Are humans really behind the extra CO2 in the atmosphere?

Why are we so sure that humans are responsible for all that extra carbon? To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit www.brilliant..... The first 200 of you will get 20% off Brilliant's annual premium subscription.
In this video I present three reasons for why we are very confident that changes in atmospheric CO2 are because of humans rather than some natural cause: old town, new town, and flavour town. Not Flavor Town, as sadly I couldn't afford Guy Fieri.
REFERENCES
1. ourworldindata...
2. scrippsco2.ucs...
3. • Global Warming: An Inc...
4. svs.gsfc.nasa....
5. acp.copernicus...
6. www-naweb.iaea....
7. www.ncbi.nlm.n...
You can support the channel by becoming a patron at / simonoxfphys
--------- II ---------
More about me www.simonoxfph...
My second channel - / simonclarkerrata
Twitter - / simonoxfphys
Insta - / simonoxfphys
Twitch - / drsimonclark
--------- II ---------
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com
Some stock footage courtesy of Getty.
Edited by Luke Negus.
In this video essay about climate science I talk about why we know that the extra carbon in the Earth's atmosphere is from human activities. In particular, the changing carbon isotope mix of the atmosphere tells us that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is from fossilised organic matter. If you like videos from Hank Green, Smarter Every Day, Climate Town, or Our Changing Climate, you'll like this science video about climate science.
Huge thanks to my supporters on Patreon: Felix Winkler, CC, Rebecca Rivers, Thomas Charbonnel, Mark Moore, Philipp Legner, Zoey O'Neill, Veronica Castello-Vooght, Heijde, Paul H and Linda L, Marcus Bosshard, Liat Khitman, Dan Sherman, Matthew Powell, Adrian Sand, Stormchaser007 , Dan Nelson, The Cairene on Caffeine, Cody VanZandt, Igor Francetic, bitreign33 , Thusto , Andy Hartley, Lachlan Woods, Dan Hanvey, Andrea De Mezzo.
Kevin Gillard, Chris Conrey, Lord Gigenshtain, Christian Weckner, Frida Sørensen, Ned Funnell, Corné Vriends, Aleksa Stankovic, Meagan, Indira Pranabudi, Chaotic Brain Person, Simon H., Julian Mendiola, Ben Cooper, Mark Injerd, Justin Warren, Angela Flierman, Alipasha Sadri, Calum Storey, Mattophobia, Riz, The Confusled, Simon Stelling, Gabriele Siino, Ieuan Williams, Tom Malcolm, GordonV47, Leonard Neamtu, Brady Johnston, Rapssack, Kevin O'Connor, Timo Kerremans, Thomas Rintoul, Lars Hubacher, Ashley Wilkins, Samuel Baumgartner, ST0RMW1NG 1, Morten Engsvang, Farsight101, Haris Karimjee, K.L, fourthdwarf, Sam Ryan, Felix Freiberger, Chris Field, ChemMentat, Kolbrandr, , Shane O'Brien, Alex, Fujia Li, Jesper Koed, Jonathan Craske, Albrecht Striffler, Jack Troup, Chrismarie , Sven Ebel, Sean Richards, Kedar , Alastair Fortune, Mat Allen, Mach_D, Keegan Amrine, Simon Donkers, Kodzo , James Bridges, Liam , Wendover Productions, Kendra Johnson.

[@EricSaboya54]

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

[@kalebmark2908]

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

[@richardallan2767]

I'll get my coat....

[@SocialDownclimber]

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

[@DanielSMatthews]

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

[@BladeValant546]

​@@kalebmark2908end the big oil lobby.

[@parthkapoor7408]

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

[@jaydenwilson9522]

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

[@mikethebloodthirsty]

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

[@QT5656]

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

[@jameso1447]

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

[@QT5656]

@@jameso1447 Your gishgallop is full of basic errors.

[@martincrotty]

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

[@bartroberts1514]

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

[@theeraphatsunthornwit6266]

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

[@tedclapham4833]

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

[@bartroberts1514]

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

[@martincrotty]

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

[@bubblegodanimation4915]

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

[@SolomonMagnus819]

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

[@jasenanderson8534]

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

[@SolomonMagnus819]

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

[@masternobody1896]

hoho i am back

[@jasenanderson8534]

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

[@seaoftranquility7228]

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

[@minh-sanantoniotexas776]

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

[@OldShatterham]

Great video! I also really liked the visualizations.

