastic synopsis. Extra credit for not making it 20 minutes longer than needed or ranting and postulating. Much appreciated.

[@cybrsage]

Except she "forgot" that the Milankovitch Cycles are the primary driver of the Earth's temperature changes, as agreed by Climatologists. One has to pretend they magically went away in order to blame man for the temp rise. "Scientific research to better understand the mechanisms that cause changes in Earth’s rotation and how specifically Milankovitch cycles combine to affect climate is ongoing. But the theory that they drive the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles is well accepted." science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/

[@7x779]

Watch "a climate conversation" and then think about this topic again when you see the true data

[@HealingLifeKwikly]

@@7x779 The true data is that whether you use the less trustworthy/useful raw weather data or use the adjusted climate record, humans are not just rapidly warming the planet, we are doing so at a lethally-fast pace.

[@donkloos9078]

Sabine, I enjoy watching your channel and have learned much. Regarding heat (IR) absorption by C02 at 14.97um: It needs to be clarified that the absorption maximizes out, or is saturated, at low concentrations of C02 (< 100 ppm ) just a few meters from the Earth's surface. That means adding CO2, or 'carbon,' to the atmosphere is not going to increase the amount of heat that is absorbed at this wavelength. The greenhouse heat by CO2 is already fixed. Other CO2 absorption wavelengths such as near 2, 3, and 4um and the p and r 'sidebands' around the main 14.97 band have negligible contributions to absorption. This is Beer's - Lambert's law, and studies from about 50 years ago by H. Hug using FTIR characterize this effect. Also, Michel van Biezen has a good lecture series on KZbin that provides detailed data and insights on this topic I am wondering why you or other global warming supporters skip this basic physics fact and proceed to discuss postulated back-end hypotheses that violate the basic premise? Sincerely, Don Kloos, retired chemist.

[@bobtodd9590]

This inconvenient fact does seem to get overlooked by the castastrophists.

[@HBFTimmahh]

Should be no shocker you have no answer yet... and I doubt you'll get one from Der Propagandist.

[@michaelsliwinski8044]

Thanks for your comment. Helpful.

[@penponds]

Still waiting for Sabine’s answer.

[@bond0815]

She literally did whole video debunking this moronic nonsense about IR absorption maximzing out kzbin.info/www/bejne/paLYZnegr7R1fJo

[@heronstreker]

I too have the experience that it's not always easy to find satisfying answers to my questions on the internet. When it is about climate it is extra tricky because it is hard to tell opinions apart from facts.

[@fredneecher1746]

It's hard to tell if alleged facts actually stand up to scrutiny. Anyone can show a graph, but how do we know its source evidence is accurate? What parameters are there to show its significance. Does a decline of 0.06 in the pH scale (at Hawaii, not elsewhere) mean anything? What factors are missing? Contrary to the impression given by KZbin clips, science is complicated, and hard.

[@RMRobin7373msn]

@@fredneecher1746 Good on you. Do not listen to the "I know more about climate change than you do. It's too complicated for your pea brain." Do your own research and if you can, read the reports and thesis yourself. I have read 28 of them and seen quite a few errors in them. Almost all ignore the #1 gas that effects global warming - water vapor. The oldest one I read says that the earth will fail because of all the coal being used and that if nothing is done within 20 years, it will be too late. Punch line? It was written several years before the Titanic sunk. Yeah, that Titanic.

[@christopheryellman533]

You should become familiar with Steve Koonin.

[@christopheryellman533]

I agree Frederick. Sabine approaches this as a case to make, rather than a question to answer. I would rather listen to a good scientist who thinks it through critically.@@fredneecher1746

[@RMRobin7373msn]

@@christopheryellman533 Steve Koonin - "Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters"? Got it in my library.

[@ThePerfectRed]

This point about the carbon isotope ratios was completely new to me - great information! I did not expect to really learn something new from the video but yet again I did.

[@chrimony]

There's always more things to learn! Like sea levels rose 400 feet over the last 20,000 years.

[@ADUAquascaping]

I commented on it in the previous video. We verify the ratio in the atmosphere using tree rings

[@zoeherriot]

I've been telling people this for a while (since it's not a well known fact) - and it's such a damning piece of evidence.

[@josephnolan8217]

Anyone realize global cooling is more a threat than warming? An ice age is easier and more likely than a runaway greenhouse effect. Historically, ice ages and global winters were more devastating than warming periods for life on earth aside from few notable exceptions. Cold is the enemy not warmth.

[@guerreiro943]

For me the thing about Stratospheric cooling was new to me

[@ThePostApocalypticInventor]

Good job! You seem to be exactly the right person to make this video. I think it's astonishing that you have a bunch of people in the comments who identify themselves as 'that uncle', but instead of angry diatribes, I see people mostly exchanging opinions in a rather calm and civilized manner. With this topic and on this platform that is quite the acomplishment in itself!

[@lajoswinkler]

These "uncles" gather at Sabine's channel because they, due to their issues, see her as "the one showing the finger to Them", which she isn't. The issues these people have are they are narcissistic and have low amount of knowledge, and that's a deadly combination behind so many antiscience movements today (antivaxxers, flatearth morons, chemtrail idiots, etc.).

[@7x779]

Next, watch a video entitled " a climate conversation " so you have a more well-informed balanced perspective

[@tonyclack5901]

@@7x779 Or Dr John Robson.

[@Fldavestone]

Never let a crisis go to waste is what you need to know.

[@ArcanePath360]

Well summed up.

[@ThatGuy-p5z]

A government manufactured crisis! To consolidate power and control and take the individuals ability to choose how to spend their money (relentless taxation)leaving fewer and fewer dollars in the hands of those who earned them and transferred to the government!

[@BrinJay-s4v]

@@ArcanePath360 Arguments are just removed not repudiated.

[@HealingLifeKwikly]

Thousands of research studies and 40+ years of quite accurate climate models prove that the climate crisis is real, lethal, urgent and that our emissions caused ~98% of all global warming since 1900.

[@WayneLynch69]

It's hard to deal with those whom demand the Shibboleth "climate change---global warming" be apologetically spoken, and instead have horribly exacerbated it. Nuclear energy, LNG, the hideous forrest clearing that is ethanol, geo-engineering, EV's requirement for rare-mineral mining(morally no different than "blood-diamonds")..... THEY are the exact people whom have manifestly promoted human's fossil emissions

[@fruityoverlord9937]

The uncertainty is the part you glossed over. How much influence does an increase of CO2 have on global temperatures. If its small, then wasting trillions on it could be better used elsewhere. If its large, it's a serious problem. The reality is that the IPCC has a huge error range on this and there are studies showing it could be a lot lower than consensus. Additionally, the predictions are entirely modelling based which has its own sets of predictability issues. Additionally, there are also many positives in a higher CO2 world which are totally ignored in this debate. It's really an issue about people denying the reality that CO2 affects temperature, its about the size of the effect.

[@Richard482]

So would any positives outweigh the negatives?

[@tonyclack5901]

Don,t be fooled by this paid shill. Fact. The earth warms and then CO2 rises because when the sea warmes the CO2 gas/bubbles expand and rise to the sea surface and then the lower atmosphere. It is heavier than air and that's why plants benefit when CO2 goes up. However as it goes up, plant growth increases and they use up more CO2 and it balances out. CO2 accounts for 0.004 of 1% that means that the rest of the gasses are 99.966 of the earths atmosphere. First it was acid rain, then ozone and now CO2 and net zero, just another tax scam. Check out Dr John Robson for the facts, its not difficult. BTW antarctica has more ice this year than in the last 20 years. They won't tell you this either.

[@TimothyWhiteheadzm]

Carbon from plants going into the atmosphere is not solely from fossil fuels but also from soil carbon being lost due to forests and other land being cleared for farming. Still human caused but not just fossil fuels.

[@davestorm6718]

Since C14 is almost non-existent in fossil fuel given it's short half life, this alters the ratios significantly (though, the nuclear test stuff I hadn't heard of before) when it's being pumped into the atmosphere. I'm not sure what you mean by soil carbon lost - it shouldn't affect the levels of CO2 unless you mean via microbial action, but even then, when you consider the total biomass in a system and a relatively stable bio-decay rate, there shouldn't be a net increase in CO2 in the system. That said, as the temperature increases, the bio-decay rate will also increase. (I'm using "bio-decay" instead of "decay" to not confuse it with nuclear decay) When deforestation happens, it removes nature's natural CO2 absorbers, however, over a greater time span, there still won't be a net increase in CO2 from this (the wood from trees, eventually decays and any CO2 captured is re-released). The takeaway from this is to stop burning organic compounds trapped in the ground over geologic time scales.

[@mikethebloodthirsty]

So net zero is just pointless designed to push us into poverty, while the big corporations carry on this behaviour right?.

[@mikethebloodthirsty]

​​@@davestorm6718the takeaway is more nuclear and to stop de forestation and plant trees. Net zero just seems tokenism while we are letting governments and corporations carry on doing this. The biggest countries who pump co2 into the air are China, Russia and America... China is trying to offset some of their emissions, but really fundamentally I don't see America or Russia giving a fk.

[@fakestory1753]

Good thinking, but i think the effect is minor, due to we burn way more fossil fuel than taken down trees. MinutePhysics video once talk about the carbon we throw into atmosphere per year is 100x of total mass in biosphere. kzbin.info/www/bejne/iXWcqomZlpubfqs

[@TimothyWhiteheadzm]

@@fakestory1753 Sorry but that is not even close to being true. For the atmosphere: current CO2 = 3,200 gigatons approx. CO2 emitted by humans since 1850 = 2,400 gigatons approx. Emissions last year approx 40 gigatonnes. Biosphere breathing effect: 436 gigatonnes per year. I struggled to find a good source for total biosphere carbon but its enormous relative to above figures. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#:~:text=It%20has%20been%20estimated%20that,over%2040%20gigatons%20per%20year.

[@livelucky74]

This is perfect. I've had that exact problem you described at the start of the video- finding the actual scientific evidence rather than just someone saying it's true.

[@jamesmcginn6291]

She just said it was true. She knows better and is lying.

[@tonybs03]

​@@jamesmcginn6291 prove to us why we should believe u instead

[@lellyparker]

@@jamesmcginn6291 She did not just say it was true, she explained in some detail how we know it is true.

[@ruschein]

@@jamesmcginn6291 If you're so sure that she is lying I'm certain you can easily point out which point or points that she mentioned are incorrect and I am sure you can also point us to the relevant scientific literature that supports your claims!

[@indenial3340]

She's literally telling what has been said and asserting it as fact.

[@Mevlinous]

0:39 the fact that we can’t get a straight answer on this issue without doing a tonne of digging is a problem in itself, especially for those who are on the fence or simply wanting more information to confirm the narrative about climate change. Unfortunately, we tend to get a lot of narrativeand ideology

[@hansonfincher927]

Starting at 1.22: 1. CO2 absorption spectrum 2. Atmospheric CO2 level 3. Ocean acidification 4. Carbon isotope ratios 5. Stratospheric cooling

[@victim21]

And then y'all just lean to "well I guess it's not real!"

[@niklasrembra3511]

I don´t get a couple of things and hope you can clarify: 1. If we burn fossil fuels which shifts the C12/C13 ratio. Doesn´t that mean that we are restoring the ratio how it was in the past? 2. All graphs were from after the industrial revolution kickt off. Do you know where i can get pre "industrial revolution" graphs for CO2 levels in the athmosphere? 3. How many % of climate change can be attributed to human activity (Controlling the data for other variables like sun activity, measuring in urban vs rural areas ect)

[@KateeAngel]

What do you mean ratio as it was in the past? Which exactly moment in the past? It was changing many times over geologic history? Also, how would that make anything better?

[@kayakMike1000]

​@@KateeAngelhow are things worse? There's no real trend in extreme weather events, except for people not maintaining their damns and building more stuff in flood planes.

[@Harry351ify]

Yes, we're digging up carbon that was once in the atmosphere. However, the change in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is unnaturally fast for the living to adapt to the changes. Also, 99% of the species that lived in the world is now extinct. So do you want us humans to go extinct too because it's natural? Or do we do our best to maintain Earth so that we can live longer in a better environment?

[@maxanimator9547]

The timespan over which bio-organisms turn into now usable fossil fuel is much greater than the equivalent rate at which we are burning those. So yes, we are pumping CO2 back into the atmosphere, as in we are restoring the ratio ; except that we are much overdoing this, which actually imbalances said ratio the other way around. Basically, we are burning more fossil fuel than is able to naturally generate.

[@Pastamistic]

#3 is over 100% of warming is attributed to us releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere. If CO2 levels stayed at the 280ppm before the industrial revolution we would currently be in a period of cooling rather than warming.

[@NeoAutodroid]

I'm just a trade worker, not a scientist and I gave up studying the sciences when I ran into some personal life difficulties that forced me out of college some years ago but your informative and fun videos have made me fall in love with science again. Even though it pains me greatly that I'll likely never be a scientist myself or contribute anything to research I can still enjoy catching up on the progress made by others.

