Global Warming: An Inconvenient History

[@BobbyBroccoli]

Love how this turned out! The timeline really comes together, and the one continuous shot looks great

[@3DRiley_]

Thank you so much for your great videos and inspiring Simon Clark to do his own spin on it, it really made this video a lot more interesting and attention keeping.

[@dkaloger5720]

I hope more people follow this style of educational videos .

[@smorcrux426]

I was thinking about you during this whole video

[@marcosamuelfabus1044]

I knew I recognised the video style!

[@jose.montojah]

A shame about that scientist that ended up as a Foote note...

[@stevevaughn2040]

My niece was a NASA climate scientist in the oceanographic research. She and her team set up the metrics, data collection, and replaced insufficient methods with technology and satellites, all that good stuff. Then the collected data, a lot of data, and grinding through it. Then in 2021 it became so political that goals were buried and seminars seemed like important things rather than data. Grants dried up and now she teaches 8th grade. Seems climate change requires confirmation of what the administration says. Her comment on the popular opinion on climate? She said "Americans are often mathematical illiterates"

[@unimogdave]

NASA spent a lot of money rewriting temperature data so that a rise in temperature could be shown to follow the rise in CO2. When someone discovered they had changed the summer temps of one Caribbean island to zero ⁰ for an entire month the gig was up. NASA is corrupt.

[@akmurf7429]

Sorry to hear that particular story over and over. Her fate was sealed when she confronted the consensus science dug in like a tick. Your science Doesn't meet the narrative, you're gone! We just can't trust most scientists any longer, like we can't trust politicians. It's more like political science these days. Subjective rather than objective.

[@cerealkiller4248]

@@akmurf7429 Dr Keith Briffa had tree ring data that conflicted what the IPCC wanted to forced down our throats. He wanted further investigations into tree ring data, Michael Mann declined.

[@nolewale]

@@stevevaughn2040 I'm

[@come4t_a_bull]

All the math in the universe is worthless if the baseline you're working from is incorrect. Deep history is always ignored by the "pro-warming" crowd of scientists intent on receiving government funding. What was the cause of the bubonic plague in (approx) the 14th century? Look into it (1303 ad)... that's what we want again? Take the average CO2 levels over the last Billion years... the "recorded" temperature figures (18th-19th centuries) are thoroughly inadequate. The proper data can be (are) obtained from deep ice cores in each pole, and deep ocean cores as well. We are (and have been) at dangerously LOW levels of atmospheric CO2 for a very long time at ~400 ppm. Here's one for the "mathematicians"... How much CO2 is required for plants to SURVIVE, let alone thrive? Answer: 190 ppm - drop below that and all but two plant species die off... Maize (corn) and Sugar Cane will survive until atmospheric levels drop below 170 ppm... after which all fauna will also perish. Stop frightening our kids. They are fauna, as we are. They have enough problems to deal with. Atmospheric CO2 is the battery of life. We need MORE not less... the Earth's battery is almost depleted. Burning "fossil" fuels is the ONLY WAY to recharge the Earth's battery for life. Figure it out people - for your kids! .

[@peterazlac1739]

Unfortunately for Gore and the climate loons before Revelle died he made the statement that carbon dioxide had as much effect on the climate as him spitting out of the window. Gore tried to pass this off as the ramblings of a demented senior but he was sued for defamation and lost after Revelle's family said his mind was sharp up until he died. Revelle's interest in atmospheric CO2 was a contract from the US Navy to study how atmospheric carbon dioxide would impinge on the IR missiles of their fighter jets not initially die to any interest in the science.Högbom and Arrhenius both conveniently ignored the fact that prior to the widespread use of coal, humans had been burning wood and lightening whole forests and that ruminants had been putting methane into the atmosphere both of which activities diminished significantly with the adoption of fossil fuels. More significantly they ignored Croll's work on the impact of inclination and precession on where heat falls on the Earth and is absorbed into the oceans so affecting the balance of CO2 between ocean and atmosphere. It was a good example of making a theory fit the selected facts not facts being the basis of theory. Keeling picked the two most extreme places to measure CO2 that are subject to errors - on top of a volcano in Hawaii in a part of the Pacific Ocean where CO2 emission is affected by ENSO and in Antarctica rather than the Arctic where absorption is depends on the deep return of the Gulf Stream and its temperature that in turn depends on the on-ice cover. Their successors continue the practice of using biased data by measuring temperatures at the end of runways and in areas dominated by the Urban Heat Island effect. All this bias shows up in the IPCC projection that fail to reproduce even the biased temperature data of the past thirty years.

[@jasondashney]

And Al Gore made big, big bucks off of his claims. Lucky coincidence!

[@kimweaver1252]

@@jasondashney Care to demonstrate how he "made big bucks" off of any claims. You know,,..... EVIDENCE.

[@kimweaver1252]

CO2 is the primary determinate of the climate and global average surface temperature for the entire Phanerozoic Era. There is no other factor which explains the thermal dynamics. "Urban Heat Island" is silly. This has been compensated out of the data for decades. With the availability of satellite data, this is a trivial and now inconsequential non-issue. Keelings choice of Mauna kea is not problematic, as the data collection is at over 12,000 feet, and the active fissures and caldera is 7,000 feet below and miles away. Besides it's not continuously erupting and the amount of CO2 volcanos produce it minuscule compared to the concentrations in the atmoaphere and tiny compared to human sources. Antactica is better choice than the Arctic as almost all industrial output is in the northern hemisphere and therefore is more likely to be skewed toward higher concentrations. To be conservative, the southern site was chosen since the Hawaiian site was in the northern hemisphere.

[@abajojoe]

@@kimweaver1252 He started a company to sell carbon credits. It turns out that the carbon credits were of dubious value, to state it most charitably.

[@abajojoe]

@@kimweaver1252 You are correct about satellite data being far more accurate and reliable. But I don’t agree that they have factored the urban heat island effect out of thermometer data. Just to test your assertion, compare the increase in temperature from thermometers in rural areas with NOAA’s claims about overall thermometer data. If urban heat island had been accurately factored out, they should be the same.

[@dumodude]

Unfortunately, history didn't begin in the middle of the 18th century. What of the 1,000 times greater CO2 during the life-promoting Cambrian period (among other important historical data). Like the great majority of climate alarmists, your conclusions appear to be pre-conceived. "The damage is done." What damage? Models and predictions made over the last 40 years have been very largely wrong. Climate "science" is now politicezed, discrediting itself and, most unfortunately, other scientific efforts. It's now climate pretense.

[@jaycurtis5036]

So polluting the atmosphere is OK. It does not hurt anything. You are an idiot. In my lifetime lake Erie went from freezing over most of the winter season (Basically Thanksgiving through March). Now we hardly even get ice thick enough to ice skate on during the entire winter.

[@kimweaver1252]

In the Cambrian period, there were no thermoregulating mammals in existence. There apparently were NO LAND DWELLING ANIMALS. It was NOT "life-promoting" in the Cambrian if you weren't a marine creature, like a sponge or a crab. The predictions made by REAL SCIENTISTS who weren't paid by fossil fuel and chemical magnates have been almost universally supported by outcomes. The shills and "popular press" have been dismal in their estimates of future outcomes. The political pollution has been almost unilaterally promoted by business and financial interests and their paid-for political whores for purely crass and venal reasons. Yes, it is now too late. So, Deniers win.... there is no reason to struggle anymore. No need to spend money or change your behavior or motivations. UNLESS you realize that you have to do SOMETHING during the final act of humanity, and it may as well be a right thing that you find satisfying, without regard to outcomes. You have to do SOMETHING during this era, so do something good. At the very least, don't make things worse. Try to engineer a departure with dignity while minimizing suffering. By the age of 12 or so, we all learn that we will personally become extinct at some time. Then we learn that the average tenure of mammal species is about a million years and we have been here something like 300,.000 to maybe a million years, depending on which style of hominid we accept into our family, how we choose to define ourselves. So, it's no surprise that we are here. One way or another, you're doomed. Deal with it.

[@jamesday5636]

rubbish

[@kimweaver1252]

There was NO land dwelling animal life in the Cambrian.... ONLY in the seas. None of the crustal structures were the same as today.... there were no Alps, Apennines, Andes, Cascades, Rockies, Himalayas. The continents were in completely different positions on the Earth. There was NONE but a little annual ice, maybe. For most of the era, no ice. None of the major rivers of today existed. Ocean currents were different. For all intents and purposes, this was a different planet, not even close to the Earth we evolved on. We could not have lived on Earth in the Cambrian, it was far too hot....... in part BECAUSE OF THE HIGH CO2 concentration. You make MY case for me. So, that comparison is completely inconsistent with your contention. Try again.

[@bhansen52]

Liar liar

[@andrewlawson7495]

There is a large body of scientists (they must not be government funded) that disagree with these conclusions on the basis of these points. First temperature measurement has significant inaccuracies that dwarf the claimed increases in temperatures (measuring devices / micro climates / methods of measurement / selection of measurement data to get included in the average). 2. The effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. The models create estimates of that function, but that driver is created through the "observed" increases in temperatures. In other words the models are ordained with a predetermined conclusion that CO2 is the cause - but its effectiveness as a greenhouse gas on climate has never been demonstrated. 3. Climate Modeling is wholly inadequate and has not correctly predicted any change in climate. 4. Time windows are always picked that ignore massive previous shifts in earth temperatures warming and cooling where CO2 was not a factor. In other words warming/cooling has happened a lot in the past well before there was a human factor and the current warming if there is any is just a part of a longer term trend. Hot or Not: Steven Koonin is a good resource. PS NOTHING predicts a chatostraphic outcome in fact the UN Models predice worst case by the end of the century (75 years from now) a 3% impact to Global GDP. Intellect not emotion must be applied to this discussion and the fear mongoring must end.

[@mrunning10]

Conspiracy NOW! Conspiracy FOREVER! Fick dich if you think any of my measurements are fucking influenced by "funding"

[@kapsi]

“Amazing, every word of what you just said was wrong.”

[@Ironic1950]

​@kapsi ...the only word that is wrong is 'chatostropic'...(catastrophic)...

[@Fomites]

There is not a 'large body of scientists' at all who disagree with the standard models. These 'scientists' who disagree mostly are not scientists in climatology but claim to have expertise. This is a very small group the proportion of which is comparable to the proportion of disturbed personalities in larger society.

[@Ironic1950]

​​@Fomites ...as Albert Einstein remarked, when a group of a hundred fellow theoretical physicists published an open letter criticising his work on Relativity 'If I were wrong, just one experiment would prove it, so why did it need a hundred of you?'. And as another notable physicist, Richard Feynman remarked more recently "If it's concensus, it isn't science, and if it's science it isn't consensus." The 'disturbed' minority are 'disturbed' for good, valid reasons, amply demonstrated by your poisonous comment, and the infectious 'handle' you hide behind...

[@gavinfraser5784]

If Water Vapour is the main insulator of the earth, why do you not make this clear - and that CO2 is an almost insignificant percentage of greenhouse gases? Also, that the insulating effect of CO2 is asymptotic and not linear and so increases in CO2 have the effect of greening the planet and not heating it up?

