Sabine Hossenfelder 
đ¤Expand your scientific horizon on Brilliant! â First 200 to use our link https://brilliant.org/sabine will get 20% off the annual premium subscription.
In this video I summarize the main pieces of evidence that we have which show that climate change is caused by humans. This is most important that we know in which frequency range carbon dioxide absorbs light, we know that the carbon dioxide ratio in the atmosphere has been increasing, we know that the Ph-value of the oceans has been decreasing, the ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere has been changing, and the stratosphere has been cooling, which was one of the key predictions of climate models from the 1960s.
The quiz for this video is here: https://quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1706048681405×562082078631395300
In this video I explain how the greenhouse effect work in much detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqu5DjzOBF8
đ¤ Check out our new quiz app â http://quizwithit.com/
đ Support us on Donatebox â https://donorbox.org/swtg
đ Transcripts and written news on Substack â https://sciencewtg.substack.com/
đ Transcript with links to references on Patreon â https://www.patreon.com/Sabine
đŠ Free weekly science newsletter â https://sabinehossenfelder.com/newsletter/
đ Audio only podcast â https://open.spotify.com/show/0MkNfXlKnMPEUMEeKQYmYC
đ Join this channel to get access to perks â
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1yNl2E66ZzKApQdRuTQ4tw/join
đŧī¸ On instagram â https://www.instagram.com/sciencewtg/
#science #shortly
source
About The Author
Long time subscriber and learned a lot from you.
You lost me when you changed your view and supported climate alarmists. It immediately made me wonder; threatened? blackmailed? bribed? Certainly donât expect stupidity from you.
Aids wurde als unheilbarer und stark ansteckender viraler infekt verkauft. Das Land in den ich seit 25 jahren lebe soll – laut schlagzeilen – mit ueber 50% 'verseucht' gewesen sein. Nun meiner meinung muessten wir hier nun alle tot sein, mich eingeschlossen. Hiv positive zu sein ist nicht die krankheit (schwaches Immunsystem )sondern das symptom dass die schwaeche aufzeigt – meiner meinung nach ( Empirie an hand meiner person und anderer leute die ich kenne unterstÃŧtzen dies). Ich sage nicht dass es sich im fall von global warming genauso verhält (co2 anstieg als Symptom von globaler Erwärmung), ich sage nur man muss vorsichtig sein mit dem wAs als fakt verkauft wird.
Noch als Anmerkung: ich bin hiv negativ, haette aber gute chancen gehabt positiv zu sein
This is great! Thank you!
The link between the increase in CO2 and climate change is still missing.
Find someone with a sweet accent, like Sabine or "Sir Richard Attenborough", let them narrate a clever video, and sell it to people like Greta Thunberg, or some such uneducated, but kindhearted, dupe. Add politicians and media and there you have it.
If interested, one should seek out; Dr. Richard Lindzen – Atmospheric Physicist, 30 years MIT; or Dr. William Happer – Atomic Physicist 30 years Princeton, or Dr. Judith Curry, Climate Scientist – GA Tech. When New Yorkers begin retiring to Montreal instead of Miami, we may have some real data on the effects of climate change. We are currently in an "interglacial" period, enjoy it while you can humans.
The ultraviolet radiation can split water for hydrogen energy.
The earth produces much more CO2 than humans. If CO2 were bad for the earth, the earth would have died millions of years before this
WHATEVER….đđđ
Great summary and data! Especially for a 6 minute video.
The nice lady will answer the question: who changed the climate a million years ago? Who changed the climate 500 million years ago? There were no people and the climate changed from the tropics to Snow White Land.
We are not responsible at all. The named evidence is not evidence at all. You are spreading nonsense.