[@dpsamu2000]

I was a machinist. During my career I invented a modification of the Boeing 777 that made it the safest airliner in history. 1800 flying. No mass fatality accidents in 30 years. An acrylic submarine nose I made is in the opening credits of Star Trek Enterprise. The Atlantis resort is made of many acrylic aquarium panels, and tubes I made. I made the heart of the Large Hadron Collider. Made it 10 times better than expected, and was thanked personally by the engineers. I was told because of my work it effectively increased the power 10 times. Instead of expecting up to 100 years to find the first evidence for the Higgs boson it was expected to take as little as 10 years. It took 8. In my free time I solved dark matter. It's ordinary matter. I solved global warming. It's not caused by fossil fuel. invented a widely popular 3d stereograph pinup collection. I invented a flying car system in conjunction with a city architectural technology never seen before. Buildings, and cars float in an oxygen, and Sulphur hexafluoride gas mix in a domed city. I designed a electric catapult space launcher that's much more practical, and economical to build, and operate than any other design, and I solved the landing problem of SpaceX. Increase roll authority to minimize roll. Eliminated nearly all crashing, reduced fuel required, and increased payload by several hundred pounds. You can still contribute. There's a lot of low hanging fruit of problems to be solved, and inventions needed to solve them.

[@SnackPatrol]

@@dpsamu2000 Agreed. I'm currently working on a way to teach accomplished machinists humility online

[@dpsamu2000]

@@SnackPatrol How's that workin' out for you? Loser.

[@MuffinologyTrainer]

​@@dpsamu2000 Laughing my bolls off. Well executed.

[@dpsamu2000]

@@MuffinologyTrainer Too bad nobody else gets to see it. Some loser deleted it as usual.

[@yeroca]

I seem to remember you did another video on why CO2 causes heat trapping, and how it's really quite a non-trivial reason. It might be a good idea to put a link to that video in the info beneath this video, because it goes into a bit more detail on the radiation and trapping.

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Good idea, will do!

[@Vile_Entity_3545]

Yes that video put a whole new meaning to what we are doing. In other words what is really needed is depopulation. If done in a responsible way which means some will lose out on reproducing then so be it.

[@nomizomichani]

@@Vile_Entity_3545 Why do you believe depopulation is a responsible way to counter climate change? I would like to understand your logic behind it. You do know people are a form of carbon sink, don't you? Where would those carbon go if people are depopulated?

[@osmosisjones4912]

Carbon dioxide doesn't trap infored it's to dense and reflective. Venus has a 90% reflection rate

[@osmosisjones4912]

​@@SabineHossenfeldercarbon is more reflective. Venus has a 90% reflection rate and is internally heated. Your thinking of carbon monoxide. Also needs to transfer heat or else it would make things cooler

[@matthewjenkins1161]

It remains an inconvenient historic truth that our planet has been through many ice ages, while CO2 was higher than today.

[@mathboy8188]

I hope, for your sake, that you realize that your observation there is absolutely irrelevant to the scientific finding that human actions - mostly our CO2 emissions - are causing a dramatic global warming. If you think you've produced a defeater of what climate science has found, then you aren't "thinking" at all.

[@jollyjokress3852]

What did fauna and flora look like in these days?

[@matthewjenkins1161]

@@jollyjokress3852 Frosty

[@GlobalWarmth]

And ironically -- in light of the overblown hysteria -- we currently live in an *_Ice Age,_* AND the Holocene is NOT the warmest interglacial of the Pleistocene. Gore's "inconvenient" film tricks many people with correlation but wrong causation. The lack of skyrocketing temperature -- CO2 leaving temperature far, far behind -- suggests that CO2 is wimpy, at best. 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯

[@RandomButBeautiful]

it's another inconvenient truth that more die from cold than from heat. And a further one that the 25,000 per day that die of starvation and its related diseases, is a far bigger number than even the worst AGW estimates predict, and could be solved with a far smaller budget..... not to mention that the increased CO2 increases crop yields... it is almost as though they want to end lives, not save them...

[@bhangrafan4480]

I set this task to a group of my Level 3 BTEC Applied Science students, because I know that it is not as simple a question as the public believe. I reckon over 99% of people who vehemently believe in anthropogenic climate change, have absolutely no idea at all what the evidence is, they just know that all the experts are agreed. Not one single student came up with the evidence, even when later prompted as to what I was looking for. Rather they just came back with rising CO2 levels coinciding with increased industrial activity, and similar information to your initial searches.

[@chingron]

Except… all the “experts” absolutely do not agree.

[@robguyatt9602]

@@chingron Just the ones who aren't paid off by big carbon.

[@johngeier8692]

You would have to conduct controlled prospective experiments on whole close Earth analog planets with large surface oceans to accurately determine the climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. The effects are highly dependent upon the initial conditions. If the initial mean surface temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration are suboptimal for plant growth, then raising them is actually beneficial.

[@robguyatt9602]

@@johngeier8692 for plants yes but what about the unwanted consequences? I find it extremely ignorant for people to say in isolation that increasing CO2 is good for plants. They think they have a gotcha when they are only harping on one side of the story.

[@josephnolan8217]

Except global warming is not relevant for overall trends toward cooling historically, which is a bigger threat than any warming ever would be. A single super volcano which we are overdue for would plunge us into global winter or a single large enough asteroid. We are concerned about the wrong things. A carbon tax is a ponzi scheme for rich elites and would od nothing but green washing. Electric vehicles do nothing to help green energy because of refusal to use nuclear energy, which is safe, reliable, and ultimate future of energy, but stopped by interest groups and environmental nut jobs.

[@Nostrudoomus]

UC Davis has had posted on their University website for years a long article about nitrogen in Boreal Forests. They say that past rapid CO2 rises on Earth were sequestered by the Boreal Forests absorbing the CO2 into increased forest growth, naturally sequestered CO2! And the reason the Boreal Forests can do this is because they have excess nitrogen in their soils which the forests can absorb more rapidly than is normally thought to occur in nature and that this phenomenon deserves further study.

[@kellyfutrell6832]

Observations show that ocean levels and climate change has fluctuated so much it is reliant on when we pick our climate change points on. Earth temps have changed since the beginning of time. There are far greater things to worry about such as tyrants and totalitarians. We have plenty of time to find alternative energy methods for transportation and manfacturing without shutting down and starving the population. Funny they never point to China's carbon production.

[@rudolfquerstein6710]

@@kellyfutrell6832 I mean yes tyrants are a problem, but the climate today has one large issue. Yes there are natural means of compensation. The issue is... humans. Do you want to give up your house to grow a forest there? Like yes vegetation will increase if CO2 levels rise and will absorb a lot of it. Unfortunately the forest area on earth is shrinking, not increasing. The planet can only compensate for the increased CO2 production of humans if we let it. On top of that most of those fluctuations where fairly slow. We currently see changes even just in decades. We do not really know if the mechanisms that worked in the past would be able to work here.

[@georgesimon1760]

​@@kellyfutrell6832this is like saying that because we're about to hit a tree anyway, we might as well hit the accelerator in the car.

[@williamrgrant]

@@georgesimon1760 I think it is more appropriate to say: "there is a tree 60 miles ahead that I might run into in one hour of travel time. But there are massive sinkholes in the road immediately ahead of me that I should worry about first." Yes, taking care of our shared home (the planet) is an issue to address. But the time to real consequences of getting the climate problem wrong are on wildly different time scales than many of our other more present issues.

[@georgesimon1760]

@@williamrgrant that's just an excuse to do nothing. There's no reason to wait on climate mitigation while we work on other issues.

[@tiaxanderson9725]

This was quite interesting for such a short video. I was aware we could tell the CO2 was from burning fossil fuels, but I didn't know exactly why. Also hadn't heard of Stratospheric Cooling

[@ClebRuckus2]

didnt you learn in school that CO2 is plant food ? essential for photosynthesis? earth at its greenest was above 2000 ppm right now its 400 ppm ,Dunning Kruger cant science

[@georgegrader9038]

There is also the masking of warming by "global dimming" [cooling] by atmospheric particulates. That's a thing, and a changing thing.

[@kenwoodburn7438]

Have you heard of geoengineering and HAARP?

[@ClebRuckus2]

@@kenwoodburn7438 or stratospheric aerosol injection ?these folks will limit their breathing to save themselves from dangerous CO2 😂 the same CO2 thats pumped into greenhouses to maximise yields and save water .These people forgot what they were taught school that CO2 is essential for photosynthesis.

[@j.vonhogen9650]

​@@kenwoodburn7438- Geoengineering has been used for decades to create weather extremes that can then be falsely ascribed to fossil fuel emissions. The agenda behind the weaponization of geoengineering is as obvious as it is frightning, and of course Sabine doesn't have a clue about it, being the poorly informed climate alarmist that she has become. It's really disappointing that she seems so ignorant about the sinister climate change agenda and its well-documented history. I guess it is time for me to unsubscribe from this channel.

[@alejandrozuzek3879]

This is so incredibly clear. Thanks Sabine. It's sad that this is probably only going to be watched by people who already know this (albeit maybe without this clarity).

[@davidbarrett590]

Accepting what you say which I definitely do, how then do we account for climate change in the past - i.e. since the end of the Younger Dryas and the beginning of our 'civilistation'? Glaciologists, dendrologists, geographers, historians, archaelogists, etc all concur in there being quite significant variations - for example, the so-called "Medieval Warm Period' or the 'Little Ice Agent' which followed it. I have never heard an explanation of why these past variations have happened.....it would be great if you could explain! I have total faith in you Sabine to explain all things scientific that interest me.......if only you had been around when I was a kid!

[@joejoe-vx4xs]

'Little Ice Agent' lol.

[@sgalla1328]

Those darn little ice agents 🤣 You must have Google Gboard..

[@Blake4Truth]

Unfortunately Dr. H., whine I love dearly, neglected to address other factors that can contribute to warming of the lower troposphere and cooling of the upper atmosphere: 1) increased water vapor, which has an even greater effect than CO2, 2) changes in global cloud cover, 3) changes in solar activity, meaning sunspot and coronal mass ejection activity, not solar irradiance, 4) natural cyclic fluctuations in ocean currents having periods from decadal, to multi-decadal, to century, and even millennium and longer, 5) and even changes in cosmic radiation. The UN IPCC’s climate model regime has been repeatedly falsified; repeatedly shown to run to warm, about double what has been credibly observed (you know, actual science). The good doctor is out of her wheelhouse. Climate is a massively complex chaotic system. It’s not enough to show that hydrocarbon fuels are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere; one must also show that the extra 0.0001 portion by volume of CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of not just warming, but dangerous warming. The best measure of reality is to look as changes in sea level as registered by paleo geological science and by tide gage records. Do not make the mistake of combining or concatenation either with satellite derived sea level. They are not the same measurement, and the satellite derived data is HIGHLY manipulated, unlike paleo geology and tide gage records. When you do that, you’ll find no acceleration or unusual rate of increase in sea level. You can also observe the polar ice, both ocean and land borne. We have written records going back over a century for that. And we have ice core proxy records from both a Greenland/Arctic’s glacier, and an Antarctic glacier What we’ve observed recently is nothing new. The data doesn’t lie, but government bureaucratic scientists do.

[@ItsEverythingElse]

We CAN account for climate change in the past. That doesn't mean that currently it's the same causes.

[@danilooliveira6580]

we do have a pretty good idea what caused some of those climate events, the problem is, as always, there are too many variables, and one or all of them could be the responsible for those events. the difference with anthropogenic climate change is that we have a pretty good idea of all the other variables for global average temperature increase, and the only one that aligns neatly is the CO2 released by humans.

[@birtybonkers8918]

A good summary Sabine. All of this is uncontroversial i.e. most skeptics agree that CO2 is rising and the additional CO2 derives from fossil fuels. The controversy is about what happens in the future. How much temperature rise would a doubling of CO2 cause and how does this factor alongside the natural temperature cycles? Would this on balance be a bad thing or a good thing and what we should do to mitigate any negative effects? It’s about feedbacks, particularly whether the CO2 rise drives an increase in water vapour in the atmosphere and whether or not the models provide a reliable forecast of future temperatures. This is a lot more complex.

[@danobrien3601]

definitely a bad thing ... seen the floods ? then there are increased temperatures when its not raining .Then you can also get steam bath conditions . If the temperature reaches 35C and 100% humidity then humans cannot ..repeat .. cannot survive ...because we cannot release body heat and so like a car engine without a radiator we overheat and die . A medical FACT not a climate science fact . And that has nearly happened a few times recently ..This is why there are climate refugees ...even internally displaced climate refugees

[@tedjohansen1634]

This.

[@rob.parsnips]

Ugh, just stop. You guys were wrong before about climate change not happening, and you’re wrong now about it being a good thing or stopping it being impractical or whatever flavor of denialism you prefer. Don’t you guys ever get tired of being wrong? I’m gonna drop a fat “i told you so” now, and maybe in another ten years I’ll see you in the comments again and I can drop another one. Lying stupid assholes who aren’t willing to make any sacrifice for the greater good. Ten years dude 👀🫵

[@danilooliveira6580]

water vapor concentration in the atmosphere is directly related to temperature, so while other greenhouse gases have a much smaller impact, they increase the concentration of water vapor, accelerating the warming effect. other greenhouse gases removed, water vapor would be stable.