[@Lord_Rowlet]

then why is the plante heating up then

[@gavinfraser5784]

@@Lord_Rowlet It heats up and cools down all the time. And what causes this are forces much greater than some insignificant gas which represents a tiny fraction of the greenhouse and which, in fact, we need to keep life going on earth. If CO2 drops too low, life on earth dies. We have the lowest summer temperatures now in the Arctic and Antarctic for decades, and the thickest summer ice. It has been much hotter in the 1930s and 1950s, and before that during the late Medieval era and Roman times. Societies flourished when the temperature was 3-4 degrees higher than now. Cold is the killer - not only directly on humans, but also because food production drops dramatically. By they way, how much do you say the temperature has increased in the last 100 years?

[@gedofgont1006]

Yeah, but the alarmists would say it's the wrong kind of green! You cannot win against such severe brainwashing.

[@RolandSvensson-qx1yj]

@@Lord_Rowlet More sunlight is reaching the the earth since less reflecting pollutans are released and the Earth is at the same time recovering from the little ice age. The Earth is still 2 degrees cooler than it was 3500 years ago.

[@anonanon7278]

Because the video creator is pushing the net zero agenda

[@johnwarner4809]

I'm 71 and live in Southern California. I've also travelled all over the world. I haven't noticed anything different (by much) in all those years. It gets hot in the summer, which doesn't last nearly long enough, and cold in the winter, which is annoying and seems to go on forever. In the 1970's all they talked about was the coming of the next Ice Age. Meanwhile, Las Vegas still lingers between 115 and 120 in the July-August (like it did in the 1970's), and the hottest recorded temperature on earth is still 134.1 degrees, set in 1913 at Furnace Creek in Death Valley. Glaciers in the north still exceed and recede, and Antarctica hasn't changed at all, with penguins constantly searching for the warmest areas to park themselves. We're currently going through a cool summer here in Southern California, something I've experienced twice in my life. We worry about what gasses humans produce, while volcanoes all around the planet (both above and below the water) spew out endless amounts of CO2 (and other stuff). Gore and others have made millions promoting their hysteria, while I sit here in mid-July waiting for it to get hot enough to go out to the pool. For farmers, summer is when food grows. Winter time? Not so much.

[@Humdebel]

Well, there are so many incorrections that I don't know how start! But let's keep ti simple with the most blatanly false. "Antartica hasn't changed at all". That's a false statement. In may ways. And I sayit in another comment, but I would satate here too. I'm currently at end of July in north Spain. We were used to 25~28 ºC. Last week we reach 38ºC. And that could prove global warming the same way that the contrary cannot disprove it. Localized events have nothing to do with global warming. The fact that I'm having a really warm experience is irrelevant for this discussion. The same way that if I was having the coldest summer of my life wouldn't matter to global warming.

[@terrybrown7601]

​@@Humdebelweather is always changing... next year it could be cold where you are compared with today . It was warmer during the Roman age than it is now. Global warming doesn't exist .

[@furlvr1961]

AMEN brother!!! Well said!

[@gedofgont1006]

I'm nearly 60 and live in England. My lifetime experience has been very much the same as yours, Sir. Gore and his acolytes are nothing but grifters, selling snake oil for a quick buck.

[@Humdebel]

@@gedofgont1006 media outlets and politicaly charged documentals aren't the right way to inform yourself about this topics. You seem to have the wrongly impression that Gore is some kind of "climate prophet" with some cult following with bad intentions. While I conceed that for some people that would be the case, it doesn't matter at all. Gore make some worng statements and he was dishonest in others things. Gore is not an avatar of climate science in any way, he was/is a politician, nothing else. In the grand scheme of this topic is mostly irrelevant. Please inform yourself properly and try to avoid equivocate politics and science.

[@remaincalm2]

It feels that you vilified James Watt a little. He was a genius and without his inventions we wouldn't have any of the technology that surrounds us today. (If Watt was never born then it could have simply delayed the industrial revolution he kickstarted by 50 years, because someone else would have eventually made the same discoveries.)

[@jojojo9178]

Watt is a fantasy figure in a falsified history from the victor. Humanity had electricity and a highly advanced society on a global scale. The victor had destroyed it all and the rest is "his story"

[@woodliceworm4565]

Watt made significant improvements however the steam engine had already been invented.

[@Ironic1950]

Watt merely improved, by adding a condenser, to what Thomas Newcomen had already invented...

[@jimbarth9859]

It must be understood that any friend of humanity is an enemy to the life-hating, anti-human death cult. 😜

[@glennealy4791]

Science is like politicians these days. Show me where the money comes from and I’ll show you which way it leans.

[@Humdebel]

I conceed that in some cases that would be the case. Sadly. But to state it as a fact without caveat and impliying that not only the mayority of the science done "these days" but all of science it's like this is so wrong, that wrong don't make it justice, this is fractally wrong.

[@mrh3085]

97% of scientists agree with whomever is funding them. 😅

[@Aanthanur]

no

[@glennealy4791]

@@Humdebel science run by money isn’t science just as politics run by money isn’t good politics. That is my point.

[@MathewSteeleAtheology]

@@glennealy4791 No. The job of a politician is to please and appease people. The job of a scientist is to conduct experiments to find out what happens. A politician has a vested interest in making someone happy. A scientist, even when corrupted by a preferred outcome for the experiment or study they're conducting, is still bound to the scientific method and the scientific community, and therefore has professional standards and ethics that politicians do NOT have. You don't get to just assume that since money is involved, the results are the same for politics and scientific experiments. Everything in our culture, from religion to education is about money because that's capitalism. To assume it taints everyone and everything beyond any tangible virtue or honesty is asinine.

[@davidhilderman]

Crop yields per acre continue to increase, forests in BC are increasing their growth rates between 1% an 3 % per year, life expectancy continues to increase and less and less people are in extreme poverty. All due to the burning of fossil fuels.

[@mrunning10]

All true, and all PROOF that The Oil Will End numbnuts.

[@zonewolf]

"Production has trended upward in recent years, even as drought ravaged the southern sun belt and heavy spring rains overwhelmed midwestern fields. Farmers and experts attribute increased production to advances in agricultural techniques and a better understanding of how crops handle bad weather." Not due to fossil fuels. "In some ways, a warming world helps farmers. Warmer weather extended planting seasons by between 10 and 15 days in the Midwest. But the harmful conditions far outweigh any benefits, experts say."

[@zonewolf]

Also please explain how poverty has decreased globally. "Wealth inequality drives poverty and precarity for people at the bottom, and exacerbates disparity. Wealth inequality is high and rising and more marked than income inequality."

[@zonewolf]

BC old growth logging has increased year over year, and is unsustainable at it's current trend. No clue where you found growth rate data, but one could assume it's the added heat, and it's negligable considering how quickly we're cutting them down.

[@zonewolf]

Also, U.S. life expectancy has declined to 76.4 years, the shortest it's been in nearly two decades. Dude not a single point you made is true, were you being sarcastic?

[@robertorzech8922]

Gore said in his movie " There would be no ice at the north pole by the year 2013 !!!!!! Bull Crap !

[@johnford2508]

His entire film was debunked. European cities under water by 2020, polar bear extinction, "Siberian" weather the norm (yet the "World is on Fire!" when the English home counties had their annual heatwave this year), suicidal walruses, and the Great Barrier Reef would be gone (actually flourishing just now). The basis of his film was Michael Mann's discredited "hockey stick" graph, which was shown to be unscientific, fabricated, propagandist garbage. And Gore lied about Dr. Revelle being his mentor on climate change - Revelle warned against any rash action/expenditure. Still, Gore made almost $300 million from the film so he's happy.

[@bradmcclure4945]

and allthe poor polar bears would die oh my sensationalist crap

[@koyotekola6916]

Give him a break. He invented the internet.

[@kimweaver1252]

@@koyotekola6916 He isn't a climate scientist and he extrapolated.... accurately.... the trend in the decline of sea ice. The trend didn't hold. Boo hoo. And Senator Gore DID in fact, play a vital role in creating the legal framework that allowed DARPANET to be privatized, capitalized, and to eventually become the Internet. He, more than anyone alive today, provided the basis for the internet. Sorry haters, you suck and you are wrong. As usual.

[@garystrahan4601]

So true, but it has made hundreds of millions of yearly profits for him, and he's grifter mates out of it.

[@fredriksvensson2797]

Al gore: no arctic ice in the summer, by the year 2014

[@unapologetic7900]

And it's funny how Arctic Ice has actually increased, yet none of these "experts" care to mention that. Oh, and the Polar Bear population has risen as well.

[@PatrickTice]

​@@unapologetic7900I'm not sure where you're getting that. According to NASA Arctic sea ice is indeed changing, with thick ice making up less and less of the total ice cover.

[@RodMartinJr]

@@PatrickTice Sea ice has indeed increased, and decreased, and increased, again. But this fetish with ice in an ongoing *_Ice Age,_* is misguided, at best. And the Holocene is NOT the warmest interglacial of the Pleistocene, either. The Modern Warm Period happens to be the COLDEST of the Holocene's 10 major warm periods, 1,000-year cycle. In fact, the Holocene *_Optimum_* ending about 5,000 years ago, had the Sahara turn GREEN for 3,000 years. So, this fear of heat during an Ice Age is not only ironically funny, it's backwards and dangerous. Global Warming leads to*_calmer_* weather and more life-giving *_rain._* 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯

[@SigFigNewton]

Arctic ice IS decreasing fast. Plenty of data out there for those who care. Or satellite imagery for the less literate

[@RodMartinJr]

@@SigFigNewton Oh, that would be wonderful. END the nasty, dangerous Ice Age! 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯

[@stile8686]

Yes. Part 2 please. I find both science and history fascinating so this combination is great. being about climate change adds to it even more. Thank you for your videos and I look forward to more.

[@papertowelthe6th105]

Damn straight I need Part 2. Climate Town already covered a lot but I just want to have as many channels have their take as possible. Can always learn something new.

[@rimbusjift7575]

Stay in school.

[@PremierCCGuyMMXVI]

@@papertowelthe6th105 two, multiple sources is always fascinating and great to have.

[@PremierCCGuyMMXVI]

@@rimbusjift7575 schools don’t teach climate science as they should, same with a lot of subjects.

[@rimbusjift7575]

@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI Physical science is mandatory is most of the western world.

[@ingvaraberge7037]

The point of a video like this is to make it sound like the science behind CO2 and global warming is simple and obvious. (Which would on the other hand make further climate research unnecessary, which Greta Thunberg has correctly pointed out.) In reality it is not all that simple. The greatest hole in the narrative comes when it is first stated as a fact that CO2 is the gas that keeps planet Earth warm. Then later on it is mentioned that water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. And that is true, because water vapor is by far Earth's most important greenhouse gas.

[@rupertchappelle5303]

KZbin scientists are in the same league as Weekly World News "Experts say . . ."

[@hregeneratorss]

Wow, you didn't really watch the video, huh? What a dumb comment.

