Olen Shannon Maldonado, käsintehtyjä artesaanitua teitä myyvän jauiilahjakaupan perustaja. Valitisin Shopify, koska alustoja testatessani totesin sen ehdottomasti yhdeksi helpokäyttöisimmistä alustoista. Minulla oli tärkeää pohtia kehittymistämme tulevaisuudessa. Kaikki myyntiin tarvittavat työkalut, kuten varaston suunnittelu ovat kätevästi dashboardissä. Aloita ilmainen kokeilu Shopify piste komsi vustolla. Kaikki myyntiin tarvittu, kuten varaston suunnittelu. Käsintehtyjä artesaanitua, kuten varaston suunnittelu, kuten varaston suunnittelu. Kaikki myyntiin tarvittu. and then they go into the clouds and you can see it changes the clouds. >> Wow. >> Like cargo ships in the ocean? >> Yes. So they change the clouds. It's just like airplane you see, but here it's in low clouds. So what it shows is that if you can see it here, if you change the number of cloud compensation nuclei, you change cloud properties. >> Whoa. >> So what are the differences between this left and right? By the way, if people that are just listening, highly recommend you watch this on video, either on YouTube or Spotify, because this is going to be a highly visual episode. So what are the differences between the left and the right here? >> These are just different cloud scenes where the ships have been sailing. So in the one in the right, you can actually see that it is really clouds that have been changed. So the idea is that if the cosmic rays can do this systematically all over the Earth's because they are omnipresent cosmic rays, then it would be a very effective way of reculating the Earth's climate. >> Wow. And you were the first one to posit this. >> I was the one that said that there is this connection and that seems to be real. >> And what has been the feedback from the scientific community on this specific connection that you've made here? >> I mean, I did it in 1996. There was a conference in Birmingham where it was presented the first time and a newspaper and Danish New Paper put it out. And it, I mean, before that nobody cared what I did. After that, it was completely crazy what happened. And we got an enormous reaction and very aggressive reactions. I remember coming back from the conference and there was a headline saying, strong UN critique of Danish researchers that was the international panel on climate which is under the UN saying that what we had done was naive and irresponsible. >> Naive and irresponsible. Did they disprove the connection that you made between? >> No, no, nobody has disproven anything. >> Okay. >> But nobody has said that what you, the connection that you've drawn here with your evidence has everyone said that this legit, no one's proven that it's. >> Let me put it this way. When we started, everybody was saying that there's no, we don't know any known mechanisms that can do this. So it cannot be true. I think now the next step is that they're saying, okay, maybe there isn't effect, but it's not important. And the final thing is that they say that this is what we all sit all along. >> Now, when you first came out with this, did you publish it to like a scientific, I don't know how that whole process works when you're a scientist, you put a published and all that. >> If everything I've been doing is going through the normal way of doing things, which is to find the results, write them up and publish them in good journals. So it's peer, what do you call peer review? >> Peer review, yeah. >> So it's no guarantee that things are correct, of course, but someone has seen this through and says that, okay, let's, let's, our colleagues consider what you're doing. >> Right, right. >> Okay, so you made this connection with the cosmic rays being specifically associated with cloud formation. >> Yes. >> Now, how do you extrapolate that into a correlation of the cosmic rays being primarily responsible for the change in the climate on Earth? >> Well, the idea is that if you change the clouds, you change the amount of energy that goes into the Earth's system. So if you have a systematic changes in clouds, so I mean, so let me ask you to start interrupt, but is it accepted with the mainstream that clouds are primarily responsible for the climate? >> Well, it is mainstream that clouds are important. >> Important, yes. And another thing that is extremely, you know, everybody knows that clouds are the main, main, you know, the most difficult subject in all climate modeling because it's so difficult to model cloud processes. So if you have a systematic change in clouds, and this is well known, I mean, if you look at my, my green status clouds, which are the low ones that you always see when you fly over the oceans, these endless scenes, if you change that but just by one or two percent, it is similar, you know, to all the greenhouse gases that change in the, in the greenhouse gases. So it's just, you know, one or two watts per square meter. So it is really important. >> The low, the low clouds. >> Yes. >> My green clouds is interesting. So I mean, if you show a slide 13, you can see the figure that actually started the whole thing. So what you see here is since '83, 1983 until 2005, and you can see the red curve is the change in cosmic rays over the until 2006. >> Wow. >> And the reason that you have this change is because of solar activity. So this is the 11 year cycle that you see. So solar activity is modulating the amount of cosmic rays and the blue curve that is actually low clouds over this period. So you see that it's a beautiful correlation, but it doesn't mean that we don't understand why it's there. >> Wow. >> So that is amazing. >> That's how it started to. >> So yeah, so for people that can't see this graph, from 1985 to 2005, the correlation between cosmic ray activity and low cloud coverage is spot on. It tracks perfectly throughout that whole time. So let me ask you this, though, how do you track the cosmic ray activity going back that far? >> I think since the beginning of the 1950s, you have been measuring systematically cosmic rays with something called neutron monitors. >> Wow. >> So for instance, the 50s? >> You're saying the 50s, yes. It was an American actually that started this part. So neutron monitors are operating, and they're measuring all the time so you can see changes in cosmic rays. >> We make predictions every single day about pop culture, politics, sports, even the economy and major news headlines. Kalshi, which is America's number one predictions market platform, lets you trade on these predictions on a live market. Here's one that fits this show. Will the US confirm that aliens exist before January 20th, 2029? Right now, that's trading at a 22% probability, meaning a $100 trade would pay out approximately $400 if the US confirms it. On Kalshi, you're trading against peers in a live market, meaning no house. And as the probability changes, you can buy in and out of your position. Download the Kalshi app and use the code Danny Jones to get $10 when you trade $10. It's K-A-L-S-H-I, Kalshi, trade on everything. 18 plus, restrictions and eligibility requirements apply. Event contract trading involves risk and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices, values and available markets may differ from those mentioned. For more information, see kalshi.com/regulatory. - Past 1950, we can't go any earlier than that as far as measuring cosmic rays. - We can, but it has to do with, you have to do it indirectly. So we call it proxies. So when cosmic rays comes in to the atmosphere, they are producing new isotopes. That is the new elements. You know carbon-14, you've heard about carbon-14. And carbon-14 is produced by cosmic rays. And so then you can imagine that you have this carbon is slightly heavier than carbon-12. So it sticks to oxygen. So you have CO2 with carbon-14 and it goes into leaves and goes into a tree. And then in the tree rings, you can measure the amount of carbon-14 relative to carbon-12 in all the tree rings. - Oh wow. - And if you measure that, you can then say something about how solar activity has changed back in time. So it's something you have to take into account. Also when you're doing archeological studies, you have to take into account that solar activity has been changing. Otherwise you will get completely different ages. I've seen models of the climate, the Earth's climate going back like, I mean we've pulled them up on this podcast going back like 50 million years ago.
years. How do they how do they accurately figure out what the climate was 50 million years ago? There are indirect methods. And one one is to use what we call oxygen 18. It's again isotopes but the cores the ice cores and all that. Ice cores only go back 800,000 years. Oh really? And you know that best you know 100,000 years back. Oh a little more. But if you want to go even further back, one thing is that you can take some I mean it's interesting because you take some animals that lived some shells. Fossils. Yeah fossil shells. So in the shell of the fossil, you measure how much oxygen 18 there is relative to oxygen 16. And that says something about how hot the water was when the shell was formed. So you can go in in different layers of the of the earth and found these fossils and measure and that gives you an proxy of the temperature as you go back. And I have things I can show you. Oh wow. That's amazing. I've seen I've been I've seen different things like I've had geologists show me different like layers of the sediment where there's like this black matte layer that correlates to like what was it 12,500 years ago or whatever during this younger dry. Yes. Yes. And lots of people believe that they're speculated that there's what there could have been like this crazy asteroid impact or comet impacts throughout the earth that when we passed through a specific cycle or a specific when the earth passed through a specific zone of the universe or whatever there was like high asteroid or comet activity that could have been responsible for that like a mass extinction event or something. Yes. That's I heard that too. And then like you know allegedly like everything was flash frozen and then or no everything was like got really hot and then there was like a flash freezing event where like the sky blacked out and everything got super cold. Yeah. Yeah. It made makes a big change. What do you make of that theory? I think it's interesting and you try to find the evidence in the ground. So that's fine. So what's next as far as you're discovering in the process of you making this discovery and presenting it to the public. You're now showing that you're now showing people that and you've got papers that prove that this specific activity of cosmic rays correlates to climate going back to at least 1850 or 1950. It correlates. Yes. And the big problem, I mean these are correlations. So that's what what is what was the start of the whole thing. So you have to I mean because there's a correlation and this was something that people were telling me all the time that just because you have a correlation that might not be causation. So the idea had been to try to figure out how to you know prove or investigate what the mechanism could be because you have to you know go further into the problem. And very early I realized that we had to do some experimental work and around 2004 and maybe even earlier I built a laboratory where we could make this type of experiments. If you look at I think it's slide as a 16. You can see that you can see here these are all the places that we have been doing experiments. Stern, the DTU National, those are the Danish National Space Institute. Yes. And at the Astrid Accelerator, I haven't heard of that one. No, it's in Oehouss, it's in Denmark. Oh, okay. And then you have Sassan in Geneva. Stern, yep. And then at some point we went 1.1 kilometer on the ground in a mine because we wanted to avoid cosmic rays and you have to go that far down in order to get the cosmic ray intensity down by more than a million. Really? Yes. So