[@benjamintherogue2421]

The issue is CO2's saturation point doesn't allow any more heating once it's reached. And we've already pretty much reached CO2s max saturation point when it comes to heating. As it stands, we're much closer to having too little CO2 than too much.

[@davidorourke5795]

I am a uncle, and I strongly refute that I am thus prevented from being able to critically assess things that people tell are pure science!

[@gordonlawson2334]

Do yourself a favor and look into the “pure science” methodology and lack of research… settled science is just misogyny.

[@bradleywhitaker1085]

I think Sabine did a good job demonstrating that the measured increase in CO2 is from fossil fuels and so caused by humans. Did she address the connection between CO2 and climate change? I'm not sure she did. It may be true sea water acidification is an effect of increasing CO2 levels. But its connection to climate change? Drawing correlations to CO2 levels (acidification) does not draw the same correlation to earth temp. increase. Increase in sea level? That is very difficult to measure in part because of the accuracy and precision of the measurement required but also because of the lack of a real baseline. Extreme weather events? I'm not sure about this one but I suspect the correlation between extreme weather and CO2 increase is primarily supported by atmospheric modeling. I don't know, have any of these computer models been validated? Say, by using historical data to predict the present state of the atmosphere? Again, very difficult and a question that should be asked. We do know and have measured with great accuracy and precision the interaction of CO2 and radiation across a broad frequency range in the laboratory. I guess that is a start but I doubt it is the end of the story.

[@tomfeng5645]

She did though, the evidence pointed out here was Stratospheric cooling, which exactly fits the models of what CO2 does in the upper atmosphere, which suggests the model's predicted effects in the lower atmosphere - which is more complicated to entangle due to it being much more chaotic - are correct. Given the short-form video, you can't really expect more to presented on that, but there's plenty of such evidence. Effects like the strengthening of El Nino/La Nina and other such weather oscillations driven by temperature have been well documented, as well as comparisons to historical and geological records of extreme weather events. By the way, sea level and global surface temperature measurements have improved enough with satellite technology that the effects are *very* evident even in the short period we have been able to measure them with that level of precision.

[@pressrepeat2000]

Agreed. It wasn’t a good video at all. Definitely won’t convince any uncles.

[@pressrepeat2000]

@@tomfeng5645It wasn’t a good video, nothing in here would convince a sceptic uncle. Most of the stuff she says here is more like “trust me, bro”, rather than clear, evidence based cause and effect.

[@pressrepeat2000]

@@tomfeng5645It wasn’t a good video, nothing in here would convince a sceptic uncle. Most of the stuff she says here is more like “trust me, bro”, rather than clear, evidence based cause and effect.

[@oldkarate]

Explanation for science illiterates. In science nothing is PROVEN. It's either supported or not supported. There's no "trust me bro" nonsense here. She just presented supporting evidence (as opposed to the crap climate deniers come up with). In that respect, it did what it was supposed to do.

[@dosgos]

I see a lot of complaints about "smoothed" observation data. Maybe a video comparing raw to adjusted data and discussing the adjustments would be helpful. BTW this was a great summary without a wasted word.

[@wildweedle6012]

Good luck with that.

[@anderslvolljohansen1556]

Smoothing is just taking a moving average, isn't it? Perhaps you're talking about homogenisation. The placement of meteorological stations isn't the same over time, some are shut down, and some new ones are installed. So a continuous curve has to merge time series.

[@stuartkim4857]

What percent of global warming is caused by human activity? Couldn’t it be that global warming is caused by both human and natural causes? How can one be confident that the majority of warming is caused by fossil fuels?

[@anderslvolljohansen1556]

@@stuartkim4857 That has been quantified to between 80% and 120% of the warming since the last half of the 19th century, if I remember correctly. I don't have the reference in my head, but I remember Simon Clark discussing such a quantification or attribution in one of his videos.

[@anderslvolljohansen1556]

@@stuartkim4857 Fossil fuels, land use change and livestock. Rice paddies and ruminants emit methane. Deforestation releases CO2.

[@Williamottelucas]

Next, I would like to see a video that looks at how and why and when the narrative changed over time. When I was young, we were all being warned of a coming ice age. Why was that? If if the scientists were wrong about that, why were they wrong, and how did they happen to incorrectly reach that consensus?

[@peterlustig8778]

I remember this 30 years ago: The coming ice age then they switched to heating. As if they need a global catastroph to push through the world government..

[@clray123]

@@peterlustig8778 Now we have the warmest whatever on TV while freezing off our ass in a cold wet winter-spring.

[@ryandempsey4830]

The narrative never changed. This very idea that "the narrative changed" itself is a modern invention put out by climate change deniers to just discredit scientists and this so called "consensus" about global temperatures falling in the future was not a real thing at the time in the 60s-70s like these people say it was. The actual reality was that even in the 60s and 70s it was clear beyond dispute that greenhouse gases we emit will lead to global warming. This is was already well understood and accepted by the relevant scientists in the 60s. What happened is that there was a separate, unrelated question about the net global effects of putting so much aerosolized materials into the atmosphere and what effect this specific increase in aerosolized particles would cause. And, reasonably, it was thought that the net effect would be a cooling one as light from the sun is reflected away more by the increase in aerosolized particles in the atmosphere. And it was correct. But that was an entirely different question. Their was indeed a very small cooling effect, BUT that has nothing to do with the warming caused by the greenhouse effect, which obviously way way overwhelms any cooling effect so the net effect together is still perfectly consistent with temps rising overall. So there was no conflict, no "change of narrative". They were two related things, and scientists were correct about both... both in the 60s and now. There is no contradiction, no "change". You just heard that somewhere and so assumed it was true, because it's a common made up talking point made by people trying to discredit climate scientists. But it's based on nothing real. There was no "change in narrative". There was no change at all. Its been consistent the whole time. What you need to do now, is realize how many other climate change talking points you've just accepted just as easily are also based on nothing/misunderstandings/outright lies.

[@cybrsage]

@@clray123 warmest since 1913 means it was cooler between 1913 and now. So many are unable to understand this.

[@gedofgont1006]

It's all driven by political and economic vested interests. There is no genuine science involved. The end.

[@scottminter4735]

What is the ideal temperature for plant earth?

[@brucebaum1458]

Here in northern Canada I think 72 degrees fairenheight is perfect year round, so we’ve got a way to go.

[@paullutgen3295]

The temperature you remember and enjoyed as a child is the baseline. Any change from that is a climate catastrophe

[@yessopie]

The ideal temperature is whatever the existing ecosystems and societies have adapted to. Ecosystems and human civilization can adapt to changes in climate. But our CO2 emissions are warming the planet about 10-20x faster than natural variations. We've already got a lot of political instability, and this is only going to make it worse, as massive numbers of refugees move away from places that become uninhabitable, huge swaths of farmland become arid, and so on. I'm in Canada, and naively I might say, "well, more of Canada will become farmable, so that's good for Canada!" Except no, as soon as land in Canada becomes valuable, Russia, China and the US are not going to let us just have it. Russia and China are already getting ready to take over the arctic part of Canada as it becomes possible for ships to navigate through it. The point is that minimizing our dependency on fossil fuels seems to be far less expensive than dealing with the consequences of global warming. But since the former is a cost that has to be paid up front, we'd much rather let future generations pay the huge cost than pay a relatively minor cost ourselves.

[@liquidmagma]

@@yessopie You have no idea that your claimed "10-20x faster" is anywhere near correct.

[@yessopie]

@@liquidmagma You're right, I'm sorry. It's actually more like 100x. I said 10x-20x because I wanted to compare to periods of maximum natural variation, not average natural variation.

[@viarnet]

hey Sabine, please make an in-depth video on Milankovitch cycles...thanks.

[@timpaling4077]

Wanted to ask for this too! These cycles are almost always missing from climate change discussions, yet they are such an important factor.

[@BK-qp4uq]

@@timpaling4077 Ask for clouds, they are missing too.

[@petersherman4318]

True, the cycles are important to ever changing climate, but not on the time order of 200 y which is mostly what climate scientists are concerned about. The older data cited are simply for reference to place the extreme recent changes into broader historical context. There are great vids out there on the cycles to watch. Our, best yet... Get a textbook... That's always the best way... Hope that helps... Be well.

[@definitlynotbenlente7671]

​@@petersherman4318they are not the main cause of short term climate change

[@helenvanginkel7910]

Would you be able to explain why the warming effect of carbon dioxide is so big while the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air is only 0.04%

[@MrCSutton]

Stop asking sensible questions. The religion can't cope with them.

[@blahblah49000]

It's like the masks: the holes are too big, but if you didn't wear one anyway... Come to think of it, that'll probably be up next: "Wear a mask to contain your expelled carbon dioxide! Nevermind how big the molecules are! Just do it or you're a denier!"

[@georgelionon9050]

It isn't "big" per se its a few kelvin difference, but it makes a very noticeable impact. And about the 0.04% do not have an impact.. you think drinking a 0.04% solution hydrocyanic acid would have no impact on your health?

[@helenvanginkel7910]

@@georgelionon9050 hydrocyanide is not carbon dioxide......this does not explain why such a small percentage has such a big effect

[@SenseiBonaf]

​@@helenvanginkel7910 Again, it’s not a big effect in absolute terms. It’s only ”big” relative to living species.

[@wdhewson]

Sabine needs to read and understand Steve Koonin's "Unsettled" !!

[@brendanfitzpatrick3824]

Problem is that Uncle can barely read, much less understand isotopes or anything about chemistry and I imagine he would think your three types of carbon is some kind of hoax. Wait till he finds out how many kinds of water there are.

[@deborahrobinson7488]

Yea, but at least he has a bit of common sense.

[@captain_clark868]

this is the problem some won't believe in evidence no matter how strong, and prefer ideology

[@GeneMcgi]

Thanks as always Sabine. Always a pleasure tuning in to your newest post. See you tomorrow. Hugs!!

[@Fatone85]

Your quizzes are perfect. I often want to relay your information to friends and family, and with other channels I'll be like "Uuuh, wait well... just watch the video". But when I take your quiz it forces me to make a hard memory about the topic points, and gets me to rewatch certain sections. Then when I'm transcribing from memory, I'm representing the information accurately :)

[@paulr8311]

Phew, I almost subscribed to this channel.

[@Thomas-gk42]

shame, would have been a good decision, but you are not that important luckily

[@dennisdiehl8941]

You're the best Sabine

[@sfgoddard]

Perfect summary thank you Sabine for this and all your honest thoughtful work which is up to date,human, humorous and always positively adds to scientific debate.

[@berniv7375]

No mention of factory farming and it's horrific contribution to global warming. Disappointing.

[@Red_Fern]

Not so fast Sabine. If you want an excellent summary of the earth's increase in CO2 concentration and how we can prove, with direct measurement, that the increase in CO2 comes from the burning of fossil fuels then this is your video. However Sabine, you very much did a wave of the hand of "How do we know climate change is caused by humans" or more specifically how do we know increased CO2 concentration causes global warming. A few sentences concluding stratospheric cooling is the simple explanation of why increased CO2 increases the earth's temperature doesn't answer with any specificity the relationship between CO2 and global temperature. The prediction of stratospheric cooling in the 1960s done by Manabe & Wertherald is a mathematical model and not a direct measurement. You can watch your previous video on the Green House Effect to get your detailed explanation of stratospheric cooling but there is plenty to debate when you examine the details of stratospheric cooling and the impact of CO2 concentration on global temperature. My point is not to prove or disprove that increased CO2 causes global warming. My point is you described "How we know CO2 change is caused by humans" and not "how we know climate change is caused by humans".

[@georgelionon9050]

Yes there is a second part missing...

[@revivalcycle]

Yup, well said. Catastrophics is not a branch of real science; just ask John Kerry while having dinner with him at Davos. That is, if Bill, George and Klaus will let you get a word in.

[@IAMACollectivist]

There are additional CO2 fingerprints in the warming. Nighttime temps are increasing faster than daytime temps consistent with additional retention of heat, but not increasing inputs. Increasing ground level IR in the bands CO2 absorbs, with decreasing IR in those bands observed escaping to space by satellite. These were predicted based on the physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas prior to being observed. The physics of co2 as a greenhouse gas was worked out through observation 150+ years ago. By Tyndall, Arrhenius, and others. We also have 50 year old predictions for today's global average temps based on the CO2 emissions scenario as it played out which proves correct, but they didn't just predict THAT it would warm. They predicted precisely how much it would warm. To put that into context Earth hasn't been this warm in 125,000 years. Clearly one of the greatest predictions in the history of earth sciences.

[@IAMACollectivist]

@@revivalcycle Do you think the moon wasn't created in a massive planetary collision? Do you not believe in the Missoula floods?

[@revivalcycle]

@@IAMACollectivist What does that have to do with you giving evidence that dead animals make oil? You politicize science. I did not bring up worldviews. I asked for evidence that petroleum can be made from dead animals. Why can you not defend the WEF myth that you advance? Who's payroll are you on?