According to the consensus among global climatologists one takes the â18C computed from the T^4 average and compares it to the fictitious Earthâs average temperature of 15C. The difference of 33C is attributed to the natural greenhouse effect. In reality using correct averaging yields a temperature of â129C. Similar to the Moon. Suprise? In global climatology temperatures are computed from given radiation intensities, and this exchanges cause an effect. The current local temperatures determine the radiation intensities and not vice versa. If the soil is warmed up by the solar radiation many different local processes are triggered, which depend on the local movement of the air, rain, evaporation, moistness, and on the local ground conditions as water, ice, rock, sand, forests, meadows, etc. One square meter of a meadow does not know anything of the rest of the Earthâs surface, which determine the global mean value. Thus, the radiation is locally determined by the local temperature. Neither is there a global radiation balance, nor a global radiation budget, even in the mean-field limit. It is suprising, that climatologist stick to the radiation only and completely neglect the convection from their models. They use the static globe, not rotating. They know why, because even these still oversimplified models cannot be tackled with any computer. Taking a sphere with dimensions of the Earth it will be impossible to solve this problem numerically even in the far future. Not only the computer would work ages, before a âbalancedâ temperature distribution would be reached, but also the correct initial temperature distributions could not be determined at all.
The basic questions are: 1) what is the correct Earth temperature? 2) Where lives more people, in Italy or in Greenland? 3) What do the plants need for their life? Other is just scientific trash, academic excersises from people who get paid for it. The science is about discussion and falsification, not about consensus, especially politically forced one. Climatology is actully pseudoscience creating from the Earth an exemption from the physical laws.
Like all, this will change in time.
There is evidence that the climate is changing, slowly, as we might expect, but is it being caused by human activity (using oil and gas)? The answer is -> No.
UN folks have failed repeatedly to show how CO2 emissions are causing drastic temperature shifts and more severe weather. Their original claim was man-made global warming. But that theory didn't prove out in the more recent data. The 'pause' explanation was very weak. So, they abandoned the 'global warming' theme, replacing it with the more nebulous 'climate change', but still pushing the same falsehood that human-generated CO2 emissions were contributing to a climate crisis.
This is a lie. The whole climate change gig is a power grab by the UN gang, with their regulations and their 'carbon taxes'. In addition, it's an attempt to strip us of our energy resources (fossil fuels), to weaken us, to make us more malleable, to accept the plans of the globalists who want a world government.
Notice the context insert below the video. UN folks want to make sure everyone is on board with their narratives. It's very much like Big Brother and The Ministry of Truth.
The scientists directly involved in the study of solar and geophysical components of space and earth weather have determined that humans cause less than 1/10th of 1 percent of the overall effects of 'climate change'. There are hundreds if not thousands of papers that point to the Sun and galactic energy that cause what we call 'climate change'. Time to accept reality and stop believing in the hype.
dicen que los humanos causan el cambio climÃĄtico pero nadie ha mostrado la composiciÃŗn de la atmÃŗsfera del siglo 19 para compararla con de este tiempo , entonces Âŋ en quÊ se basan para hacer tal afirmaciÃŗn ?
Why do all the top scientist like will happer and will soon and lots of others, even Freeman Dyson when he was alive though it was a religion. And before you say we have moved on since then, just stop. Because physics in physics and you can't change laws without data and repeatable experimentation. None of which you bring to the table, co2 cannot do the heavy lifting of climate change on it own physics won't allow it. Still you don't have to worry because the cycles of the sun and the Malankivic cycles predict cooling from 2030 so the perfectly natural warming with a very slight assist from the devil gas will all be consigned to the bin of human stupidity an the real problem going forward will be scientist will be added to the can't trust them list along with politicians. You need to look up Yong tution you might learn something
Sabine if you want to do something useful tell everyone about the con that is RCP 8.5 if your side were winning over older and wiser people you wouldn't need the scam prediction now excepted as current predictions by just stop oil and the other loony toons. Also do you not think it's funny that nearly all the scientists on the sensible it no Biggie and we are not killing the planet and that more co2 has more benefits than issues. They are all older well respected scientists who don't need governments funding to conform to the co2 disaster narrative
Problem here sabine.
All and i mean all your research comes from western scientists. Russia , china, japan, and india can provide you with different data. Changes all
I am not a climate change denier, nor am I climate scientist. What I am is person that has read, and read more that sees there is a change in the last couple hundred years. It seems to correlate with human activity. Like the different reports say there is evidence. Those whom deny these reports are those who believe the Earth is Flat, Hallow (like their heads) and are just not looking toward the future. Do I know what to do? No. But I do know something needs be and we all need to do something.
