New Evidence We Are Entering An Ice Age Termination Event - EXPLAINED
Head to www.squarespace.com/drbenmiles to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code drbenmiles
In 2006, Methane levels began to rapidly increase in Earth's atmosphere and haven't showed signs of slowing down. What is causing this mysterious spike? Are humans to blame or can this be attributed to the planet entering a ice age termination event?
Merch!
I think Scientists are Rockstars so I made t-shirts to celebrate it
Einstein Rockstar Tee: www.drbenmiles.com/merch/p/ro...
Curie Rockstar Tee: www.drbenmiles.com/merch/p/ro...
Schrodinger Rockstar Tee: www.drbenmiles.com/merch/p/ro...
0:00 Are We Living in An Ice Age Termination Event?
1:29 The History of Earth's Ice Ages
4:00 What Happens During an Ice Age Termination Event?
9:05 Ad Read
10:17 Why Are Methane Levels Rising?
11:40 How Do We Measure Methane?
12:33 Where Does Methane Come From?
16:30 Conclusion
#iceage #methane #breakthrough
If you enjoy the channel and want even more physics, tech, and business content, I've just launched new Instagram and Threads pages. Follow on the links below
Insta: / drbenmiles
Threads: threads.net/drbenmiles
Newsletter drbenmiles.substack.com/
A few people have asked so I've added the info below. Some of these are affiliate links. If you make a purchase it doesn't cost you anything extra, but a percentage of the sale will help support this channel and my work to bringing entrepreneurship into science.
My camera : amzn.to/3ed5Xac
My lens: amzn.to/3xIAZyA
My lav: amzn.to/2SeE20Y and amzn.to/3nK33wA
My mic: amzn.to/3gUYYEv
Head to www.squarespace.com/drbenmiles to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code drbenmiles
🧑🔧📣Please QUIT saying FOSSIL FUEL(We Ain't Runnin' Outta Dinosaurs, Boyz)🧂🧂🧂
Ice age termination event wtf man! We are going extinct!!!!!
No 'official' scientist includes the mnp movement factor in their public debate. Might lose their jobs. It could be the final nail. Methane turning to co2 after 10yrs also can easily account for that increase.
Is the Earth flat too?
Could you please make a video about this paper? Nikolov N, Zeller K (2017) _New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model._ Environ Pollut Climate Change 1:112.s
I'm very surprised KZhead allowed an actual scientific discussion of a controversial topic. Well done, sir.
It's almost like youtube doesn't care at all. Crazy.
KZhead hasn’t got an algorithm for you yet.
He did not mention the dreaded words and has produced an intelligent reason for the Ice Melts.
So very true. youtube/google doesn't like people presenting alternative thoughts/theories. They only allow what fits the narrative of the day. Such a very dangerous time we live in when the most powerful information brokers on the planet control what information you are allowed to consume or even view.
The liberating quality of the truth is a dangerous element not to let roam wildly, it has always threatened the status qou. Global warming is threatened by this truth, as human caused global warming makes as much sense as stating that spilling a kilo of salt in the ocean caused it to dangerously increase it's salinity.
Glad you mentioned that we're STILL in an ice age and made the distinction between ice ages and glacial periods. So many people just skim that entirely.
All the climate activists and scientists especially
No, it happens regardless of political leanings, especially with people who aren't geologists or climate scientists.@@WhiteCheddar.
the mere fact the doc thinks the idea that humans as are today, can control climate and nature which existed several hundred million years if not couple billion is hilarious to say the least 🤭, we are inconsequential to the planet, can merely try to understand it nothing we do or try can remotely shift the planets predestined cyclic nature.
The UN climate committee is only allowed to consider CO2. That do not look at other variables.
This always gets my goat 🐐
Thank you for taking me back to my teenage years when scientists and researchers could have intellectual conversations with data and existing evidence.
Yeah it has slowly been getting easier for scientists to talk like scientists again. Still a lot of threats that come if you do too much critical analysis, but for sure better than last year
Yes, I remember "The Coming Ice Age" was the big scare tactic when I was a teenager. Guess that one didn't work.
@@lindaabernathy4876that was the scientific consensus in the 70’s. Guess the “science” is wrong when you don’t have or understand the data.
They always do what they are told, it has nothing to do with science, Galileo demonstrated this well, even Giordano Bruno's stubbornness became common knowledge when it turned out to be useful, but not because Giordano was right...
@@lindaabernathy4876 That seems to have been a media invention - the BBC in particular.
Thank you for reminding people that we’re still in an ice age. I’ve been trying to explain this to people for over a decade.
My fear is a new ice age with Arctic ice expanding and driving Canadians south. Dallas would be overrun with curling rinks - a fate more horrible than I can imagine.
Yeah cold here at the moment .
I've been saying the same thing for years too thanks your not the only one
Not only are we still in an ice age, we are only just recovering from an almost catastrophic fall in Co2 levels, if the Co2 had dropped any further we would not be here now! because ALL plant life would have died, followed closely by ALL herbivores dying and finally ALL carnivores Dying, We might have survived(barely)by creating individual grow areas, I.E. greenhouses where we artificially increase the Co2. The Dutch already enrich their greenhouses with Co2 to get larger yields and better quality produce. Scientist know this, but still go along with the Co2 is evil so must be reduced mantra, mainly because research money is only available for any research that fosters the Global warming/Climate change narrative. The only scientists that speak out against Climate change are either retired(not dependant on grants)scientists, including Nobel prize winners, or Scientists and researchers who are of independent means.
Me too. Climate science is so complicated that it cannot be explained simply like political leaders would have you believe.
Science has been so tied to politics people have all but forgotten what a real scientific demeanor is. A breath of fresh air.
Yep. Most scientific organizations are largely government funded, or they receive a portion of their funding from the government. So the agenda becomes less about working to understand reality, and more about working to secure more funding. And notice anytime something happens that doesn't fit or threatens the political narrative, research groups jump into action to force it to fit the narrative.
You mean republican traitors no longer believe in real Science but will listen to any old youtube video.
It is because genuinely curious studies do not get funded. The science funds are tied to political outcomes. It's about as far as you can get from genuine science.
Yes, have seen others just label this as caused by human generated climate change.
But, but, the liars have a mortgage !!!
I've personally felt as though winter has been taking longer to arrive, but staying for the same amount of time once it does. I remember back in the mid 90s that we would reliably get the first snow in late mid October, and we would get the first real storm in late November or early December. I also remember that in 1995, we got a blizzard in April that was considered unheard of. Now almost 30 years later we often don't get our first snow until January, but now it's not uncommon to have snow in may. Summer has also felt shifted. I remember as a kid June and July were swelteringly hot, whereas August and September had a break in the temperatures. Now June and July are temperate, August and September feel like an oven, and there isn't a break in the temperatures sometimes until early December. Just what I've personally observed, with all the pitfalls of memory and perception.
THANK YOU I've been saying this for about three years now. I've been saying that the seasons are shifting over but their length is the same!
I live in the northeast USA and have noticed the same exact thing!
I have been commenting for years, it is astro-physics. Now and then, I have mentioned actual climatologists around the world who disagreed with the official version of climate changes had their grants defunded and lost their jobs. re: Food I have mentioned look at world microclimates to see what thrives, and do that. re: Shelter I have mentioned what ingenious things people have done in different climates around the world to be comfortable in that climate.
Since about 2000 we've been in a drought and at the same time our skies are full of "contrails" that never evaporate, a white hazy sky like 1970s Popular Science Geo - engine - earing article mentioned. Even in winter with low humidity, the sky is a HAZE when in low humidity "water vapor" trails don't evaporate.
Yeah Same here from the east coast as well.. Not sure about else where but that's definitely what's happening here..
When I was in highschool in the 90's my teachers told me that we are in the tail end of an ice age and that in my lifetime I should expect an increase in temperature, sea rises and better farming
You had a sensible teachers who knew their facts , unlike the woke , believe anything the government paid scientists tell today’s teachers , who then try and indoctrinate the children.
Yeah snowbunny the question is if we've been at the tail end and are facing the sudden reversal to the start of the next Ice age....and been experiencing better farming and higher sea levels for the past several thousand years. ...also, if these are correlated to solar cycles or polar shifts and are we due for another.