[@jimhood1202]

Thanks for this. Enjoyed the cabon isotope section especially.

[@innerhonesty5046]

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

[@GordonPavilion]

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

[@MrDesmondPot]

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

[@franckr6159]

@@MrDesmondPot Spot on.

[@emergentform1188]

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

[@GordonPavilion]

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

[@emergentform1188]

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

[@QT5656]

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

[@Feefa99]

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

[@bartroberts1514]

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

[@bartroberts1514]

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

[@bartroberts1514]

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

[@jackdavinci]

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

[@bartroberts1514]

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

[@glenndavis4452]

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

[@musicoswateros449]

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

[@trevinbeattie4888]

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

[@michaelkhoo5846]

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

[@SimonDavies-v8h]

Not quite getting this - A warmer world naturally produces more CO2 (rotting vegetation for example) so more Carbon 12 produced ? It also absorbs more CO2 via more plant growth. So the ratio of more C12 versus C13 and C14 could be natural due to a warmer world rather than down to human activity.

[@horridohobbies]

Very informative and insightful. Thank you very much.

[@ft3917]

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

[@TheBachelor916]

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

[@CaptainSpong]

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

[@RolfStones]

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

[@tomblaise]

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

[@MarcCastellsBallesta]

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

[@toni4729]

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

[@ubermensch0072]

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

[@PlayNowWorkLater]

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

[@heronimousbrapson863]

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

[@terrencezellers9105]

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

[@abdelrahmanmohammed9405]

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

[@RonLWilson]

Interesting as well as quite informative!

[@ThePereubu1710]

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

[@samiraperi467]

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

[@michaelbindner9883]

What does data show about how Barents Sea was warmed?

[@dacutler]

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

[@bartroberts1514]

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

[@bartroberts1514]

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

[@DouglasMoreman]

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

[@fromnorway643]

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

[@MyKharli]

Its such basic science the fact that there is a hint of doubt makes us homo stupidus

[@rossignolbenoit210]

Good and clear. Thank you !

[@TriPham-j3b]

The size of fruit tree market and forest actually carved out esrth underneath would it not ? Because nothing come from nothing so fruit tree had to comfrom something ...including car tire , and asphalt are not from nothing

[@user-vc5zt9ci12]

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

[@Azknowledgethirsty]

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

[@Falco.]

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

[@Stratosarge]

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

[@altrag]

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

[@bartroberts1514]

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

[@spookus5430]

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

[@altrag]

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

[@DanDeLeoninthefield]

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

[@glennlee6987]

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

[@samgrainger1554]

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

[@jaykanta4326]

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

[@samgrainger1554]

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

[@gottagowork]

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

[@brianmorton1380]

Do we need to add in the effects of modern living, concreting gardens and deforestation which will make recovery take longer.

[@swapshots4427]

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

[@davelloyd-]

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

[@QT5656]

Thanks Simon! Good job.

[@subrahmanyanvravishankar2152]

Can u make vedio on temp profile of global warming continent wise, split Asia in 3

[@janklaas6885]

📍4:48

[@jamespeterson7125]

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

[@ReynoldsGarrett]

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

[@davzer3773]

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

[@Zeroground300]

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

[@davzer3773]

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

[@gallidebona]

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

[@rps1689]

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

[@bobbobby3085]

That would be the kroll-Milankovitch cycles

[@Onequietvoice]

Q. Why is this still a question? A. Because people refuse to listen to the answer.

[@PeterOzanne]

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

[@fromnorway643]

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

[@johnnorman2036]

Excellent video. Thank you.

[@gijbuis]

Even as a layman I understand that the evidence pointing to the contribution of burning fossil fuels as a major cause of global warming is 'incontrovertible'! But what we don't yet fully understand is how the total curtailment greenhouse gas emissions would affect future increases in global warming? Have we passed a tipping point so that increasing global warming has now become a self sustaining phenomenon?

[@Spectacurl]

Engagement engagement I just wanna help

[@punditgi]

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

[@Sokobansolver]

If we don't know that it's humans then it has to be the case that other animals build factories too, right?

[@scottabc72]

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

[@garypippenger202]

Bravo! Thank you for more evidence certifying that the extra carbon from human activities is substantial and is making a difference in our climate and making it faster than historical sources and processes. One of the results of viewing information like this is the realization that modern humans are here in the billions today is that we have been for 6,000 in a favorable climate, which would be changing to less favorable again even without human pollution. So, it is amazing to most people that our flourishing species will be facing existential challenges, and certainly a major population reduction in a much warmer or colder climate, when those cycles come around again. We are so . . . temporary! Despite this, so much of our wealth and labor go to the preparation to destroy our fellow humans. Colonize other planets? Ha! Ours will soon have much more room for everyone who survives.