[@chpsilva]

TBH I never heard that carbon isotope explanation before, and this is both a great scientific evidence and a easy one to understand. Thanks Sabine for exposing it in such a didactic way.

[@johnruess9699]

My uncle says her isotope correlation is unsubstantiated.

[@GrandpasPlace]

John replied about how the isotope correlation is unsubstantiated. Which is correct but I dont think is helpful So let me try to explain C12 is the Carbon in the CO2 we exhale, as well as the CO2 that plants use, and that fossil fuels produce. C14 is radioactive and there are small amounts of it on the planet which lest us do carbon dating of ancient items. C13 was produced by the testing and use of atomic weapons 80 to 90 years ago. We dont know if there was a baseline of C13 before that so it could have been 0 before we started using atomic weapons. Measurements of the ratio of C12 and C13 in CO2 show C13 declining over the last 50 years. This could be because we are producing more CO2 or it could be because it was created 80 to 90 years ago and is slowly working its way out of the atmosphere. We don't know for sure.

[@dysrhythmia]

@@GrandpasPlace C14 is the isotope created from nuclear bomb tests, not C13

[@scottw2317]

@@GrandpasPlace further to that plants do use C13, the utilisation differs whether it is a C3 (wet and cool type plant) or a C4 (are dry hot climate type plant). This is well known even in anthropology where they test ancient collagen for what types of plants the creatures ate or in the case of carnivores what the animals they ate did eat. A decline could be described as going down if plants of the type most likely to take in C13 also increase as was shown by NASA satellites showing a vast greening of the planet.... largely by C4 types of plants. The acidification aspect was equally dismal. You have three states, Acidic (Below 7) Neutral (7) and Alkaline (above 7) so if you move from one state towards the other without crossing Neutral it is Neutralisation. Seawater is generally around 8.1ph (alkaline) and the amount of CO2 to neutralise it from 8.1 to 8 is staggeringly large and with each subsequent change is larger than the last meaning it is logarithmic (about 10 times) so to change from 8.1 to 7.8 would be about 110 times more than 8.1 to 8.0 and we are taking about changes in the error bands here so nothing to see with this anyway. Another aspect is that the ocean is outgassing CO2 meaning there is less because temperature also plays a part in this, the ph can change purely from temperature in this case. Also if CO2 was the driver it would not follow the temperature record by 800-1200 years in the proxy records...

[@ThisOldMan-ya472]

​@@GrandpasPlaceWhat about the influence of forestry and forest fires?

[@cherisepetker8692]

Great summary and data! Especially for a 6 minute video.

[@johnfisher7143]

My uncle came back to me. He still thinks it’s a hoax 😂

[@jonnevaalanti4949]

Because it's unmanly to change your opinions based on what someone else tells you. Especially if it's a woman 🙄 What a goddamn doofus.

[@tomtetomtesson2477]

He is right you only have to look at historical data from millions of years of CO2 levels and temperature and you will notice that they dont follow each other. You know when we had dinosaurs the temperature was way way warmer then now and the planet was much greener.

[@jonnevaalanti4949]

@@tomtetomtesson2477 yes, it probably was warmer. But the rate of change wasn't nearly as high as now. Also, why do you think a climate that's good for dinosaurs is good for humans? The whole point of action against climate change is to keep our atmosphere livable for humans, not dinosaurs. Also, the heat isn't gonna be the thing that kills us, the aftereffects will. And even then, not all of humanity will die, only the less fortunate.

[@tomtetomtesson2477]

@@jonnevaalanti4949 Did I say its good for the humans? We are no where near 12 degrees but telling the most adaptive primate on earth that we are doomed over a couple of degrees global warming (which we also aint nowhere near) is just fearmongering. History shows the opposite that when its warmer we thrive better and plants just love more CO2 also which actually has been dangerously low for plants recently but no one wants to tell us that. What scientists can do is to measure the temperature outside of city centers and the tell us how much the earths has become warmer before they start fearmongering. After around 30 wrongly predicted doomsday scenarios the last decades its getting tiresome to listen to another doomsday MODELLING scenario.

[@tomtetomtesson2477]

@@jonnevaalanti4949 You know that we are in a ice age period right now and no matter what we do we it will get warmer sooner or later anyway and telling us humans cant live under when temperature changes is like saying Africans cant live in colder countries. Colder climate has been proven to be more dangerous than warmer climate historically so why would it be any different now? Never trust a scammer who tries to silence opposite scientific views like the so called consensus on climate. They did the exactly same thing with Covid but they have been doing this for decades with climate. Every single scientist, media or politician who have accepted this kind of behaviour should be fired immediately. The thing with historical data is that it shows that temperature and CO2 level has not been correlating before but suddenly it does?

[@Volthrax]

IPCC AR6 was released in 2021 and the following are classified as "low confidence" that they have changed significantly in the "modern era" which means from 1850. "Low confidence" means there is little or no evidence they have changed. The AR6 reference is Table 12.12 regarding “Climate Impact Drivers (CIDs)” from Chapter 12 of Working Group 1 of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions) Aridity Avalanche (snow) Average rain Average Wind Speed Coastal Flood Drought Affecting Crops (agricultural drought) Drought From Lack Of Rain (hydrological drought) Erosion of Coastlines Fire Weather (hot and windy) Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods) Frost Hail Heavy Rain Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms Landslides Marine Heatwaves Ocean Alkalinity Radiation at the Earth’s Surface River/Lake Floods Sand and Dust Storms Sea Level Severe Wind Storms Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets Tropical Cyclones This is directly from IPCC AR6, and so Sabine many of the things you say proves climate change are contradicted by AR6. Remember this is not my opinion, it is from hundreds of IPCC authors. However, the summary for policy makers also contradicts much of the above. 120,000 years ago global temperature was 2-4C hotter than today and seas 5-7 Metres higher than today. There was no Arctic ice for at least 1000 years and somehow the planet didt incinerate and polar bears become extinct. In the dinosaur era, CO2 was 4 times higher than today but the oceans didnt turn into a seathing cauldron of acid. 1000 years ago Vikings farmed parts of Greenland that are permafrost today so we know for a fact it was hotter than today. From 1300 until the late 1800's was the Little Ice Age which was the coldest period in the last 8,000 years. So our current warming cycle is just the planet bouncing out of the LIA and past interglacials show this is perfectly normal. Global sea level has risen 130 metres since the last ice age 20,000 years ago and tidal gauges with histories of 100 years or more show that sea level has been rising steadily at about 2mm/year and this was recorded as early as 1810 which was before AGC could have made the slightest difference. The Central England Temperature database started in 1659 and shows that from 1690 to 1730 temperature rose an astounding 1.2C, then dropped and has been been rising sporadically ever since. Glaciers which had advanced at a rapid rate during the LIA started receding around 1750 which was well before anthopogenic warming could have had the slightest difference. So Sabine, just parrotting climate cult propaganda is contradicted by history and IPCC AR6.

[@s1n4m1n]

And that leaves out the question of what should the “correct” temperature should be.

[@hrlincoln9873]

"120,000 years ago global temperature was 2-4C hotter than today" This is laughably false.

[@mattleathen445]

I love how you cite scientists who would all blow your argument out of the water if they were to read it.

[@DaveDayCAE]

@@hrlincoln9873 Maybe not laughably????? From: GROK: @grok 120,000 years ago, during the last interglacial period known as the Eemian, the global temperature was warmer than it is now. The exact temperature difference is difficult to determine precisely due to the limitations of paleoclimate data, but it is estimated that the average global temperature was around 1 to 2 degrees Celsius (1.8 to 3.6 Fahrenheit) higher than it is today. This warmer climate resulted in sea levels being 4 to 8 meters (13 to 26 feet) higher than present-day levels due to the melting of ice sheets. It is important to note that this period was characterized by a different distribution of solar insolation due to orbital variations, which played a significant role in driving the warmer temperatures. Quote

[@alexmack956]

@@hrlincoln9873 hahahahahhaaa LAUGHABLY In my experience, scoffers are almost always wrong

[@bobwilson2860]

On a long enough time line, the earth is cooling to absolute zero.

[@ruschein]

You win my award for the most useless comment to the topic that was addressed in the video. Congratulations!

[@MassimoAngotzi]

And, on a much shorter term, you too will be cooling to zero.

[@user-sl6gn1ss8p]

but first it's gonna be swallowed by the sun, which will be a considerable warming

[@uweengelmann3]

I am not sure about it. Is not the sun swallop up earth during it final stages? Than earth would not exist any more after such time. Than earth will never cool to absolute zero.

[@TiagoCavalcanti-ji6hu]

You are wrong on many levels. Earth will be long gone ( I mean reeeeeally long gone) eons before the average temperature of the Universe reaches anywhere close to that. If it does so. Actually, we have no model for the matter at absolute zero whatsoever. Matter only exists WITHIN movement. If it doesn`t move, no properties can be inferred, by definition. So.... nope !

[@BillHickling]

Ah Yes Sabine, that picture of the cooling towers emitting ..... water vapour!

[@wordup897]

Yeah, it's as standard as polar bear standing on a small ice flow.

[@SteveGouldinSpain]

Fun fact: In 1976 Vangelis released the album Albedo 0.39. The albedo is the fraction of light that a surface reflects, and back then that's what the earth's albedo was. As of today, that figure has fallen to about 0.30 which is a pretty big change in less than 50 years!

[@stevesmith3990]

One of the first albums I ever bought - still love it.

[@norlockv]

Didn’t realize that albedo had changed that much in 40 years. Now I have to check on the other terms. What’s going on with the obliquity of the ecliptic?

[@Milan_Openfeint]

After 5 minutes of googling, I think Vangelis used a wrong value. The current estimate is 0.30 but it hasn't moved at all during last 10 years.

[@da4127]

@@Milan_Openfeint it really is a bad measurement, from what I can find online, albedo has decreased by around 0.05 since 1850, and only about 0.02 since the 80's with more accurate measurements, maybe the 0.39 comes from a different way of taking measurements that have not been accordingly modified

[@dutchdykefinger]

lol what the fuck kind of credit does a musician have in making that assessment? just defer everything to everyone and never question it... lol

[@ainstolkiner2063]

I didnt know some of this information. Thank you

[@handsofdoubt31]

This should be mandatory viewing for everyone on the planet! Thank you Sabine :)

[@billhamilton7524]

YEAH like Al Gores inconvenient truth ,,pretty much all lies ,and a HUGE hypocrite

[@rabka123-m8v]

@@billhamilton7524 She's a fraud kzbin.info/www/bejne/pYjcqZmjfa-WmpI

[@rcormonutube]

Nonsense filled article , starting with fossil word ...

[@WMConsultingService]

Notice she did not mention the effects of methane in the atmosphere and the new evidence that this has being occurring since the retreat of ice sheets. Lots of data on C02, not enough about new findings. Are scientist always this bias with data presentation to make their arguments? Ice core data Sabine!

[@littlefish9305]

if anything should be mandatory viewing it is the michael mann/mark steyn court case.

[@EJMosely-t4y]

This lady seems genuine, but she should be reminded that correlation is not causation. If someone is looking to doubt we are exclusively causing this temperature swing, you need not look very far in climate historical proxies to realize we just have not been taking measurements long enough for our data to mean anything yet. She should also be reminded that a warmer planet isn’t necessarily a bad thing --it changes things--but that’s been going on in various extremes for as long as this planet has existed. Turning it into a catastrophe or a crisis is an attempt for some people to assert control over other people. Since modern science is closer to a religion in many fields I doubt the real scientists are going to stick their heads up long enough to cast doubt on the assertion. “We’re all going to burn to death in 100 years” if they are no longer going to be funded for the real science, they’re doing.

[@gabrielbalbec883]

You nailed it. Funding. Whatever your field of research is today, if you sprinkle a bit of climate change over it, you'll get the funding. This is how you breed and groom a generation of docile, ideologically oriented scientists.

[@dervideominister]

"She should also be reminded that a warmer planet isn’t necessarily a bad thing " This is the stupidest thing I have ever read! First of all - if we continue to burn fossil fuel the planet doesn't only get warmer - it gets hotter and hotter! And it is already a very bad thing!! Secondly - who with a working brain puts our habitat on jeopardy with uncontrolled terraforming???🤯 seriously, you don't get the scale of the issue, do you?

[@josemariatrueba4568]

@@dervideominister I wonder what's the best temperature for life on planet earth. Here at the coast we have 10°C in winter and 20 in summer on average which is not bad although there are a few nights in winter when we go a few degrees below zero and some rare days in summer when we reach up to 40, but I wouldn't mind if temperature where ALWAYS a little higher. I would ask for 15 on average in winter and 25 during the summertime. All plants and animals including humans would be happier with 5 extra degrees all the time night and day all year long.