Disrespect off the jump... smh@@robh467
@robh467 given that Ice age cycles are in the thousands of years time range even if we started a global cooling event leading to another snowball earth level Ice age our childrens great grandkids wouldn't see snowball earth short of some kind of global disaster such as a super volcano eruption accelerating cooling with a global cloud of fly ash.
Same for me in the 80's. This is proof that education is becoming more political and less scientific.
I've been living in the Midwest much longer than I care to say.... and winter is coming wayyyyyyyy later than it used to and its over wayyyyyyy earlier. This year winter that looked like winter, lasted about 6 days (mid/late January to end of January). Its February and we have "Spring" flowers coming up in our yards already, its going to be 72'F in a couple days. Its amazing how the locals ignore it. When it stops getting below freezing at all over winter here, things are really going to get freaky. But, somehow the human mind will find a way to dismiss it I'm sure.
I like how he admits that we still don't know. A sign that he is really an expert in this subject matter.
Uhmmm but we know more than we don't so don't get all Denier on us here bud ~ Sincerely, also a former scientist.
Exactly. Been crying the end of the world for 30 years now. Always. We have 5 years left....6 times now
@@MrMawnster if you were a scientist, then you know that we know NOTHING.
He is no "expert" on the subject matter.
@@MrMawnsterwhy are you a former scientist? Did you forget science ?
Back in the early 90’s my Dad and his friend started using landfills to generate electricity. They had wells placed all over the landfill and burned the gas on two giant Caterpillar engines that powered a big generator. They sold the power to the City. The first one they did was in Burlington, Vermont. I remember my dad taking me there when I was a kid.
Now it's nor profitable to burn landfill gas for electricity, rather to refine the LFG to cleaner natural gas. Amazing how far we've come in the waste industry in just a few decades.
.. Interglacials are caused by LOW CO2. Low CO2 causes plant-death and CO2 deserts. This causes dust. Dust on ice sheets causes warming. Thus low CO2 causes interglacial warming. Every interglacial is preceded by 10,000 years of dust. Interglacials are NOT caused by increasing CO2. The feedback is ice sheet aIbedo. See paper ‘Mod.ulation of I.ce A.ges by D.ust and A.lbedo. (Spelling deliberate, to prevent Yootube deletion.) R
😂😂😂
Similar thing here in UK, old coal mines vent methane which is being used to generate power using IC engines.
that’s pretty neato
I was looking at the ice core temperature scale of the last 800,000 years a few years ago. Every temp spike they projected was followed fairly closely by a coresponding methane spike.
Well observed and you are right. Higher temperatures cause the release of more methane, mainly due to melting permafrost regions and to a lesser extend due to melting polar ice caps.
At 6.19 why is there no mention of the 26/12/2024 tilt increase? It's obviously relevant to the termination event timescales.
The difficult part about having this kind of discussion is people automatically make it seem like you are in favor of polluting the world.
Hello! How exactly?
@@kayurien845because the politically manipulated drones can do the mental gymnastics to make any information that doesn’t fit their narrative suddenly all the evil they’ve been trained to identify. They’re insane. Like, I wouldn’t be surprised if they claimed this is racist. They’re that manipulated.
Completely agree! it's so nice to actually see real science being done on the subject and not being scared into fitting the narrative.
@@theclinchmma4126 except it fits narrative quite well; there is feedback loop mechanism explained in this vid, where by incerasing co2 level you raise overall temperature, hence increase growth and decay of plants which increase methane levels, which increase overall heat and so on...its also worth noting, that methane increase curve neatly follow curve of co2 levels increase during industrial era (as graph of metane increase at 15:15 shows)...same mechanism apllyies for water vapor, which is by far "best" greenhouse gas and works in same symbiosis (these are very basic and general informations which you can found at wikipedia)...all that said i would like mention, that this research isn´t done by some "guerilla-indenpendent truth seekers", this is possible only due to massive cooperation of world-wide data collecting by...guess who; mainstream, government funded, scientists who generaly agree on human impact to global worming...and here is other thing; there is always green lobby implied in "green lunacy" debates...i dunno, by how does this powerfull green lobby overpayed oil-industrial-agro lobby?
@@theclinchmma4126 except it fits narrative quite well; there is feedback loop mechanism explained in this vid, where by incerasing co2 level you raise overall temperature, hence increase growth and decay of plants, which increase methane levels, which increase overall heat and so on...its also worth noting, that methane increase curve neatly follow curve of co2 levels increase during industrial era (as graph of metane increase at 15:15 shows)...same mechanism appllies for water vapor, which is by far "best" greenhouse gas and works in same symbiosis (these are very basic and general informations which you can found at wikipedia)...all that said i would like to mention, that this research isn´t done by some "guerilla-indenpendent truth seekers", this is possible only due to massive cooperation of world-wide data collecting by...guess who; mainstream, government funded, scientists who generaly agree on human impact to global worming...and here is other thing; there is always green lobby implied in "green lunacy" debates...i dunno, but how does this powerfull green lobby overpay oil-industrial-agro lobby?
Great presentation of what's known and yet unknown. No political double-speak. I was starting to believe this was not possible in todays world. Thank you.
It's not two-sided in this case. There is the science and then there is the pseudoscientific conservative narrative.
and there is also the lefitst authoritarian nonsense that tells us to eat bugs and cut our nuts off to save the whales
@@mian6788 I was majorly disappointed that I wasn't instructed to stop eating rice and meat. Looking forward to eating the bugs to save the planet. Glad you see that anyone that disagrees with us is simply wrong.
@@jdwyer4851 Indeed, people that 'disagree' with basic facts are 'simply wrong'. Well said.
@@mian6788 , or there is data people like you like, and data you don't like. I like seeing all the data, and hearing different interpretations of it, to see which one makes the most sense to me.
A breath of fresh air to have the climate debate presented with significant research and justification. Dr. Ben, you have brought together much of the various arguments into a concise summary of what we really need to track. I found the global methane release map extremely fascinating. Thank you. This deserves wide viewing.
but he presents everything as facts instead of as theories. Sloppy at best.
@geraldbennett7035 thanks for adding this 👉 "but he presents everything as facts instead of as theories. Sloppy at best."
@@geraldbennett7035 Most of his comments are bots. Thankyou Dr Ben, I'm grateful for this Dr Ben, Great words Dr Ben.. I wonder how much he's paying for fake subs, comments and likes? From a video I watched recently about a guy showing the packages and prices to get bots, It isn't cheap especially the package that he's paid for..
@@GoGreenHub You are a wise and inciteful bawt.
@@larrym2434 We appreciate the "wise" but not sure about "inciteful bawt"? Explain?
My electronic principles lecture taught me this cyclic theory whilst learning satellite orbits and calculation position to signal strength.......that was early 90s and I've never heard of it discussed since....when ever I explain it to people I literally see there jaw drop....I worked for ESA on sat coms and literally nobody had heard of these cycles..... i will sendcthis video to people in future because I'm done explaining 😊
I noticed you make zero mention of the solar cycles which definitely must be part of the process in the warming/cooling of the earth. (How much radiation is even sent our way, BEFORE we're even talking about absorption/reflection)
Solar forcing is important, but on time scales relevant to human history solar irradiance is practically constant. Even near solar minimum, when galactic comic rays have easier access to Earth, and during the solar maximum, their spectrum remains relatively constant in energy and composition, varying only slowly with time. Just as the solar cycle follows a roughly elven year cycle, so does galactic cosmic rays with its maximum. No mechanism has been discovered for variations in the solar wind or magnetic field to affect Earth's climate significantly. It's a red herring when folk claim these forcing do; popular on "climate skeptic" pseudoscience blogs, but we know once a talking point gains inertia in the "skeptic" echo chamber, it never dies. The steady decline in energy output, the 11 year cycle in sunspots, and the variations in the solar wind shows no correlation with climate on annual, decadal, nor century scales.
I always try to tell people we are technically still in an ice age, we're just at the tail end of it that's why it's been so nice and livable for us
As long as Antarctica is at the southern pole, the Earth will experience periods of extreme glaciation. Plate tectonics says that will be at least another 80 million years before the cycle of glaciation will end with Antarctica moving north into the Atlantic Ocean. Then, when Europe finally gets into the Arctic Circle, it will begin again. Antarctica has occupied the south pole region for about 300 million years, and it and its ocean currents are a major player in the onset of global glaciation events (as is Northern Canada).
@@boydgrandy5769 Plate tectonics have nothing to do with anything in this video. Nor will this have anything to do with a hotter, hellish world, which is what this video is actually about.