[@youtubewatcher1555]

Yes, water vapor is important, but your comment makes it sound like fossil fuel CO2 is not as important. Water vapor is part of the water cycle. The ongoing increase of atmospheric carbon is not part of the previous carbon cycle, but was added when fossil fuels which were stored for millenia were extracted and burned. Sure, the positive feedback from water vapor amplifies the anthropogenic CO2 effect, but it's not the cause. If fossil fuel GHG emissions stopped, water vapor feedback would not cause infinite, runaway self-perpetuating warming. But the ongoing fossil fuel GHGs are what lead to water vapor amplification and the continuous rise in global temperature.

[@dion6146]

The summer of 1932 set new highs we've not hit again. Temperatures have been declining very slightly since 2014. The models have failed to predict accurately, cloud formation, solar variability, gama ray flux (solar & extra solar) axial tilt, and long time-scale orbital eccentricity changes (beyond 3 body problem & have far larger effects than greenhouse gasses). Urban heat island effect is real and significant for urban populations. CO2 is a logarithmic greenhouse effect, so as CO2 increases a given quantity, its effect is smaller than that of the previous quantity of increase. Humans are not responsible for the large majority of CO2 as this comes from the oceans. Recently, we've found that oceanic abysal plane volcanos and vents are more frequent and in higher numbers. One of the largest volcanic explosions occurred deep in the Pacific a couple of years ago. This and the fact that the error on temperature readings is +/- 1.1 degrees C means these models are very suspect.

[@stevenpeaketrainsandstuff3682]

That last sentence convinced me you are full of it. I hope you are American, and I hope you experience the record breaking heat they are already experiencing.

[@olivierdumon6542]

I totaly agree, IPCC models cannot include clouds covering so they are working on a hearth that does'nt exist

[@marklmansfield]

Any so-called Climate Studies that do not include the heat from decades of Nuclear weapons testing and the subsequent reactors are misleading at best If a person deliberately did not include all data is it real science ?

[@draco_1876]

Stop the copy and paste comments. You federal agents are annoying

[@jeffreyhurst9552]

Huh. (That means I’m thinking about what you said).

[@zilvercederbom]

You could say that Foote's discoveries were... noteworthy. :3

[@hawaiiflowers7066]

I have a degree in science and I’m scratching my head

[@petercbrandon]

What do you mean by a degree in science? What exactly?

[@UseLogicNotEmotion]

Clearly you waisted your time and money getting that useless degree!

[@kimweaver1252]

Which degree in what scientific field from what school?

[@premikyam2726]

a degree in science ? must have been social science

[@kimweaver1252]

@@UseLogicNotEmotion That would be "wasted". Ironically.

[@brucepeterson3246]

How come the heat absorbing capability of Atmospheric water is never discussed in these climate discussions? From my work with FTIR, I know atmospheric CO2 is heat absorbing but it has a very narrow absorption spectrum while atmospheric water vapor has a very wide and deep absorption spectrum that will engulf a CO2 peak.

[@jakedenos]

water vapor is also not limited to 400ppm but more like 10-50000ppm

[@zalzalahbuttsaab]

Yes water vapour is a major greenhouse gas. CO2 is a trope that doesn't really figure in the equation.

[@thurbine2411]

Oh but it is certainly discussed. Aircraft contrails is one of the more publicly known parts I would say. I also think that most of the water that we add to the atmosphere down at lower altitudes doesn’t stay for long at all and so the effect is quite limited compared to the co2 we are emitting. Still if we are talking overall temperature of the earth then I think water vapour is a much bigger contributor than CO2 but for the part that we humans have emitted and the part that has actually changed over the last century or so co2 is playing a bigger part

[@gatorbna4107]

@brucepeterson3246 Exactly! No one knows the feedback effect of water vapor. Also the self- proclaimed Oxford "expert" failed to mention the studies demonstrating that as CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the rate at which the additional delta of CO2 contributes to additional warming gets smaller.

[@gatorbna4107]

​@@thurbine2411I don't think anyone knows or can predict with any accuracy the combined effect of water vapor and CO2 on long term climate.

[@mrphysh]

Carbon dioxide is present in our atmosphere. 400 parts per million. a million particles: 700k are nitrogen , 80K are oxygen , 8K are argon and 400 of these particles are carbon dioxide. Plants depend on CO2.

[@R0YB0T]

But that goes against my narrative!

[@geraldfrost4710]

Slight adjust... 790k nitrogen, 200k oxygen.

[@lucasleepwalker7543]

and? what is your point? if nitrogen were a greenhouse gass the earth would be a blob of molten lava. "ooh look the gass that does nothing is in vast quantities, that means the gass that does do things is magically incapable of warming the planet"

[@Vigula]

@@lucasleepwalker7543 I think the point is, though I could be wrong, that in all our historical records CO2 has never led global warming.

[@lucasleepwalker7543]

@@Vigula it is one of the main reasons reason behind our temperature. base temp for earth without greenhouse gasses is -16. if any point on earth is warmer than that, you have greenhouse gasses warming stuff up. co2 is the main one that does the bulk of our warming, without it we are an ice ball, with too much of it we turn into a dessert. the problem we have at the moment is its really easy to influence co2 amounts, as it only takes a small amount of co2 to do a lot of warming, so humans have managed to pump out co2 levels that within 40 years will kill most life on earth. this has happened twice before, co2 levels climbed to 5 or 6 degrees higher than life was adapted for, so almost everything died the difference with our situation, is where those two extinction events took tens of thousands of years, we have done it in 200 years at the moment we are an ice age planet, and humans are an ice age species, we die at about 40 degrees if its humid enough. and we are rapidly bringing earth out of the ice age into a hot dry world that next to none of our life is adapted for, and the few species that can survive the heat, are the ones that are about to-and have gone extinct due to human activity.

[@joekelly9369]

roughly 1200-1800s was a mini ice age , occasional hot summers but freezing winters . with the thames freezing over and markets held on the frozen river , we are exiting a mini ice age it can only get warmer , we have been here before many times , only we didnt have phones or sensationalism

[@gedofgont1006]

So very, very true.👍

[@robertfindley921]

Fourier was one of the greatest scientists in history. His discoveries were key to development of digital music, digital video, cell phones, computers and just about everything that sends, receives or processes digital data. He was even the lead on the development of the metric system.

[@rinzler9775]

Yes, he invented what probably is one of the most important mathematical algorithms.

[@ceeemm1901]

And Eunice Foote was just a chick.

[@areyouavinalaff]

@@ceeemm1901 oh no , Sir, she was more than a mere chick. She was a rather hot chick.

[@ceeemm1901]

@@areyouavinalaff Yeah,and as someone said in 1967, "What she did was a gas, man".

[@markw4206]

@@ceeemm1901 I hope you're being sarcastic. She was extraordinary, despite everything stacked against her. And note that her accomplishments weren't limited to just discovering the most important issue of the following centuries, but she also was an inventor. What have you done?

[@TruthTwoTell]

Warm weather has Saved lives and that is also a fact!

[@user-os9ge2we2b]

@@TruthTwoTell yup

[@Fomites]

And what is your point?

[@josephcooper1928]

Excessively hot weather, along with other extreme weather events has killed people. In a 2021 study published in the Lancet Planetary Health journal (Vol 5, Issue 7 July 2021) that looked at the numbers for 2000 to 2019, found that globally 5,083,173 deaths had occurred globally that are attributed to global warming/climate change. That number included 170,000 in the US alone. There are many more scientific studies detailing the negative impact that global warming/climate change is having on human health and mortality, the environment, and even the economy. So while you may be attracted to purveyors of misinformation and outright lies, the scientific community continues to do real research and their findings are continuing to verify the original scientific consensus that global warming/climate change is a real threat and is getting worse each year.

[@paulhoughton1691]

@@Fomites Perhaps his point is. Would you rather the Earth had cooled or got warmer. I know what farmers would say.

[@brokenrecord3523]

​@@paulhoughton1691 Yes, we should definitely ask farmers about science. We should also ask plumbers about physics and maybe the police about early childhood education

[@bigedslobotomy]

The author of this video noted that the “story of climate change is that of science, biology, and statistics”, but he left out “and politics.” With ”climate change” being used as a blunt instrument to advance the argument for a world government and regulation of every aspect of our lives “to save the earth,” people are rightly wary of the term “climate change.”

[@helloscammer]

Nailed it. What may have started as science is now political. "Science" is just a wrapper to make the political goals appear unassailable.

[@petermach8635]

Yup, "follow the science" ......... another example of how the Marxists, cultural or otherwise, have succeeded in making everything political.

[@tealkerberus748]

"Sidenote: eww." Yeah there's a few moments like that in science history. Excellent vid, very well presented. Thank you.

[@jacquesdemolay2699]

Where did you find the reference stating that Napoleon (big bad wolf) forced poor little Fourier to accompany him on a tour of Egypt. Since when do we need to force a scientist to do the journey of his life and making jealous the rest of the gallery ? Your choice of words says long on your opinions. You could have taken this opportunity to explain that Napoleon had the enlightened idea to bring a scientific team in his campaign of Egypt. Some people see a glass being half-empty and some see it as being half-full - you choose, matey !

[@Dougie1969]

Have you been drug tested?

[@jameseverett4976]

@@Dougie1969 wow, what an argument! Can I borrow that one? What I like most about it, is that it will work with ANY debate, no matter the subject or facts of the situation.

[@Dougie1969]

@@jameseverett4976 Well, when the subject and "facts" are skewed so far off, one can only ask.

[@bartoszmaj8691]

I love how Simon mentioning Bobby on the wikicast to making a whole video in his style. Feels like a Disney channel crossover.

[@Altobrun]

gotta give some love for the originator of this style too, Jon Bois' chart party series. It's such an exceptional way to tell a story.

[@JeevesAnthrozaurUS]

​@@Altobrun Before there was Chart Party, there was his series "Pretty Good" in which this style became the consistent Jon Bois style Shoutout to Bobby for giving folks a tutorial for it.

[@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721]

Yeah, the style seems a bit unusual for Simon's channel, but it is a great homage to BobbyBroccoli.

[@spacemonkey9000]

Disney is poison.

[@superduper9357]

Fourier was not killed by heat, he was killed by gravity!

[@cryyc]

I hope your parents are proud of you

[@jaydensdream714]

Your wrong of course. What killed him was the sudden stop of his inertia.

[@boogathon]

@@cryyc Well, I am.

[@ErikDPhillips]

@@boogathon You are what?

[@boogathon]

​@@ErikDPhillips If you look close, you can see I was replying to Cryyc. I understand, because, I've made the same misteak (but I never misspell a word).

[@jeffreyjacobs390]

Let us not forget that - AL GORE was a son of a N. Carolina TOBACCO FARMER, worked the fields himself helping to increase carbon footprint, cigarette smoking, pollution, etc ..... and then of course once a Politico himself .... had the gall to suggest THAT OUR SHORES WOULD BE INUNDATED BY THE OCEAN .... by the late 1990s early 2000s ..... of which NOT A SINGLE prediction was correct. There ya go.