they're they're very very penetrating. I mean as we sit here. How deep are you? 1.1 kilometer. Wow. As we sit here, we're getting we've held it and they go right through us. And there's nothing you know, spectacular as such because this is happening ever since, you know, for a lot of three to four billion years for our life. So it's part of our environment. Okay. So what was going on at Stern? At Stern, we did some pilot experiments. There was a project called the cloud project that was built at some point. I was part of the cloud project in the early early stages. But then I switched to our own, we did experiments where we actually showed that yes, there is like a micro physical mechanism if we increase the ionization in a large chamber. We can see that we are building small aerosols. So we can measure that and we could sort of document it. I think if you go to, so that's the reason for going so far underground is to create your own, spray your own cosmic rays at your experiment. You have to eliminate all the cosmic rays coming out. That was the one in Balbius. Right. But the one in the D.T.U, the National Space Institute. There we have some gamma sources outside the chamber and then we have some, you know, we call them, we have some lead, you know, walls that we can move. And then we can increase the ionization in the chamber and we can turn it down. If you go to the next slide, I think, there you can see one example of such an experiment. You have a cosmic rays or this is actually ionization that increases along the bottom axis. And then you can see as we increase the ionization, we actually produce more of these particles. So it's just an indication that there is a microphysical mechanism that links the two. So Earth's climate goes up and down constantly throughout history. Yes. And we've seen this just from the, just from the graphs that we've already seen before that just show the climate. I mean, we have the medieval warm period we have. It seems like right now just based in the last couple of million years that we've tracked that right now we're actually, it's cooler than it's been on average over millions of years, over the last at least five million years, right? Yes. It is much cooler. If you go back 50 million years, I mean, Erasmard Mike have been 10 degrees warmer than now. So you had, you know, palm trees in Antarctica at that time and and bilbobs trees and so on. I mean, so it's really something that the here we go three million years back. So, but now you can see there's been a steady cooling over the last few million years. Yes. So the blue one is, what's the blue one right now? It's more ice, more ice, colder when it goes down atmospheric. So is that that's a question. Is there, is there a correlation between the temperature and the atmospheric CO2? And in the, in the ice age of yes. In the ice age of yes. Yes. I mean, you see a very clear correlation. The thing is that it's probably CO2 that is reacting to the temperature or not vice versa. Oh. So you can actually see if you make and I mean, if you look very closely at the data, you can see that the temperature changes first and then the CO2 changes. This is something, I mean, it's commonly commonly known. So in the ice age, it was very low CO2. Yes. And yes, I was so low that I mean, it was the problem for plants at that time. That's also why instead of C3 plants, you had your Vidello develop the C4 plants, we can, you know, they are much better at taking up a CO2 than ordinary plants. If you go too low with CO2, I mean, all life exercises. Interesting. Right. Yeah. No, I knew that. But so that you're saying what you're saying, which is counterintuitive to mainstream knowledge is that or mainstream, whatever the narrative is, is that the CO2 reacts to the climate. So if it's a really hot climate, the CO2 will go up. Yes. Got it. So how, so why did people say it's the opposite? It's because here in the modern period, we are burning fossil fuels. So we are putting in more CO2 and CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So, I mean, so by putting in more artificially, we can, of course, raise the temperature a little bit because of that. Oh, okay. Okay. So, so you
You're saying that the man-made carbon dioxide that does go into the atmosphere every day, that does have a little bit of an effect on the overall temperature. But it pales in comparison to what these cosmic rays forming clouds can do. Yeah, on the longer timescales, I mean, as I can show, it's remarkable collations on the long timescales, yes. But also, if you look at, I mean, you talked about the little ice age. That is a period where you had very few sun spots, very little solar activity. So therefore, there was much more cosmic rays coming in during the little ice age. And that is a beautiful collation. So that's an interesting thing that you said there that's kind of hard to try. It's kind of counterintuitive. It doesn't really, until you really understand it, right? You're saying that the low amount of solar activity equals more cosmic radiation. Exactly. Because the sun forgets to throw away the cosmic rays, right? Right. So when the sun is, you know, at low activity, the cosmic rays don't get so much resistance in going in. And more solar wind, more sun activity, the least amount of cosmic rays. Yeah, and warmer climate. And warmer climate. The more cosmic rays we get, the more clouds we get, and the cooler the climate. Yes. And it's also interesting. I mean, when you had the little ice age, you had, I mean, when you had bad weather, and so on, you, at that time, they believe it was because of witchcraft. So, I say, I mean, it's amazing because so many women were burned at the stake because of, if you had a bad storm, they had to find the culprit, and that was witchcraft. So at that time, I mean, many thousands of women and men also were burned at the stakes because of bad weather. I mean, there are some storms. There's a famous thing with Danish. Listen a little closer to you. Yeah. A Danish princess was going to be married to an English king, and she was trying to sail from Denmark to England, and they were hit by a bad storm. And because of that, the king thought that it was witchcraft, so they actually executed a large number of people because of that storm. Jesus. Yeah, the things that human beings have done in response to weather or to try to make the weather change going back is just, you know, I mean, the minds would sacrifice people to appease the rain gods, you know, for crops and stuff like that. Starting a business can be a big deal, and what really shocked me was how simple Shopify made the whole process. We use Shopify for our merch store, and we were able to recently revamp all of our products. And from day one, it felt like the tools were simple and easy, instead of feeling like I was learning a new profession. The design part was way easier than I expected. Shopify's templates and AI tools helped us get the storefront looking clean, professional, and real without needing to touch any code. Then once people started buying, Shopify's checkout made a huge difference. Customers moved through it really fast, and returning buyers can check out in a single click. And that's when you hear that little, because the process just works. And if you ever hit a wall, Shopify has a sidekick that's built in. It's their AI assistant, and it helps you troubleshoot, build, and keep moving without wasting hours stuck on one problem. All you need is the idea and Shopify handles the rest. Start your free trial at Shopify.com/dannyjones today. Again, you can start your free trial at Shopify.com/dannyjones. It's spelled SHOPIFY.com/dannyjones. So you say that the magnetic field of the sun has more than doubled in the last 100 years, is that right? There has been an increase in solar activity over the last 100 years. Yes. I can't remember. There was a paper at some point where they said that the sun's magnetic field has more than doubled over the last 100 years. Do we know why? No. I mean, it has to do with solar activity. And solar activity is not something that is well understood. So for instance, when we say that there might be a solar minimum, that is a very low solar activity in the future, it is very uncertain because we cannot predict these things very good. But we know that there has been a large number of what we call minima in solar activity. I mean, six or seven times during the last 10,000 years. And each time you have a very cold climate. I mean, I can show you a very beautiful. If you look at number 10 of mine, let's see number 10, sorry, it's number eight. So what you see here is the last 12,000 years, if you look at the bottom figure. And the black curve is actually an inspiration of climate. And it's an indirect way of getting the climate. It has to do with icebergs that move over the North Atlantic. And when they move over the North Atlantic, when they melt, they have a lot of small stones in the ice that then fall down on the bottom. And then you can drill up these ice cores and they could see how many small stones there are as a function of time. And that says something about how many icebergs have moved over the North Atlantic. Oh, wow. And that's the black curve. And the blue curve is changes in cosmic rays, so with that period. Oh, wow, that's incredible. So explain what you are saying about when it comes to the Milky Way Galaxy. And where our solar system is currently in the Milky Way Galaxy is constantly changing, right? And is it, our solar system goes around the whole Milky Way Galaxy does one rotation in what like a hundred and something 200 million years. Yeah, 230 million years, 230 million years. We make a full rotation around the Milky Way Galaxy. Yes. That's crazy. And each rotation, we go in and out of the arms. Yes. And the arms are not material arms. It's actually a wave phenomena on top of all the stars that are moving around. And the reason that they look more bright is because that's where you make a disturbance and that's where you have the star formation. And that's also where the young stars that are large stars are in their much more bright. So that's why you see the spiral arms as bright arms. And we are moving in and out of these regions. And when you have more star formations, that's also the place where the large star explodes. And the large star that explodes are the ones that produce the cosmic rays. So when you iron a spiral arm, you get much more cosmic rays. And the changes are, you know, maybe 300% change in the amount of cosmic rays. Oh, wow. And then opposite, when you go in between spiral arms, then, can you show, do you, do you really get an image of this that we can see to give it a better understanding of it? If you look at number 31, 31. So this is the bright spirals that we see. This is where you're saying a lot of the new stars are born and dying. That is where the new stars are born. A lot of stars is born and the new stars are dying. I should say that I work closely with a guy called Nyeshriweep, he's a professor in Israel, and I've worked with him for many years. He's the one that took up this idea. So he's the one that he made this idea that when we go through spiral arms, it should be important for climate on Earth. Really? And each time we are in a spiral arm, there seems to be a glaciation on the Earth. So it's a cold climate, and I can show you. When we're in the spiral arm, it becomes very cold. Yes. Because you have more cosmic rays, and more cosmic rays mean more clouds, and clouds are cooling. Right. Wow. Okay. So what is it about why are more stars being born and also exploding in these spiral arms? It's simply because in the Milky Way galaxy, it's like a disk, and in the disk, there's a lot of gas in the form of hydrogen, and hydrogen is the basic elements in stars. So what is happening is that you have sort of a disturbance along the spiral arms of the gas, and that makes the gas collapse, and it becomes more and more dense.