[@dervideominister]

@@josemariatrueba4568 there is no best temperature for life, since life and the whole ecosystem adopted to it. Ask an ice bear, what temperature he needs, and the seals he hunts. Besides that, he needs the arctic ice to get to his prey. Even with humans it's hard to determine: almost all old civilizations developed in tempered zones, while it seems that innovation and the ability to think forward was more rewarded in slightly colder regions (for obvious reasons). And now think again: if the temperature rises on the whole planet, there are no more comfort zones. They just move more to the north, while former tempered zones will turn to deserts.... So you rather have less zones that are comfortable

[@josemariatrueba4568]

@dervideominister You are right but only up to a certain extent. I still think that a slightly higher temperature would be very beneficial fot all life on earth, because we do have enough information that colder climate has been terrible, and warmer climate has been great, in the past. Too many people, animals and plants, suffered during the middle ages around the 6th century, and very much the same happened at the end of the 17th century. Today, the average temperature above the surface is 14.5°C. A couple of extra degrees would be very beneficial, like it was when Roman's had an empire 20 centuries ago or Danish sailors went to Greenland 10 centuries ago. See the history. There's more than enough information from the last 50 centuries to confirm that 2 extra degrees would be good. Probably 4 extra degrees would be even better. There must be an ideal temperature for the vast majority of the existing life on planet Earth. I wouldn't be surprised if it were 5°C more than now, let's say 20°C on average all over the world instead of 14.5, because that's what me, and my cats and plants, prefer. Indoeuropean migrations occurred in prehistoric ages after some changes in temperature after the last glaciar period that suddenly ended around 120 centuries ago. My vote for three or five extra degrees, please!

[@mattclark6482]

Thank you for the video. I heard a lot of interesting correlations, but I didn't hear anything approaching causal evidence (as was suggested at the beginning of the video). Just for the record, I do believe that human activity is playing a role in climate change, but I'm guessing my estimate of the extent of that role is significantly below Sabine's.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Considering that the sun's output has weakened over the past 40 years (NASA) and all three Milankovitch Cycles are in COOLING phases, and that we can trace the CO2 added since the Industrial Revolution to combusted fossil fuels, what other major forcing agents exists to warm the planet?

[@juliamihasastrology4427]

YUP

[@rayzsome8852]

The entire video explains why it was doubtlessly us who released the additional CO2 that is warming the atmosphere. The warming is not created by additional solar activity of the sun. The additional carbondioxide was created by burning fossil fuels that once were plants. So this is not a question of opinion or belief. I recommend to watch it again.

[@mattclark6482]

​@rayzsome8852 You are making the assumption that the warming observed is 100% caused by additional CO2 released by humans and there are no other factors that contribute to that equation outside the domain of humans.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

@@mattclark6482 The sun has weakened over the past four decades, according to NASA, and the Milankovitch Cycles that drove warming in earth's past are in COOLING phases now. Global temperature has risen exactly as our CO2 emissions have since the Industrial Revolution, which is just one of several lines of evidence scientists cite to connect to an anthropogenic cause. The consensus that today's warming is anthropogenic and not natural, is now 99.9%, according to the latest survey of the scientific literature by Cornell University. Even Exxon's own scientists in leaked memos have acknowledged that combusted fossil fuels are warming the planet to a damaging degree.

[@shadowdragon3521]

It's easy to demonstrate that CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by humans burning fossil fuels does in fact warm the planet. However, it's harder to say by how much exactly since estimating the influence of climate feedbacks is difficult. I would love to see you go into detail about Climate Sensitivity, how it is calculated, and some of the current estimates for its value.

[@robnotwicz7002]

This is where looking at stratospheric cooling comes into play - this effect seems to only be the result of CO2 and we can measure it as a point of comparison.

[@maleitch]

@@robnotwicz7002 "this effect only SEEMS to be the result of CO2" -trust us bros, because we really need that to be true so only certain people can drive cars and fly on private jets

[@danobrien3601]

Climate science can be both easy to understand and hard to understand but it is correct

[@russmarkham2197]

There is a good paper by Hanson and others from November 2023 on this. It is publicly available.

[@deborahrobinson7488]

As parts of the earth heats up during the summers, doesn't that cause increases in cloud coverage and rain in many of those areas? Can you imagine trying to accurately measure that seasonal change in every single spot in the atmosphere and then mathematically model it? Now add in the earth's wobble, rotation, poler shifting, and the effects of geo electromagnetism from the sun and our own core, just to name a few, and take a wild-ass guess at the average annual earth's temp. It's obviously much easier to just run the wild-ass guess formulas on the computer until it comes up with the numbers you're looking for. Then have your buds peer review your conclusions. How would you even determine the potential statistical errors? Wants you start even asking some basic questions, of the government's alleged "experts" their absolutist claims start looking foolish.

[@edwardmclaughlin7935]

The seas are not rising though are they? If they were, then low lying islands would now be gone. The ice is enlarging in some places.

[@jwoya]

Low lying islands are experiencing sea level rise. The Maldives is now almost out of local fresh water, see also Kiribati which is the first island that will disappear. Much of the sea level rise is caused by thermal expansion of ocean water, not by melting ice.

[@edwardmclaughlin7935]

@@jwoya The Maldives' lack of fresh water is due to rising sea level, how?

[@PelosiStockPortfolio]

@@edwardmclaughlin7935 When the sea water rises, it starts to contaminate low laying fresh water reserves with salt water. Is it really that hard to see the cause and effect?

[@edwardmclaughlin7935]

@@PelosiStockPortfolio Do you have a link to the location of the reserves please?

[@PelosiStockPortfolio]

@@edwardmclaughlin7935I will take this opportunity to introduce you to an educational tool that lets you find these things very quickly. Its called google, and it is free

[@ianclarke8821]

All you have demonstrated is a narrow time frame of the increase of CO2 but then jump to a conclusion that ‘this must be the culprit of climate change’ the problem you have is one of logic, causation and correlation. Previous warm and cold periods are a matter of record, but industry and humans were not involved, so? On the societal level, never were so many controlled (obey you climate denier!) and impoverished by the few (WEF / Ruling Class) with so little (truth) to make so much money and concentration of power. Genius!

[@old-pete]

Nobody claims these past changes were caused by humans... That is like saying animals were killed long before humwns existed, therefore they cannot be resposible of animal killings now. We know what is causing the warming. The physics involved are known for over 150 years.

[@destroya3303]

​@@old-pete You're already misled by thinking you know there is warming. The data has been falsified. The original US temperature record shows no such trend, until "adjustments" made by NASA/NOAA in the later decades of the 20th century. The same goes for proxy data going back thousands of years. The original analysis of that data shows no such alarming trend. That's why Michael Mann had to fudge the data to produce a hockey stick at the end. So no, the fuels God gave us to heat our homes and improve our lives aren't killing us all. But governments / billionaires surely will if you allow them to control you with their lies.

[@old-pete]

​​@@destroya3303The are hundreds of meterological organisations with data that is checked by tenthousands of people. And I experienced myself how the climate changed over time. If you believe in fuel gods, then the fossil fuel industry succeded in brainwashing you.

[@deanblais4647]

Why was the climate warming before humans raised co2 levels?

[@littlefish9305]

sshhhh! you'll stop the money train.

[@alangil40]

Because the earth was recovering from the Little Ice Age. I don't think scientists dispute that the earth has natural slow periodic weather changes. Just because there is a natural warming trend does not mean that AGC could be making things worse. The question is to what extent and what should we attempt to do to mitigate external forcings?

[@cybrsage]

It is established science that the Milankovitch cycles are currently warming the Earth regardless of the existence of humanity. These cycles show that CO2 has always lagged temp changes, at least for the last several hundred thousand years. They are accepted scientific fact and have been proven true repeatedly over the last 100 years, with every prediction matching reality. The climate faithful always "forget" to mention these cycles.

[@daleostrom3613]

​@@littlefish9305Make your checks payable to John Kerry and Al Gore !!!

[@Alpha-zb8sp]

It is, but way slower

[@quite1enough]

this video should show in the very first google search results on climate change

[@JeffreyBenjaminWhite]

ahh, the narrative crafting algos are all online! check.

[@richbalance8404]

No, it should be retracted as it is just another big climate lie.

[@mikeruhland6928]

@@JeffreyBenjaminWhite and being tuned. War is peace.

[@ArkadiusMaximilianus]

Thanks Sabine for another great video! Can you please make a follow up video and explain what was the cause of climate change before the internal combustion engine was invented ? For example about recent ice age 30k years ago when Canada was covered in ice?

[@BRM101]

Great point, or how there was a medieval warm period when the Romans grew grapes in Yorkshire UK.

[@Yajoy-kh3kc]

Is that an open question asked in good faith? your climate playlist on your channel doesnt suggest so. looking up the science about ice ages isn't that hard.

[@meesalikeu]

wait, so now canada isnt covered in ice ??

[@mrcujosoccer]

Milankovitch cycles cause glacial maxima. Basically predictable, regular, slight deviations in the earth's position and tilt over tens of thousands of years.

[@alexc773]

Milankovitch cycles. These are changes in Earth's rotation, tilt, and orbit. Roughly speaking, these changes affect how close Earth is to the sun, and which parts of Earth face the sun. It's too much to explain in a KZbin comment, but you can look it up in more detail if you like. But in short, the orbital changes move Earth closer and farther away from the sun, with heating and cooling eras happening respectively. Other changes affect which areas of Earth receive the most solar radiation. Ice reflects solar radiation, so when there is an icy polar cap facing the sun, that affects the overall temperature of the earth, resulting in cooling. There's a really good video on climate change by Astrum that goes into more detail on the grand history of climate change over millions of years. It's titled something like his most disliked video, if you wanted to dig deeper into this topic.

[@nidhishshivashankar4885]

Why did you skip a step between explaining that the internet doesn’t readily show the causality of climate change, and then explaining how we’re tracking CO2 without defining the significance of CO2 in relation to other possible causes?

[@georgephilippe4028]

To assess whether or not we are being indoctrinated by the global warming alarmists, I only need to look at the way data is presented: 1) The graphs shown all magically start around the 1980s.. as if no prior data was available. 2) The graphs' vertical scale (atmospheric CO2, C12 vs C12 ratio etc..) vs horizontal scale (years). 3) The selectivity of the data presented.. eg: as if Mauna Loa observations can be extrapolated to the whole planet.. without question. If it has feathers, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

[@MsBiggles51]

Tut tut. You weren’t supposed to notice that!

[@mikebryant614]

-Ask for actual, empirical data that ANY of the supposed " fixes" can , will, or have had, any effect at all, let alone the desired one , on "the climate". It doesnt really matter how" real" the problem is - if you can't prove your " solution" to address it will work- and so far, there is ZERO data that any of it will have ANY effect.No data , no facts, just "theory" and "hypothetical models".Science is about FACTS ,and they've not got any .

[@afraidofmoths6547]

1.) There’s plenty of studies with graphs out there that extend much further back. Conclusions are the same. 2.) The scaling of the graphs is meant to demonstrate a point that the statistics are making. The conclusions are backed by rigorous statistics, not just the graphs. 3.) There have been countless studies of climate change exploring many different lines of evidence. This video may not be comprehensive, but research on this largely is. If you feel that a crucial piece of evidence is missing from the literature, help us out and publish research on it. I appreciate your skepticism, but your criticisms are pretty underwhelming. If you want to appear as a data-driven skeptic, at least honestly engage with the data.

[@mikebryant614]

@@afraidofmoths6547 Lets see your hard data that proves any of the implemented or proposed " fixes" have had, or will have, the desired effect. THAT is the data that matters no one ever produces- it doesnt matter HOW real a problem is, if you can not demonstrate reliably you can do a damn thing about it.And I've yet to see ANY scientific data to prove ANY of the current proposals have, or will, work.Since you appear to be Mr Master of Graphs, go find THAT data , and THOSE graphs.

[@afraidofmoths6547]

@@mikebryant614 this is not what the original post was talking about. On this topic, we absolutely agree. Most politicians are absolutely incapable of proposing a decent solution and I believe most of the ones currently being enacted are half baked and not enough to make a change we need to see. that being said, your brain also seems to half baked if you can’t understand how reducing CO2 in the atmosphere will slow climate change. I suggest you also engage with the data, lol.

[@bertstein8590]

Hi Sabine, first off, thank you for your educational content - it's incredibly valuable and much appreciated. I have a question regarding the gravity of climate change as a global issue. In your view, how does the seriousness of climate change compare to other potential threats like nuclear war, the rise of AI, or asteroid impacts? And should our focus on it outweigh efforts to combat world hunger or diseases? I'm not trying to downplay climate change's importance, but rather I'm curious about its prioritization in the grand scheme of global challenges. For instance, if one had a certain amount of resources (which could also be thought of as funding for scientific research), what percentage would be best allocated to addressing climate change? Do you think it warrants a pause in other research areas until the climate is stabilized? This topic might even make for an interesting video discussion :D

[@johnkeck]

The topic sounds more social-political than scientific. I'd be surprised if Sabine tackled it.