[@old-pete]

How is tobaco farming increasing the carbon footprint? And yes, the oceans are rising.

[@miyojewoltsnasonth2159]

@@old-pete I'm also confused by "son of a N. Carolina TOBACCO FARMER, worked the fields himself helping to increase carbon footprint." The two best thoughts I can come up with: 1. Burning a cigarette increases CO2, however minor. 2. Burning fuel in tractors, though this would be the same for any modern farming. *@jeffreyjacobs390:* Are one of these what you mean? If not, what are you actually talking about?

[@user-os9ge2we2b]

@jeffreyjacobs390 Al Gore was also vice president to BILL CLINTON. Aka EPSTEIN #1 fan! He 100000% was on pedophile island with his BFF Bill Clinton. It's so obvious and gross. How is this not being talked about?? Trump looks in the wrong direction and it makes front page news for 2 years, AL GORE AND BILL CLINTON WERE REGULARS AT AN ISLAND BUILT FOR PEDOPHILES AND NO ONE TALKS ABOUT THIS????

[@stevenpeaketrainsandstuff3682]

You have confirmed, through your own comment, that you have no clue what you are talking about. You polluted this comment space with an inspired piece of crap. I hope you are proud, sir.

[@Fomites]

Apparently Gore did make some technical errors but his overall direction has been validated. I don't think he made the claims you suggest though. The information you present almost certainly came from others who exaggerated Gore's work. And why such an attack? Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[@I.amthatrealJuan]

I commend this effort of correcting this historical injustice by raising awareness of Eunice Foote's trailblazing but forgotten work.

[@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721]

Unfortunately, it seems that there aren't even any photos of her. The image used in the video is actually of Foote's daughter, Mary.

[@OldShatterham]

I really enjoyed this overview of how how these processes were discovered historically. It gives you a much deeper appreciation of how many people were involved and how much previous work our current theories build on!

[@etjay5239]

Global warming: An inconvenient pile of bull sh!t. Sorry lemmings, you've been had (again).

[@andrewrourke9519]

That´s just the laast 200 yrs. What does the paleo-proxydata over the last 25-30 thousand years indicate?

[@jaykanta4326]

@@andrewrourke9519 Marcott et al 2013.

[@chinajoebinlying1773]

Yeah in 1912 they also believed the Martians were an advanced race of beings which created expensive canals in order to fight climate change on their planet.

[@jaykanta4326]

@@chinajoebinlying1773 Who is "they"?

[@rcsontag]

If the CO2 concentration on Earth would be reduced from 0.04% to 0.03% green plant life, which depends on CO2 would die off. Lately, Revelle has renounced Al Gore's conclusions about global warming. The so-called temperature increase in the past 200 years can easily be dismissed due to the inaccuracy of thermometers in the past plus the fact that thermometer calibration standards have changed at least twice during that time.

[@rps1689]

0.04 percent, which is an increase of 50 percent since 170 years ago. A very fast rate geologically, and even on scales relevant to humans. There is a reason why global warming is not estimated in in degrees per decade; it is estimated in watts per square meter or total watts, which we know you have no clue why thus your nonsense about thermometers. If you or anyone else can show that the methods used to determine the increase in global mean temp can be dismissed, you'll be the next rock star in applied physics and rich to boot.

[@naturalkind5591]

Ignore how 200 years ago it was below 0.03% lol

[@UnknownPascal-sc2nk]

​@naturalkind5591 it was 280ppm in 1960. Now 427 and we are heating up with no mechanism to go back down.

[@Hudson-rs7ty]

@@rps1689 The 1.0 C of slow and gradual warming since the Little Ice Age (half of which occurred before fossil fuels) has improved human prosperity and flourishing by every metric, so what game are you playing? In the first place there is no such physical thing as an “average global temperature' - it's is a non-physical and statistical construct invented by and for global warming alarmism. What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970? Evidence of warming is not evidence of the cause of warming. From the very beginning the underlying assumptions in the UN IPCC process presumed - without establishing scientific evidence - that anthropogenic activity was driving “global warming” which was subsequently modified to “climate change” after the global temperature “pause”. In the 17 years 11 months from October 1996 to August 2014 why was there no global warming at all, according to the RSS satellite dataset, whose output is not significantly different from that of any other global-temperature dataset. Why does the Climate Reference Network (CRN) the most accurate nationwide temperature station network, implemented in 2005, shows no sustained increase in daily high temperatures in the United States since 2005. These facts alone break the AGW hypothesis.

[@slyrik1145]

@@rps1689 10000% of nothing is nothing... from 2 parts in 10000 to 4 parts in 10000 is nothing

[@debeeriz]

science is always changing, what science says is happening today can be proved wrong tomorrow

[@alexvandenbroek5587]

I like how everyone in KZbin comments is an expert

[@referencefool6525]

Pdf: 📑⛰🍙 Mines, Minerals , and "Green" Energy: A Reality Check 💸🎇♨ 🏴‍☠

[@robertcartwright4374]

I like this etymology of "expert": it's formed from two words, "ex", meaning former, and "spurt", a drip under pressure.

[@MichaelHarrisIreland]

No, it's just that people can think for themselves and don't surrender it to experts.

[@CoachStephen]

Currently watching and still waiting for a mention of periods of warming on the planet 'before humans burnt all the coal and wood etc' can't wait for the explanation

[@mrunning10]

you really believe that CARBON is the ONLY factor?

[@markw4206]

The video isn't a comprehensive explanation of climate. It's about climate history. You might crack a climate textbook though, where you'd read about Milankovitch Cycles, and how the periods of time they act on are about 4 or 5 orders of magnitude too slow to be even remotely relevant to the sharp warming of recent decades. Or, you can remain ignorant and just spill your derp on comment boards looking foolish.

[@tentruesummers9043]

@@markw4206 What is this sharp warming you speak of? We have no instrument records beyond a relative snap-shot of history. For all you know this 'sharp warming' is normal or even slower than previous warming. And never forget...we're in an inter-glacial period so we're destined to freeze over again sooner or later. After which it'll start getting warmer! You see a pattern emerging?

[@mrunning10]

@@markw4206 Hey Simon, can't figure out this rant can you? Seems to be upset that you gave a history of man's understanding of climate change, for some reason expecting a comprehensive explanation of climate?" Bizarre? or just on drugs?? Then rants that you missed the Milankovitch Cycles (there are 3 of 'em) but then rants that they are "too slow to be even remotely relevant?" Bizarre? most likely drugs? These precious "Milankovitch Cycles" are ACCOUNTED for in the climate models because they in small part add to the Energy received by Earth from the Sun.

[@jct4418]

So funny when the cult members can't understand how YT comments work and get at each other.

[@sensei9295]

I followed the science and found out there was none. I followed the money, and I found the science!

[@markw4206]

You followed no science. And when you follow the money, you'll find the millions that the fossil fuel industry is pumping into the denial and disinfo websites you've probably consumed.

[@billaddington831]

Another climate disruption denier. Conformation bias much?

[@Fomites]

No you didn't. Tell us how you 'followed the science'. Sigh...And by following 'the money', you mean you projected your own driving mercenary motivation on to scientific endeavour. You know nothing.

[@nincumpoop9747]

@@Fomitestry to get a grant for research that goes against the man made climate narrative.

[@montazvideo]

​​​@@Fomitesit's very simple. The science predicted there will be no ice caps in 2012... This is what al Gore received the Nobel Prize for. John Kerry bragged about it loud and clear. Earth was supposed to be dead by now. And I'm f-ing quoting... Find me ONE prediction that turned out to be true. JUST ONE. 🤣🤣🤣 Well. We don't have models for cloud forming, just couple of months ago groundbreaking study of evaporation process was published. Was that taken into account? How? The fact of the matter is even solar cycles changes are NOT taken into account neither orbital changes. Changes in measurement... Nothing of fundamental importance. We are breaking temperature records... Established not a year ago, not even five... A century ago.... Wow... Gee.... What a continuity... So as we know NOTHING, the best way is to follow the science's track record of correct predictions to find out if it sticks. And there's NO correct predictions. Not even ONE. But it doesn't bother any dogmatic believer that can dismiss all failures for it to stick. You desperately want it to stick... That you always look ahead happily forgetting the past.

[@jeffreyprentis]

Don't forget to mention that James Watt's brilliant invention brought most of the world out of poverty and diseases. Without him the world would be a much worse place than now.

[@michaelscore6763]

2 Thousand years ago Hannibal traveled with his soldiers and elefants over the alpes beating Rome. There was no snow in the hills, the temperature was 3 degree or more warmer... Then came back 1450 a cold period till 1850 sand since this time the temperature is grown 1 degree maybe.... But it's by far not as warm as it was in times of Hannibal.

[@johnhudghton3535]

Exactly so. Later, when Rome had colonised Britain, they were cultivating vineyards here.

[@michaelscore6763]

@@johnhudghton3535... Because the climate was warm enough for their wine....

[@johnhudghton3535]

@@michaelscore6763 spot on.

[@Humdebel]

The word you are looking for is "yet". The issue isn't mainly the temperatura. Is the rate of increase.

[@coachwhitford7315]

Here's another inconvenient truth, hemp was supposed to be the next industrial revolution. Imagine a much cleaner environment if big oil and forestry managed to lose the lobby war back in day. The Bush family gained significant power and influence, but that's another story, but we know how that dynasty ended. Instead of focusing on the average every day individual, as they like to do, focus on the real issue and follow the money instead of following the carbon footprint.

[@GrumpyMeow-Meow]

Well said!

[@lozoft9]

I can’t believe that, until the 60s, no one had bothered to factor-in acid buffering. It’s such an important chemical property in so many industrial and biological processes. Also, if you did the math on ocean acidification sans buffering, the oceans would’ve been a pH of 5 in the 70s and 3 or 4 today, inhospitable to life. And the reverse would be true as well, lower CO2 in ice ages sans buffering would have resulted in inhospitably alkaline oceans. If they gave it even a shred of thought….

[@gwalkeriq]

With no CO2 in the atmosphere, ocean PH would be around 10 or 11 IIRC. Don't think we would care much since we would all be dead. The acid effect as well as the buffering in the ocean is vital for life, and not surprisingly in our blood too.

[@vineleak7676]

Nonsense... It would have been absorbed by photosynthesis and the calcium carbonate cycle...

[@bsutton2084]

One of the big picture pieces missing are geological experts to show how the Earth has had periods of thousands of ppm of CO2 in it's atmosphere before and how the oceans turn it into carbonate rock.

[@SigFigNewton]

Every period of increased CO2 in the deep past is associated with warming

[@SigFigNewton]

Yup, it’s happened before. And sea levels were considerably higher then. And a billion humans live near current sea level hmmm Tens of millions of climate refugees, coming to a decade near you

[@LionHeartSamy]

I absolutely love how you didn't even bother introducing who the heck James Watt is, yet the fact that the SI unit for power is named after him tells me everything I need to know about him LOL

[@et133et]

It is almost like this wasn't a video about james watt

[@StNick119]

Thanks for standing up for Eunice Foote's legacy as the first person to propose the "greenhouse effect".