[@alphatonic1481]

Much easier is it to realize that besides humans noone else on this planet is even capable to dig up coal oil gas and burn it.

[@wiseoldfool]

I ain't gonna consume anybody's shorts!

[@YingYang-t4z]

Thank you Simon! Simply and clearly put

[@pronumeral1446]

Answer: yes

[@data_analyst]

Funny why the temperatures graph is taken by 1850. What happened before?

[@bobbobby3085]

If you want temperature graphs from before then you can find them easily

[@itetecnun]

Thank you Simon for this video. I finally understand how the carbon isotopes are proof for the human intervention on the CO2 emission (I hadn't an explanation this good and simple). So thanks for taking the science and digesting it for us! Great work!!

[@tyson31415]

It does not matter if it us. It is happening. We need to get ready for this. Out technology and society are not ready for the change that is coming. It does not matter why it is changing, anymore, the time to fix things was 20 years ago. We need to get ready for this, and we cannot do that while everyone puts owning a car ahead of the ability to have children.

[@theodavies8754]

It's not the smoke it's the acid. Thanks for giving light and hope in what is a dark hour for life as mammals have known it. Still saying if you don't understand diatoms every other breath of oxygen you breathe is a mystery. Check out the work of Klaus Kemp anyway. My regrets in life seem to be the people I never met. Blag your way in if you have to but make it happen.

[@billhart9832]

Simon, brilliant 3-pronged assault confirming the anthrpogenic source of the rapidly rising CO2 component of our atmosphere and why it could only have come from fossil fuel consumption. One minor fault in the supporting video is the lovely-looking BBQ fire from 6:46-6:49 which appears to be Charcoal, which is Not a fossil fuel but pyrolised wood, which still produces CO2 but I suppose would qualify as biomass. In any event, onward.

[@leschatssuperstars1741]

sir, he was showing an image of coal as an exemple, this dude showed an image of coal that we all can understand would you have been more happy if he had put images of anthracite or smthn?

[@jean-pierredevent970]

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

[@bartroberts1514]

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

[@gabor6259]

You did a much better job at explaining this than Be Smart did.

[@guyincognito.]

Remember when the world was locked down for up to a year in some places and global mobility and economic activity ground to a halt? It didn't affect the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere one tiny bit. CO2 mole fraction samples showed up to 75% reduction in emissions in some countries yet no such signature was seen in global atmospheric CO2 concentrations. This would seem to be a problem for the anthropogenic argument.

[@jaykanta4326]

Power generation still continued. "This would seem to be a problem for the anthropogenic argument." Nope, that's a dumb conclusion you can't back up with scientific research.

[@fromnorway643]

The total emissions in 2020 dropped by 6-7 %, reducing the CO₂ buildup that year by 0.2 ppm at most, and they were back to 2019 level already in 2021: www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/CO2Emissions/emis.1970-2021.pdf The natural sinks vary _far_ more than that from year to year, so we would _not_ be able to detect such a small reduction of emissions based on atmospheric concentration after just one year: www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/GHGs/CO2+dCO2.MaunaLoa.pdf

[@thomasjones4893]

​@@fromnorway643commeter is either ignorant or a lier

[@yasi4877]

@@jaykanta4326 OK then, hand over your money to unelected bureaucrats and billionaires and they will solve the CO2 problem for you!

[@jaykanta4326]

@@yasi4877 What an utterly ignorant response, and completely off topic. Why do you people do that?

[@m4rt_]

Why have there been posted this many Climate Change related videos today? Astrum just released one, Hank Green just released one, and now you.

[@tillsteh7273]

its a coordinated effort to push the global warming lies and to help gates install a global communist climate dictatorship.

[@bartroberts1514]

The algorithm is feeding what it thinks you care about to you. There's a fairly constant stream of Climate Change videos you've just never noticed.