[@timogul]

Climate change is a more serious concern than all of those, but it's slow and quiet, so it sneaks up on people, rather than being sharp and sudden like an atomic bomb. Like to compare it to nuclear war, such an exchange would kill a lot more people all at once, but the lasting effects of it would settle down a lot faster than climate change is, and over the next hundreds of years would likely end up killing fewer people. Also, nuclear war is entirely avoidable by just choosing not to have a nuclear war, whereas climate change is happening, and would take significant work to stop. As for AI, it's way too hard to predict how that plays out, but could either be terrible or great. There's really not much anyone's planning to "do" about that though. As for asteroids, a big enough asteroid could do more harm than climate change, but we have a pretty good idea that no such asteroid is heading our way, and hopefully we would be able to stop it if we did. We're putting reasonable effort into that possibility. As for world hunger and disease, climate change is the largest contributing factor in both problems, and that will only become worse as climate change gets worse, so efforts to solve climate change helps solve both. So basically, of all the problems facing the world today, climate change is probably the most significant one to tackle. I don't think it's reasonable to spend ALL our resources on it, and I don't think we need to "pause" all other activities because not everyone would really have anything meaningful to add to climate change research, so it's better they do something else, but we should definitely be spending more than we currently are.

[@bertstein8590]

@@timogul The concern I have with putting global warming as the highest priority is that this also give it the highest moral value. In the name of saving the climate, all sorts of policies and restrictions can be implemented: banning meat, restricting travel, and justifying negative economic growth as good and beneficial. Human life itself can lose value, as having fewer people can be seen as desirable. Implementing global policies that make energy more expensive might seem desirable from a climate-saving perspective, but they can have deadly consequences, especially for poor countries and for people living on the edge. I want us to save the climate but without losing our humanity and our freedom.

[@krisreddish3066]

I am no one, but the logic tells me we should solve issues that are manifested first, and use preventive means to stop possible threats as we go. All of them filter type events. So I do not think anyone of them can be carried so far into the future to see the worse filter, just that we react to them when they need recating to, and if we react wrong, many species will die off. Humans are gonna have a bad time, though even by bad choices we may survive these filter events.

[@timogul]

@@bertstein8590 So you would prefer not to address climate change _accurately_ because you believe that doing so would inconvenience you? That is not how science works. The moral questions are your own to deal with, if you believe that your personal freedoms are more valuable to you than the human lives they would cost, then that's fine, you do you, but you can't have it both ways, the moral cost exists whether you ignore it or not. I will point out though that YOU are the only one suggesting that saving trillions by addressing climate change is somehow "losing our humanity and freedom." Nobody else is asking that of you.

[@giriw206]

I'm a big fan of science in general, I know climate change is a serious issue and all. but I don't really understand how it works. pls do more content like this..

[@panhandlejake6200]

Climate is clearly changing but an additional question that needs to be addressed is the actual effect of CO2 on warming. I think all agree that it does absorb heat as Sabine describes, but I have also heard arguments that it isn't a major driver in warming. These claims are that other molecular content like changing water vapor ( & other) content in our atmosphere have much more impact which still confuses our ability to conclude that the changing weather is human-caused. These changes could still largely be due to natural processes. While it is becoming apparent that we are contributing to rising CO2 levels, is there a way to further prove what is actually the cause of warming? Because of the behavior of our politicians, I have zero trust in their policies. If they truly believed that this is a near-term existential threat as they claim, we would be seeing many different (& more effective) actions. Instead, they talk a lot, push EVs but then go about things in their normal way. If they were being honest, why aren't we seeing all options being pursued - like also working on adaptation to changing climate? Adaptation would have much lower impact on the poverty stricken countries while also being a much more effective way to minimize impact of changing climate on humans. All I can really conclude is that we are spending a LOT of money (and who is profiting?) with almost no guarantee that there will be any impact on global warming.

[@squidly2112]

CO2 does not absorb "heat". CO2 has a very high emisivity to IR. That is why it is the most widely used industrial coolant in the world. And you cannot "trap"" "heat". Heat is not a "thing" that you can trap, it is a result of the state of energy and vibrational state of molecules. Further, no gas can "cause" warming, just like pouring 140F coffee into your cup, no matter how much coffee you add you can never get above 140F. "Heat" cannot "pile".

[@josephtnied]

I don't understand your comment. We know for a fact that big companies in industries that contribute to CO2 levels have, by their own admission, tried to steer the narrative about climate change using propaganda for decades. Those same companies are leading the charge right now to influence politicians to deny the existence of climate change (see: project 2025's backers and its goals). And yet, you think that looking for sustainable energy is a world-wide conspiracy that other countries outside the United States (like China) invest heavily in? I agree that there are people pushing a narrative for profit. But it's way simpler than you think it is, and it's not the people who advocate for planting trees, creating better public infrastructure, or trying to preserve the environment.

[@BrinJay-s4v]

Its a reducing effect after the first 20ppm so little significant rise in temperatures above current levels.

[@squidly2112]

@@BrinJay-s4v - not possible. CO2 has absolutely NO warming "affect" whatsoever. In order to make warmer, you need more energy. Where does the extra energy come from? .. Pouring more 140F degree coffee into your cup will NEVER get your coffee more than 140F, no matter how much you pour in. The other question you need to ask yourself is, why is CO2 the most widely used industrial COOLANT in the world? .. Why do ice-skating rinks use CO2 to freeze their rinks? (spoiler: to save 60-70% in energy to do so). The bottom line, you cannot, under ANY circumstances, violate the Laws of Thermodynamics. The entire premise of a "greenhouse effect" absolutely violates the Laws of Thermodynamics. No gas in our universe can cause atmospheric warming, no matter the concentration.

[@jonaspucko78]

​​​@@squidly2112 We use CO2 ice as a coolant because its freezing temperature is very low, so the frozen CO2 is much colder than for example water ice while it melts absorbing the heat from the environment. It has nothing to do with its properties as a gas, absorbing infrared radiation to heat up. The warming effect is the absorption of infrared energy from the sun. Because CO2 stays in the atmosphere the atmosphere will heat up in the process instead of reflecting radiation back into space. This is the warming effect. Yes, the energy (radiation) must come from another source, but the effect of the absorption is a warmer air. This is what is meant.

[@garethrichardson2492]

Thank you for your continued contribution to science. Your thorough scientific analysis is always enlightening and thought-provoking. However, I couldn't help but wonder about the historical context of the data. While the evidence from the 1980s onward is compelling, I wonder about the trends preceding this period. Specifically, how do we account for the potential rise in carbon dioxide levels and temperature fluctuations before the industrial era? For instance, before human industrialization, were there natural processes such as widespread wildfires that significantly contributed to carbon dioxide emissions and temperature changes? Additionally, how do we discern the natural climate variability from human-induced influences throughout history? I believe understanding the pre-industrial dynamics could provide valuable insights into the true extent of human impact on climate change. Your expertise in this field would shed light on these intricate nuances. Thank you for your dedication to scientific inquiry and for sharing your knowledge with the world.

[@benjamintherogue2421]

They don't want to talk about CO2's saturation point, much less any of those subjects. I frankly don't have much faith in this era of research any more.

[@mygirldarby]

​@@benjamintherogue2421 sure "they" do. It's been debunked. kzbin.info/www/bejne/ioeldYCbqq2klbc

[@mygirldarby]

​@@benjamintherogue2421 sure "they" do. It won't let me put links here, but search "the science of CO2, Debunking the saturation point." It's on the channel called All About Climate. "They" talk about it in great detail.

[@chingron]

The fact that they had to rebrand from “global warming” to “climate change” says a lot. Scientists are paid a lot of money to find data which supports human caused climate change. And they deliberately ignore anything that contradicts this narrative. The media loves it because fear mongering keeps their ratings up. And governments love it, because they can pretend there is an existential threat they are protecting us against. And so… every year… all the climate activists hop on their private jets to discuss what can be done to force people without private jets to reduce their carbon footprint.

[@benjamintherogue2421]

@@mygirldarby I've heard the debunking argument. It's not actually debunked. They just say the energy can leak out and be absorbed into the lower and upper bands, but those lower and upper bands can not absorb nearly enough total energy to make up for the difference that they say they have to for their models to work. They're trying to cram an elephant into the back of a Prius.

[@mariannefischer3613]

My confidence in Hossenfelder has taken a huge hit with this video. She ignores all other forces of nature that have an effect on climate, and focuses only on carbon dioxide. Then, she notes that temperature increases over the last hundred fifty years have roughly coincided with CO2 increases. Conclusion: CO2 is the control dial for climate temperature. Too hard to explain away the centuries and millennia when temperature went up as CO2 declined, or down as CO2 increased, so she ignores that completely. Or the fact that water vapor is 75% to 95% of the total greenhouse effect, depending on how you factor for clouds, or that humans account for only 1/5th of atmospheric CO2. So, if you only consider one independent variable, ignoring all others, and don't care about when temperature and CO2 change opposite to the hypothesis, and only consider the last century or so when there is some correlation between temperature and CO2, then you can make a weak argument that humans are causing global warming. But, THAT IS NOT SCIENCE, HOSSENFELDER!!!

[@JohanMontelius]

spot on

[@stanislavpospisil7967]

true!

[@phantomkate6]

You answered some questions I've had for a long time. I hadn't been able to find the answers elsewhere.

[@frankd8957]

Interesting that most charts go back to 1980, when 1979 was the coldest year in recent record. If you go back to 1900 when good temperature data existed in the developed countries, what does the warming look like? In the USA where the best temperature data exists, the 1930's appear to be much warmer.

[@mathboy8188]

*Interesting that most charts go back to 1980, when 1979 was the coldest year in recent record.* 1965 and 1964 were as cold or colder, so yes, 1979 was a "local minimum", although nothing special looking at the temp record as a whole. I hope by "interesting" you aren't implying the common - and idiotic - denier claim that there's some attempt at deception. The end of the 1970's was when the satellite temp record became available, so many charts of climate data start around then. *If you go back to 1900 when good temperature data existed in the developed countries, what does the warming look like?* There was a fairly sharp cooling for about the first decade of the 20th century, and similarly for the 2nd half of the 1940's, but otherwise it's mostly been a wobbly non-stop rise, especially since the mid-1960's. Google: data . giss . nasa . gov / gistemp / graphs_v4 and look at the graph under "Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change". *In the USA where the best temperature data exists, the 1930's appear to be much warmer.* Yes, the contiguous USA warmer in the 1930's than the global temps then (though it was NOT warmer then the recent global & American temps). From the same link as above there's a graph called "Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States".

[@yourewrongabouteverything]

​@@mathboy8188africa was hotter 1000 years ago 😂

[@mathboy8188]

@@yourewrongabouteverything How old are you?

[@mikeruhland6928]

When I saw the headline, I was sure the comments would have been turned off.

[@definitlynotbenlente7671]

Then how are you making this coment

[@bjornna7767]

@@definitlynotbenlente7671 Do you understand English? English is my 2nd language and I completely understood what Mike wanted to say. And, do you live in our world or under a stone? It's a common habit to turn off comments when it comes to topics that only allow for "one correct" opinion. And this topic is such one.

[@definitlynotbenlente7671]

@@bjornna7767 she almost never disables the coments on there video and mabey hard for you to understand but not every thing you dislike is propaganda to controll you

[@perrypresley9630]

Check out my comment. I debunked her nonsense with facts!

[@mikeruhland6928]

@@bjornna7767 I think you understand science as well as English.

[@no-one_no1406]

You unfortunately missed the parts about rising temperatures, rising water levels, and declining ice covers in this video. Looking forward to the next video on the topic!

[@barwick11]

Correlation does not equal causation. This all started right around the time JFK was killed and Michael Jordan, Brad Pitt, and Johnny Depp were born... therefore it MUST be that JFK was protecting this planet from "climate change" and Jordan, Pitt, and Depp are the cause of "climate change"... *sigh* In all seriousness, CO2 absorption bands are already saturated. They absorb everything they possibly can, and no energy from Earth in those wavelengths escape into space (100% absorption). You can't have 200% absorption by doubling, or 300% by tripling CO2.

[@nightjaronthegate]

That is all nonsense based on falsified data. Have a look at my Climate playlist.

[@burdoch1]

These could be just natural phenomena. The question is how to prove it's anthropogenic

[@CycleWerkz]

These were literally posted over her left shoulder. but unfortunately, temps not rising, nor water levels, ice not declining

[@littlefish9305]

@@CycleWerkz it depends on what timeframe you use.

[@voiceofreason1629]

This video has left me with more questions than answers.

[@paulksycki]

For a few bucks you can buy an emergency bicycle tire inflator that is CO2 powered, and some balloons. Without having to have faith in anyone else you can rediscover the scientific facts of gravity and weight for your self. You will learn all you need to know about the magic CO2 that is supposed to be way up in the atmosphere according to these people with the fancy graphs. Make sure to tie your magic CO2 balloons down so they don't just fly off into the atmosphere LOL.

[@maxwickham7475]

Thank you! that's why we all live in a layer of pure CO2 at ground level and none of us can breathe for lack of the lighter oxygen.

[@drunkenhobo5039]

@@paulksycki It's always fun to come across someone so breathtakingly ignorant you wonder how they manage to tie their shoes.

[@paulksycki]

@@drunkenhobo5039 I told you a physical experiment I have done my self. That is called science. You are going solely on faith following a religion .