[@LiveFreeOrDie2A]

Eunice Foote’s “legacy” 😂

[@KevinSwan10200]

All her work was destroyed in a fire yet it was rediscovered much later during the WOKE decades. I wonder if she was of African decent as well? Perhaps we will discover her secret ethnicity during the next Democrat Presidency.

[@gregglewis5405]

Ever been in a greenhouse in the nighttime, they are still lovely and warm but when the sun goes down here it's bloody cold , just a observation

[@rob.w.t.3356]

The problem about this whole topic is that in the medivial time, at around 1000 AC, the temperature was higher than tiday, and that without a high CO2 or human interacting. And there are also scintific papers that say the CO2 rise is following the temperature rise and not the other way around.

[@jeffgold3091]

1921 was noted for extreme world wide heat waves which have recently been erased from noaa’ s records . glad you gave a shout out for the real weather of 1921 despite noaa’s fictions

[@darthmaul216]

They have not been erased at all dude.

[@BudSchnelker]

@@darthmaul216 kzbin.info/www/bejne/e4G8g3l_qJqVprs

[@BillyThetit]

History of humanity : Warm climate periods : prosperity. Cold climate periods : abject misery.

[@Try2Tri]

I really do like Bobby Broccoli's style and content! Fun to see this sort of crossover. :)

[@herrk.2339]

Yesss! My thoughts exactly

[@carlbennett2417]

Poor Fourier. If only he knew how widely his methods are applied.

[@elirothblatt5602]

Excellent! Bored, I searched most viewed long “history” videos for this month and found yours near the top. We are truly in a golden age of video options, thanks to services like KZbin and creators like you. Subscribed!

[@T61APL89]

Why do you talk like a robot

[@fredjones43]

The hockey puck graph was changed drastically from the previous graph which was manifestly unremarkable. One wonders if the scientist who created it thought the ICCP actually wanted facts rather than a study to prove their "hypothesis". The hockey puck graph was actually unremarkable as well, until it was magnified so the vertical marks represented tenths of degrees rather than degrees.

[@ijustwannaleaveacommentony6511]

and he lost a million dollars in court because he could not produce the data.

[@johnadcock6852]

Also, it has been proven that Mann's analysis leads to a "hockey stick" graph regardless of the data set. Even random numbers.

[@mrunning10]

@@ijustwannaleaveacommentony6511 WTF are you talking about? What court? What caser? What "data?" just provide a link or reference if you can.

[@ijustwannaleaveacommentony6511]

@@mrunning10 why the aggression? it's true, you can check it. i've tried to leave details on this comment section and been shadow banned. look up tim ball michael mann

[@ijustwannaleaveacommentony6511]

michael mann hockey stick fraud. i don't even know if you will see these comments

[@harveytheparaglidingchaser7039]

Thanks for introducing Eunice Newton Foote , very interesting

[@henry3395]

Wonderful presentation of selected historical events of climate information that are claimed but not proved to be caused by humans.

[@ThinRedLine_Matt]

Confirmation bias science is the only science. Isnt that the rule? 😂

[@distantraveller9876]

Did you even bother watching the whole thing because it literally doesn't say that.

[@ThinRedLine_Matt]

@@distantraveller9876 Technically it doesnt half to 'say that'. If you only present selected pieces of science in your statement, video, presentation or whatever one is doing that's what it is. Why weren't any of these numbers in video link in this video? They were conveinantly left out of this video were commenting on. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qqWxmGR8bLljj5Ifeature=shared

[@hughjasse3375]

As soon as I start to hear appeals to authority, appeals to the majority, equivocations and loaded questions, I recognise science is getting pushed out of the way by politicians and rhetoric. Particularly when identitarian topics are pushed into the narrative about class, gender, etc.,

[@MedlifeCrisis]

Woo for part 2! Wonderful stuff Simon 👏👏

[@murraywebster362]

There are many inconvenient facts overlooked. Why did temperatures peak around the 1930's, decrease, then increase again, with CO2 increasing all the time? Why does satellite and Hot Air Balloone temperature measurement of the atmosphere not show the same warming as ground-based thermometers? Are the majority of weather stations located in or near cities and airports that have been subject to localised Urban Heating? Confirmation bias is a thing.

[@davidbrown-xk8zl]

Since the 1800's The average worldwide temperature has risen a mere 0.8 degrees fahrenheit. I truly believe that I will be able to sleep quite peacefully tonight, and for many,many, years to come. Politics is the reason this entire world is going to hell. I urge you to look up the FACT I stated in my first sentence. Goodnight all.

[@googletaqiyya184]

*You want to control the temp? Change the humidity. Solved! The by far greatest global warming gas is water vapor.*

[@zaarkeru3391]

Tell me how humidity is controlled and how water caused warming (hint it doesnt)

[@googletaqiyya184]

@@zaarkeru3391 The number ONE with a bullet of greenhouse gasses is water vapor in the air. Want proof? Ever been to Miami? How about Vegas? In Miami [humid] nighttime temps vary little from daytime temps in the summer. Why? The heat is trapped in the water of the air. It is not allowed to radiate upward and away. This is the greenhouse effect in a nutshell is it not? In Vegas [dry] the daytime temp and nighttime temp in the summer vary VASTLY in summer. Why? HUMIDITY! What is humidity? Water! So the heat of the day is trapped, ie the greenhouse effect, by water whereas in Vegas that heat is allowed to radiate upward and out into the atmosphere. Oxygen is alwo a greenhouse gas BTW.

[@crustyoldfart]

Compared with the small locales where CO2 is measured, and the tiny masses of gas being analyzed, the Earth's atmosphere is several orders of magnitude greater. SO, it's a fair question to ask - is what is actually measured, precision notwithstanding, actually significant in the larger context. A good argument can be made that such restricted measurements are little more than ' noise '. And so that whole debate was initiated and continues to rage.

[@robertcartwright4374]

You should make that argument, if it is good, in the scientific literature, where it can advance scientific understanding. I'm guessing you don't because in reality your argument isn't any good.

[@stevenpeaketrainsandstuff3682]

@crustyoldfart Well, if your name is a reflection of your age, surely you might have noticed changes in the climate. Hotter summers, increased ferocity in storms, 20 year droughts, gentrification of poorer areas as people move inland (I'm talking Florida), and it's only just kicking off. My point is the warnings given 40 years ago, coupled with climate science, are bearing fruit.

[@OneElkCrew]

this is important work, Simon, please do continue

[@leodefendis6363]

I like the ending where he says The story of climate, change is chemistry, physics, and statistics. Normally, you would read books, the building blocks in order to educate yourself and compare the possibilities and different opinions of climate change. But this is not the best way to learn about climate change. Let one of our handpick professionals that we the Elite have chosen for you to learn. Right?

[@jaykanta4326]

Do you think you can learn quantum mechanics and understand it? How about Astrophysics, biochemistry or Virology? Then why do you think you can understand climate science easily?

[@daysofourtime]

@@jaykanta4326 The whole premise is based on ONE gas Co2. Which is further broken down to man made Co2. Thus the equation is even simpler. We know the Volume of co2 is around 360 to 400 ppm (parts per million) as a % . We also know 94 to 97% of that is from our oceans. Man and all animal life contribute less than one half of one % of that. Statistically zero. Its simple math. You could eliminate ALL life on land and nothing would change .

[@jaykanta4326]

@@daysofourtime mankind caused the rise from 235 ppm to 440 ppm. Get a clue. You’re not a scientist

[@MrYort13]

So what melted the mile thick ice on North America? He did a pain staking calculation so he would make no error but forgot to include angle of the Earth. Why without people does the climate keep changing? Yes many things not addressed but that might side line your agenda.

[@Tshasta4449]

There are some unanswered factors in climate change, such as; are the rays of the sun always consistent, is the earth’s orbit around the sun always in the same track, does the earth’s wobble have any impact on climate change. In the 60’s it was said that we were coming out of a mini ice age. Back in time there were far more serious ice ages. What caused these to disappear. Another interesting fact is ice cores from the Antarctic found tropical plants below the ice cap. Also, to what extent do the natural emissions of gases and pollutants from volcanic activity and forest fires have on the planet.

[@markw4206]

LOL. Literally all of those issues are actually very well understood. We have pretty solid records of insolation over the decades (it's been DECREASING as the planet has been heating rapidly). The earth's orbit is very eccentric and varying, but that happens in well understood patterns that were characterized extensively in the mid 20th century by Milankovitch. It's the REASON we understand the ice age cycles. Long term climate change is understood via a variety of temperature proxies, and we also know what drove the changes. And volcanism's contribution also is well studied. For instance, all the volcanoes in the world release less than ONE PERCENT as much CO2 as humans do.

[@Tshasta4449]

@@markw4206 Okay, thanks, although you didn’t explain tropical plants under the Antarctic Ice cap. Also if we are coming out of an ice age then temperature’s are definitely going to increase. I have yet to see what the perfect Co2 level we are shooting for, is 0 an ideal number, it’s definitely low enough. It’s interesting to know that greenhouse’s increase Co2 levels upwards of 1000ppm for a higher quality crop. What if we trigger a super ice age like the one that covered most of North America, yikes 😱 The biggest problem I see is when using computer models are very unreliable, especially when dealing with data that is manipulated to reach a preconceived conclusion. Any time I see mass hysteria it throws up a red flag 🚩 as to the groups involved and what they’re real ultimate goals are. Like Bill Gates goal of reducing world population to 500 million, now that is a cause for extreme concern.

[@stevenpeaketrainsandstuff3682]

​@Tshasta4449 Keep burning carbon and we will destroy our climate, leading to a mass extinction. The only thing that will save the earth is our destruction. It's true what they say, ignorance and dumbfuckery are difficult to defeat. Some people have more bone than brain in their skulls. Pity.

[@petermach8635]

It's interesting @@Tshasta4449 ..... that nobody has responded to your questions, I wonder if they're "inconvenient" ?

[@ricardosmythe2548]

Taking the end of the little ice age as the starting point for these predictions is short sighted to say the least.

[@mrunning10]

relax, they go back at least a million years.

[@ricardosmythe2548]

@@mrunning10 most of the data used to show a warming climate starts in around 1750 the end of the little ice age. Can't think why 😂👍

[@jasondashney]

Lots of climate data is very cherry picked.

[@retroonhisbikes]

Co2 increase stopped an extinction event for when co2 drops to 150ppm all plant life dies. As the co2 levels increases so the biosphere is invigorated. Over that last 20 years green areas have increased by the size of the us. Productivity is up 26% and plants have become less prone to drought. Farmers know this as they fill their greenhouses with co2 to a level of 1500ppm. The biggest greenhouse gas, by 70% is water vapour.

[@zaarkeru3391]

Nobody is pushing for removal of CO2... Just normal levels of CO2, pre industrial levels... We're in a mass exinction event. Pollenators are dying at a record rate, which will result in agricultural death if we dont deak with it now. Buddy, you dont understand the topic...