and then at the end, it ignites the stars and when you ignite the stars you are actually producing a whole range of different-sized stars and some of them will be the heavy ones that I mean because they are heavy they you know they burn very strongly and they don't live very long so we only live maybe between 3 and 15 million years and that's a short time compared to the rotation so the very very bright stars they are typically have a short lifetime in close to the spiral arms and that's why you get more cosmic rays in the spiral arms. Wow that's so hard to comprehend just the scale you're talking about like you're able to explain what's happening you know chemically within the entire Milky Way galaxy it's so crazy and so where is on this giant diagram of the Milky Way galaxy where is our solar system roughly? Well you can see there's a sun location with the star in the bottom so we're about one or two-thirds outside and we are actually moving around the galaxy the center of the galaxy within about these 240 million years and then we go in and out of the spiral arms. So let me ask this might be a dumb question this not might be the right you know I might not be the right person to ask but are we moving away from the center of the Milky Way galaxy consistently or is it staying about the same? It's staying about the same I mean it's not a perfect circle of course but because there are some disturbances but it is more or less like for for all practical we can call it a circle around the galactic center and then we I mean the sun is what called a disc star and all the disc stars are moving around the galaxy. Why is it a disc star? It means that it yeah it because when you have star formation many times they are born in a cluster so we have many stars that are bound together by gravity. I mean do we want to see this process? Oh yeah of course. Okay then go to number 57 it's simulation. Okay so you can see how perfect. So you're trying to like binary star systems. So here you have a gas cloud and it has been disturbed and now it will start collapsing and you will see you will have star formation and you will produce a large number of stars you can see a lot of so each the small white is actually stars that are igniting. Oh wow. So what is that stuff that's like popping out of them? That is gas that is being accelerated and thrown out and you would think in this there's a supernova going off you can see that they throw out some stuff. Wow. So at this time these stars are all from the same cloud so there you can say all these stars are siblings in the sense that they're in the same cloud. Yes and then what happens I mean at some point I think with the it ends you can sort of zoom out a little bit and you can see that you have what we call an open cluster. This is an open cluster of cloud. So for what we're looking at right now this star formation. This is star formation right. But like on the on the can you give me like a relative scale. Yeah it's probably 150,000 years or something like that. This is about 150,000 and how big are each of these stars that we're looking at compared to like our Sun. They are probably many of them are smaller and some of them are bigger. They form after I mean there's this it's always formed. There you had a supernova going off actually. But you see it's like a this is what we call an open stellar cluster and the reason I'm showing that it's because I have been using open stellar clusters to go even further into this problem on the long-time scales. Super stellar clusters. Open, open stellar clusters. Open. Open. Open. Yeah because remember we started asking the question why it's a disk star. Exactly. Yeah. So here you have stars which are part of a cluster. So what is happening is that they sort of move in between and they might be some disturbances and then the stars they sort of fall off. So the gravity can no longer keep a star bound and when it fall off it becomes a disk star. So our solar our Sun probably also was born in this way. And then it eventually just like drifts out. And it eventually drifts out. So there could be no life in one of these clusters is too hot too many stars. Well it's very young at this point right so it hasn't had time to evolve. But I mean that probably will be planets and so on around some of these stars. Inside this cluster. Yes there will be start the formation. I mean now we know that nearly all stars have planet formation. Wow. So that is bananas. So if you go to numbers 34 what I'm showing you here is said the number of if you in the middle there in the middle of this circle that's where the solar system is. And after these dots is an open stellar cluster. So these are open stellar clusters that is the group of stars. And the collar it says something about how old the cluster is. And you can see most of them are about you know 100 million years. So the dark the dark purple at the bottom is how old? 100 million years. And then what's the red? And red is one billion years. One billion. And you see there's very few of the old ones and that's many old ones. No and that's because they have evaporated. So all the stars have been falling off so they're no longer exist. So they exploded? No no they fall off so they are no longer a cluster. So it drops stars. And each time you have fewer and fewer and in the end that nothing left. So they're all becoming disk stars. Okay, I see now. So and in this plot here there is information about star formation over the last for instance 500 million years. So if you move to the next slide you will see a reconstruction of the number of supernovas over the last 500 million years. This is this is 500 million years right here. This is 500 million years. And you can see that the changes in supernovas or the supernova activity is almost a factor of three. So for 300 million years ago there was a lot of cosmic ray or a lot of supernovas going off. And we and you're measuring this directly by the proxy of the cosmic. This is measured by these open-staylor clusters that I use the information in them to say how many stars were born at a certain time. When I know how many stars have been born I know what fraction have been large stars and then I know how many will explode and produce cosmic rays. Okay, so it's an indirect way because we have no way of I see it got it but I mean it looks you know very. So you can use basically Earth's climate history to reverse engineer the this stuff right here. That's a good question. What do I have here is only astrophysics right nothing which you know well the top bar you can actually see when there is the glaciation and when it's cold so you can see over the last I mean in the first part you have the first 30 million years you have a glass glaciation. Lots of supernovas. Lots of supernovas and if it goes 300 million years back you can see there's glaciation the severe glaciation again. And there seems to be a very nice correlation with this figure as you go back in time. Wow. But let me take it even further if you take the next slide. What you have here is only 200 million years and what I've done here is I've used and proxy for temperatures going back in time. Remember we talked about these
shells. I think you called braggio parts. Fossils? Like fossil. Yeah, these are fossils. And then you measure the amount of oxygen 18 relative to oxygen 16. Yeah. And you get a figure at the water temperature, right? And that gets you the water temperature. And this is what you see with all these starts. Each of these start is a fossil. Okay. And you can see the red curve is the change in supernovas. And you can see there's a beautiful correlation between the two. Oh, interesting. And as many supernovas, you can see that it's actually quite cold. And when you go back, I know 50 million years, it was much, much warmer. Wow. And also, I think it's quite interesting because if you look at just the last 30 or 40 million years, you can see that it's sort of a minimum at around 30 million years. That minimum is also shown in the data for the temperature. So there's this, I mean, it's actually a quite beautiful correlation even on these timescales. Have you noticed any sort of pattern in this activity? Like every, you know, 10 million, 20 million, 50 million years, is there? I mean, obviously, there must be like a, there must be some sort of a relative period of time in between each one of those arms in the Milky Way Galaxy, right? Yes. And this is, I mean, if you look at the beginning, that's because we just passed the spiral arm. If you then go back and you see that there is such a minimum around 140 million years ago, this is another spiral arm that we go through. So you can actually see the spiral arms in the data. And when we go through a spiral arm, it's actually colder. When we are in between the spiral arm, you can see it. It's the desert. Yeah, it's really, really hot. So that's just, and I'm sorry, can you show one more time where exactly we are in the spiral arm? We are where you see this is a zero. Yep. So that's up top. Okay. Yep. On the top right is where top right is. So we aren't, are we in a spiral, we're not in a spiral arm right now. We had just moved through a spiral arm and we are experiencing over the last 30 million years. We have had a classiation. A classiation means that we have ice sheets on Earth. And, and Antarctica, it graduated about 34 million years ago. So that's when Antarctica was formed about 30 million years ago? The ice sheets. The ice sheets. Yes. So 40 million years ago or 34 million years ago, that's when that happened. So the ice sheets, they sort of formed. So the dinosaurs were walking around there. We're no ice sheets down there. When the dinosaurs walked around, they disappeared around 65 million years ago. And that was very warm. There was hardly any ice at all. Wow. But of course, I mean, the first dinosaurs came 250 million years ago. Right. They had a long period on Earth. Right. But in the end, there was no ice. So we're technically in a glaciation period right now and we're exiting it. We are in a glacial period, yes. And we are about to get very warm. Not probably, I mean, we're talking geological timeframes here. But we will go in through, you know, in maybe 30 million years, it, I mean, in about 30 million years, it's going to get very hot. The weather forecast for and there what you so how long do you think it will take before like the south and north poles are completely melted? I mean, it comes, I mean, you can see here, it's a there is some millions of years, I guess, that you have a change if you look at it. Yeah. So and then also, I mean, when you are, if you look at the 50 million years, when you don't have any ice sheets, the sea level is of course, much, much higher. Right. So when you have the continent flooded, so the U.S. was flooded, you know, parts of the U.S., there was no Florida. Florida was underwater. About a year ago, I got hit with a text about an unpaid toll. And then when I went to go pay it, it ended up being a scam. And this would not have happened if I had been using cash app. And that's because cash app prioritizes trusted individuals. Keeping your money safe from fraud deserves to be a priority and cash app treats it that way with security lock cash app requires a successful face ID or biometric authentication to access your account. It's like your money is protected by your own personal bodyguard, even if your phone is lost or stolen. Plus, if you're about to send money to someone new and cash app notices something fishy or looks a bit off or you might be filing for a scam, it'll send you a warning before the money is sent to confirm that everything looks right. Turn on security lock in your cash app settings today and pay attention to scam warnings to keep your money safe from fraud. And you can learn more at cash.app/security. Moving your money should be simple, but it should also be safe. And that's why I like using cash app. New cash app customers can earn $10 if they use the code secure 10 in their profile sign up and send $5 to a friend within 14 days. Terms apply. Cash app is a financial services platform not a bank. Banking services provided by cash apps bank partner. Visit cash.app/legal/podcast for full disclosures. Now, there was a moment in the documentary that you guys did where they were like looking at the sediment layer near the Dead Sea. Is that right? Yes, there was like some cliff sides near the Dead Sea and you guys were studying that. What exactly were you guys looking for there? It was just an illustration of past climate that you can see in these sediments and how it's changing. And I think there's someone who has studied it in more details and showing that there are some collations with climate into sediments. Now, is there any specific correlation between supernova activity and biological life on Earth? Yes, and that's one big part of my work now that I've been working on. And is that all tied back to climate? It ties back to climate because the temperature changes that you have here is maybe 10 degrees. I mean, global temperature. Remember, we are talking about maybe one degree with global warming. But 10 degrees, it's so big that it will have impact on climate. 10 degrees. I mean, these changes are just huge that we are talking about. And I can show you, I mean, I think it's completely fascinating with this. So, if you go to 37. So, this is just to say that climate is quite important because at any time here on Earth, nutrition has been a limiting factor. Yes. So, nutrition, that's fast for iron and nitrogen and so on, it's all things that life is needing. And if you have a certain bio production, that is, you have life. Then life would rather uptake carbon 12 than carbon 13. One percent of carbon is slightly heavier. It's stabilized to about carbon 12. And this is important because it gives us a way of seeing how much biomass there was on Earth at a certain time. So, when you have sediments and you can have inorganic sediments that fall down on the bottom and that makes all these sediments that you see, you'll see them just in a second. Then you can imagine if you have a large biomass, that means that there's more carbon 13 in the oceans and if you have a small biomass. So, by measuring the ratio between carbon 13 and carbon 12, you can say something about how much biomass there was on Earth at a certain time. If you go to the next slide, Wow. You can say the next one. Yeah, one more time. Yeah. So, this is the Grand Canyon. So, the idea, what you see here is all these layers are past times where you had an ocean bottom. Oh, wow. Okay. And then you can, I mean, geologists hasn't gone and measured this carbon 13 relative to carbon 12. And that estimate the fraction of organic matter that is buried in sediments. So, this measure for the isotope.