[@drunkenhobo5039]

@@paulksycki It's an abysmal experiment that shows zero knowledge of chemistry. Go and fill a balloon full of oxygen, then put it in water. Notice how it floats on the water? By your logic, that means fish are a lie, as there's no oxygen for them to breathe in the water.

[@nanooseguy327]

I always love your stuff Sabine. 👍👍

[@juliamihasastrology4427]

I have doubts about how accurately we can measure temperature and 'extreme weather events' from 500, 1000, 5000 years ago. Even if we are one or two degrees off, it changes everything by an order of magnitude. I'm sure we can get a 'reasonable' idea but we've only been measuring weather quite recently. Also, many have criticized how many temperatures are taken in cities instead of the countryside - where cities are usually a degree or two warmer due to concrete, etc. I'm not saying cliimate change isn't real or isn't caused by humans, but I really question how accurate we can get with this.

[@allgoo196]

"I have doubts about how accurately we can measure temperature and 'extreme weather events' from 500, 1000, 5000 years ..." == Did you watch the video? Which part you didn't understand?

[@cybrsage]

@@allgoo196 It is established science that the Milankovitch cycles are currently warming the Earth regardless of the existance of humanity. So that brings in the only question that really matters. What percentage of the warming is caused by humans and what percentage by the Milankovitch cycles? Is it 1%, in which nothing we do will matter? Or is it 99% in which even small changes will make a big difference? This is something no one seems to be able to figure out, yet it is the most important part.

[@allgoo1990]

@@cybrsage " It is established science that the Milankovitch cycles are currently warming the Earth regardless....." == Link? Do you have one?

[@cybrsage]

@@allgoo1990 Yeppers, here you go, from NASA. I have also linked to a simplified graph showing that CO2 increases have always lagged temperature increases. Forgive the extra writing on it, I could not find one stretched out wide enough to show that on increase in CO2 is due to warming of the Earth, and that a cooling of the Earth always preceded a decrease in CO2. The orbit and rotation of the Earth are primary drivers in the temp of the Earth which is the primary driver of the Earth releasing CO2 when it gets hotter and absorbing it when it gets cooler. jimdo-storage.freetls.fastly.net/image/272748462/2ad28bb9-bea9-401f-865b-730f7e68e06c.jpg From NASA " In 1976, a study in the journal Science by Hays et al. using deep-sea sediment cores found that Milankovitch cycles correspond with periods of major climate change over the past 450,000 years, with Ice Ages occurring when Earth was undergoing different stages of orbital variation. Several other projects and studies have also upheld the validity of Milankovitch’s work, including research using data from ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica that has provided strong evidence of Milankovitch cycles going back many hundreds of thousands of years. In addition, his work has been embraced by the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Scientific research to better understand the mechanisms that cause changes in Earth’s rotation and how specifically Milankovitch cycles combine to affect climate is ongoing. But the theory that they drive the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles is well accepted." science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/

[@cybrsage]

​@@allgoo1990 my post appears to have vanished. I will recreate it.

[@jbmartin6]

Thanks for asking and answering this question, without all the gobbledegook

[@utubebroadcastme]

"[carbon 14] is really good for dating organic stuff, tho I'd recommend you leave it at home for the first dinner" that's hilarious 😂

[@andreaskampmiller7756]

two (or even three) jokes in one, that's genius! :D

[@hime273]

It's not even remotely funny.

[@paintingholidayitaly]

​@@hime273they are bots trying to legitimise the agenda😂

[@DCM8828]

Dammit. It flew right over my head.

[@DANGJOS]

​@@DCM8828 I still don't get it

[@merc9nine]

Would it be getting warmer even if humams didn't exist? Yes. Is it better for life if it gets warmer or colder? Warmer. The question is, what percentage of the warming are we causing.

[@georgelionon9050]

The question has been answered, for the changes since 1980.. almost all human, because the things happening without humans doesnt happen within 40 years but within many hundrets of years.

[@merc9nine]

@@georgelionon9050 it's gotten on average 1 degree warmer over the course of 100 years while in an interglacial warming period. We are in an Ice Age. The Altlantic ocean is widening due to continental drift faster than the oceans are rising.

[@georgelionon9050]

@@merc9nine "on average 1 degree warmer over the course of 100 years" not true, you are missing a zero there.

[@merc9nine]

@@georgelionon9050 you truly believe that it's gotten 10 degrees warmer?

[@georgelionon9050]

@@merc9nineno 1K change over 1000 years was at most interglacial effects.

[@histoiresjeunes]

Finally, a clear and straightforward explanation! Thanks!

[@basspig]

Today a lot of people think the weather is crazy but they haven't been alive for the storms we had in 1938 and in the early 1950s. The weather moderated after 1980 and it's been relatively calm since.

[@AdamAdamHDL]

Interesting. I live on by Nepean River and there has been this historical sign from 1921 about a giant flood that reach the level of the sign. It's so far up the bank I would think it's impossible for the water to reach so far, it would flood half, if not all the city. Anyway that flood was 100 years ago and the river level has never been near it since.... Then between 2018 and 2022 that sign has been under water 3 times. Once in 100 year floods became almost annual events.

[@juliamihasastrology4427]

or the great Dust Bowl. Some estimates find that weather in US was most extreme in the 1930's. And how can we measure 'extreme weather' from 1000 years ago?

[@larryp5359]

Thanks Sabine! I've been wanting this video to show others for years. Great job!

[@mikedoesstuff4222]

Uncle: "Scientists say what their bosses tell them to say.", or "According to scientists in the 1970's, the ocean should be 200 feet higher now".

[@patrickconley2091]

The scientific community intensely debated the issue of global warming with much back and forth for decades. Global warming caused by humans was accepted as an established fact by the scientific community in 1995.

[@O_Lee69]

Nobody said that. Strawman.

[@denysvlasenko1865]

According to scientists in the 1970's, we should be heading into an ice age. There are numerous archived articles about it.

[@faustinpippin9208]

"Scientists say what their bosses tell them to say." unironically this, idk why people think that scientists are immune to taking bribes and the scientists who actually do science stuff (not just make a paper based on what the real scientists said) are very few and easy to control groups for example think about the scientist who take ice core sample from Arctic, very few do it and its a group easy to control and bribe but we base a lot of stuff on their research

[@frede1905]

@@patrickconley2091 Not earlier? I thought it had been established at least by the second half of the 1980s.

[@jefflappin]

This is great! Thank you!

[@joer9276]

It’s not a hoax but is it really an existential threat to humanity? No.

[@peixeserra9116]

If we wait long enough and take zero precautions (which we aren't), it'll certainly be. Like it's starting to That is, if you somehow think preventable deaths from disasters, extreme weather, resurfacing diseases and population displacements to not be emergencies that can lead up to Anarchy.

[@olbluelips]

I that’s a ridiculous bar. It’s not gonna kill us all but it’s making millions of lives worse and killing enough already. Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and Floridians (to name a few) are going to have a hell of time in the coming decades, because flooding is going to continue to get worse, and so much will be destroyed. In western Canada, we used to only have to worry about dangerously smoky conditions a few days a year at most. Now it can be WEEKS. It’s not acutely life-threatening, but breathing ASH is absolutely horrible for your cardiovascular system

[@mikebryant614]

That's the heart of the issue, is it actually an " existential level" event or happening? Absolutely not , and anyone who says it is , is lying to you. As an aside, our collective Govts have failed horribly at combating hunger, homelessness, and drug abuse, problems FAR simpler than changing a planets climate - what exact part of that fact would lead anyone to believe they can successfully do that? I can not think of a single Govt program that has been so wildly successful that I'd even begin to entertain they can "alter the planets climate".

[@allenchang6185]

It’s a threat to biodiversity and ecosystems, a lot of species gone endangered/extinct already, but people don’t feel it so no one cares

[@Yo-oq9gg]

Perhaps not to our generation? But I guess monkeys think in the now

[@davestevens7386]

Additional carbon in the atmosphere is a result of increasing temperatures, not the cause.

[@DJPhillthy]

THANKS A LOT OBAMA

[@mattleathen445]

Basic chemistry says burning oil and coal will increase atmospheric CO2. And CO2 absorbs IR light. You are arguing against fundamental chemistry that was predicted to warm the planet more than a century ago.

[@1over137]

An interesting theme occurs in these graphs and charts and numbers. Climate (temp) is usually measured with the GMT30, "Global mean temperature 30 year average". However, repeatedly we are shown graphs which barely cover 30 years and are asked to interrupt the data 'within' it. If you use the data within the 30year period, you are not longer working with "climate", but seasonal and yearly variations. The same variations that using the 30year average is mean to stop miss interruption from. I know you can plot "years" on a 30 year average, however with a ratio of 30:1 in the intented accuracy and the "point value" ... not much should be taken from it. Yet, why do the media and even Sabine (although at least hers' has units!), keep showing us 30 year average data over less than 30 years. It's dishonest.

[@johnm838]

And often that 30-year period is decades old, like 1951-1980 or 1961-1990.

[@carrapaz3645]

Provide source of your claim or you just cannot read data 😂 www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

[@alonzobean1]

Hi, Uncle Skeptic here. Earth self-regulates its global temperature. This has been going on for millions of years. Any addition to an enclosed environment will be affected. The question should be is how that environment reacts and over time can it compensate for the intrusion? Now it's always about how soon are we going to die

[@MrRefract]

Exactly. All of the doomsday models assume a conditionally stable system that goes into thermal runaway. But common sense proves otherwise.

[@cybrsage]

@MrRefract there is literally not enough water on Earth to have thermal runaway. It simply can not happen on Earth.

[@BrianVantHull]

Those who talk about the destruction of the human race are wrong and counterproductive. What they SHOULD be talking about is the destruction of an economy and infrastructure hard wired to the way the earth is right now. That in itself is huge and should not be ignored.

[@allenchang6185]

Global warming has killed many species and many going endangered cause of it, human don’t feel it much but if you care about biodiversity then you should wanna slow down the warming, we won’t survive without biodiversity ourselves in the long run. And yes economy will suffer too

[@cybrsage]

@@allenchang6185 what percentage of the warming is due to the always existing natural cycles and what oercent is due to humanity? IOW, nature routinely kiss of a great many species, so how much of this would not happen of humanity never existed?

[@Weberbros1]

Actually, I am glad that you made this video for me! Can you maybe include a bit about why those stratospheric cooling graphs don't show large temperature drops, and in fact look a little flatlined?

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Why would they show a sudden drop if everything else changes gradually? In any case, you find a very good summary here: esd.copernicus.org/articles/7/697/2016/esd-7-697-2016.pdf

[@osmosisjones4912]

​@@SabineHossenfelderto warm the environment the heat would have to be transfered . Like with water a fable molecule carbon dioxide is Sense and is more reflective

[@rain-uw9ju]

​@@osmosisjones4912​ isn't the whole idea that more energy is being trapped by these gasses, ie less radiates out into space? Your point makes no sense, as this heating isn't solely reliant on the heat already in the earth system, it's based on energy radiated by the sun.

[@larryp5359]

Sabine is correct, but didn't explain the details of how the CO2 cools the stratosphere. CO2 both absorbs and emits infrared radiation (IR) very effectively. When CO2 absorbs IR the vibrational energy of the CO2 molecule is increased and if that molecule bumps into another air molecule it can transfer some of that energy to the air, increasing the air's temperature. When CO2 emits IR, it already had to be in a high-energy vibration state and it drops to a lower-energy vibration state. This has the effect of cooling the atmosphere since it had to get the energy for the stronger vibration from the other air molecules before radiating it. Also, it emits the IR in a random direction, as likely down as up. In the lower atmosphere the CO2 absorbs upward IR emitted from the ground. Since the air is warm the CO2 also emits a lot of IR, half of which goes back down and is absorbed by the ground. The upward emitted IR is likely to be reabsorbed before reaching space. In the stratosphere, where the air is thin, much of the upward emitted IR can escape to space and permanently remove the energy from the air. The more CO2 in the stratosphere, the more upward IR is generated, causing more cooling.

[@WJV9]

@@rain-uw9ju - It's actually intuitive if you think about the lower atmosphere absorbing the reflected heat energy from the earth then there will be less heat energy left to reach the molecules in the upper atmosphere.

[@MahahualOceanConditions]

NASA also says that planetary warming can be seen in EVERY planet in our solar system, except for Mercury, which is too close to notice any changes....so how does human generated CO2 affect all the other planets?!

[@peytondaley4991]

There were some studies from the early 2000's that claimed to identify evidence of climate change on Mars, however they were found to be localized weather events. Since that point no evidence has come to light that Mars is in a warming cycle. I tried to identify any other evidnce that you claim about every other planet, but haven't been able to find any studies or even random reports about this claim. If you have another source that purports this, I would love to see it.

[@JoeBlowUK]

Now go and look at graphs, made from ice-samples which show the atmosphere from over 1000's of years. You should see a flat line in CO2 and temperature, then a sharp up-shift about 150 years ago. But instead, you see massive up-shifts, then down-shifts in every time in history. What we have seen since the industrial revolution, is a massive reduction in deaths from climate related events and a greening of the Earth.