[@George.Andrews.]

We are below the earths average temperature at the moment. Source, The Natural History Museum of London.

[@duprog]

Nice overview of the understanding of the effects of CO2 in regards to the climate. The second part might also include what the modern politics did with this information. We have to recognise that the research is only going to prove what the money supporting it will demand. As an example, If you offer to pay a million dollars per years to prove that the increase in temperature is caused by the increase in dog population, you will certainly find someone to take your offer. It doesn't mater if most people find it ridiculous, an argument could be made that would make sense to an uneducated person. There is no denying that the more dog we have, the more the planet warms. The correlation is clear enough to justify more research, and obviously more money. Also, the selection of the period in which the research is conducted is not a hazard, it is selected to support the theories presented. If for example the studies were done over the last 2000 years, the so called evidence would not be quite so clear. The modern researchers are well aware of this and are dishonest in their presentations if they don't account for it. Claiming that the ecosystem of the planet is at risk by only studying the last 100 years is completely ridiculous. In the life of a person it could be a major importance but in the life of the planet it is nothing.

[@kaybon3625]

The earth's climate has been changing for billions of years The Earth's climate and atmosphere have changed drastically over the last 4.5 billion years. Today's global average temperature is around 59°F, but scientists estimate it has been as low as 10°F1 (during “snowball Earth” events) and as high as 95°F or above2 (so hot the Arctic North resembled today's tropics)

[@Lord_Rowlet]

besides extreme events like astroid impacts the climate has never this fast and even if it did it's still a bad thing

[@charger348]

Yes correct and that is the real inconvenient truth

[@alankwellsmsmba]

@@Lord_Rowlet Well, there's nothing we can really do to stop it and likely not even slow it down. Humankind will die off one way or another, perhaps another massive volcano eruption, possibly in the Western US causing a cloud which would block the sun for many years. Everything dies. It's happened before.

[@kiwenmanisuno]

Except this? This isn't the Earth changing, this is *US* changing the Earth. WE are responsible for this sudden warming, and we'll all suffer the consequenced if we don't take action now

[@krodkrod8132]

Good thing KZbin is there to put a context label on your video so we can understand what's going on. Like they are some kind of authority of knowledge.

[@mtapp113]

I know doctors who appreciated KZbin's expertise in censoring what other doctors were allowed to share concerning their findings dealing with COVID patients.

[@bradmcclure4945]

exactly big tech trying to control the narrative by removing content that challenges their false narrative

[@nahkohese555]

If everyone is so worried about CO2 in the atmosphere, why don't we just stop cutting down forests to make strip malls and parking lots that usually sit half empty because half the stores are empty too. Plant more trees!

[@colinmaclean7725]

Hey Simon - mostly truthful so I appreciate your work - however you never explained to your audience that CO2 is a food - that is right everybody a food for all plant life on the planet. And prior to the industrial revolution (provided by Watts) - the parts per million count was very low ppm around 200 and the planet needs a minimum of 180 ppm to sustain plant life. Now, lets move forward to plant growth on the planet - especially in the northern hemisphere. You can find on line the growth of equatorial and northern hemisphere plant growth (through satellite studies and on the ground studies) - that we have seen significant growth of the plant life which of course gives us our oxygen. Also, a slightly warmer planet (post the last little ice age) is what got us out of the dark ages as there was more food to go around allowing for better health of all humanity. Finally, growing countries like Canada, USA, Brazil, Russia, Ukraine etc. now all have slightly longer growing seasons - allowing in many of these countries, one extra rotation of crops for export. Look what happened during the Russia war with Ukraine... countries were pleading for the exports of grain from Ukraine to other nations as this grain was desperately needed to feed their people. All of this plus the ability to use synthetic fertilizers is what is ABSOLUTELY necessary to feed the billions of people on the planet. Half of the people of this planet live in abject poverty (so we can have battery cars of all things) - and what they need to raise their standard of living is ENERGY & FOOD - so please get off of your high horse and help people get what they need to survive - instead of spewing this 1/2 truth and thinking (while drinking your clean water in your warm home - with your food delivered to your grocery store) - that you are doing something good for humanity... 'cause, you certainly are not. Love to debate you any time anywhere to discuss this in open forum... thanks Colin

[@kevinmueller5284]

And what happens when food is over eaten? Studies have been conducted where plants have been grown in excessively CO2 rich atmospheres and those plants have been found to have many many problems. Perhaps Colin should research some of that before posting as a common schill for the fossil fuel industry.

[@easy_s3351]

Of course humans have an impact on the earth's climate but the main driving force behind climate change is explained with the Milankovitch Cycles; changing orbit of the earth around the sun, change in tilt of the earth's axis, etc. And changes in solar radiation are also an important factor. Fun fact is that with the increase of CO2 and nitrogen in our atmosphere and the global warming, the earth has actually become 15% greener than it was a couple of decades ago.

[@rps1689]

Then you know that changes in solar irradiance and the Milankovitch Cycles are currently in cooling phases and have been for hundreds of years and for hundreds of year to come, so they can’t account for the current global warming, which is happening at an unnaturally fast rate, because it is being driven by a manmade forcing more powerful than the current natural known forcings. Yes, the planet is greening as predicted by climate science. Also most of the global greening is due to China’s and India’s mega tree planting programs, but it would take four times more land than exists on this planet with new trees on it keep up the current rate of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, and most of that land would require irrigation with fresh water. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes increased cellulose production hence more tonnage of certain crops, but no increase in nutritional value. Current rate of global warming brings a loss of global biodiversity and favours weeds over crops. Crop yields are good nowadays due to technology even in global CO2 levels of 421 ppm, but we can’t produce the protein per acre like we used to. When food is grown at elevated CO2 levels in fields, it becomes less nutritious and lose significant amounts of zinc and iron plus grains lose protein. Because of this you need more fields to produce more volumes to make this up and more greenhouses, as you decrease the amount of protein you can produce per acre. We are already seeing major crops like rice, wheat, corn and even soybeans becoming less productive where average mean temps have increased slightly in the last ten years. Rice is also becoming less nutritious in high CO2 conditions. That being said we know that plants can acclimatize or adjust to rising CO2, but the fertilization effect of CO2 diminishes over time. In a greenhouse this is not a problem because they have excellent soil, optimal amounts of water, and controlled temps.

[@easy_s3351]

@@rps1689 Solar irradiance is currently actually higher than before. The effect of the Milankovitch cycles takes quite some time to notice. Peak of our current warm period as by the Milankovitch cycles was about 7000 years ago and since the different cycles run between 40.000 and 100.000 years we're still feeling the effect of that. It'll take another couple of 1000's of years before we start experiencing the cooling effect of being in the cooling down phase of these cycles. Most of the greening of the earth is due to plants now being able to grow where they weren't able to grow before, i.e. in harsh environments. Due to higher temperatures they can now grow in previously frozen areas like permafrost areas. Due to an increase in CO2 plants don't have to open their pores as much to be able to capture enough CO2. Having to open those pores less means they don't have as much water evaporating which means they can now grow in warm areas where they weren't able to grow before. The fact that crops have less nutritions nowadays is not as much due to higher levels of CO2 but due to our crops largely having been genetically modified to grow faster giving them less time to accumulate those nutritions. They did a nice test which shows that fact by putting up two cobs of corn for squirrels , one of which was genetically modified (the corn, not the squirrel). Guess which one got eaten. Yes, changes in climate affect the biodiversity. They always have and always will. About 90% of all known previous life on earth has become extinct over time and other forms of life have come to life because of it. That's what we call nature. And like I said, of course we humans have an impact on the climate but not as much as the Milankovitch cycles which cause ice ages (which we don't). If you look at data going back 150 years the weather hasn't become more extreme, there aren't more hurricanes or heat waves (global average temperature is only 0,5C higher than 50 years ago) and the sea level has only risen by on average 1 inch per decade. BTW, in the last warm period (about 130.000 years ago) sea levels were about 5 meters higher than they are now. They have also been much lower during ice ages (up to 100 meters lower). So even sea levels are a cycle. The main problem is that we are a large population and have build houses and other structures all over the place and when for instance a hurricane hits, the damage is big, there is a lot of suffering and it is all over the news. So it seems as if things are worse than say 100 years ago whereas they aren't. The models predicting the future as far as global warming goes are way off, on average by a factor 2 yet nobody seems interested in rectifying that problem. Why? Because the powers that be like to present us with problems, with crisis and then offer us a solution. Usually a solution that involves us spending money and limiting our freedom. Here's a good video to watch on climate change: kzbin.info/www/bejne/p3vZYnyGg7-El9E

[@rps1689]

@@easy_s3351 Christy? Seriously? This is the guy that lied about climate’s sensitivity to CO2, lies about GHGs, lies about internal variability, lies about the effect of climate change on agriculture, lies about the cooling affect of aerosols and the planets inertia in order to argue that the rate of increase over the last century ins nothing to worry about, lies about the occurrence of weather disasters in the past, lies about the dominant forcings, lies about rural and regional temperatures, ignores most recent satellite data, doesn’t tell you that a climate scientist that becomes a flack for the fossil fuel industry makes much much more money than the top leading working scientist in the world do, lies about the recent global temps that are unprecedented in the last one thousand years, he also knows that temperature adjustments are made in order to render raw data more accurate, but because of political reasons, doesn’t tell you, and lied about there being a consensus about a future global ice age in science especially in the 1970s; and the list goes on. I'm all too familiar with how he uses his usual distortions with misleading graphs to distort samples of emissions from satellite data by visual trickery. Not surprising from a guy that exacerbates Model-Data discrepancy and lies about TLT measurements saying they are made by a single satellite then fails to tell his audience that measurement instruments don’t have lifetimes of 34 years, which is why the splicing together the measurements from various different satellite instruments is done. Are you familiar with the outdoor field studies in Japan and China, growing different strains of rice in air under the same atmospheric concentration of CO2 that is predicted for the year 2100? They found the rice grown in these conditions had substantially less 1 vitamin B1 , B2, B5 and especially B9 (folate) than rice grown under current CO2 concentrations. When the most powerful physical forcings at the time are cyclic, then the climate's response is cyclic. When there's a one time forcing, the climate change happens once. The last few glacial periods in the Pleistocene were synchronous with the 105,000 year precession cycle. They're in a cooling phase right now yet we are not in a global cooling trend due anthropogenic warming; the current rapid increase in CO2 is manmade. All numerical models are “wrong” per se, which Includes the models we use to design spacecraft and chips that work right the first time. They are “wrong” because correctness is a matter of degree, not a binary on or off thing. These models in the hands of experts who understand their limitations deliver useful results. Everybody knows the CMIP5 and 6 models run hot, but that doesn't mean they're worthless. The observations have been inside the projection cones for fifty years. The models are right enough. We know it is a fact that Spencer/Christy UAH satellite set has been hyped by conservative and “skeptic” media, as if it were the only reliable data set and that Spencer/Christy were the only reliable scientists, more than anything else because their data set at one point diverged so widely from most of the others, but they are largely in alignment, indicating that mainstream climate science has been right all the time.