it unlocks how much organic material there is, and that is how much life there was in the oceans at a certain time. Oh, wow. So if you go to the next slide. So what you have here is my reconstruction of cosmic rays over the last 500 million years. And you can see there's some different curves, and these are different data bases that I have used, but they all show more or less the same thing. Okay. And that is the change in cosmic rays over this time. So what you see here has nothing to do with the Earth. It is astrophysics. Pure astrophysics. Pure astrophysics. So if you press the bottom, you will see the change in this is the fraction of organic matter in sediments over that period of time, and you see a remarkable correlation. Whoa. Holy crap. That is wild. So the more of this astrophysics activity that we get, the more organic matter we get. Yes. That's correct. Yes. I mean, it's the fraction of organic matter in sediments. And the idea is, if you press one more time, I think that something will come up for explanation there. So if you have a high cosmic ray flux, you have a larger bioproductivity, and therefore also a larger fraction of organic barrel of into sediments. So the hotter it is, the more organic matter you get. The colder it is. The colder it. So the higher cosmic rays, okay, yeah, I keep getting, I'm thinking when the word ray breaks my brain, I think sun rays. But it is, you know, the sign thing is problematic, but it seems as if nature can figure it out. So the lower the temperature, the more organic matter. Yeah. And why is that? It's because in my, that when it's cold on earth, you have a larger temperature gradient between the equator and the poles. Okay. A larger temperature difference between the equator and poles. And that means that you have stronger winds. So if you have stronger winds, you have much better circulation in the oceans of nutrients. So then you get delivered nutrients to the life. And that's why when you have a colder climate, you can get more, so it helps delivering the nutrients. So even though it would be, it would probably be less organic matter on land, though, right, because it's very cold. And there's not much, not much, there's no vegetation. It's something I've been working on. It's not published, but it seems to say if it's completely opposite on land. So it would be the, so if it's, if it's a very warm climate and it's lush on land and fertile and lots of life, that would mean it would be the opposite under the oceans. Yes, because then you have a smaller temperature difference between the equator and the poles. There's not much mixing in the oceans. It gets much more layers, so you don't get the nutrients circulated. That is what I heard. So this, I think this is published in 2021. So those layers that you're measuring the difference between carbon 12 and carbon 13, that's specifically for the organic material, the organic mass that's under the oceans. How do we measure what's above the oceans? We can't really measure that the same way. So that's a problem. So what I've been doing is trying to model it based on photosynthesis. And you have how much energy that goes in, you have to see how much CO2 there was in the atmosphere, how much oxygen there was in the atmosphere, and how much water was available. And you put all these things together and you can try to at least simulate the organic amount on land. But I don't have any real graphs of that here. So this is like completely blown my mind. Why isn't this more popular? And why are there more people talking about this? This is the first time I've heard anything like this. Oh, I'm not even finished. When I give talk to the general public, they're very happy about it. So people who don't have an interest in global warming are happy about it. But you see, if this is. You don't have a financial interest in global warming. Exactly. I mean, the whole politics about global warming has been. Were you aware of how ideological and political the global warming and the climate narrative was before you started looking into this? It came as a big surprise for me. I mean, I had simply. And it changed my life completely. So in some quarters, I am a heretic because I say that there are other things that are might be important. So if you say that things like cosmic rays and solar activity is important for climate, it's not welcome. I mean, if you look at the IPCC and you look at the report, you can see that the amount of. I mean, what they attribute to solar influence is more or less zero. Zero. For people that aren't aware, what is the IPCC? It's the international panel and climate. One that, you know, advised government about climate change and how, you know, dangerous. Anthropogenic global warming is. Now, didn't they say that water vapor has a bigger impact than CO2? Well, I mean, water vapor is, of course, the most important greenhouse gas. It's the one that raises the temperature, you know, almost 30 degrees on the earth. But it's not seen as a greenhouse gas, you know, because they are mainly looking at. I mean, it is greenhouse gas, but they don't look mainly at anthropogenic things. I mean, we can show you the IPCC report. If you look at number three, if you can, yeah. So here you see the different. This is the latest estimate from the IPCC. Yeah, something like that. But you can see that the total effect of anthropogenic is about between two and three watts per square meter. Which one is anthropogenic? It's the one. It's one from the bottom. Yes, the one from the bottom, the red one. Yeah. And then you can see there is a little one where it's solar. At the very bottom. It's like zero. Solar, they're saying solar has zero. It's zero since 1750 until present. But the reason they're saying that is, of course, they're saying that solar irradiance is not changing. They're not really taking into account some things like cosmic rays. The cosmic rays, if you put it in, I would say. I believe it will be around 1.5 watt per square meter. So it will be, you know, comparable to the whole anthropogenic thing. That's why. So you think that. So you're saying you believe that cosmic rays have the same effect as the total anthropogenic effect on climate. It's about equal. Yeah, maybe slightly smaller, but I mean 1.5 watts is on that order. I should say that. I mean, we have done a lot of work. What we need to do and what I was hoping to do was to put all these mechanisms that we have now discovered. And we now know how it works and how to put it into a global model where we both have cosmic rays and greenhouse gases. And then run a model just like these models that they use in the IPCC to see how important is this change in clouds. Because that's a natural thing to do. My problem has been. There's been impossible to get funding for doing this work. And that's, you know, my general problem. It's been very, very difficult to finance. Now, who funds all this stuff? Well, this is a government fund. The government fund. And the people that are a part of this IPCC. I mean, the funding is. I mean, that's the thing. If you go before the IPCC was formed, there were very, very few people doing climate science. But after you
put the idea up that it was a big problem and we are, you know, it might be a disaster in the future and so on. A lot of money has gone into it. I mean, I think it's, to the research is several billions in the U.S. a year. Several billions. I think it billions, yeah. It's a lot of it. And where does that money come from? From you? It's from the tax fair, it's government funding. Yeah, it's got the government ideas. Wow. I mean, it's something you have to check, of course, but I remember seeing a report where those numbers were mentioned. So aerosols goes backwards. Yes. That's the thing is that if you put in more aerosols, then you'll produce more clouds and then you cool the earth. And then you cool the earth. So they're, they're, they're conceding that. Yes, they're conceding the aerosols and clouds to cool the earth. Now, what is, what, what did you make of this proposal? I think it was Bill Gates proposed on, on putting reflective particles in the atmosphere or something to reflect the sunlight. Are you aware of that? That's called geoengineering. Geoengineering. Yes. I'm not sure it will work, but I don't, I don't think it's necessary to do. The good thing is that when you stop putting particles in, the effect stops very fast. When you stop putting the particles in. And also those particles would fall to the ground eventually, you would think. And that would create lots of pollution. They would rain out. They would rain out, right? Yeah. And how would that affect like the natural estuaries and like the sea life and something? No, nobody knows. I mean, it's very difficult to save. I think it's very difficult to sort of seat the whole earth. I mean, I think the idea was to have some ships and maybe into Pacific pumping off particles. I mean, you saw these ship tracks. Yeah. So it's a similar idea. Okay. Yeah. And I actually believe Bill Gates has like rescinded that. He has been traditionally like one of the biggest proponents of this whole climate warming narrative. And there was something that came out recently, Steve, maybe you can find it where he's gone back on that. He's gone back on it. Yes. But it's also because they need a lot of energy for AI now. And you need, I mean, so he's hops. And he cannot get it from solar and wind. Right. Right. No, I need way too much energy to power that solar and wind would do. You want to see one more thing? I have a few more things on the long time scales, which are things of course. Yes, please. So if you take 41. So what you have here is, I mean, we just look at the last 500 million years, which is the very, very short part of the right of this figure. But what you see here is a reconstruction of the star formation going back three and a half billion years. Wow. And this is showing that for instance, for you know, around two billion years ago or something like that, you had a burst of star formation. Then you had a billion years where it was very quiet in the galaxy in our Milky Way. And then you had a burst again around one billion years ago. And then you get to the 500 million years, which where I just showed you how it looked. Now, the thing is that you have had photosynthesis during the last three and a half billion years on earth through altitudes and so on. So you can actually look at this exact same thing, the amount of organic material buried in sediments. And this is a geology. So if you take the next step there, that is the change in the fraction of organic matter in sediments. And you see the collation with the star formation. Yes, with the star formation on top. So you see a beautiful collation. Now there is one thing I want to mention about the star formation means more cosmic rays. Exactly. Which means colder temperatures. Yes. And which also is according to this graph means more organic sediment layers. Yes, more, more, yes, organic sediment layer. If you press the bottom, are we talking in the ocean or on land? This is the ocean. Right, right, right. So it's oceans again. Now, the thing is that if you look at the photosynthesis, everybody knows that when you combine water and CO2 and sunlight, then you get a sugar glucose. And that's part of what goes into the organic part and that goes into life. And then you produce oxygen at the same time. But if you now take the organic material and you just leave it on the surface of the earth, the reaction will go back again, meaning that the oxygen, there will not be produced any oxygen. So in order to produce oxygen in the earth, you have to bury the organic material. So when you bury the organic material, then you are left with the oxygen. So the curve over there, the bottom curve, it is actually also the oxygen production rate over that period of time. Wow. So it means that the, I mean, you can see there's a period around two billion years ago where there was a lot of oxygen produced. It doesn't mean that necessarily the oxygen went into the atmosphere because at that time you had a lot of iron in the oceans. And the oxygen was stuck to the ions and became this red sediments that you have called iron bands. But if you go to around 300 million years, we had actually maybe closer to 30% oxygen. Whereas today we have about 21% oxygen in the atmosphere. Wow. And the other thing, why it's so important for life is that oxygen is really needed if you want to have complex life, because that's what transport energy around inside complex life. All right. Steve found the gates from Axios, gates stressed the difference between supporting research and advocating development. Deployment. Deployment? What do you know? I don't know. This is about where he draws the line on dimming the sun. Bill Gates says he would support deploying artificial cooling technologies to lower global temperatures. But only if the planet hits a so-called climate tipping point. Yeah. But he recently went, he went back on this. Steve, you can find another article that was published probably recently in the last few months where he's basically saying that Bill Gates abandoned his climate change push or whatever. Yeah, the problem with things like this is people, they like to latch onto these hot topics and find ways to benefit from them. The final ways to capitalize on things like this by turning them into an emergency. You know, and find it because it benefits them in some specific financial way. That's the problem with all these things, right? Whether it be climate, whether it be medicine, pharmaceutical stuff, or, you know, geopolitics, you name it. People can manufacture these emergencies, get people to panic so they can justify spending money or making money somehow. Yes. Yeah. As you've learned the hard way. Yeah. That's cool. Has there been any legitimate pushback against this from people, like, has anyone ever sat down with you and had a reasonable conversation with you and explained to you why they don't take this stuff your research seriously? I would say, I mean, there has been some reasonable persons, but there's never been anyone saying that it's all wrong. The thing is that when we found these things experimentally, I think we'd probably stated around 2007, then from 2009 and on, but people tried to put it into global models. So they tried to mimic this idea that the cosmic rays produced some extra aerosols, these small, very small particles. And then the idea was to see if they could then grow to become cloud-coated nuclear. And if they can do that, they could affect clouds. So they tried to put this into these models. and they all. I think six or seven groups, they all got the result that they didn't grow to cloud conversation nuclei. They got lost before. And from that, that has really been the main critique that these small particles do not survive to cloud conversation nuclei. And that sounds like a really, you know, serious problem, if that was true. But in 2017, after four years of experimental work, because I didn't believe that it was true, that there was this problem. One of the reasons is that we can do some observations. And I can show you observations showing that these