Peace
Any scientist who isn't a shill and relying on grants for their income would laugh at most of this nonsense.
I will state just one example where she slips up here and gives the game away. At minute 3.39 quote roughly "If you dig those plants up and burn them, that carbon goes back into the atmosphere" IE. exactly where it came from.
So, take no notice of these silly global warming shills.
A great youtuber on here who is from Canada called Jeff Berwick made me laugh with this comment ;
Canadians are really stupid, they spend half the year digging snow off their drives so they can leave their houses with temperatures around 20, 30 or even 40 degrees below freezing and worry their silly little heads about global warming.
Is that you? If so, wake up. You could even join the scam like Al Gore who constantly flies all over the world to lecture people on how they should never fly, because its bad for the atmosphere. But he's done OK out of it, he lives in a house which is like Buckingham Palace and has a weekly electric bill that is more than my annual bill. Oh, and a few hundred million in the bank.
If you want to believe these people that's OK, give me a call, I'm selling London Bridge.
Awesome, an answer
u see u lose me when u get political. I noticed u doing more ur gonna lose viewers I don't give a sh@t what u think stay in ur lane lady oh ya gfy
"i wouId argue that its caaused by the factories of industriaal companies
insteaf of agricuIture who tjey re bIaming"
There is no carbon in the outer atmosphere. How do we know this? Mountain climbers who climb Mount Everest need oxygen bottles. Thus little oxygen means little or no CO2. Carbon likes to stay close to the earths surface. Thousands of years ago there was an ice age. Now the earth has warmed up enough to allow for human life to flourish. Why do we need individuals explaining to us that it is human life, who have caused warming? Which human's caused the ice age to disappear? It wasn't is that is for sure. This video is unsubstantiated talk fest.
I don't have a scientific background, but this simplistic approach raises even more questions for me. Even though I can't imagine humans having no impact at all on climate change, I wonder if there actually is good scientific evidence of the extent of this impact.
Thanks!
Sabine, I just fell in love with you.
So many errors in this video. Oceans are basic, not acidic, and they are NOT getting "more" acidic. Sabine ASSUMES without evidence that "evidence for climate change" is getting WORSE because of modest warming coming out of the Little Ice Age, and no evidence that extreme weather events are getting more frequent or intensifying), The climate has always been changing for 4.6 billion years. A lot of nonsense comes from phony computer modeling "predictions". Years ago, the IPCC, when it had honest scientists lured by the promise of scientific objectivity, admitted that the climate was a nonlinear, chaotic system and trying to model it WAS NOT POSSIBLE. They still use computers to develop a lot of climate propaganda.
A Sabine was a women that was inseminated by a soldier of the invading Roman army and after they exterminated the existing males and children and unsitely women. The remaining sabines were impregnated through rape and the Sabine became one of the soldiers harem of wives
How dumb to people sound when they claim what. We know.
Is she a psychic to know what I and all of we know I don't trust science of psycics
Thank a god for her authority on what I know I thought I was going to have to decide that for myself. Thanks Lucifer for bringing we the beautiful Sabine zionfeldđ
i think the point is largely that people, such our uncles, may not think it is a hoax, but rather, how important to them is it? and important to their life should it be? Let's say our uncle has stage 3 metastatic cancer, which is a real scenario in some cases, 1 in 3 people will get cancer and usually uncles tend to be "not young" … and he drives into central London with his diesel Audi a3 and has to pay a tax for the Ultra Low Emission zone of 20 pounds. Two things here really, the first is how guilty should he feel for driving a diesel car, and secondly the policy around enforcing charges/fines to do with climate change, to what extent does that policy help the problem. I believe he has every right to say the human influenced climate change problem is low down on his list, in fact, it may be extremly low on his list… the first thing on his list might be that he will be dead in 6 months. (Or what about an even more common problem for humans, being able to get food to eat to survive could be very high on the list) Even if he won't die for 10 years i still think people have the right to prioritise whatever is neccessary for them based on what they perceive to be important (and what is actually important like eating[To survive let's say])…. and yes, that definitely won't solve the problem (because the people cant be trusted to do the right thing apparently), but if you prefer a society where the government gets to choose your priorities then well good for you, you're German so that probably goes without saying
Facts:
1 – We are taking carbon from below ground and adding it to our atmosphere
2 – Atmospheric CO2 levels have been rising
3 – As CO2 levels rise, its warming potential doesn't increase in a linear manner but follows a logarithmic relationship with its concentration in the atmosphere.