@@johnhenry3536 No, john. That's not what the video is about. It is about the real global and cosmic processes that periodically put the Earth into periods of glaciation, followed by rather short periods of receding ice sheets. I guarantee you'd rather live in a warm planet than one half covered with 5 kilometer deep ice sheets. And I can just about guarantee, based on past cycles, that the Earth will once again enter into a period of glaciation that covers the majority of the Northern Hemisphere, and that is made possible, in part, because of plate tectonics and the movement of continental land masses over the past half billion years. Where do you think the Atlantic Ocean came from, john? What effect do you think a land mass the size of Antarctica, with its ice cover and low albedo, has on retention of solar heat? What do you think happens when, because of oceanic current and weather changes, northern Canadian Plateau gets a permanent snow and ice cover? How many decades would it take before the Canadian ice sheets made their way south of the 47th parallel (hint: less than 10). What do you think the effect of a new period of glaciation would have on the civilizations north of the equator? John, when the people who have convinced you that AGC is a real thing stop buying beach front properties, then you should worry. Until then, maybe you should increase the amount of salt in your diet.
@@johnhenry3536 Well, one thing is certain; whatever so-called hellish climate is in store for us all… There’s not a damn thing anyone can do to prevent it happening. Human beings are clever and powerful, but not more powerful than the Sun or the earth’s changing trajectory around the Sun.
@@johnhenry3536He's making a correlation between the periods and how the glacial and ice ages compare to the plate tectonic movements. It was a comment explaining the belief of where the continents will be located when another cycle begins.
What a fantastic presentation. In this period, it is borderline miraculous to find a video on this particular subject that cares to give HISTORICAL CONTEXT. I am grateful.
Yes it was a good overview. There are plenty of other videos which cover this long-term context if you look (strictly speaking not 'historical': that applies to human timescales since written records - hence 'pre-historic' for the first 240,000-odd years of human existence). I'm not sure what the right general word for everything before that is. 'Climatic' or 'geological' context would work.
@@xxwookey I´d really appreciate that you mention one that stands out in your opinion.
We’re living through an unprecedentedly rapid climate event, so the big picture actually proves the OPPOSITE of the video’s premise.
@@ericskelton8368 Did you watch the whole video? The title is potentially confusing. The information is accurate to the best of my knowledge and the presenter agrees that we in a very rapid climate-change event which might be sufficient to move us out of the somewhat irregular oscillation that has been going on for about the last million years. So I'm not sure what premise you think the big picture is the opposite of?
@@xxwookey The video seems to gloss over the Tipping Point hypothesis whereby an increase in human-caused CO2 triggers a (my emphasis) self-reinforcing methane release causing further warming. Our current climate change is exponential, not linear, not gradual, not naturally caused and not just another blip in a long geological record of climate variations. As much as science can know something, climate urgency is established. The foreseeable consequences are dire. Unfortunately, this video looked forward instead of only backward, possibly inducing complacency in its viewers when it’s urgency that’s warranted. The video observes the rapid increase in CO2 and observes the spike since just 2006 in methane release. Then, strangely, the video pivots to reassure us that the Earth has an ability to engage negative feedback loops to respond to climate change and establish a new equilibrium. That glosses over the initial dramatic loss of habitability for life forms that exist today as we sleep our way into a climate catastrophe and then wait for a millennia-long correction. The video skips over the damage the initial positive feedback loop will cause. The result is a video that, intentionally or not, has the effect of making an oncoming train with us tied to the tracks, seem like just a morning commute. Science and its methods don’t exist only to direct humans to wise choices. But the « sapiens » part of Homo sapiens does mean wise. We should be using our wisdom to detect and avert crises, not to minimize them.
A note to the animator: The elliptical orbit is centered at a focus, near the pointier end of the ellipse. Both the closest point, periapsis, and the furthest point, apoapsis, occur at the pointy ends of the ellipse, basically 180 degrees apart, not on the flat side of the ellipse 90 degrees apart. This is not responsible for our seasons but it is a seasonal effect. The southern hemisphere's seasons are somewhat amplified by getting closer to the sun in summer while the Northern hemisphere's seasons are somewhat moderated by getting closer to the sun in winter.
Wrong.
This doesn’t fit the narrative of WEF and the super elites. Thanks for taking the time and explaining this process.
YOU MEAN IT DONT FALL IN LINE WITH THE REPUBLCANS THAT DENY CLIMATE CHANGE
It does. We have literally entered the ice age termination way earlier than you would expect based on our orbit. It even says so in the video.
@@hidde3508 YES, THE INDUSTIRAL REVOLUTION PUMPING OUT LOTS OF METHAN AND CO2 HAS SPEEDED UP THE END OF THE ICE AGE AND OCEAN RISE,
I was the constructor of a methane recovery plant in 1986 there was three larger entities in charge like AdamOsgood mentioned. Sunshine City Council Victoria Australia, A consultants and the energy manufacturing equipment supplier GE i think .right from the start there wasn't enough gas to run 24 hours so the three entities decided to Sue each other in 6 months they had spent more in court costs than the energy plant could possibly produce ever
the ignorance of the so called experts has no limits
Which has nothing to do with the video, except for the word "methane".
Its Scumshine sunnyjim.
@@sarumano884 so you either didn't watch the whole video, or you didn't pay attention. The poster was making the point that there is insufficient methane, in that area, to supply said plant. Therefore he is perhaps saying there maybe not enough or we are not yet capable of pulling methane in quantity from the atmosphere. Maybe not totally relevant, but none the less interesting.
@kezzatries "Methane recovery" he says. To my mind that's either sucking the last drops out of a gas well, or it's biogas, or it's recovering from a refinery. Either way, nothing to do with the video.
excellent vid, i love your explanation and i actually understood everything you said good job !!!!
Thank you for providing a fascinating, unbiased appraisal of the outline of what I saw as the carbon/ methane cycle. I have subscribed. Lat thing I rarely leave comments.
In Siberia massive frozen lakes are unfreezing and producing methane. Nova did a special about that. Permafrost is unfreezing around the world.
The 'Chasing ice' documentary mentioned the methane being released in 2012 so hardly unheard of. Also, anyone talking about cows and methane knows they don't fart it but burp it. These obvious omissions or incorrect statements makes me question the validity of the rest of it.
@@hotblack1166 Not just lakes but also much CH4 from the bottom of the shallow seas North of the great river mouths of Siberia which sea bottoms contain 100 's of times more gas than we could ever emit...
The Sub-Permafrost Methane Bubble is leaking now that permafrost is thawing
Which drives marine temperature increases, leading to marine methane clathrate deposits (which are highly sensitive to both pressure and temperature changes) to destabilise en masse. This will fully move the planet into an ice free Interglacial. Therefore it's not the Holocene, it's the Flandrian. We should expect to see a normal interglacial temperature profile of around +3-5°C and no land ice outside of Antarctica and the highest altitudes with the consequent sea level rises reflecting levels in the Ipswichian (the last full interglacial) when there were hippos frolicking in Trafalgar Square. Humanity will have to adapt rather than attempting to act like King Canute and hold back the tide.
- Interglacials are caused by LOW CO2. Low CO2 causes plant-death and CO2 deserts. This causes dust. Dust on ice sheets causes warming. Thus low CO2 causes interglacial warming. Every interglacial is preceded by 10,000 years of dust. Interglacials are NOT caused by increasing CO2. The feedback is ice sheet aIbedo. See paper ‘Mod.ulation of I.ce A.ges by D.ust and A.lbedo. (Spelling deliberate, to prevent Yootube deletion.) R
@@Kadath_Gamingwe can adapt but there haven’t been any sea level rises recently. If Antarctica doesn’t melt the sea doesn’t rise
@@MrLuckyMuffin- why don’t you Google ‘Antarctica melt research’ and see what you find?
@@MrLuckyMuffinit'll rise, just not as much. There is a lot if ice on Greenland
Really really enjoyed it, thank you. 4:32 I wanted to help with the space graphics. When Earth's eccentricity changes, *the longer axis increases* while the shorter axis decreases (or vice versa) -- rather than just one axis changing.
So: I’m not sure how your video found it’s way into my algorithm, but I’m glad it did. It’s informative, and not overly filled with jargon that will turn kids away! Thanks! Subscribing. 😊
It's so refreshing to hear well explained, well reasoned and insightful commentary. The subject is somewhat depressing but the video was spot on.
depressing why? because Earth self regulate?