particles are actually growing to become cloud conversation nuclei in the real atmosphere. So everything works out there. It's only in the models it didn't work. But the question of course, why? And we spent almost four years. And what we found out in the end was that the cosmic rays are not just producing small aerosols. They are also assisting the growth of aerosols so they can accelerate the growth, so they grow faster. And when they grow faster, there's chance of being lost is smaller. And we have tried to put that into a global model of the same kind as other people have been using. And when we do that, we start getting things are very close to the observations. So the reason that all these groups did not find this effect is simply because they didn't have the right physics in the models. Oh, interesting. So yeah, I mean, I can show you so many things. Let's look at what number is that? Number 20? So what do you have? Coronal mass ejections. Yes. Coronal mass. So you have the sun in the middle. And what you see is solar wind that all of a sudden you have what call a coronal mass ejection. It's like a burp. The sun burps. Yeah, you can say that. And it burps out a magnetic plasma. So you have magnetic field lines that are sort of open up. And if that hits the earth, it screens against cosmic rays. If you press one more time, you will see one event. So it blasts cosmic rays out. Yes. Okay. So this is what you see here. These are days of the year. And you can see that you have this effect on the cosmic rays. These are measured on Earth. And you see there's a big drop all of a sudden in the cosmic rays. Yep. And it lasts about a week. And then the plasma sort of dilutes and move out through the planets. And the cosmic rays are getting back. But this is what I call the natural experiment for testing this idea. So when we have these events, I can then look at satellite observations of Earth's clouds and see if anything happens. Oh yeah. So this is what I've done. So we look at the next slide. There. And so I have 15 days. I mean, if you take the first one, where it says aerosols, then you have 15 days before the minimum in cosmic rays. This is red dotted line. Yep. And then you have 20 days after. Right. And the black curve is the change in aerosols. And you see there's a dip in the aerosols where the maximum are about five days later. Right. Five days later, you see the dip. Yeah. And why is the five days is because that's the time it takes for the aerosols to grow to become a cloud conversation nuclei. So it takes a little time for the small aerosols to grow and become cloud conversation nuclei. It takes about five days. Oh wow. So and then you have three data sets, three independent data sets, which measure cloudiness or clouds. And you can see that there's a minimum in all of them around five, five to 10 days after or five days. That's fascinating. So when we have these big CME events, these cosmic sun burps or whatever, we see a super big drop globally with cloud coverage. Yeah. When you say super big, it's only about two percent. Oh, only two percent. Yeah. But two percent is actually similar to what you would get over solar cycle. And it is on the order of, you know, this one and a half watt per square meter. Remember we talked about the IPCC and there was about two and a half watts, which is the anthropogenic. So we have one and a half watt changes here. Oh wow. And I mean, we even get locally, we can get up to four watts changes in specific locations. Yes. In the southern ocean, because that's where you have very clean. I mean, this effect is best over the oceans. And that's because you have very few aerosols there. So if you put a few extra aerosols in, it makes a change when it makes a change in the number of cloud droplets. If you go over land, you have so many aerosols that even though you are producing clouds, it's only a fraction of them that are being activated to become cloud droplets. So if you put some more in, it doesn't really change things. I see. What is, what is the, there's some sort of like an anomaly that's over South America like a geomagnetic anomaly? Yes, it's because the earth's a dipole moment of the magnetic field, it's sort of shifted a little bit. So it's slightly weaker over the south Atlantic. So you have more cosmic rays coming in there. And it's actually been a problem for some certain, you know, low orbiting satellites because they get more, watch more cosmic rays. Oh, really? Yeah. So how does the cosmic rays affect the satellites there? It can go in and affect the electronics. Oh, negatively, even though it doesn't mess with human beings, it messes with electronic stuff. Yeah. Wow. So in that area of South America, where we have that like hole in the magnetosphere, essentially what it is because of that, it's, it's just weaker. It's weaker. It's just weaker. It means that they're more cosmic rays can come in. The earth's magnetic field, it's a lot more clouds there. Have we looked for it? It's very difficult to, I mean, because here, you have globally 2%. It's very difficult to see. One of the biggest growth hacks in business is when you finally realize you don't have to do everything yourself. We've used Upwork a lot over the years, from everything for editors, designers, architectural designers, and all kinds of different specialized trades. Even these windows in our set were designed by a freelancer from Upwork. And that's what I mean. You can bring an extremely skilled specialists for any type of task you need. And all without turning it into some big, laborious, elaborate hiring process. Upwork connects businesses with freelance professionals across software development, AI implementation, marketing design, business operations, and way more. You can browse profiles, review past work, so you can hire with confidence and get started super quick. And with business plus, you can access the top 1% of talent on Upwork. AI-powered shortlisting delivers a curated list of freelancers matched to your goals in under six hours and without endless searching. Contracts and payments are handled all in one place, so it lets you focus on running your business instead of dealing with logistics. Visit Upwork.com right now and post your job for free. That's Upwork.com to connect with the top talent ready to help you grow your business. It's spelled UPORK.com. Upwork.com. And is it true that the polls of the earth are moving? Yes. The polls of the magnetic polls, yes. The magnetic polls are moving every year by quite a bit, right? Sometimes quite a bit, yes. And especially if you are on the verge of what you call a switch, where you switch the polar. Like a full flip? Yes, you can have a full flip that you have typically, I said you last time was about 700,000 years ago. 700,000 years ago. Then there was a near flip, I think 39,000 years ago. You can see that also. Really? And you can see it. Remember the cosmic rays comes in and they produce isotopes. The isotopes then might fall down on snowflakes and on the ice. And then you can measure and you can see that at a certain time there was much more cosmic rays coming in. And that's because the Earth's magnetic field was all of a sudden weak. Wow. So how many years has it been since. Okay, so it's been. You think every 700,000 years, there's a complete flip? There is a flip. It's not exactly 700,000 years. Roughly. Roughly. I mean, you know that that's the way that you discovered the continental drift.
I had no idea. No, because when you have the continent in the Pacific, they are moving out, and it's you know, what you call lava, it's like volcano, volcano, and a lava comes up through the Earth. Yeah. And then the plates are moving away, right, right, right, and then the magnetic fields that you have at that time, is sort of stored in the lava when it hardens. So then you can see, if you go with the, you mission the magnetic field orientations over the bottom, you can see that all of a sudden it flips, and then it flips, and then you can see there's about, you know, 700,000 years between these flips. So there was something that was discovered in the 60s, and that was, you know, Vekner. He was the one that proposed it in the 1920s, that there was continental drift, and he was ridiculed for a long time. So when that, if that magnetic flip happened, how long does that take? It takes about maybe 5,000 years. Oh, wow. That's not very fast. That's very slow. One day, I think, no, it takes, so it's not something that anyone would notice. It's not like a catastrophic event that happens. Not a such. No. Okay. See, when I, when I hear of this happening, I thought it was like the Earth's crust or something flipping around the core. Well, it is, of course, the liquid movement inside that are changing us. Is it possible for the actual, like, outer shell of the planet to become disconnected from the interior part of the planet and move across, like, like, move? Well, I mean, the plates are moving, but, you know, they're very slow. What is going on? So I mean, we have a solid core in the most inner part is a solid core. But that, but the layer between the core and the surface of the Earth, there's a magma, right? Like a liquid, kind of like a, yeah. Okay. So it's never happened to where, like, the actual surface of the Earth has, like, abruptly changed or moved, or something like that. Not that, not that we know of. No, but I mean, the continent, if you look over millions of years, they have been moving like crazy. So what you're allowed to say that the India, for instance, has been moving, you know, like a speedboat up through the engine ocean at that time, and that's why, and it burst into Asia, and that's why you got the Himalayas. Oh. They're so high. Right. Right. Right, right, right. So that quite recent. That's fascinating. So. Okay. Wow. So it seems like if it's true that what you're postulating here is that the cosmic rays and then the solar activity and, you know, all the supernovas throughout the, throughout the Milky Way, also in correlation to where we are within the Milky Way galaxy, whether or in the arm or whether we're in between arms, has an equal effect on the overall climate of the earth compared to what humans are producing. Yeah. I mean, on these timescales that we've been talking about, I mean, it's huge, it's very, very big changes we're talking about. And it's big changes that are not just changing climate, it's, it's been very important for the conditions for life on Earth. So that's, it's, well, depending on how much, how much activity is happening in the Milky Way galaxy, it can have dramatic shifts, something on the effect of, like, that no humans could ever produce. That's true. I mean, if you go to, I mean, it's interesting that you put it this way, like, you know, the way you lay it out is very interesting. It's very compelling because, like, you know, most people, the way people think about things nowadays is, is binary, like, it's either this way or it's that way. It's not. There's no room for nuance and things like this. What you're showing is like, yeah, like human beings are contributing to CO2, but what you're showing is how much of a real effect, like, how dramatic the effect of these cosmic rays and the solar activity can actually have over billions of years. And you know, we're just this little blip on the geological timeline of the Earth. And it's important to have that perspective on it. I think it's deeply, deeply fascinating when you look at these, I mean, you said billions of years. There, I showed you a figure where you show changes in star formation over billions of years. The reason that you have star formation over billions of years is not because of spirulums. It's because the Milky Way, you have some, what we call, dwarf galaxies that are, you know, getting close to the Milky Way. And when it gets close, it induces star formation because of the tidal effect on the gases. So it's other galaxies running into the Milky Way? Yes. If you go to number 43, I can just show you one example. You have the Milky Way and then what you see is the path of what is called the second tire at dwarf galaxy. And on the insert, the curve there, what you see is periods when it induced star formation in the solar, in the Milky Way. And you see around four, six and four billion years ago, there was a large interaction between the Milky Way and this dwarf galaxy. And that is actually also six billion years ago. Yes, that's so crazy. But that's actually also when the solar system was formed. So it might be that this event was part of why we, why the solar, why the sun was formed. Wow. But then if you're going to move further on and you get to two billion years, then you see there's a big burst of star formation because you had an interaction again and one billion years, and these two peaks, they fit very beautifully with the figure that I showed you before. So, so two billion years ago, it hit the other side of the Milky Way. It might have hit yes. And then it induces star formation and on these timescales, it's in general, it produces a lot of star formation in the, in the, oh, god. This is so out. And the big bang is a 14 million, 14 billion years ago, something like that. What is the story? Are you familiar with, with this, this data that came out in like the last year, maybe it was longer than a year ago, but I discovered a year ago where somebody wrote a paper about how they found some super old or late galaxies or something and something about measuring the red shift. This would have pushed back the big bang or something like this. Yeah. I'm not sure where the things are standing at the, at the moment, but there are some, you know, that might be some revisions to how we understand how things started. I mean, you have Roger Penrose, for instance. He's talking about, you know, cyclic universes, where, you know, one universe, it goes, you know, back and forth. So it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it creates itself over and over. So there are many, you know, ideas, but it's sort of, on the limit of what we can, you know, comprehend with the data we have now. What is it just fascinating? Yeah. Yeah. It's, I can't imagine it's a very easy process to revise history like that. It's been sort of, you know, been written in stone for a lack of a better way of putting it, right? It's very, people don't like to change the past, like based on new data when, like, when we come up with, when we find new data, it's not, when is it, when has it ever happened that we've revised history books? I don't know. I mean, it should have, every science that should have happened at some point, of course, people who have been working on things and believed it in a certain way, they will, of course, want to defend and they want to, you know, it has to be good evidence in order to, you know, contradict as a certain thing. Because you have, you know, there's jobs that are at stake, right? People have jobs to defend and, you know, they want to, I would imagine, I've never been in that world, but I would, I would, just from like what I've experienced with people on this podcast, there's a, a tribal mentality where it's like, you know, I want to fit in with the other people.