4 – The heat island effect is a real thing that can skew temperature readings as urbanization has occured.
The earth is very complex with many competing systems. In a laboratory, CO2's warming potential has been observed, but in combination with all of the other systems (atmospheric moisture levels, global plant coverage, glacial coverage) that act to reduce that warming, we don't know the real world implications of what will happen when CO2 levels reach 800 ppm lets say.
Humans ? Some more than others.
https://youtu.be/6zP0L69ielU
Just a day ago academic vladimir paar said on croatian national tv that disesel or ev dont matter because climate changes are caused by jupiter and volcanos and no one bothered to dispute, that i find scarry
We already know where you stand in the debate. But could you make a scientific video addressing the points where you might be wrong about climate change being caused by humans? That would be truly scientific.
Sorry, but your argument is not so convincing. Your first point is that CO2 has greenhouse potential. Point 2 is that there is more CO2 now and point 3 is that the oceans are absorbing some of it. None of those addresses the question of where the CO2 is coming from. Point 4 is closer to the crux of the matter, and the evidence that you present indicates that the CO2 is coming from plants. But then you make this great leap, that it is coming from burning fossil fuels. There are a lot of other possible plant sources. I have read some papers presenting evidence that the CO2 is lagging the temperature increase, rather than the other way round, which supports the hypothesis that the temperature is driving the CO2, or something else is driving both increases. How might we distinguish between CO2 from fossil fuels from CO2 from other plant derived sources? (Just as a wild supposition, suppose some biological process were causing the oceans to produce more CO2 than previously. Would that scenario not fit the data that you have presented?) Finally your point 5 is not definitive – with more CO2 the stratosphere would be subject to some cooling effect, and if that effect is larger than the stratospheric heating caused by increased solar heating, the net effect could be strato cooling, even though the temperature increase is caused by increased solar radiation. This point really requires quantitative discussion.
I find it interesting that having made the effort to answer this question, your argument is not so strong as one might hope. Is this the best evidence for an anthropogenic cause for the temperature increase? If so, we need to look much more closely before we spend trillions trying to avoid it. If the cause lies elsewhere, we should be spending the trillions on adaptation, rather than in a Canute-like exercise of exercise of trying tohold back the tide.
The past several interstitials have been significantly warmer than our Holocene. Get back to me the Holocene gets warmer than the last interstitial.
Let me break down why this video failed to do its job. Correlation does not imply causation, and this video is 80% correlation with 20% false causation which I'll explain below.
1st "piece of evidence" – CO2 Absorption Spectrum (not evidence that human activity is responsible)
Only explains that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and this is not being disputed
2nd "piece of evidence" – CO2 Increases in Atmosphere (not evidence that human activity is responsible)
Only shows the observed composition of the atmosphere and this is not being disputed.
3rd "piece of evidence" – Increasing acidity in the ocean (not evidence that human activity is responsible)
Only shows that the additional CO2 is causing the ocean to warm up, does not link this to human activity.
4th "piece of evidence" – Additional CO2 in the atmosphere comes from fossil fuels
You're right that there are 3 types of isotopes, not arguing there, and I don't doubt that the additional CO2 content in the atmosphere comes from C12 which you conveniently want to attribute to the burning of fossil fuels.
But you failed to mention that 99% of carbon on Earth is C12, so of course that is what you'll find in any test to analyze the composition of the earth's atmosphere. It does not mean this additional CO2 comes from human activity.
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/isotopes/chemistry.html
5th "piece of evidence" – Stratospheric Cooling (not evidence that human activity is responsible)
Again more effects of additional CO2 and not linked to human activity.
You could have left out everything but number 4 because that seemingly is all you really have to link it to human activity and that piece of evidence is clearly not enough. It's unfortunate that the field of science is littered with scientists who are to afraid to speak their own opinions for fear of ridicule and alienation from their colleagues so instead they blindly accept what the consensus is. Be better.