[@MsBiggles51]

Yes, and the upshift# and downshifts in CO2 follow temperatures rather than the other way around.

[@pshehan1]

The reduction in deaths since the industrial revolution has nothing to do with atmospheric physics and the warming effect of CO2.

[@mikeg8335]

What excellent concision and clarity. As always you have shed light wonderfully, without hyperbole of fudging.

[@lutherdorn2206]

I'm the uncle you refer to. Thanks for a great video. Now if they could just come up with a workable solution to it that doesn't cause more harm than GW I am all ears.

[@dukenails7745]

The cure will be much worse than the ailment. There are far worse issues than Carbon.

[@TheEVEInspiration]

I am also not opposing change in energy production. But the funny thing is that we will not stop using old and gas for a very long time. Oil and gas are used for many things, not just as an energy source. And I strongly oppose the super expensive, super wasteful, super polluting, poor performing/unreliable draconian approaches taken today! It just needs to stop before it kills half mankind.

[@fischersfritz468]

​@@TheEVEInspirationso far we aren't doing anything at all.

[@TheEVEInspiration]

@@fischersfritz468 You need to go out more, windmills and solar panels everywhere. That is fine on roofs and such, but the big installations on Sea and near towns are really problematic. Besides, they are far more costly to keep operational and so they never truly pay for themselves. Huge upfront costs and energy waste and little benefit.

[@fischersfritz468]

@@TheEVEInspiration those big installations are money printing systems. Nothing is cheaper than offshore-windmills.

[@tabishumaransari]

Most people don't even grasp what temperature really is: the average kinetic energy of molecules! It's the vibrations of the molecules that we feel as temperature. And they also do not grasp that WHY CO2 or other greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation: the specific configuration of the molecule which allows them to vibrate thereby storing energy in form of vibrations, just like guitar strings. If I flick a guitar string (i.e. I inject outside energy into it), it vibrates for a while (i.e., it stores this energy for a while). This is how greenhouse gas molecules are - you flick them (via sunlight) and they vibrate - for a long time - and it's to do with their molecular structure and the tightness/looseness of the chemical bonds.

[@kennorthunder2428]

I had understood it actually, but NOW I want to know: How is CO2 different when it's composed of C12 or C13? Because all these experts, only until recently have been making a big deal about CO2. Supposedly that's all we needed to know. If they were SUCH experts, why have they bored down on this SPECIFIC detail only now as opposed to explaining it to us earlier on? Are they just upping their game in the face of challenges, or were/are they merely still pontificating?

[@robertdurancastello3980]

You could show an experiment do It with atmospheric gasses (CO2 at 0.2 ppm)and and the same with CO2 at 0.4, and then lets see what happen with the temperature a long the time

[@flippert0]

Very helpful (and concise as usual) treatise on these two topics of utmost importance.

[@prestonbacchus4204]

Appreciate you Sabine. Thank you for your life's work.^^^

[@ozachar]

Nice and clear. Never really doubted it. But that doesn't mean that warming and ALL it's associated consequences is such a bad outcome. Also doesn't mean our reaction shouldn't be simply to adapt to the fact like we adapt to other and more drastic changes in the world (population increase, etc...)

[@philosophist9562]

I don't think you have done enough research on the effects then. The issue is not humans surviving. The issue is other animals and plants not being able to adapt like humans can. And that eventually leads to hunger of humans.

[@LuaanTi]

@@philosophist9562 And of course, sure, people in the US or Europe will probably be able to deal with it - with more intensive agriculture etc. But the vast majority of the world's population doesn't have the same options (not to mention that they will tend to further accelerate climate change, of course). Humans will survive... but it's also likely a whole load of humans will die and there will be tons of conflict as people are forced north.

[@notinterested7911]

So i hope you will be the first to adapt and take on a climate refugee fleeing famines?

[@jim4859]

I considered myself quite knowledgeable in a lot of areas of my field of expertise. In 2004 i had an opportunity to attend several workshops and presentations held by actual experts. I came away humbled. I have read enough in the field of climate science to know I'm far from knowledgeable. Listening to other laymen argue against the consensus of expert opinion almost makes me sick. Yes, I've bookmarked this to send some of these folks to, but I'm pretty pessimistic about the good it will do.

[@antoniosanders477]

The algorithm was promoting one of her more recent videos with her making deceptive claims concerning her only newly coming to put substance to the hysteria being manufactured concerning climate change. It was meant to appeal to people that had not come across her videos previously and been unaware of her narrative themes. I’ve reviewed substantial material concerning the subject. The scientific consensus is that the climate changes and that humans can affect it. It stops there. It would be very alarming and suspicious if the climate did not change.

[@barwick11]

Science doesn't care about consensus... as Einstein said in response to "100 authors against Einstein"... if he were wrong, one would be enough. The fact is, the physics of "CO2 driven global warming" doesn't work. CO2 absorbs, and it does it very well. So well in fact that it absorbs 100% of the energy trying to escape the Earth in its absorption bands. If you know of a method that you can get TWO hundred percent absorption of energy, then I invite you to publish your information because that would be a shoe-in for a Nobel Prize in Physics... imagine the things we could build if we could break the laws of physics like that.

[@russmarkham2197]

I would still encourage you to study the science. That is the best way to distinguish good evidence and good arguments from propaganda. It does require some basic science background and the ability to check whether your sources have conflicts of interest. Doesn't require a science PhD. However, most people don't fact check much. It is important not to take anything at face value and to research who is saying it, and why.

[@egoncorneliscallery9535]

That is all true but can go either way. Who to trust when the 'factcheckers' decide to only use those sources that have been known to lie or spread misinformation. Official institutions are by no means immune from this. In fact, the whole climate issue has so heavily been politicised that it is clear we are being manipulated from all sides.we are all being sold a position. The irony is that institutions like state broadcasters and the likes of WEF are now worried about misinformation and try to control it, completely glossing over the fact that they might have done so themselves. They cant even see the problem. That is how biased they are. Sabine should know better.

[@markusloane1149]

@@russmarkham2197 sometimes the education system is the problem. Look deeper...

[@bélalugrisi]

Excellent presentation! As we have been adding CO2 we also have added sulfate aerosol particles that increase cloud nucleation and shade the Earth. Now that we are regulating that fuels be lower in sulfur, the effect is around 1 watt/m^2 more incoming solar irradiance. Would love to have you cover the Aerosol Masking Effect in a future video. Thanks for all you do!

[@MinusMedley]

All the climate change buzz words in one video, you're delusional. You'll eat those words within the next ten years. Edit: Cloud nucleation, solar irradiance... All the right words, taken out of context, you actually sound like your coming from the right place, but then you throw in CO2 and lose all credibility.

[@ArmadilloGodzilla]

@MinusMedley Nah, she will have moved on to the next​ talking point by then and forgotten all about this.

[@anderslvolljohansen1556]

@@MinusMedley The words make perfect sense to me. If they don't make sense to you, then you have something to learn. Name calling has no place in KZbin comments. Be polite and respectful, or stay off the comment section.

[@UmbraHand]

@@MinusMedleyDidnt know dust blocking sunlight we’re buzzwords. I guess shade is just a myth. Cannot wait to track the Sahara tmrw

[@Seticzech]

@@MinusMedley It's really funny when ignorant with zero arguments is babbling about delusion.

[@Savage15767]

Thankyou for this I had the same frustration when trying to find and understand non partisan science.

[@matthewexline6589]

I liked the quiz at the end which was made available. Neat feature. I'd like someday to see a short video talking more about the stratospheric cooling effect. If you really want to drive the point home, I'd suggest explaining it. People who are hard-core skeptics on global warming's cause by human activity are going to point at this and claim that it doesn't make sense. They'll say "If CO2 absorbs sunlight and traps it as heat, why does it only do that near the surface of the Earth and not up higher. Sounds like some made-up mumbo-jumbo to support their claims to me!" (and it kinda does) So I think that'd be a neat supplementary video to be made someday.

[@theresamclaird1572]

Vielen Dank for creating this video! I was looking for something just like this for a family member, and like you, was surprised that search engines did not offer much more than the claim itself (at least in language that is easily consumable by non-scientific persons).

[@edwardlulofs444]

Excellent. Very much needed and wanted. Danka.

[@timmatheny-lo9ze]

I’m impressed by your common sense and discernment. You Rock!

[@demtron]

I don't understand why no one talks about all the trees that have been cut down for shopping centers, more housing, and parking lots. Growing up I lived an area with lots and lots of trees. We had lots of undeveloped land with trees. I still live in the same area but more than 80% of the trees are gone. They have been replaced with abandoned shopping centers. They build a shopping center and then a few years later they build a new shopping center nearby. The merchants abandoned the old shopping center in favor of the nearby new one and the cycle continues. They don't go back to the abandoned areas and redo them, instead they just devour untouched land. This has also caused flooding as the water they used to go into the ground must now be handled by the sewer system which was never designed for the increased load. I have kept the trees in the back of my house but in many of the houses in my area they have taken down the trees because the people under 40 do not like to rake leaves in the fall. No trees = No leaves to deal with. Unless I have been liked to all the years in school, trees used to take in CO2 and give off O2. I say take down some of those abandoned shopping centers and plant trees there instead.

[@squidly1117]

The Earth has more trees now than 100 years ago. Look into it: The Greening of Earth.

[@jehl1963]

Yeah. Where I live in the Northeast US, the region has over 95% reforested in the 100 years. This is largely the result of farms leaving for the Midwest.

[@donnasummer6285]

@@jehl1963 but the Amazon has less…

[@specialkonacid6574]

​@@donnasummer6285the planet overall has more, we are talking about a global phenomenon are we not?

[@levyroth]

Trees are the best method for carbon capture.

[@queenleech36]

Sabine, the quiz is actually really helpful to remember the arguments you name better! However, to see which answers were correct, the website charges me a fee. Are there no quiz service websites which offer this for free? I was confused to see the Paywall by educational content from you.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Don't you think, that she needs to eat too?

[@da4127]

I mean, you can see the results for free, but the analysis of each answer is gotta be paid not only because Sabine gets a cut for her work making the quiz, but also to make the website work

[@queenleech36]

Yeah, but it's not particularly helpful when you don't know which answer was wrong. And for that feature you've to pay. As it is now, I probably won't take the quiz again.

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@queenleech36or you pay a few coins, or aren´t you payed for youe work too?

[@007feck]

You are mistaken. This is not free education. She is running a business. Same as climate panic industry wants your money too. They need to “teach” you first tho

[@user-jo7mh8ri3g]

My dear Frau Doctor Hossenfelder, first let me say I mean no disrespect, but I couldn't get through this one. I'm a geologist so I tend to look at geologic history quite a bit. It is no warmer that the medieval warm period, and the last four interglacials were warmer than today. We were told that the Arctic sea ice would be gone a couple of decades ago, but it's still there. Seas have been much higher throughout geologic time, and any rise now is slow and minimal. Storms are not getting worse or more frequent. Please see Climate Discussion Nexis. If sea level rise was a real problem would Barack Obama, Jeff Bezos, and Bill Gates have bought mansions by the ocean? And the big meeting the WEF just had in Switzerland where those who think themselves our betters drone on and on about climate change while guzzling champagne and entertaining escorts. I understand that there were over 1,000 private jets used to haul their high dollar behinds to the meeting. I can't help but wonder how much carbon dioxide they produced. These are the clowns who want us to park our cars in exchange for 15 minute cities and ear bugs. Yeah right, like we are going to live like medieval peasants while they soar high above us like ancient gods in their firey chariots. I love the work you are doing as it pertains to physics.

[@nicejungle]

Comment sponsored by oil companies

[@Alte.Kameraden]

Saw a large rise in average temperatures during the later years of WWII. With the massive influx of industrial production, tens of thousands of aircraft, countless fields of crops/town/cities burning.. vehicles gobbling up petrol. Etc etc Didn't go back down until after the war and not until the 60/70s did it reach similar levels again. To me that was all the proof I needed.

[@shanecollie5177]

The global temperature rose from the early 1900's until the mid fourties, from where it fell for the next thirty years,when co2 levels were rising, the opposite of what you just claimed

[@shanecollie5177]

@@cortical1 Seek out noaa unadjusted data,you'll find that you are wrong.

[@literacypolice]

@@shanecollie5177 State your position clearly, instead of claiming alternative data. Do you believe that the global average temperature has been increasing? And do you believe that this relates to human activity? Just answer yes or no for each of the two questions. We'll go from there. If you cannot have a grownup conversation and show you're incapable of answering two simple yes or no questions, you will be disqualified as a puerile kook. Answer them now.

[@shanecollie5177]

@@cortical1 Noaa data will show that you are wrong about your assertion as to when global temperatures rose and fell during the 20th centuary. Data does not care about your opinions. I have directed you to the source of the data but you choose to believe something different.

[@cortical1]

@@shanecollie5177 I actually collect data for NOAA, Einstein, at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. There is nothing you could possibly teach me about NOAA data. 👌🏻