I want that thing like me and it's like this group, this in-group in academia. Science is done by people and of course, I mean you have some idealized idea about how science is done and so on but it's done by people so sometimes they don't behave as usual. It's a very good way of putting it. Do you think like with other colleagues that you've worked with in what was the university you work or you no longer work for the university? It's a technical university up Denmark. So like with the people that you have conversations with you know at this university who may be like on the periphery of your studies have you noticed that this is more like an ideological thing or it's maybe it's not talked about or is it strictly financial or is it both? I would say many of my colleagues because it's an astrophysics group they're interested in astrophysics. I think most of them have no you know stake at in climate at all. So they just think that you know if you know some of these astrophysics things are really important for what's happening on Earth. I think they think it's interesting but if you start I mean if you go to the University of Copenhagen where people are working on climate and they are climate scientists and some of them are working and working for the doing work for the IPCC, the International Panel on Climate. They have some stakes in this and that seems to be it's not founded in you know just in science and rational thoughts there are the things and there you see that it's people that are doing science. So the IPCC funds a lot of the people. But they don't fund people as such know they just nominate people and then they work for them and they nominate scientists and then bring them into. Yes and and then they write certain chapters, makes an assessment of the state of climate and all the research that is being done. And when you write these types of large governmental reports, a lot of it is how you phrase things what you want. So even though my stuff is in this IPCC report. They do mention it and they have some chapters on it. They use a lot of time saying that all these people who couldn't get it to work in their models you know that is the state of this. So they're saying that you know there might be an effect but it's not important. The problem with it high level is that this is such a complex thing to understand this whole topic. There's so many moving parts right and there's so time climate. Climate. Yeah and it's tied into everything like with geological with astrophysics and all of the stuff and chemistry like just what you've showed me so far is blowing my mind and 99.999% of human beings on this earth who are aware of climate change. They don't know anything about this stuff yet. They have an opinion on they strictly on political like you can take the political divide just in this country and you can just say tell me what political side they're on. I can tell you what their stance is on climate change and they have no understanding. No and it's also due because it's difficult to know all these things. Super difficult. Right. I mean it takes some efforts in order to get a hold of and really make a good opinion about this. Do you want to see more on how it affect life? Yeah definitely. Let's do it. So what I want to talk I don't want to discuss now is I mean we talked about that we had a huge effect on climate and the climate had a huge effect on the amount of biomass that we had on us. So the question is does it have any influence on the macro evolution that is you know the life forms that we have had on us and the life forms I mean how do we know history back in time it is from fossils. So if you go into sedimentary mountains that you have here this is again a Grand Canyon you can go into with different layers and then you can find different types of animals or fossils and these fossils. I mean it's something that has been investigated by biologists and paleoontologists I think they're called and they put all these in in huge databases. So you have all this information about what kinds of animals you have at a certain time and the interesting question is why you know why has life changed I mean the number of you call the diversity why has that changed as a function of time. So what I did is I took some of these databases if you look at the next slide here. So here we can have the last 500 million years and what I've done is I look at the number of what's called a genera it's just about the species level like I mean a cat and a lion that's the same genera. So what you then count here is the number of genera and you can see over the last 500 million years there are some changes you see that there are sort of two maxima at around 400 million years and one around 300 million years and then this is an as low increase until the our modern time. Right. And the difference between the three curves is simply the way that you have extracted the data from these databases is done in slightly different ways but they also show some similarities in the data as you can see. So the question which is asked here is why are there these changes? I mean why is the diversity or the richness of life? Why has that changed over time? And there's been many many ideas about this. What I want to show you is that you can actually explain I think you can explain it with just two things. One is super novice and the other has to do with the area area of what we called shallow marine margins, shallow marine what the shelves, the continental shelves. Yeah, continental shelves. So if you go to the next slide, what you see here is about 100 million years ago in the Cretaceous period. You can see you had much higher sea levels. Therefore a lot of the continent were Florida is gone. Yes, everything is flooded and a large part of the US is flooded too. And the light blue areas, that is where you have this shallow water. Right. And where you have the shallow water is really where most life in the ocean is. And then in biology, it has turned out that if you have a larger area, you have more species. So if you have a region with a larger area, then it seems every time land area. Well, area in the also in the ocean. Okay. So if you have a larger area, you have more species. So if you have a small area, you have a few species. If you have a larger, it scales with this area. So that's one thing. So okay. So yeah, let's just hit if you know, yeah, okay. So yeah, yeah. Okay. So this is this low area. And the idea is that it's there where you have all the most of the life. The deep part of the ocean is more like a desert. So that's very, very few, not much life, much, much less life. That's why all the big fish that are out there, the pelagic fish, like the oceanic sharks, they're like predator, they're scavengers. They're eating anything and everything. Yeah. That's true. Okay. So sorry, I say that the diversity is somehow proportional to this area. So we've go to the next one. So what you see at this top, you can see how the continent has been drifting as a function of time. So which continent is that in the yellow? I think it's South America. You can see it now. Oh, I see. I can see now. Yeah. Yeah. So and you see that then we get up to the modern time and everything looks like, you know, Don't have to let me know.