[@johngibbs799]

Elementary. Nothing else did it. 😐

[@Benson_Bear]

This is very interesting and helps in understanding. But what I don't understand is why should we care how all the carbon got into the atmosphere? It seems for many there is some kind of religion here, about how humans are despoiling wonderful nature and nature must be respected as it is, pristine. If there is a problem with too much carbon in the atmosphere, why does it matter at all how it got there? Hopefully the answer to this is not some religion paean to nature, but rather just the idea that the fact we put it there means we also have the means to get it out. Although that seems a pretty indirect way to address the actual issue. It doesn't logically follow that just because we put it there we can get it out! Hopefully the idea is here is, as you said, if we STOP putting it in, then we have very good reason to believe that means it will stop going up. So we can "take out" the future carbon as long as we don't put it in.

[@JagNavBrett]

Ice cores, soil cores, tree rings, we can look at all kinds of things to tell us. We can measure the amounts of different gases in the atmosphere. We know that since 1850 which was the end of the little ice age (1300-1850) global temperatures were below average. But the second industrial revolution saw the rise of the internal combustion engine and we industrialized coal and oil production.

[@hedgehog3180]

The Little Ice Age started in the 1500s, and didn't last that long.

[@JagNavBrett]

@@hedgehog3180 1300 to 1850 Didn't you watch the documentary about it?

[@mykota2417]

C12 increase does not prove correlation with increased temp. Could easily be increase in methane not increased carbon12 that's increasing warming or even magnetic shield decrease over past 100yrs... Also which comes 1st...carbon increase or temp increase...especially historically. Say over past 1M yrs?

[@paulh-pe7tp]

Hi Simon. Watched an interesting presentation by Murry Salby where he derives the relationship between temperature and increasing CO2 levels. If i have interpreted it correctly, he concludes that rising CO2 levels are driven by global average temperature and are the integral of temperature! Have you ever reviewed the presentation, if you have, do you have any comments on his conclusion?

[@Zift_Ylrhavic_Resfear]

CO2 and temperature cause each other, just like fire and heat. More CO2 means higher temperatures, and higher temperatures means more CO2. Heat causes a fire to start, and the fire causes more heat, spreading the fire.

[@Stratosarge]

This is a very commonly known phenomenon. It works both ways. In fact our research on deglaciations has shown that without the feedback loop of CO2 taking over after the initial warming, we would be still stuck with half of Europe and US under miles of ice.

[@bartroberts1514]

Some names in science make people familiar with science shudder. Murry Salby, for example, is on Skeptical Science's list of top misinformers. His commoner wrong claims are set out under his entry there, with corrections. Such celebrity disinformers are a shameful blight on the profession. And if you want to call this ad hominem, it isn't. I don't know Dr. Salby personally; I don't know if he feet smell or if he eats parsley or dyes his hair or has any other irrelevant personal habits. It isn't his person that is the issue, but his repeated pattern of seeking to inject falsehoods into the climate discourse.

[@mattcarlson6901]

I thought the little ice age was regional .

[@davidmarriott39]

Perhaps if the Amazon wasn’t cut down there might not be a problem, if the very large Forrest’s were still there the carbon dioxide wouldn’t be so high.

[@jacquestaylor7154]

Sorry to say, but this looks like bad statistics: 40 of 750 is just over 5%. Then you proceed to say that the 750 is offset by "approximately" the same amount. How much exactly is "approximately"? 1% deviation either way? 3%? 5%? 10%? Unless there is certainty, to a large degree, that the offset can be ruled out of the equation, there is no way you can argue that the 40 is likely the "only reason" that can account for the rise in CO2. Like you said: calculating these things are not exact. questionable

[@mrunning10]

Still do not see your POINT. Here: assets.weforum.org/editor/36m3FnquTTKXIWrk5MCaLzKYk1A7bS8Q3aTrFUu7kxw.png Tell us all WHY that little BLUE line will stay where it is?

[@andrewwalkerscotland]

Great vid but I don't get the 'fossil' fuels thing, how did such a massive volume of plant and animal life turn into coal instead of just rotting away?

[@SimonClark]

Excellent question! The short answer is that plants evolved a protein called lignin about 450 million years ago which microbes couldn't break down. As such fallen plants (basically prototrees) sat there and just piled up until they disappeared underground, at least until widespread microbes capable of breaking down lignin evolved a few million years later. These plants became the foundation of the largest coal formations - for more information google "coal forests". Note that things were more complicated than this, with climate and tectonics likely also playing a role.

[@andrewwalkerscotland]

@@SimonClark Thanks, that is interesting, I hadn't heard that before. Why do plants not have that protein now?