Time to get wet 🌊
Eve. Though most of the conclusions drawn are misplaced. Level of methane in atmosphere is in the teens of ppm, and he’s wrong about the length of time methane stays in our atmosphere, it’s about a week before it decays and not a decade. Getting to the broadly correct answer but by mostly incorrect methodology.
could you cite relevant papers please?@@freeforester1717
@@freeforester1717 Nope, methane last for about a decade in the atmosphere, CO2 for centuries.
I'm an old retired undereducated woman with an interest in meteorology and natural sciences. This video popped up after a different (unrelated) video, so I watched it. I really, really enjoyed it. I've not encountered Dr. Ben Miles before, but I think I'm in love. Thank you!
I just found him tonight as well, and this is a fantastic video. 🙂
@@blucat4 Me too. Loved it. I have researched this for years and found this to be very refreshing.
Since you seem interested, look up what will happen to the Earth when its orbit about the sun goes to circular. (The present-day orbit is not circular which produces winters and summers.). The circularization of Earth's orbit will happen in about 25,000 years as it did happen roughly 100-million years ago.
@@walshrd The (very slight) elliptical orbit is not what produces winters and summers. It's the 23.5 degree tilt of the Earth.
@@walshrd You absolute cretin.
I'm from the 60s, and it was how you read 📚 and phrases from back them. April showers bring May flowers , I remember going outside as a kid in an April showers slow, easy rains & Luke warm .
It's extremely weird how this video seems to attract people who can't be bothered to watch it from start to finish (or maybe don't have the mental faculty to actually understand its chain of reasoning), but just assume that it agrees with their preconceived notion that human activity has nothing to do with this. Even though it clearly argues that yes, as always, increased temperature and CO2 is the driver of this rapid and not naturally expected increase in methane emissions. Just because it's presented in a "calm", matter-of-factly manner, and doesn't go out of its way to keep reiterating that humans are to blame, people just skip the content and go along with their feeling and assume that it argues the opposite. Ironically, this can lead to the conclusion that you _do_ have to hold people by their hand, and keep hammering in the basics, to prevent people's brains from injecting their own politics that prevents them from understanding your argument... But then they'll accuse you of making it political. Man, I'm glad I'm not a science communicator.
It's sad to watch this video and realise we humans have already altered a natural system so much that's it's misbehaving wildly, just to see tons of comments saying how "they were right all along" and climate change is a hoax and it's all natural and so on. Unimaginable shortsightedness and actually quite impressive that the only conclusion some draw from this video is "he said we don't know everything yet, so all climate scientists and politicians are wrong" and then go full conspiracy theorist...
Enjoyed the content-refreshing to hear “we really don’t know” for a change.
Yep the oil companies spend billions every year to say it.
No no no, we do know! 7 years ago AOC said we have 12 years to turn this around or we're all doomed. Anyways, I don't have time to chat, I've got to get to the bank to sign my new 30 year mortgage!
Yeah a refreshing change from the "the science is settled" chant, as if.
@@freddexta3363 yep the oil companies could be wrong, climate change could be fake.
@@freddexta3363build a boat
Thank you for explaining this with actual science based on common sense and careful observation.
I remember evaluations of data that seemed to scare hell out of out of the public...then silence,with the voices silenced that warned people they didn't have a clue where this was going.I am pleased this is coming back,but its the type of info that'll will cause major disruptions when people start truly understand how massively this can/will disrupt modern societies. Hang on to your hat,this will be a one hellava ride
So my understanding is that we are Terraforming Earth into a warmer plant supporting world. Methane seems to be an issue, but changing construction techniques when building these facilities to be inclusive for methane capture seems to be the most sensible path. We shouldn't try to compete with nature for carbon capture, current percentage of carbon in the atmosphere is 0.04%, at 0.02% plant life can't survive. So leave the carbon capture the methane. Methane Ice exist and can burn so potential fuel source there.
12,000 years ago was an anomaly, the Younger Dryas. The last glacial max was 130,000 years ago. The next ice age will occur after global warming leads to the cessation of ocean currents and the equatorial currents no longer warm the polar regions, which will in turn lead to snow and ice raising the reflectivity of those polar regions, and subsequently rapid global cooling.
Glad I won’t be here for that.
There's drop stones in Central Park from 20000 yrs ago that were left behind due to retreating glaciers. You are a fool if you think you can ever be clever enough to understand the climate. This bloke is just someone bigging up there magic graph .
Just took a free class on cycles of climate changes and termination events while under my warm covers on this frosty morning. Thanks for this learning opportunity!
and its wrong because he talked only of methane, just one side of the problem, the heart of problem is the 13km3 of carbon on gas/oil/coal we release yearly in air dont return underground, the glaciology give us data for millions years and we know for sure that co2 lvl are lot higher in ppm than during all glaciations periods. that mean you cant see it like if we were still post glaciation cycle...we ar eina different cycle a cycle where man create a carbon crisis,.and if you think temperature is the biggest threat you are wrong, co2=acid sea=no plancton=no fish =mass hunger. the other risk is runaway climate who mechanically cna kill all life on land in centuries...hollywood maybe, but look in the sky, venus could be as cool than earth, but with climate heating she is 400°c. so for our criss, the closest match is devonien/carboniferus crisis, precisely the period where hydrocarbur form..1/3 of sea animal died, and no animal bigger than mice survived it on land with 6%o2.. it took 15.000year for plant to bury enough co2 without herbivor to give back normal lvl of o2 and millions year for land animal life to restart...we wont see this scenario, but our kid great kid etc will see lot of change for sure.
@@eriklerougeuh5772Well carbon emissions are most likely going to peak between 2023-2025 and then significantly drop after. So good news we may be on the verge of getting rid of carbon emissions entirely by 2050 across the globe starting the onset of sucking back in all the co2 we emitted.
I remember in the mid to late 70's being told this very thing. Told this to my brother and he freaked out saying I was making it up. Sent him links for older magazine articles about it from MSM, his only response was "ya but still..."
He's not talking about a looming ice age (as mentioned we're already in an ice age). An ice age termination event is the exact opposite of this.
The oil companies pushed that narrative as hard as they could.
As is usually the case when discussing what affects our climate, the most important influence is never mentioned. TSI, Total Solar Iradiance, is a measure of the energy arriving from the sun in the upper atmosphere in a 1 meter square area. When this reading is above average, we have a warm climate and lots of sun spots, when this reading is below average, we have a colder climate. To give an example, 1 degree Fahrenheit drop in the measure temperature will cause a Maunder Minimum climate temperature. During the Maunder Minimum, ice skating on the Thames river outside London was an everyday occurrence. The global climate hoaxers never take this data into account.
I love the "Context" the youtubes felt obligated to tag this video with. I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable thinking for myself and feel better now that I have this correction from a highly reputable organization, in this case the UN, to tell me how to do it.
/s
You're not the only one thinking the same about stinky KZhead "context", to me it's only climate propaganda to sustain the climate fraud.
The UN 🤣🤣🤣
😁
🚨🚨Independent thought alarm!! Independent thought alarm!!🚨🚨
We should probably stop allowing politicians to tell us what is wrong with the world.
Scientists already does, and climate change is issue number 1 on their list.
politicians ARE whats wrong with the world
Heresy! Unless you buy an electric car with rare earth minerals, mined by slave labor - you will be the one destroying the planet.
We also need those in charge of scientific funding to be apolitical. Currently the politicians decide what they want science to say, then only fund research that will confirm their chosen outcome.
@@KenFullman Agreed. The studies are less important than those who fund them.
Love this video. Thank you.
In fact we are in an interglacial period of an ice age known as the Quartenary Glaciation.
I believe the sudden increase in methane can be correlated to the summer taco bell promotional event.
😂😂😂😂😂
I have done my part in that event.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
😆😆😆
That's just as plausible as anything else these knuckleheads come up with. How many times has "science" changed their theories. Science is actually on the side of Creationist if you'll take the time to investigate it all. Good luck when you have to give an answer when you're standing before God on your judgement day. And oh ya, we're all going to make it to that day. Jesus is your hope.
I'm grateful for having such high quality educational content for free. Thank you Dr Ben. 🍻✌️
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Not really- we're here in 2024 and his most recent data is from 2006.