today. But if you look at the curves down, you can actually see how the area has been changing as a function of time. So there was a period where the seashells were not that big. And then there's a period where they're big. Which goes to the next one. So I say that the diversity is proportional to the area of these shallow water times the supernova. So we should press it one more time. So if I divide by the area over on the other side, then I have one part which is only supernova and the other one is only diversity divided by area. So the curve up there is the diversity. And I divide it now by the area and it goes to the next slide. Yeah, it just goes to the next. Like this, this is the change in cosmic rays over this period. And now I will put on top of that in the diversity normalized with the area if you flood that. Okay. Whoa. So what you see is a remarkable correlation over so much more sea life when the cosmic ray activity is high. Yes. Diversity is diversity. Richness of life, yes. Why do you think it is that earth is the only planet in the solar system with life? There must be some spatial conditions that I mean, it could be that there has been life on Mars. That's what a lot of people say. A lot of astrophysicists say that they say it could have originated on Mars. It could. Yeah. And then spread here. That's a possibility. But I mean, it's amazing that how difficult it is to determine whether there's been life on Mars or not. It's, and it's crazy too. Like we think, you know, we look everywhere for life all over the universe. We try to like imagine, you know, how many billions and trillions of planets and solar systems and, you know, galaxies there are. But like the one planet that we know of that's completely teaming with life, the most logical place to look would be our next door neighbor. Yeah. You know, it's just crazy that that's completely barren wasteland. But if you go to Venus, it's, you know, horrible. Oh, it's hell, right? Yeah. It's hell on us. And people believe that there could have, there could be life in the clouds of Venus, right? That's, yes. I know a scientist who they're studying that, yes, or I suggested that I don't know if I'll hold this study at, but maybe yeah. Mm-hmm. And I guess the idea is that, and I could be way off base here, but the planets surround that are orbiting the Sun are slowly moving outward. And who knows how long ago Mars could have been more in line with where Earth is now? Is that sound right? I, I don't know. Okay. I mean, one of the reasons, I mean, there's one interesting, we have the moon. The moon is, you know, orbital locked to the Earth. Yes, that's a huge part of it. And that makes stabilizes our rotation axis. Right. So if we didn't have the moon, our axis would wobble like this. And, you know, having complex life would probably not be possible. Do, just, does Mars and the other planets in the solar system have a similar axis wobble like the, like the Earth that we know of? They have some wobble, but I, I don't know, not sure how big they are. Also, also the Earth, as far as I'm aware, is the only planet that we know of that is like, has the specific distance between the moon and the Sun to where you get that perfect eclipse. Yes, that's true. From what I understand, that's like extraordinarily almost impossibly rare. Yes, it is rare. And it's also rare that, and a planet have such a large moon. So the moon is really large. I mean, if you look at a, a mass, you know, and most moons are like potato shaped, like weird oblong, not perfectly circular. But that's because they're very small. So gravity cannot form it. So when I found these things, I mean, I thought it could believe, you know, what I was seeing. So it, I can hardly believe it. Yeah. So what is, what is your plan next? Like, what other sort of studies or investigations do you plan on doing to corroborate this even further? Is there anything more you can possibly do? Well, I mean, what I wanted to do, which was to take one of these global models and then show that it actually also important over the last 100 years. That's one part. So the idea is to incorporate this mechanism with the cosmic rays and the effect on clouds into a global model, where you then also have green house gases, and you have everything. And then show that it's actually also important in present day. It has some importance, but it might not, I mean, it doesn't mean that CO2 is not also important in some sense, but it could be that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is smaller than what you get from climate models in general. I mean, you know that when you, if you double CO2, then you, from the IPCC, the international panel on climate, they have made an estimate that the temperature will increase between two and maybe five degrees. If we double the current CO2. Yes. If you have a doubling of CO2, now it doesn't sound like a lot, but would that be a catastrophic effect for humanity? That's what they're saying. They're saying two to five degrees would be. Yeah, two to five. But this temperature change is not from CO2 alone. It is simply because you imagine that if you increase the CO2, then it also changes the amount of water vapor and the amount of clouds in the atmosphere. So most of the warming that you see from this model is because they think that you have less clouds in a future climate. Therefore, it gets even warmer. You have more water vapor, so it has more greenhouse gas from that. So these are what we call feedback effects. Yes. Positive feedback. So it increases the temperature. The direct effect from CO2 alone is only about one degree. Right. But you're saying that everything else is connected to it. So it's going to have this cascading effect. That's what the models are saying. But that means that most of the effect that you are seeing is not from CO2, but because you believe there is a large positive feedback from clouds and water vapor. So you can imagine that if you now put in the cosmic rays, maybe the cosmic rays are changing things in such a way that the effect from CO2 is just smaller and you don't have a large effect on clouds from the CO2. But it is controlled by cosmic rays. Pull that mic in a little bit more so you get an effect from cosmic rays because over the last 100 years, cosmic rays have been dropping and that's been a drop in cosmic rays. So that could actually be part of the warming also. So you don't need so much warming from CO2. Right. And that means that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is smaller than what you get in this global model estimates. Right. And there's been a lot of studies, empirical studies, where they get that the climate sensitivity seems to be smaller than what you get. So it's on the order of in the low end, so it may be one degree or one and a half degree for doubling of CO2. And if that is true, it means that this whole CO2 thing is less of a problem and we might have more time to find good solutions. Yeah, they don't seem to be the world governments that seem to make this big, you know, emergency out of the climate change seem, climate change thing. They don't seem to be practicing what they preach. You know, we're blasting off how many rockets every day, you know, from 200 miles away from here in Cape Canaveral, launching satellites into, you know, there's so many, there's like 60, 70,000 satellites orbiting the Earth at all times, constantly the threats of nuclear bombs exploding and, you know, throughout the 50s and 60s, how many nuclear tests that we were detonating all over the world, like what kind of affected that have on the cosmic rays and all that kind of stuff and you know as far as clouds and polluting the atmosphere I know.
We did this thing called Operation Starfish Prime in the I think the 60s, where the American scientists, with the help of Nazi scientists, were detonating nukes in the upper atmosphere. >> That's absolutely right. >> You know, trying to see if they can blow a hole in the Van Allen belts or something. Who knows? You know, it's just like the amount of things that governments have been doing that have been polluting and destroying the earth is unimaginable to try to blame that on people that are just trying to get by a paycheck to paycheck, driving their gasoline powered car and trying to impose more carbon taxes on them for that. It just seems like so counterintuitive, you know, it seems so illogical. >> I mean, it's going to be the economy that it's going to be the thing that kills, you know, solar and wind, because it's too expensive. And there are so many, I mean, you have Africa, you have India, you have China. They all want cheap energy, and you are not going to get it from solar and wind, unfortunately. >> And as far as the global CO2 output, I think America, I think China is number one on that. We're China's like 30 to 40% of the total CO2 emissions, and then America is like weighed down on that. >> And the reason is that you are using gas, natural gas, right, because the emission from that is much slower of CO2. But what has been your experience with compared to your colleagues in this space as far as like getting funding for your research? >> That's been the problem, I mean, it's been nearly impossible for me to get funding. And as I said, 2021, the university tried to fire me first time. And then I was hired, I was not fired because of some protests from, I mean, I actually don't know why, they didn't fire me, but they were protested from some scientists at MIT and Princeton that supported my, you know, my research and said that it would be, you know, idiotic to fire because it was important. But then they said to me that I had to find my own funding for my salary. And that's been nearly impossible, so I had to do all kinds of things, you know, alternative things. So I had to find private funding for people who wanted to help me, because getting public funding was nearly impossible. But the same reason that when I sent in an application, it usually sent out to other climate scientists. And in 99.99 percent of the time, these are people who believe that it should be something related to CO2, and what I'm doing is not something that we want to hear about. It's the same that it's like that, so getting funding has been a big problem, and you cannot do research if you don't have funding. In 2017, we did, you know, four years of experimental work, and after that, I couldn't get any money to do any more experimental work. Is that the certain stuff? That was our stuff in Copenhagen, and now they have confiscated my whole laboratory. I don't have the laboratory. They confiscated your whole laboratory? Yes, I'm not allowed to go in there anymore. So I mean, what was their reason for doing that? Well, I mean, the official reason is that someone in the institute had used, I think, 11 million Danish corona, I don't know why, but that's maybe 2 million US dollars, too much. So they had a deficit, and then they decided to fire people, and I was one of them that they wanted to fire. Oh, wow. That was the reason they gave you a lease. That's the reason they gave me. And I mean, in many levels, in 2016, I was an international committee, I was a professor at that time, and I was up for becoming a promotion to, you know, it's called a full professor. Before I was just a research professor, and then the head of the university, he simply cancelled the professorship, and I was demoted. So what was the reason he gave? I never got a reason. I never had a reason why that happened. I mean, I could tell you so many weird things that happened to me, and it's because climate science is not normal science. I mean, I don't know if you have talked about it, but also American scientists who have lost their jobs if they have said the wrong thing about the global warming. It's been so politicized, and the director of our university, he is, you know, the only thing he goes up, he only talks about renewables and green energy and so on. So what I'm doing is probably not something that he likes as such, and so I mean, so many weird things. Also, at some point I got money from a foundation, and you know, some research scientist, you know, who had of sections in some large institutions that contacted my foundation, who gave me money, and said that they should revoke my money, because I mean, I don't know, but they were just one two, I mean, there are so many that have tried to stop what I've been doing. And it sounds completely awful, but what has been the good thing for me is that I've had this science that I could do, which I think, as you saw the results, I think they're so fascinating that whatever people think, you know, because it doesn't fit into this global narrative about global warming and CO2. I mean, the whole part of what I've been talking about on these long time scales, it doesn't really matter because it's not related to CO2, it's the part where people think that it has an effect on what we're talking about with respect to global warming. That's why it's such a sensitive thing. Do you have any idea who specifically are the forces behind this stuff? This push to get you shunned from academia and get all your funding revoked, like specifically? I think it's individual people in some sense. I have no idea if there's any orchestra thing. I mean, for the first time, I got hired as a professor. There was a different, you know, a writer or president of the university. And he called me up to his office and said that he really liked what I was doing, and he didn't care if there was a protest or anything, because there should be, you know, room. I mean, just what we would expect, how science should be done. And then he told me that after he had, you know, opened this position, he said that a number of, you know, scientists had contacted him and said that they shouldn't hire me because of what I was doing, and they shouldn't have this kind of research. And I'm sure that the second time when I was up for this promotion, that some scientists have contacted the other, a new writer there, and he chose to close the position. So it's very difficult to understand for people who think that science is sort of a pure thing. And you just go try to figure out, that's how should we trust the science. The science is settled. That's the phrase they use. The climate science is settled. Yeah. That's not science. Right. I mean, that's not a scientific because nothing is settled in science. Right. It's always up for revision, what we are doing. Now, have there been any specific people or universities or organizations that have been really opened to what you're doing and trying to promote you and trying to push the stuff forward? Well, I mean, I have my collaborator, which I mentioned was Nier Shaviv in Jerusalem.