[@franktully3065]

​@@easy_s3351Well said. I suspect Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is overestimated as about twice what it actually is. Dr Koonin's and Australian scientist Garth Paltridge's books: Unsettled and The Climate Caper have influenced my view.

[@dannoringer]

This is truth. CO2 is a small consideration. it's a factor, but a minor one. The really hard part about predicting climate using milankovitch cycles is that the motion of the planet is an extraordinarily complex equation of the pull of gravities of a near infinite number of bodies in the heavens, combined with the oscillations of position of the earth as compared to the sun, combined with the complex absorption and radiation of Ocean, Clouds, and earth on a mostly circular surface and if that weren't enough complexity, with the motions of the atmosphere and oceans, further complicated by the movements of the planets and the changing magnetic poles of the earth. We can't predict our weather at a point in more than two or three days. Why would we have the hubris to think we can predict ice ages and climate years, and scores of years into the future ???? It's insane to think we could model this level of complexity, and the proof is in the observations.

[@_nickdoyle]

Yes, I want part 2! 😍 This was so informative and entertaining, mixed in with the few snide remarks here and there. 🧐 Also, Simon, idk what to say, but your voice is so soothing that I almost fell asleep, take it as a compliment or a complaint. 😁

[@Shadow123276]

Earth atmosphere is composed of 78% Nitrogen 20.9% oxygen 0.78% argon,0.04% CO2 Mars' atmosphere is composed of 95.32% carbon dioxide, 2.7% nitrogen, 1.6% argon and 0.13% oxygen. Average temperature on Mars is -80C The things that make you go Hum. If carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas, how come Mars isn’t burning up. Distance from the sun is irrelevant. Think we’re being played. Biggest greenhouse gas there is is water vapor.

[@Humdebel]

Distant from the sun is not irrelevant, but neither is completly relevant or the main cause. The thing is that there are a lot of positive and negative loops related with temperature that happen here on earth and in mars not. You need a multivariable analysing to even compare two so drastically different ecosystems. For example the atmosphere in mars is really really thin compare to the one we have on earthso the effect is very low. It's poor gravity also have to be taken into account, the lack of liquid watter, ect... Like I said, there are a myriad of thing different from Mars that account for this. Also, how about you take a look at Venus too so you can compare our neigthbour planets and see why Venus is the way it is and Mars the way it is.

[@erme5305]

So they already knew in the 1920s, yet a hundred years later people still have their head buried in the sand...

[@michaelmr101]

Yes. Humanity is a siknes.

[@rimbusjift7575]

The first pondering on the matter were quite long before that.

[@jf1890]

Volcanos produce far more CO2 than man - also the main contributor of oceans warming and acidity. Out of the hands that mankind can fix. Eliminating fossil fuels will do very very little to controlling CO2 emissions.

[@jaykanta4326]

You are a liar with no scientific evidence.

[@ChrisInToon]

yep you are correct, also Antarctica is most volcanically active continent...

[@invisibleman53]

National Geographic in 1975 published an article that I have, are we headed towards an ice age? More people die from cold weather not hot.

[@u2mister17]

One good volcano and we all freeze.

[@torefoss7654]

The old and stupid statement of winter death rates. Although it is true that the death rate is higher in the winter than in the summer, the reason isn’t due to people freezing to death. It’s due to the diseases like a common cold kills people that are at late stages in cancer or are of old age. And the winter and cold season will not go away by increasing the average temperature by a couple of degrees. As I experience living relatively far north the lack sunlight in the winter leads to more depression amongst a population which also can have an effect on the death rate. But how will we get more sunlight by increasing the temperature by a couple degrees? As the tilt of the earth is the reason for little sunlight in the winter, how will global warming change the tilt?

[@phelixtaylor4973]

@@torefoss7654 Uh No, the cold weather absolutely kills way more people than the heat does every single year and ur ridiculous assertion that you have discovered that it's not actually from freezing to death that causes so many extra deaths in these northern climates during the winter months, but it's actually mass deaths caused by people getting the case of the sniffles and from being super depressed that there is little less amount of light causing mass suicides according to you. What a JOKE!!!

[@RodMartinJr]

@@torefoss7654 Global warming won't affect tilt, but it will improve the life coverage of Earth. Calmer weather and more life-giving rain. In fact, during the far warmer Holocene Optimum, the Sahara was green for 3,000 years. 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯

[@torefoss7654]

@@RodMartinJr How do you know that the weather will become calmer? Science says the opposite. Just Google: climate change and its effect on the weather, etc. Regarding the Sahara dessert. The explanation lies in the changes in the Earth's orbital wobble around the sun, the so-called Milankovitch Cycles. But these are changes over milleniums. (Yes, it is milleniumS in plural.) You can Google Sahara and Milkanowich Cycles too. So I guess the question from me would be: How can the increase in temperature affect the global wobble? And finally, a little fun fact that I almost hesitate to write because non-scientific people might misinterpret it. Plants need less water with more CO2 in the air. The reason is that plants lose water through the same pores in their leaves that they use to take in CO2, and with more of this gas in the air, they can keep the pores closed for a longer period. This phenomenon has been known to science long before global warming was a topic. We do have observed that some border areas around deserts have become greener, but this development has already stagnated because plants still have a minimum water requirement. Don't fall for claims that CO2 is plant food. Remember that for plants to utilize CO2, they also need more nutrients from the soil and more sunlight (photosynthesis), and so on. How do plants get more nutrients if there is more rainfall washing away the soil? How do we get more sunlight when it rains more? After all, it's cloudy when it rains. Earth's balance is more complex than what the simple reasoning here suggests: Nice weather equals warm weather, so warmer weather must equal nicer weather.... or?

[@TedBates-sv8cf]

I understand that in 1750 there was 0.0277% of CO2 In the atmosphere and now there is 0.0414% CO2 in the atmosphere. While that is increase to 1 1/2 times increase in CO2, that is such a small amount. It's adding almost 0 to almost 0 and 0+0=0. There is 78% nitrogen in the atmosphere, 21% oxygen in the atmosphere and 0.93% argon in the atmosphere and only 0.04% carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If you subtract the CO2 in the atmosphere from the total atmosphere, you still have 99.9586% of the atmosphere. I am having a problem understanding how a little increase in such a little amount is the end of the world. Photosynthesis produces 6CH2O6 + 6O2 while respiration releases 6 CO2 molecules, but an increase in carbon dioxide increases plants that grow, and the increase in plants will increase the amount of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere and also the amount of food available. Carbon dioxide is a good thing. This global warming and climate change is being used to remove nations and replaced with a communist totalitarian global government. Globalism is a terrible thing to happen to mankind and will result in the darkest, terriblest time in all human history. There is a philosophical truth: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I stand against globalism, the UN and the elite wealthy forming a totalitarian government that is good for them while the majority of the human race will suffer and be impoverished like never before in all human history. I stand against this false indoctrination that you are herein purpetrating, because there is an agenda behind this push for climate change. It's an excuse to opress the human race and make them subservient to a satanic rule by a few.

[@old-pete]

That amount of Botulintoxin would wipe out humanity. Do not judge a dosage, if you do not know the effect. Removing that "tiny" amount (it is over 3300 billion tons) of CO2 from out atmosphere would freeze the planet...

[@veteransniper6955]

Greenhouse gases have only shifted Earth's energy balance by 0.5%. This means that a small fraction of the Sun's energy reaching Earth is now trapped and accumulating in the atmosphere. But because amount of radiation is so vast, that small amount causes warming. I don't understand the argument that we should ignore the CO2 content in the atmosphere just because it is 400 ppm (parts per million). Even small amounts of certain elements and compounds in the human body, measured in milligrams or micrograms, can have significant effects if they change. Similarly, even though CO2 is present in small amounts, it can have a substantial impact on the environment.

[@seanray1302]

Can someone tell me what the ideal CO2 level is? Don't tell me the pre-industrial level.

[@old-pete]

The one that does not change much.

[@CT-vm4gf]

The planet was balanced at about .02% I think. The atmosphere is mostly nitrogen about 80% and currently about .04% CO2.

[@ifluro]

1200ppm

[@old-pete]

@@ifluro That is too high and would result in around 3 Kelvin higher temperatures than now.

[@sapientisessevolo4364]

Well someone has to say it, climate change will impact the economy

[@squirrel_slapper]

*Not to mention the trout population*

[@klondike444]

"impact" is one way of putting it!

[@rascallhunter]

Good presentation on the history of the push to pin the base cause of climate variability on CO2 levels. It highlights well the selectivity of those who are now pushing an agenda that does not care about the full picture when a partial one serves the purposes of fear and control much better.

[@captegonviljoen8248]

Its great that CO2 is rising as we need it. It is a fertiliser. CO2 is not the enemy.

[@rps1689]

We know that plants can acclimatize or adjust to rising CO2, but the fertilization effect of CO2 diminishes over time. In a greenhouse this is not a problem because they have excellent soil, optimal amounts of water, and controlled temps.

[@mitooro]

Hey, Is there any way we can recommend this Documentary for the Oscars? I'm not joking, it's really good & simple to understand too for noobs because Climate Change is a complex topic & we won't be doing it justice by calling it simple.

[@alberthadonlyone]

I am so thankful that all the experts on climate, who can disprove established science/global warming with a few paragraphs of text, hang out in the comment section instead of publishing papers on the subject. I'm sure this only happens for our convenience and not because all of their arguments could easily be taken apart by actual experts.

[@daegueric]

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.” -HL Mencken I enjoyed the presentation. It's hard to buy into the climate alarmism that kids are swallowing whole, but I will continue to read.

[@TimPBar]

At 57yo, I've lived through: Nuclear Holocaust Global Population Explosion Oil Shortage Acid Rain Aids Pandemic Space Wars Ageing Population Ozone Holes Rising Seas Financial Bubbles Climate Catastrophe Pole Shifts A.I. Have I missed anything?

[@mrunning10]

Yes, your lobotomy AND you low oxygen to your brain when you were born.

[@woufff_]

Fascinating, cannot wait for part II ❤

[@robertcartwright4374]

Absolutely, Simon! Please tell us about the '70s, '80s, and '90s.

[@reality-cheque]

Thanks for the video - some statements need further explanation. How was CO2 measured in the atmosphere in 1757? Carbon is a solid and is not 'emitted' - it must be CO2. "CO2 is mixed evenly through the atmosphere on account of being heavier" (+25%) - "Globally distributed"? CO2 does not condense nor evaporate (at atmospheric pressure/temperature) nor mix with O or N; nor is it found in higher spheres, nor is it "evenly mixed" - according to Russian weather balloon data and supported by the variations in CO2 measurements taken around the globe (between 0.027% and 0.043% [2021]) It's worth remembering that without Watt, many people today would not be alive, thanks to advances in medicines and technology due to the Industrial Age - nor would this video be possible...

[@jaykanta4326]

Your lack of evidence is obvious.