It's all false.
OMG, I hate people.
hey bot. this moron is dead wrong. Are you woke or just a bot ?
Well for example Estonia is 23% wetlands. During the past 50 years, there has been enormous growth of digging trenches to dry out wetlands for pine wood monoculture production. Also peat mining has played a key part. As the wetlands dry out, the organic matter stored there starts to continue to decompose, releasing methane into the atmosphere. I don't know about much rest of the data, but I'd guess its important to point out that some of the natural cycles are triggered by human activities. Great video though, an interesting new perspective for me.
Only if you are so uneducated as to believe that humans are God, as many woke EU fascists and socialists currently do
That is "sub-Human", what is "less than" Truly~Human*!* OK, @increator1 ?
@@user-fi3hc8fy8p What?
Historically, Ice Ages have followed periods of high atmospheric CO2, at >400 ppm, we are now at more than twice the level which triggered the last one.
I've said this for many years. I wish our so called 'climate scientists' and the WEF would watch this.
HUMANS NOW HAVE ACCERATE THE TAIL END OF THE LAST ICE AGE WHICH MEANS THE OCEANS WILL RISE AGAIN
It's saying the climate is changing due to humans which is causing unnaturally fast changes in methane emissions from natural sources. In other words: We've fucked the natural cycle and now the natural cycle is making it worse. Tell me how that is against what the generic climate change scientific consensus says?
Why am I just now learning that we are currently in an ice age? School has let me down
Sure did
School's have a shared agenda with big Govt and therefore with big Corp/Industry. It's always about $$$🧐
Because you cant freak out about global temp increase and support billions of tax dollars going between the hands of well paid administrators... if you had too many facts that didnt cause fear based actions.
They chose to reach you about feelings rather than facts. The education I got from 1988 through to 2003 was based on logic and fact. They didn't set your generation up for success and we will all suffer for it.
There is currently Ice at the poles, so an Ice Age.
The Inuit of northern Canada wrote a letter to NASA about their observations of the sun, moon, and stars not being where they should be in the sky, and it has nothing to do with seasonal changes. They also said that the ice was moving, not melting. The Inuit depend on knowing their environment for their very survival in harsh conditions. I noticed a few years ago, as I was placing clothes on the outside line to dry, that high noon was no longer high noon. A shift on our axis, perhaps.
I was driving home at 1am during a full moon a couple years ago. I was traveling due West. The moon was NORTH of me! I am in Canada. I was puzzled.
@@leofortey7561 where I live in SW Missouri we moved in our home in 2005 and standing 2 blocks away to the east the sun set behind my house but now standing in the same place the sun sets behind my neighbors home there is something not right
@@knwnc1It will change throughout the seasons.
The magnetic north pole is wandering around also , maybe that has something to do with it.
@@m.j.debruin3041 Both poles are moving , and overall field strength is still weakening.
The increase in greenhouse gases is not required to explain ice melting near the edge of the ice sheets. Total change in insolation (solar radiative input) at 68°C northern latitude (representative of approximate ice boundary) is about 60 W/m2, which is 20 times higher than the approx. 3 W/m2 of increased back-radiation from CO2 (according to this theory). The 3 on top of the 60 does not cause a positive feedback (however, exposed dark land surface does). Change in atmospheric CO2 levels is an effect, not a cause, of temperature changes.
I did a paper on the geomagnetic polar reversal and how it has potential of creating an ice age as a side effect. With more cosmic particles entering the atmosphere we are getting more "aerosols". Which are the basic building blocks of cloud formations. More clouds = more heat (per the greenhouse effect). The consequences of this can mean more glaciers are melting, diluting salt water with fresh water. This in turn can reduce or eliminate ocean currents, which would then plunge the northern hemisphere into an ice age. I wrote this paper back in 2013....so a lot has probably changed since then.
No mention made of the rapid movement of the magnetosphere (magnetic north pole) these past 130 years and how this also plays a role in the sudden natural changes of this planet. Industral revolution just coincidental in the time line of natures cycles. A better integration of other major componants need to be inserted into the equation. This is also a component to consider. Good video.
No mention of the solar cycle either. I would have liked to know more about this.
That is because the changing poles has not been shown to be a major Milankovitch driver in the past. And those past changing poles history changes is well documented and known. Could it be a factor, I have no clue. But what I do know is that it is not a major factor. This was a short video trying to cover all the important factors ... not an all inclusive to cover the entire details of everything related. That would entail an entire (and am sure rather long) series.
Can’t imagine how shifting magnetic poles influence climate.
@@kevinfisher1345 Basically the answer right there.
@@edwardcoulter9361 There could possibly be more volcanism activity during poles shifts ... which will influence weather and climate patterns. Earth's magnetic field protects Earth, and possibly during a shift that could weaken and allow more radiation and solar winds. Which again will influence weather and climate. There has also been suggested theories that high energy particles trapped in the Van Allen Belt could be released. Again I do not know if this actually is the case or if so, how extreme or minimal it would be. What we do know is there is nothing to suggest it has been a major factor. But there is definitely a possibility it could potentially be a likely more minor factor.
In 2023 it's getting more and more rare for people to be able to say those all important words, "We don't know." People have gotten so damn terrified to admit they don't know something. Everything thinks they know everything. It forces everyone to pick a team and fight fight fight! Ignorance has become an insult, and it shouldn't We should embrace it. The first step to solving any problem is admitting there is one. You can't stop being ignorant on a topic until you admit you don't know. It's refreshing as hell to hear someone say the truth...... we don't know what this path of climate change is going to lead to. We have guesses. We don't have answers. Yet, anyway.
No one knows anything at all no matter what they say. Not one thing.
-Socrates
We have guesses that are akin to watching a car speed towards a cement wall. In other words, anything could technically happen, but the outcome looks to be pretty certain that we're melting off our ice caps, which doesn't bode well for where we've built most cities, and doesn't bode well for where we grow most crops.
We don't know everything about human bodies either. Doesn't mean we should stop treatments until we understand them fully. Same with climate change, it is better to be safe than sorry. And the correlation found between humans accelerating climate change is very heavy, so it would be a very low chance for it to be something else than us causing the spike.
@@philosophist9562 It's like our doctor is telling us hey so your diet combined with lack of exercise, lack of good sleep, too much exposure to chemicals and air pollutants, and your general overall health are not looking super good for your overall outcome, would you like to maybe do something about all that, and climate deniers are like nah I think we're good, I googled it, I think I know my health and human health in general better than you or any doctor (who've spent their careers studying and practicing the art and science of trying to keep people healthy). We can pretend like we know climate science better than climate scientists, and we can pretend like the things they're telling us are simply not the truth, but one way or another, the truth is catching up to all of us, and it will only continue to get worse for a lot of people on our planet until we drastically reduce our fossil fuel consumption, as a species. Nature doesn't really care what we do or what we think. Nature is a feedback system. No one is outside of it completely.
Interesting and informative vid. First of yours I’ve seen. Please forgive my lack of background on your previous videos. Perhaps someone here can tell me if the subject of the magnetic pole shift is factored in? And perhaps the diminishing magnetosphere? Thanks in advance.
Came here to ask the same thing.
Same
Great video. Glad I found your channel.
I just saw a new-ish episode of NOVA about Arctic Sink Holes. Massive amounts of methane are leaking out of holes in the tundra.
Number one factor affecting our planets weather is the sun and it's activity.
Irrelevant. Weather is about to short-term changes in the atmosphere, climate describes what the weather is like over a long period of time in a specific area. Climate trends take thirty years or more to stand out from weather noise; and you need at least fifty years for a climate trend to stand out from weather noise and ocean oscillations. On scales from minutes to hundreds of thousands of years, total solar irradiance is practically constant. That its tiny variation on an eleven year period (one part in a thousand from the mean) correlates with no climate or weather trend; just short term changes in the atmosphere.
@@rps1689 The Sun is the source of most of the energy that drives the biological and physical processes in the world around us-in oceans and on land it fuels plant growth that forms the base of the food chain, and in the atmosphere it warms air which drives our weather.
@@rps1689 Weather and climate are NOT one and the same thing. Sit down and let the grown folks talk my ignorant internet friend.
@@JohnSmith-tl8wz Yep; basic high school earth science. But as I said, in regard to solar irradiance, on time scales relevant to humans, it correlates with no climate or weather trend. Look up “Solar Cycle: and “Introduction to Solar Radiation”.