og han er universitetet til at være så tinget. Når du er i Israel, der har en real problem, så CO2 er ikke en deres. Ja, jeg er en deres ting, eller? Ja, så jeg, jeg håber, at jeg kan gå her og tage en arbejde, som er en visiting- og scientist, eller noget, som jeg kan. Og så kan du arbejde. Hvorfor tror du, at jeg kan sætte den lidt først? Jeg ikke tror, at jeg ikke vil sætte den i Israel. Ja, du er nu. Jeg vil sætte den, at jeg vil sætte den lidt før du vil sætte den i Israel. Og nu, hvordan er det, at den er i denne mark, at du vil være deres presser på dig? Men du har ingen frem eller kolleges i denne universitetet. Du sætter, at du vil sætte den i MIT og Princeton. Ja, det er prøv at teste den, men du er fire. Ja, jeg har for en sådan, jeg tror, jeg vil ikke sætte den i Habe. Habe? Habe? Habe? Habe? Det er familie. Ja, det er en sådan, der er advise, som to presidents for science og så anden. Det er en fantastisk scientist. Hvis du er med en universitet eller noget? Ja, at Princeton, universitet, Princeton, og så anden. Det er interessant. Ja, det er fantastisk. Og så er jeg også, jeg tror, at jeg kan sætte Linsen. Det er også, at jeg kan sætte den i MIT. Ja, jeg kan sætte den i MIT. Det er all known to be skeptical about CO2 in a rational way. I mean, what they are saying is rational, and they are very well. How so? Well, I'm just saying that they have an opinion which is based on rational thought. You know, about science and how science works. Okay, seriously. Now, I want to go back to the CERN thing. What specifically was the goal with that CERN study that you were a part of in the beginning? I mean, the CERN project was founded because of my work. That was the thing was to investigate the effect of cosmic rays on deformation of clouds. And that's why it's called cloud. Is it still going there? They're still doing it. I'm not a part of it anymore. That's another story. I was thrown out of the collaboration. I was in the steering group of the whole thing. I mean, I was the second person that did this. And I contacted CERN in order to get them to do this kind of experiment. Yeah, that would seem like a big funding opportunity. Yes, the funding has to come outside of CERN. Actually, but they, of course, they deliver the beam, the particles and so on and some infrastructure. But what happened was that a lot of, I think, a lot of atmospheric physicists came to be a part of this cloud project. At that time, just before I was kicked out, I was, I was, I was, I was, before you were kicked out of CERN? Yeah, I was trying to say what, what I was doing. I was just like, it's a sort of completely disappeared. But I was part of the. But they adopted, they decided to. Yes, a lot of atmospheric scientists went into the project, became part of the project. And these people were very much, you know, into the CO2 thing, because that's how they get funded. Right. And what happened was that at that time, the movie, the cloud mystery came out. Probably the one you've seen. And that gave a lot of, you know, stir of things. So what happened was that a lot of these people were afraid that if they had me in the collaboration, they might have problems getting funding. So they chose to show me out. And they said that that was because I had an experiment in Copenhagen at that time. I mean, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. So how much progress have they made at CERN? They showed in 2011, they had the main results, showing that ionization is actually helping the formation of new aerosols. It's essentially the same experiment we did in 2007, which is four years before they did it. So they can sort of confirm that ions are producing aerosols. But they also had a group, you know, around CERN, that tried to put these things into their model, to a big model, atmospheric model. And that showed that these small aerosols were not grow to become cloud compensation nuclei. And now we know that it's because they don't have the right physics in their models. So they are sort of trying to say that this effect is not important for climate. So that's where there are at this moment. And since then, they're-- Really, that's the conclusion they came to. It more or less, yeah, it's not particularly important. I think when they came up with the results, even the director of the whole of CERN, was saying that they should be very, very careful with what they said and so on. You know, because the politics and so everybody was, you know, extremely nervous about saying that maybe the cosmic rays are actually affecting the formation of these particles. So I parted my ways with the CERN project many years ago. What do you think would change societally, globally if what you're positing here became just an accepted thing and it wasn't so actively suppressed? If this was something, if you didn't-- if we didn't have all these external financial entwanglements into climate, and this was just something that was naturally allowed to be out there and be discussed by everybody, what kind of effect would that have? No, but I think people would be fascinated with the idea that we are not completely isolated and stars and star formation has influenced everything here on Earth and it will still do it in the future. I mean, it's something-- it's part of life that all of these things and it's not just part of life. It has actually shaped life. I think that's an interesting thing. Totally. But if we-- now, I mean, I really would like to do this thing with this model to test how it works in the present when we have also greenhouse gases because, ideally, it could be that it would say that CO2 is not such a big problem and maybe we shouldn't be so worried about it. That could save a lot of money. Right. Yeah, I mean, my thing is like, the Earth creates these gases and these fossil fuels that we're burning, right? And like, if it's coming from the Earth, it's part of nature. So it's like a part of the fuel that is created by this Earth. It's not like we're extracting some, you know, crazy foreign element from, you know, another galaxy and bringing it here and destroying the Earth. I mean, like, I think everyone would agree across the globe that littering is bad. You don't want to litter, right? You don't want to use the planet as your trash can. But like, we are a fundamental part of the natural balance of this Earth. And, you know, we are just naturally evolving. You know, if you want to argue how fast we're evolving or how good or bad that will be, it's a natural process. And, you know, I think that's become just more apparent now than ever with, you know, all of this talk about AI and stuff like that. Yeah, yeah, yeah, and like super sentience and where that's going to lead. I mean, we should also say, I mean, that CO2, it is a gas of life. Yeah. And because we have an elevated, I mean, humans activity had elevated the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. You've had an enormous greening of the Earth, which is, I mean, planter jeg en meget hervægte, og spesiellt i en. where you're on the edge of deserts and so that's where it's very important that you have more CO2 because you don't have the evaporation of water. If you have more CO2, you don't have to have so many stomata, you know, the cells that take up CO2. The plant is actually, before it makes it leaves, it actually somehow measures how much CO2 is in the atmosphere and then it gets the number of stomata as these cells. So if you have a period where you had very little CO2, you have many holes in the leaf, but that's also so water will fall out of the leaf. Oh wow. What do you have? I asked if deserts have grown greeners since humans have been pumping CO2 and the atmosphere and the answer is yes, absolutely. Deserts and drylands have grown significantly greener over the past few decades. Is this enhanced water efficiency in the arid climates, are able to narrow the pores in their leaves, stomata. Oh wow. But it's also interesting because if you have fossil leaves and you can then actually, when you look at the fossil, you can see how many stomata there are. Oh really? You can count them. So from that you can say something about how much common dioxide there was in the atmosphere. Wow. So you can go back I think if you wonder if it is. Well, I mean, not that long ago, just a few thousand years. I think it's pretty established that like the Sahara was green, right? Yep. And what was the CO2 level like that? Do we know? I'm not sure, but not particularly where there was higher. It must have been higher, right? If the whole Sahara was green and lush. Yeah, but it's within the last 10,000 years, right? So yeah, definitely within the last 10,000 years as far as we know. So if you look at if you look at the ice cores where you can look at the small bubbles with CO2, you can go back the last 10,000 years. Yes. What the CO2 level was and it's more or less constant over that period of time. So it's not it's not probably not really. Yeah. Interesting. And that's interesting also because that's where you have this very beautiful correlation with solar activity. So that cannot be explained by CO2. For CO2 is not changing. Right. Right. Right. Yeah. That's fascinating. You know, there's there's there's been arguments. I don't know if you've ever paid attention to them, but there's there's archaeologists that debate and argue online like how far back humans were on earth. Yeah. Yeah. You know, and there's some people that posit that there could have been some crazy ancient advanced version of humans previously to, you know, 2000, 3000 years ago that were using metallurgy. Okay. And and one of the ways I think they were talking about studying this was taking the bubbles in the ice cores and trying to there's a way they can measure the isotopes in there to figure out if there was metal metallurgy on the planet or like metal production or something like this. Have you ever heard of that? No. But yeah. And another way they they try to study that is like by studying the seat, the continental shelves and seeing like, you know, studying ancient shipwrecks. Oh, yeah. And so it's about archaeology, I guess. Yeah. There's just a big debate in archaeology about, you know, archaeologists want to kind of like constict to the the general consensus story of the history of humanity. Yeah. And like when Hunter Gathers came about when the first actual civilizations came about. And then there was recently that discovery of not recently, but relatively recently, of Gobackley Tepi in Turkey. It's an ancient site where they believe that there was at least some sort of a civilization there. They weren't just Hunter Gathers because they were creating these huge, they have these, you want to image a Gobackley Tepi like these big T pillars that are constructed beautifully in these like circles. And it could have been done by by Hunter Gathers. So they had to like push back the timeline a little bit, right? And that, that was, that's Gobackley Tepi, what they've excavated so far. So there's people that argue and you would call these people, you know, these people are considered alternative historians that want to push back the scientific narrative. And, you know, there's, there's academic archaeologists that argue vehemently against this stuff and say this is heresy to talk about this. And, you know, it's just, it's interesting because, you know, archaeology is another one of those sciences where it's not like a, it's not like a science you can measure in a lab, right? You can't like, you can't weigh it and measure it specifically. It's like, archaeology is very much dependent on the story that we tell of history, the history of humans. Right? And then that's, you know, it's kind of like a soft science in that way. Okay. But it's just interesting, you know, the, there's this, the reason I'm bringing this up is because that I've noticed the same sort of clash between ideologies of different narratives that people want to spend based on human history. And, you know, it's the same thing with climate change. And I'm sure this is, you know, you can extrapolate this into many different sciences, many different, sure, many different areas of research. I mean, one of the reasons, what I've been very, you know, sure to do is to, to publish all my results in, you know, very good journals. And so you have this peer review and everything because in that sense, you cannot attack me for not doing the right. Well, you know, that's a problem too because peer review isn't that reliable. Peer review is one of those things that we look at as this holy grail, right? Of being, well, when, when you are inesited, you know, it's not, but, right? You know, because I've had, I've, I've run into people that have, you know, been PhDs in certain areas of research and published books that have been peer reviewed. And then like the peer review will be overwhelmingly negative on, you know, on that person's book or that person's research that they've done. And then you go in to read the peer review and you find out the person who did the review on this piece of work, this was not even their expertise. They were in a completely different scientific lane. Yeah, yeah. Right? So it kind of like throws the whole thing out, you know, it's, this whole idea of peer review is like this gatekeeping. It, in some sense, it can be, yeah. And in that sense, it can be bastardized, you know, just like anything else, especially in climate, they can, yeah, problem. I mean, some, some, some papers to be honest, it took more than two years to get them out. And I mean, through all kinds of problems that you had to overcome. Yeah. Well, Henry, thank you for doing this, man. This has been a fascinating talk and I've learned a ton. Is there anywhere that people can go online to find more of your work or to contact you or anything like that? They can contact me on my email. Okay. Should we do a website or anything? Or I don't have a website. Okay. I mean, it's just part of you. Do you want to publicly give your email? You're probably going to get tons of emails if you give that out publicly. It does, it's fine. Okay. Okay. Go ahead and tell me your email. It's
[email protected]. Okay. Well, we'll, we'll make sure that we link that in the description below for people. Yes. So they can actually copy paste it. It might work for a few more weeks. A few, oh, is that tied to your university? Yeah, but I will see if I can make a forward to my new email. Okay. Cool. And if you have another email or whatever, you want to let us know between now and the time this is published, we can make sure we put that below. Okay. That's good. I know. Yeah. Thanks. Perfect. Yeah. Thanks again, man. I really appreciate it. That my pleasure. All right. Good night, folks. [Music] [Music]
PodcastTranscript AI