[@reality-cheque]

@@jaykanta4326 evidence? Do I need to provide evidence of the physical properties of CO2? Whilst there is no scientific proof of AGW which remains a hypothesis, the lack of scientific knowledge in the debate is certainly evident.

[@jaykanta4326]

@@reality-cheque you’re uneducated in science, right?

[@reality-cheque]

@@jaykanta4326 Quite the opposite - which is why I'm asking questions. Read my posts more carefully. Everything I have stated is scientifically correct - unlike most 'posts' and this video which describes certain scientific terms and principles which are simply not true and shows theoretical formulae based on limited empirical data from laboratory experiments, ignoring rationalism and scientific method. One example is that 'carbon' is a solid and what you get when you leave a sausage on a BBQ too long. CO2 is a gas with an evaporating temperature of about -78C. In its solid form it's called 'dry ice' and often used in theatre productions where it's relative density is also clearly evident. Another example is the mis-use of scale for the CO2 graph. No-one could measure CO2 in the atmosphere before Keeling and then, in 1957, it was measured at about 0.03%. Now it is about 0.04% (in some locations) - yet the 'graph' shows about a 300% increase! The 'Keeling Curve' is also unreliable since the CO2 data has been taken from readings at the Mauna Kea observatory where large amounts of volcanic gasses are locally emitted and the CO2 readings are subjectively 'weighted' to allow for these 'background' emissions. Another example is the description of a theoretical formula to measure the temperature of the Earth in 1827. Today this formula: Tss = 394 (1 - A)1/4(rp)-1/2 K, (where rp is the distance from the Sun in Astronomical Units) is used to establish the approximate temperature of planetary bodies, but it's accuracy is nowhere near the one decimal place used by climate alarmists. It is simply not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth to one decimal place. This can only be calculated, theoretically. I could confirm my qualifications but you probably wouldn't believe me, since you have an unshakable belief in the AGW hypothesis. I'm not saying the hypothesis is wrong but it is certainly not proven - nor anywhere near being proven. Milankovitch Cycles might have more to do with the changing climate than tiny CO2 emissions, but research in this area is ignored since it doesn't suit the 'narrative'.

[@jaykanta4326]

@@reality-cheque And still nothing but nonsense. Learn how to read research. This is simple summaries about how the scientific consensus has been reached and doesn't cover every little detail. And you're so ignorant you think climate scientists don't know about Milankovitch cycles or any other basic concept. You're just a Dunning Kruger candidate that doesn't understand simple concepts like "carbon" is short for CO2.

[@mauriziopescatori4606]

Just three FACTS: 1. CO2 will trap heat for a few milliseconds only, H2O will trap heat for hours; this is why cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights, and why winters are milder and summers are cooler along the coast, as compared to inland praries. 2. 2000 years ago it was 2°C warmer than today, to the point Hannibal crossed the Alps with his elephants during the winter, because mopuntani passes would NOT be snowed up; and you could grow grapes and make wine in Britannia; these days it snows too much in the Alps and you cannot grow grapes in Britannia because it's too cold. 3. the Earth receives heat from the SUN, therefore we should look at solar activity to determine global warming.

[@old-pete]

1. That is not a fact, that is just wrong. 2. That is wrong too. It was not warmer back then. Grapes grow in Britannia for 2000 years. And now they start to get good. 3. Earth is recieving decreasing amounts of solar radiation.

[@eliteenergy]

We saved humanity from an ice age

[@jojojo9178]

maybe yes! We are in a solar minimum now..

[@mrunning10]

Am sure Floridians will thank us when they try to grow their fucking oranges in a desert in about a thousand years.

[@dualtronix4438]

Hands down your best video. Please, release part 2, this topic is fascinating

[@DSAK55]

Part 2: Ronnie Raygun was elected and the possibility of addressing Global Warming died

[@Atheistbatman]

SC, please research plant DIF because no one I can find has tested for an inverted day/night temp difference vs crop production Days were cool in low 80’s and only 2 nights warmer shut my vegetables down for the season…2021…2022 not as bad but not great. I was published in Hort Science (3x) in late 90’s for cultivar introduction of “Homestead Purple” Ver so I know a little bit of what I am saying Also have a idea on what’s killing invertebrates/ insects….too much CO2 causing atmosphere to absorb more moisture has disrupted their respiratory cycle…seems obvious but no one has mentioned it except a TedX talks few years back…but me no good at entomology But I am convinced of the inverted day/night temps will cause crop failures in places…just warmer nights seemingly causes smaller slower fruiting -perplexed on why no research on these…..old undergrad in GA …may set my own study up this coming season..l. Even soil texture has changed in past 5yrs…more friable…crumbly even soon after a good rain

[@ibf2010]

A huge hole in this presentation is analysing the predictions made in Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, and seeing how far off they were in reality.

[@andradegilmar]

This video deserves a Nobel Prize!

[@davidjuliesmiththomas7983]

The video is biased political "science". It is not so much that it is wrong, more that it completely ignores contradictory evidence. My business is chemistry and I was not impressed with this "school project" science.

[@lilcrowlet1802]

What a phenomenal video! And please, I would love to see follow-up! Keep it up man, great work!

[@FrankSustainAMustly]

As a sustainability engineering student it's fascinating to see how the science was ignored in the past. I'm looking forward to the next episode and hopefully more detail on why it is still being ignored in terms of actual reductions of global carbon emissions. I hope this video is one step in the right direction towards changing that! Liked, shared and subscribed.

[@mathandfitness]

Look up the global cooling hypothesis that scientists "warned" about in the 1970's.

[@gastonboucher2400]

Hey Frank, fellow engineer here and why I am responding to you. Ironic where you mention where some facts have been omitted in the past. Can I note that in the 1930s that the earth was warmer than it is today (dust bowl) or the mideval time where the great churches in Europe where being built during a warming period and just stopped due to cold in the "dark ages" I am not saying that climate is not changing it is actually cyclical, and warmer earth is arguably better than a cooling earth with glaciers accumulation and are we to assume that these massive glaciers in the north just melted out of no were and then are just supposed to stop cause we say that this is how glacier levels should be fore ever as of lets say now... lol The earth has been warming for over 10000 years melting theses glaciers. Arguably our resources are better placed to adapt to a changing climate versus thinking we can stop this melting by leveling co2... over the past 10000y co2 has been stable and we melted several mile thick glaciers, the glaciers will keep melting and ocean will keep rising regardless, I would be more concerned about real pollution and co2 not pollution building block of life, look at Hudson River in New York, 100s of year no salmon due to pollution, now they are running up again cause of clean up efforts that were only available cause of prosperity witch leads to cleaner environment. The earth is actually greener now than it used to be due to co2 making it easier for plants to grow, satellite data that is being omitted. It is easy to fall into the academic narrative as I did when being an undergrad student, I was there my friend, there in money, control and power pushing this "crisis" Please take a look at the other side of the argument as it should be in a honest academic discussion, I am bringing this up cause I was not informing myself enough versus accepting a video like I just watched that did not bring any scientific data for an argument instead just narrative. I would recommend checking out William Happer on his take to give you more technical insight on the argument I am proposing. Kind regards my fellow engineer.

[@FrankSustainAMustly]

​@@mathandfitness Interesting: "One of the sources of this idea may have been a 1971 paper by Stephen Schneider, then a climate researcher at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, US. Schneider’s paper suggested that the cooling effect of dirty air could outweigh the warming effect of carbon dioxide, potentially leading to an ice age if aerosol pollution quadrupled." "However, Schneider soon realised he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosol pollution and underestimated the effect of CO2, meaning warming was more likely than cooling in the long run."

[@mathandfitness]

@@gastonboucher2400 As a mathematician here I understand what many engineers do not and that's the limitations of knowing imposed by mathematics itself. Other scientists need to understand that I could write a Lagrangian (Action of a system) equation that models the whole universe as starting from a kernel of popcorn and ending as a doritoes chip that includes the exact physics of this current time period as it unfolds in-between those boundary states. Obviously my mathematics would have to be really really clever to do this but there in fact absolutely is an action equation that matches this or any other model I want to build! I speak with engineers alot who seem to think if the math is correct the model is correct? In this case we have models based on very limited data collection trying to create predictive power based on very unsound starting conditions and boundary values. Also these models disregard what we KNOW about the past yet wasn't able to collect exact data but we know about the cyclic nature of the past that isn't correctly captured in ice samples which due to localized weather phenomenon and pattern shifting events aren't as useful as people assume. Our models are most likely almost useless at this point which is confirmed by these scientists having to continuously shift the goalposts in there predictions!!! There have been numerous periods of warming and ice ages during earth's recent history. Also the carbonerferious period was succeeded by an ice age??? There hand wave explanation is that the higher carbon produced more cyanobacteria which created more oxygen which caused the ice age. Maybe but I feel like alot of science is missing there and our models currently are not complete enough to tell us?

[@FrankSustainAMustly]

​@@gastonboucher2400 Glad to hear the salmon are returning to the Hudson river! It's true that other forms of pollution are often overshadowed by CO2. I'm not a fan of the word "crisis" either but it seems the scientific evidence of human driven climate change is pretty clear by now. I would encourage anyone interested to check out the graphs on global surface temperatures over time at NOAA's website. It seems the 1940's was quite hot, comparable to the average temperatures of the 1980s. I think the dust bowl was also largely caused by unsustainable agricultural practices which left soils bare after harvesting. Hopefully this is also not something that is disregarded. Happy to have a look at any other scientific resources you can suggest.

[@colinbell8231]

A very nicely produced explanation of the story of climate change. The science? Not so much. It would help us all to see the y-axis values for these decades-long graphs of temperature etc. I long ago dismissed "data" that lacked the values it was trying to "illustrate"!

[@erikvern]

At first glance my reaction was: how can he not mention the Brundtland report, and start at an inconvenient truth, but the story is laid out so well and I think you did an incredible job telling the story in so much detail. I hope you decide to make a part 2, just to add more interesting events to the storyline. cheers!

[@fxsaltwater]

trust me when I say: I've read a myriad of summaries and introductions to climate issues, but this is by far the best short form summary ever! Thanks Simon!

[@lawrencefranck9417]

So what caused the ice age to end, glaciers to retreat and the warming of the earth for millions of years be for humans? I was hoping for an explanation.

[@jaykanta4326]

A massive burp of CO2 from the Southern Ocean. DOI: 10.1038/nature14155

[@jehandesains8674]

Before humans existed, a tree would fall down because of wind. Therefore, according to your logic, not a single tree has ever been cut by humans. See the stupidity in that statement? Then why do you argue like that? Human influence has become so massive, that we are actively manipulating the climate. Or do you still believe everything we do has no effect?

[@senseofthecommonman]

@@jehandesains8674 see the stupidity of that statement, well I can in yours.

[@senseofthecommonman]

@@jaykanta4326 as simple as that, the massively complex subject of global temperature and yet you reduce it to that. You are either a fool or a politician.

[@paulmoulton7248]

I believe in climate science, but I don't believe in Climate Politics. Science has a boss.... politicians, so the science that gets promoted is the science that is desired by politicians. This is a very common process, so don't think this is a unique to climate science. It is not.