@@factsoverfeelings1776 Never made that claim. Fact is, the combination of temperature, precipitation, humidity, cloudiness, visibility, and wind is what weather is. Climate is about the synthesis of weather; it is the weather of a locality averaged over some period (usually 30 years), plus statistics of weather extremes. Sorry I dismiss the indolent.
Excellent information, thank you
I am in no way a scientist , but with my meager memory of geology/earth history, I find it difficult for people to understand how the earth warms and cools on its own, with no help from man and his sport utility vehicles. AND that back in the 1970’s, scientists were very concerned that we were(and are) in an interglacial, and climates were cooling. Robert Ardry, a cultural anthropologist, wrote a book about it. People don’t understand that we are still warming from the last ice age( not even counting what they call the Little Ice Age).
Very interesting and easy to understand. Thank you for laying out the details.
My grandfather told me 40 years ago we were soon headed for another ice age. He worked for the DOD and many other federal agencies for over 40 years.
40 years ago Universities had courses on Global Warming and Climate Change driven by increasing CO2. Your Grandfather didn't know what he was talking about.
@@dnboro lol bet he did. But 40 years ago it was death by global cooling. His security clearance was beyond your ability to grasp. He saw the fraud first hand. But you live in fear and roll over to the globalist. The majority have awakened and will resist.
An ice age termination is the exact opposite of a new ice age starting...
@@dnboro and why should trust you over a man that spent decades working with JPL, NASA, DOD and many others? Are you forgetting just how many dooms day predictions from the controllers that have flipped? Yes the climate is changing but it has nothing to do with mankind. While you hide in your basement waiting on the earth to melt we will live our life. If you really want to worry about something I would look to engineered super bugs, space rocks, the pollution of our oceans by China and India, stolen elections and the weaponizing of our government. Anything the freaks want to tax a problem to make it go away you know it's a hoax.
Thank you for creating this content Dr Miles. I do believe that the world needs to hold the scientists & engineers who build our world, to a similar level of appreciation and stardom as rockstars!
Examine the physics of the absorption spectrum of methane. It's a tiny spike far away from the "infrared window" where CO2 has some effect. It's also in a part of the spectrum in which water vapor totally and completely absorbs the radiation rendering methane 's effect moot.
If you're to believe NASA the poles have been unchanged since 1990. Also, they now measure temperates on the ground, not the air… In England this summer the record heat was measured on an RAF tarmac whilst several fighter jets were landing and taking off(!) at that very moment(!).
This isn’t true lol
@@jameskesler6477 , what isn't? The truth?
Last report i read on methane increases, much of the study came from ocean methane releases. Mass bacterial growths from ocean matter decay was producing a huge increase in methane, that report came out like 5-6 yrs ago.
@@timothymckee7693 that's not how science works, a reactor uses about 500KG of Uranium and the Pacific weighs a lot more than 500KG.
A lot is coming from the permafrost areas thawing, marshland / peat bogs close to the Arctic circle.
@@timothymckee7693Keep pumping.......? Right.
@@timothymckee7693 The trivial amount of tritium (which is a natural product already found in all water) that they are releasing from Fukushima has exactly zero effect on climate.
@@keithj6251yes they are still dumping radioactive water into the ocean from fukushima due to a badly built nuclear reactor built by either ge or westinghouse. The oxygen levels are dropping in these areas due to die off of krill and plankton.
Another reason methane might be overlooked is the fact that it has a relative short life in the atmosphere, I researched about enteric methane and this was brought quite frequent in conferences when presenting my research
It`s not helpful when you say that man was a main contributor to the extinction of megaphonia i.e. such as mammoths.....yet were also lead to believe that our ancestors were hunter gathers, who migrated with the seasons. This planet will out live us all!, and has been doing it`s "own" thing since time and memorial, all we can hope to do really is, ADAPT!
As a geologist I am fascinated by the fact that, in any case, no one of us will see another ice age, for sure. But in the future this will be something humans will deal with , and there is no anthropic global warming that could avoid this 🤣
How dare you! 😉🤣
@@pawejakubowicz7751🤣🤣🤣
So wrong as we head toward Venus-like earth with 'Runaway Greenhouse Effect'. Won't happen in mine or your lifetime but over a very short timeframe in Geological timespan terms! We already see the early effects of this happening on a global basis currently! 😂😂😂
@@rossmcpherson4998 Are you for real? I think you've had a bit of an overdose of ipcc propaganda and those doomsayers....
@@rossmcpherson4998 We cannot compare the earth with Venus which is outside the sun's habitable zone. Venus' atmosphere consists of over 960,000 PPM CO2 which means over 96% CO2. Venus' atmosphere is so thick that the pressure on the surface of Venus is like 900 meters deep in the ocean. The Earth's atmosphere consists of around 420 PPM CO2 which is 0.042% CO2. There were 7,000 to 8,000 PPM CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere 540 million years ago. The lowest CO2 in Earth's atmosphere ever recorded over hundred of million years was 180 PPM around 20,000 years ago during the last ice age. At 150 PPM CO2, all plant life begins to die out due to photosynthesis stopping. The average temperature on Earth is now 15 degrees Celsius (59 °F). The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) about 55-56 million years ago had an average temperature on Earth of 27.2-34.5 °C (81.0-94.1 °F). Around 90% of the time in the last 250 million years, the Earth has been so warm that the Arctic and Antarctic have been ice-free. About 2.7 million years ago, the Earth began to experience ice ages. They typically lasted 30,000 years with a 30,000-year warm period before another ice age. In the last 500,000 years, we have had ice ages that lasted an average of 90,000 years, followed by a warm period that lasted an average of 10,000 years. Large parts of North America and Northern Europe were covered by a 3km-thick ice cap. The ice went so far south that even New York and Manhattan were covered by it. Did you know that for no more than 10,000 years ago the sea was so low that you would have been able to walk from England to France without getting your feet wet. There is always climate change on Earth. Either it moves towards colder times or it moves towards warmer times. We are now in a warm period after a long cold period from around 1200 to around 1900 called the Little Ice Age. I will also include the atmosphere of Mars where it is freezing cold. CO2 is almost as high as Venus with over 95% CO2. The atmosphere is so thin that it has a density of less than 1% of the Earth's atmosphere.
I thought I read the methane was outgassing from tundra as the permafrost was melting due to rotting biomass - that is why there is more methane in the arctic. Also, with the warming oceans there is the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis. Even if we stop all emissions right now there is a couple of degrees c of increase already baked in. With 38c events in Siberia the tundra is definitely melting. Areas of the Canadian arctic are falling into the water as the permafrost melts.
That is one source among many. Some of these sinkholes that have been found are also producing far more methane than just the degradation of the permafrost can account for. i.e. underground methane sources.
Theoretically, there is only a finite amount of methane under the frozen tundra, yet to be released. Lets say that all of the tundra melts and all the methane gets out. In that scenario all the methane released will break down within 10 years, as mentioned in the video. So the impact of tundra methane may be large but only very briefly, meaning in terms of the equation of the contents of our overall atmospheric system, that methane is not important. It will be released and then break down. What's far more important however, is finding the sources of methane that keep pumping into the atmosphere for years on end. So abandoned natural gas and oil wells, for example, will be pumping methane for years and years to come. These are the sources to focus on. Another reason to put focus there is that it's a source we can stop. We can't stop the tundra from melting, it's too late for that, but we can cap off an abandoned oil well.
He said that. "Released" was the term...@tundra permafrost etc.
@@Fishpizza1212Except if it causes a vicious cycle, due to crossing a tipping point. Wonder where I heard those terms before 🤔
@@Fishpizza1212 er, methane's high warming effects may last only a (relatively) short time, BUT methane degrades into co2 which has a smaller warming effect but lasts a very long time + water vapor ch4 + 2*o2 = co2 + 2*h2o
Both the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets are in a period of growth, despite the fact that we are in an ENSO and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is in an active phase, bringing warm ocean currents into the Arctic. Of course the west Antarctic ice sheet has undergone some melting, due to the presence of about 90 active volcanoes underneath the ice. This would all suggest that we are entering into a new cooling period.
That massive Tonga undersea volcano exploding with power of 4k Hiroshima bombs, iirc, & the 7km^3 of ash & rock surely must have had more than a blip effect on climate change, presumably downward due to ash?