[@tommysoder1387]

I like to explain climate science as a puzzle. A puzzle of a thousand pieces where one part (Co2 and human contribution) can contain say 17 pieces. For that part to fit the whole picture, many different studies need to point in the same direction. And as this video shows, it does. Next to the part of “Co2” there’s a part of “effects of the sun” where 23 pieces need to show the sun isn’t causing it. And so on to build an entire puzzle. The climate change puzzle is extremely rigid. Maybe not all 1000 pieces are found yet, and some don’t fit perfectly, but every year we get closer to the perfect puzzle. And judging by how far we’ve come, it’s no doubt that humans are causing almost all warming, and the effects will be very bad. Climate change deniers mostly focus on ONE piece of the puzzle (which they get wrong) and ignore the combined field o research.

[@ericjohnson6665]

Nice! Well done!

[@jameso1447]

Dimming of a certain wavelength is called absorption spectrum. That energy is immediately reemitted on the emission spectrum. Why are you totally ignoring that part? The fact that light changes color has no bearing on heat retention at all. Thank you for making me see another gaping hole in the absurd theory of multiplying heat with mirror gas theory. If any of that crap were true there wouldn't a blue box propagandizing the idea.

[@jeremyfee]

Such a wonderfully cheerful demeanor and tone of voice for a discussion about how we're destroying the planet. It's fascinating, interesting info, but maybe we shouldn't be so happy about it?

[@sandyj342]

Its all right for my trip to space and my super yacht as I offset it 😂

[@johncipolletti5611]

You just said "behind" it. Well, Behind it is our farts which is methane gas that we also pollute the atmosphere with!

[@graemenash3121]

Great video

[@fbcpraise]

That graph that shows CO2 skyrocketing; let’s remember that it has “skyrocketed” less than 2 one-hundredths of one percent.

[@franckr6159]

CO2 increased from 280 to 420ppm. This creates a small energy imbalance, hence a small temperature increase on Earth, almost nothing +2°C, possibly (if we do not limit CO2 emissions) +5°C. A very little increase................................ except that +5°C is what happened 12.000 years ago when exiting the last ice-age, hence a MASSIVE climate change. So beware when you imply that the increase is just peanuts........... It is NOT peanuts !

[@sunalwaysshinesonTVs]

Yeah... always nice to learn the details, but frankly IDK how the fk client channels avoid not uploading, "yeah... we're fkd" videos. (Sponsor & comment related, Im in one of those so-called "advanced" super modern economies, and Im trying to get solar & batts installed at home and the sheer teethpulling trying not get ripped off and told do X and not look at Y and with pathetic levels of support from govt, well... like I said, we're fkd).

[@bartroberts1514]

Keep at it. You've identified that the problem is with businesses, institutions and governments ripping us all off. Let them know.

[@InconsistentManner]

A satellite... LOLS Soyuz spacecraft...

[@ingeniousmechanic]

@ 7:38, what's your source for that chart? And why isn't nuclear graphed there?

[@mrunning10]

because currently atomic is DEAD.

[@morgengabe1]

Simon, when are you running for office? It's high time Oxford gave Britain its best and brightest.

[@yasi4877]

Run for office is right because he will need approval to leave his 15 minute lock-down zone! On foot. Couldn't resist

[@MrBendybruce]

I'll tell you what Brilliant won't do. They won't lift a finger to improve their website in order to make it more usable for someone with visual impairment.

[@martymoo]

This is great!

[@simongross3122]

CO2 might stop heat from leaving the planet, and it is really the excess heat that is a problem. So why not focus instead on producing less heat, or at least less waste heat? There are many ways: Efficient insulation, more efficient heat pumps, storing heat in heat batteries for use later, reuse of heat from industry to directly heat up water, homes and buildings etc. If we waste less heat, then we will naturally stop burning things to generate heat. Using solar power to create heat is probably just as problematic as burning a fossil fuel if there is no reason to create heat. I think that while CO2 might be a problem, waste heat is a bigger one.

[@jaykanta4326]

The heat is from the sun, not from earth-bound sources. UV radiation from the sun is converted to IR through blackbody effects.

[@fromnorway643]

The waste heat produced by our civilization makes up 0.035-0.04 watts per square metre of the Earth's surface while the climate forcing from one doubling of CO₂ is *_hundred times higher._* Waste heat is therefore not a problem globally, it's the increasing greenhouse effect that counts.

[@PercivalBlakeney]

"Do you think that maybe God's sat up in Heaven, looking down on us and thinking, «I gave you a beautiful Planet and ya' f×××ed it up.»" - Robin Williams.