I don't care
Nope, incorrect. Both the Arctic and the Antarctic are losing ice volume.
@@QT5656except when they are gaining it.
@@kennyg1358 Overall both are losing volume. You've been misled.
this is a fantastic resource to explain what is happening...Thank you
I've been waiting with all the expert's proclamations, since the 1990's for the sea to swallow New York. 2000 nope, 2010, 2020, nope. How long do we have to wait!? 😂
Take a look at the first hour of the video by Creative Society (22 November 2022) 'our survival is in unity' where the geologist Elizaveta Khromova explains their mathematical model
I guess it will be fun for you to find out! We’ll probably kill more of each other than climate change does, at least to start. That’s my professional opinion as an self qualified semi amateur ornithologist.
It's ok, don't look up. Go ahead and buy your beach house in florida.
@@Alexadria205 Everyone of us has his own 'old' agenda in the mind and is following that. Very few are in the condition to see the new agenda which is coming and change their paradigm of Life
Who made those claims? Do you have a source, or are you just high on believing?
A lot of politicians believe if we pay a lot more money in taxes........It'll stop
That’s a classic thought .😂👍
What a joke. No amount of money can stop earth disaster cycles. Big scam
Considering politicians are doing absolutely nothing about climate change, it would seem you left out the word "not" before "a lot."
I was still a kid in the late 1950's when I learned we were at the last stages of the latest Ice Age...not news to me. What I did learn though that it's not necessarily the end stage, we're at an "Interglacial Period". I also know about the methane.
Milankovitch cycles describe the collective effects of changes in the Earth's movements on its climate over thousands of years. The term was coined and named after the Serbian geophysicist and astronomer Milutin Milanković. In the 1920s, he hypothesized that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession combined to result in cyclical variations in the intra-annual and latitudinal distribution of solar radiation at the Earth's surface, and that this orbital forcing strongly influenced the Earth's climatic patterns.
Thanks for such an informative video - you help to make complex science accessible.
Thank you for having a real talk about what is actually going on with our planet.
Yes man made climate change We mess up so bad it might not be easily stopped anymore
you mean .. anthropogenic climate change ?
and as we can see it's not a people's fault
@@TheEryk03 Wth are you insane it’s almost certainly our fault
@@palebluedot7435 almost XD so what should we do? burn all the Amazon forest? keep all iceberg frosted XD? you are so delusional
Kryon, a Channeled Entity, recently said "Winter is Coming." But before that fully happens, there WILL be a slight warming trend, then the Cold will come. Kryon also said this recent Methane Pollution and warming/cooling of the Atmosphere is NOT 'Our Fault', but part of a natural climate/weather cycle, though we may have hastened it a bit.
Very interesting, Dr. How would theYounger Dryas fit into all this? Particularly in relation to the hypothesis that it was caused by several massive asteroid/meteor collisions?
Fascinating! Thank you for sharing this information. I had not heard about the increase in methane.
You went past permafrost melting quite quick, I think it’s worth exploring that deeper. The tropics have been producing methane for a very long time already but the permafrost melting is very recent.
agreed - permafrost melting & releasing methane thats been trapped for thousands of years should be more alarming than the wetlands
You’ve identified the fatal flaw in the video. The speed of climate change suggests a cause other than the gradual changes of past geological history. Such a basic error suggests either ignorance or worse on the part of the video maker.
There is no speed and no it wouldn't even entirely proof the point. It would still be a working hypothesis with lots of anti thesis like the global greening effect of co2. And what people like you don't understand is that nature isn't that harmonic thing that only moves slowly. Nature comes with huge events that impact the whole globe faster than what humans are doing, with the very same atoms: co2. In other words: at some point permafrost will become water. With or without humans. Just because a human activity correlates to an event in nature doesn't prove anything. Correlation is not causation. We had a mass die off of correl reefs just 10 years ago. No one really knew why but scientists had all kids of speculations from global warming, to chemicals in the water. We didn't do shit but the coral reefs have began to regenerate by themselves and science found out that sometimes, on really rare occasions, coral reefs get ill and die of to 80-90% of what they were just for the surviving 10-20% to regenerate. You can try to stabilize the climate all day long. The climate is going to do what it is going to do and the best scientists of the planet can't predict the next 2 weeks. Welcome to reality.
@@Noqtis « What people like you don’t understand » is a little condescending, don’t you think? Rather ad-hominem when we should be discussiing the merits and effects of a real problem. And « welcome to reality » is another slur to justify bias. Clearly this thread has degenerated.
@@Noqtis "What people like you don't understand." Condescending much?
Do forests or other ecosystems absorb methane? Like could our destruction of say large sprawling Serengeti savannahs and other wild landscapes be a contributing factor?
Ben, despite your extensive research I'm very surprised you make no point of 2006-2007 (onward) being a period which saw rapid acceleration of unconventional oil & gas extraction i.e. the fracking of shale deposits, particularly in the USA. Such wells were being drilled in their hundreds - thousands soon thereafter. The main prize was natural gas and meanwhile its extraction, venting, flaring, leaky containment and fugitive emissions were a serious problem (largely denied by the industries involved). The possibilities of this previously untapped resource was explored in the late 90's (around 1997) but commercial exploitation didn't really take off till 2006/7, especially after it was enabled by the 'Halliburton Loophole' of 2005 - making it possible, in law, to get around the the environmental hazards of that sort of extraction. Rapid decline-rates, particularly from shale wells, meant they were abandoned after a few years - ostensibly sealed, made safe, or sold off for 'long-tale' investors gleaning diminishing returns from ever-lower yields. In the US alone there are now about 4 million abandoned O&G wells, many still leaking gas.
What is the methane emissions from melting permafrost in northern Canada and Siberia? As much as I love the archeological discoveries from the permafrost my concern is the massive release from permafrost? The slumping in the north is drastic visually but does that correlate to modern volumes?
Yes, to a large extent - look up "Methane Clathrate gun," basically there is a precursor to gaseous methane locked in much of the northern permafrost. Siberian infrastructure is already crumbling as their 'ground' gives way to mud and methane...
I remember a show about large amounts of frozen methane under the north Atlantic coming to the surface as we get warmer. What an amazing balancing act the earth has
That's what I was thinking about. Warming oceans make the methyl hydrates less stable and prone to releasing the methane.
Imagine what wholesale ocean floor mining and oil extraction could release! Kinda pushing the car over the cliff.
One of the most rational, informative and clarifying presentations on climate SCIENCE I have seen. Well done! I look forward to additions and updates from you.
Ben, great video, thanks. FYI the word 'glaciation' refers to snow and ice retention at either of the poles or both of them, The present glaciation started about 45 Mya with snow and ice accumulation on Antarctica and starting the Tertiary Glaciation. The ongoing decline of sea levels led to the Arctic becoming glaciated simce 2.58 Mya. The cause of the Tertiary glaciation is the galactic orbit of the solar system making it move upward from the galactic plane and causing the orbital inclinations of the planets to decline, vis-a-vis the obliquity of the Earth's spin axis. CO2 is like phlogiston; it actually does the opposite of what it is claimed to do. by bonding inversely proportional to temperature with H2O as carbonic acid and making that precipitate. Without the lighter than air H2O molecules suspending the heavier than air CO2 molecules they would form a toxic high pressure surface layer as it does on Venus , taken care of on Earth by forming the ocean covering 71% of the global surface to depths of around 8 km. John Bruyn. For more on that you can find me on Quora
Thank you for a well produced and highly informative presentation. Isn't it true that there are two more major factors which contribute even more to release of methane? Solar cycles of increased and highly variable radiation levels in which we are currently reaching an 11 year maxima (remember also that our earth is miniscule in comparison to our Sun). Secondly there have been many academic papers exhibiting significant evidence that approx every 12,000 years , a Geo Magnetic Excursion event (GME) takes place on earth (a pole shift). The reduction in earths magnetic field due to the GME also greatly reduces our protection from our Suns increasing radiation. These two factors may sugnificantly disrupt our Earths albido, perhaps with even greater effect than methane alone. Would these be interesting subjects to consider in one of your videos? Keep up the great work.
I - as a physicist would expect the 11 year solar cycle (which goes along with a net increased energy flow when there is more solar activity) is not playing any big role in general climate (as in long term trend) but rather in cylclic weather phenomena. Simply put: 11 years cylce is most likely too short compared to the long term changes we are observing to effectively drive / support those processes. You can understand this as with a pendulum having a resonance frequency. If you are at the resonance frequency, you pump a lot of energy into the pendulum and always increase it's motion. If you are far off resonance there is not much energy gain. It's like with a swing, you always push your child on the swing when the swing arrives where you are and thus match the frequency and effectively get it higher and higher. If you'd just push it randomly (either just once at the start - much lower frequency - or erratically all the time even when the swing comes your way, you will get a much worse experience).
@@DerKiesch There is actually LESS solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth right now than there was 100 years ago. There simply is NO WAY the sun is having any effect on the global increase in temperature we have seen over the last several decades. no. way.
Very informative with great graphics. Your commentary is a pleasure to listen to. Looking forward to watching more of these kinds of videos.
May I ask who your research sponsors are, and where you funding originates from.
3:31 This made me laugh SO freaking hard I had to stop the video to finish. Did not see that coming at all. Brilliantly done though.
Thank you for explaining things in a manner that many should be able to understand. For years, since I was at an event hosting Patrick Moore and based on various lectures I have attended I have attempted to explain the various cycles and events that have had a dramatic effect on how this planet developed. Now I just need to point them here. I still however find it difficult to get some to undertsand that just about everything on this planet is carbon based.
The expression, "until I was blue in the face or if the cow jumped over the moon, when hell freezes over comes to mind. I, like you point out to people that a train is about to hit them unless they get off....
@@AndrewCharnley .......and yet still you present no argument based on objective reason...............
0.2% of things on earth are carbon based its more silicon based in fact.
@@RyanONeill-my9jn Define "things on earth". Define "carbon based" and "silicon based". Describe, succinctly, how in the context of this video, your comment is not utter idiocy.
@@jwilliam2255 It was in reference to the end of the comment. Nearly everything on earth is not carbon based.
Show of hands. How many people here are sick to death of KZhead putting their 2 cents worth post under any video they don't like?
Absolutely. These clowns at KZhead need to keep their nose out of content.
Yep I'm sick of their crap too, as they a totally woke organisation and should be held accountable for lying to us about everything especially covid!!
and stating it in their words. The 'Climate Change' babble on this one is absolute rubbish
I'm sick to death of arrogant, science-denying morons who can't even put their own trousers on without a manual.
I like it because that's how I know a video is speaking truth.
so... I watch these with an open mind. But as usual, I'm left with one major thought in mind... All the "evidence" of past events we have are through scientific processes that we cannot confirm. For example: We invented the thermometer (as we think of it today) in the 1700s. It did not get into wide use and was mostly used in laboratories until the 1900s, and was not widespread in use until the 1950s and 1960s - this is when the backyard thermometers started cropping up. So if I asked you what the temperature was on July 30 in 1900, .... you might be able to give me the temperature in a few major cities, or scientifically appropriate locations, but not out in the middle of nowhere Kansas.... or the middle of the Great Salt Lake, in Utah... We only have "educated guesswork" for that. We can look at the sediment - what kind of plants were growing, how well they grew, etc. We can use knowledge we've since gained to tell us what temperatures can grow similar plants in the same environments.... But that doesn't tell us the temperature on July 30 in 1900 - only a general "The temperature was likely between XXX and YYY." Now take that to try and determine what the temperature was 20,000 years ago... when the area was supposedly covered by permafrost? Or was underwater? Again, we can look at the fossil record... but there's question there, even, as to how accurate that is. Imagine someone digging up fossils in an area and seeing creature A over creature B, over creature C, over creature D... That tells us D lived the longest ago. But it doesn't tell us HOW LONG ago.... And carbon dating is only accurate to a certain extent, after which you need to look at other - not as accurate - sources. So the fossil record tells us...... something - but how do we really know that creature D lived 140,000 years ago? Short answer: We don't. That, too, is "educated guesswork" So you have all these sources of guesswork that feed one another... "D lived 140,000 years ago.... and we see that it appears to have died off when the land was warmer, according to this plant that was growing in the same period.... and that plant seems like it acts like XXX that we find today, which dies off when the temperature averages over 50 degrees annually... so it appears that the average temperature 140,000 years ago was about 50 degrees." But... what if it were 150,000 years ago? Or 120,000? What if the temperature were warmer - 55 or 60 degrees average? What if it were really cooler? See, ther weren't thermometers... Educated guesswork. I'm not saying that's all bad, or shouldn't be used at all... but perhaps we should not treat it as a given. This video says something that I've been telling people for ... well, really, at least 35 years since Earth science classes in middle school - I think the Earth is still warming up from the last ice age, and we are but a small part of that. And the more I learn, the more I'm convinced of this. Did you know that the greenery in the United States absorbs more CO2 than we generate every year? .....but what are we doing? Cutting down trees and clearing fields to put up.... solar panels. Panels that absorb heat... panels that prevent greenery from growing on the ground.... and panels that do not absorb any CO2. So we're reducing the natural benefit to create artificial benefits that break down, and can't be recycled. More landfills. (And that's just one pet peeve....) But to get back to my example of the thermometer... We really DON'T know with great certainty what the temperature was 100,000 years ago... We're going on core samples taken and what we measure in them that MIGHT be from the period - if we understand the fossil record correctly - and MAYBE we have the data right. We can't measure from ice that melted 100,000 years ago... We can't measure from ice that melted 10,000 years ago... We can't measure from ice that existed before the dinosaurs roamed the Earth 63,000,000 years ago... And we then also need to take into account the fact that the Earth tectonic plates have been moving the land around over these millions of years... Surface has been covered in areas by salt... then silt... mud... forming layers of limestone... Then pushed upwards for a few thousand years to become a mountain... and on top of that mountain, after hundreds of thousands of years of erosion... suddenly we're taking core samples and saying the temperature was XXX when it was formed? Again - Educated guesswork... but it can only take us so far. At some point, we have to say "The best we can tell you with certainty is.... " And scientists are wont to tell us that. Gone are the days of theory, and we're left with "facts" that may not be as factual as they appear. The scientists that disagree with the "facts" of the day are shunned, unless they get their work in front of the right people .... and even then, we've seen papers make their way into journals that they later need to retract when they find out the sources were bogus, or the data made up.... but perhaps the damage was done, because some other scientist went into an area thinking the study lets them input certain data... and that's now faulty, but they don't know. And it snowballs..... But we don't know how cold that snowball was because it existed 300,000 years before the thermometer existed, on an island that is currently tropical, with an average daily high temperature of 77°F and low of 64°F, where snow hasn't been seen for at least 200,000 years. ...so that's what I see - a lot of educated guesswork. Perhaps the levels today are normal..... we just don't have the timeline right. What would that mean? I'll let you think about it.
TL/DR: Educated guesses can get us so far, but are not substitutes for hard data that we can gather. Until we can say we know something for certain, we shouldn't bet our future on the data.
In my life through the 70's and 80's in school, we were told many terrifying futures were coming. A big one was that the world would end by 2020 due to humans being irresponsible and that blonde hair wouldn't exist and be bred out by 2010 (oddly the hair thing bothered me even more). This scared me into thinking about these things, I've followed them closer then any peer, for some reason it didn't bother them. But as each predicted outcome has failed to come to fruition I began to think about modern science and how it can go into great detail, but the high tech sample size is so short being roughly 100 years out on a 4.5 billion years old planet.
When discussing obliquity at about 6:20, the graphics show melting north polar sea ice. This perpetuates the incorrect conclusion that floating ice that melts will contribute to sea level rise. Generally, only melting land based glaciers can contribute to sea level rise.
Wouldn't most of it just seep into the ground or end up making lakes, streams, and rivers in that land anyway?
The Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets hold massive amounts of water ice that would lead to significant rises in sea level, were they to melt. Other land based glaciers such as those on mountains, if melted, would add a comparatively insignificant amount to sea level rise. Don’t worry though. It would take an enormous amount of energy to melt those ice sheets, especially that in Antarctica.
False, if glaciers melt from ice caps those ice bergs aren't tied to the ice caps any more, which inevitably means they'll drift around until they melt.
Volume displacement. Correct.
Thank you for explaining this in an understandable and engaging way.
I've a quick question, mate. About 6:45 in the vid, your graph is showing the correlations in periodicities, but, not to acknowledge the data-induced elephant (or is it the aardvark?) but what of the two pair of quarter to fifth cycle statistical hiccups?