I've not got an issue with is it us or isn't it. I have an issue with us being told we need to be more "Carbon neutral" BUT the politicians don't actually do anything about it, they just take more money and MOVE the carbon footprint to another country to then say that we are doing out bit.
that is a very valid concern. we need governments to take this disaster seriously and make real efforts to restore our planet and prevent the further destruction of it. we must make them change
I get what you mean. I think that we definitly do have responsibility and should all try to reduce carbon since significant change can only happen if most people participate. It obviously is frustrating to see governments and companies to continue as before though, or also seeing rich people blast a bunch of CO2 into the athmosphere for a 10 minute trip with their private jets. Those are really significant factors that need to change, too, not just the general population. But the sad reality is that if you are wealthy and got power in this system, you will suffer less than many others that are less privileged and for example will have to leave their homes and countries or die as a result of climate change if we don't act now. Great, recent example which has angered a lot of people in germany: Just last month, a german company called RWE demolished a village called Lützerath in order to dig for estimated 280 million tons of carbon beneath it. They persuaded the people living there into selling their homes to them, and even though they got compensated, many felt pressured into that decision and aren't happy with it now. Lützerath also stopped getting supported by things like good public transport, kindergardens or supermarkets in order to make living there even less attractive. The government of northrhine-westphalia (the german state which Lützerath belonged to) allowed the demolishion after making deals with RWE. After harsh criticism, they started telling the population that we would need that carbon because of the energy crisis in correlation to the war in Ukraine, which is opposed by scientific institutes. Germsny actually managed to stop being dependent on russian oil, carbon and gas and stopped buying those in the beginning of 2023. We have enough reserves, too. Furthermore, the government acts like it's okay to demolish Lützerath because RWE has to leave the other villages in that area alone, like that's a fair compromise. Lützerath is even treated as a symbol for climate protection, which ignores the fact that it's more than that and that the decision has an actual impact. Our planet doesn't care about such compromises and symbols though, and even if we only use the carbon below Lützerath, germany still won't be able to meet the goals of the paris agreement on climate goals from 2015. Protesters occupied the village over multiple years but got evacuated by the police this january as a order of the government, so RWE can get to work. During the evacuation, 35.000 people also went there to protest. Police violence took place and the single officers didn't have individual numbers to be identifiable but instead only had group numbers, which makes it even harder to sue an officer for violence (besides the fact that it's already extremely hard to get justice when you literally have to go to the police for that). Companies such as RWE really try to profit as much off of carbon until they finally _have_ to stop in 2030, instead of taking responsibility asap and actually starting to reduce the use of carbon and extendimg climate friendly, renewable energy sources as much as possible. And our government protects these companies instead the future of humanity. We all need to start working together to solve this problem, or at least reduce the consequences as much we still can in order to protect this planet, but sadly it doesn't look too good.
@@PansyPunx I think if ALL Governments around the world stopped using private jets for their meetings and just used the internet, that alone would be a saving worth more than millions of people turning off a light or TV or doing 1 less trip in the car. If they want us to start, they need to start showing some real concern at the top, because what they're saying doesn't match with anything they're doing. Like buying up all the cheap properties by the sea where they have scared off the residents. Doesn't seem quite right that after saying we'll be under water in 12 years. They're either lying to us or know something we don't. And for someone like Obama to buy that property for millions is a kick in the teeth.
@@PansyPunx Do you actually believe that adding to a wisp of a trace gas, by a hundred parts per _million_ or so will cause a climate catastrophe? If so... Your Indoctrination is Complete. Carry on.
The science is clear: Man made climate change is a fact. The only uncertainly left in the science is how bad the effect will be. But the science is also says we can't take the risk to wait for the science to become more precise. Anyone that says we should do nothing is deliberate ignoring all the science for the sake of short term convenience. And what we actually do about it is inherently political.
They've been saying this for over 50 years. The ozone, a coming ice age, al gore saying by 2016 the coast will be underwater and most recently aoc saying we only have 12 years back in 2018
@@MineralGPK it only needs to happen once after tipping point reaches... Many islands are already under water And oceans did grow by 400 feet after last glacial maximum Go read the story of great flood in ur bible and every other culture... Where do u think that water came from?
honestly love the way you talk about this "the people who discovered how the climate naturally changes over time are climate scientists, the same group of people who discovered the climate change we're currently facing is human caused." is kind of a connection that should be obvious but it really hits different when spoken out loud. kind of a fun realization seeing how the reason the example comment at the start of the video knows about it in the first place are the same people he's trying to use that argument against.
This is actually a mistake in the video. Exxon found out about climate change more than 40 years ago. Climate scientist later on simply researched further into it.
@@Ashitaka255 exept Milankovitch Cycles are some misleading informations like it was only in some parts of europe was short time changing climate it was warm not only in europe in XI century was so warm that wikings make farming colony on greenland in XI century was global warmig that way greenland has name greenland after wiking left because get much colder after in XVII century it was so cold that they call it litle ice age He also downplay influence of volcanos on climate 1815 Mount Tambora eruption and year 1816 was call Year Without a Summer far over 100,000 people died worldwide from hunger. And Politics who shout about global warming buying big mansions for tens of milions dolars on florida beach which supose to be soon under water... florRegis-Michel Leclerc make good point about electric vehicles, wind turbines or, worse, solar panel and batteries? Long term pollution of water bodies, air and soil. I add to this that electrity to charge electric cars is made from fossil fuels and we dont have electric grid to charge many milions of electric cars also will be milions tons of toxic waste from bateries and solar panels we need clean way to store energy when sun is not shining and no wind even industry still use fossil fuels only way we can now produce clean energy is atomic electric plant it produce small amount toxic waste which can be safe to store and is even safer than wind turbines including charnobyl and fukushima its lest dead for megawat than any other electric plants. but warriors with global warming want to close atomic electric plants.....
@@kmoses582 Did you even watch the video? The argument is that the climate scientists, being the ones who discovered the natural cycles in the first place, already took them into account when coming to the conclusion that the current climate change crisis is man-made.
Hey! I am from Brazil and I loved this class. We are going through difficult times because of the tragedy in Rio Grande do Sul and your class explained a lot. Thank you
Ola, Nice, Experiments.Eles os Poderosos, transferiram o carbon footprint pra outro Paiz. Experimentos em Eletromagnetismo. Com resultados aumentados e imprevisiveis. Vc viu microrsplosoes nas Nuvens no Radar? So cego NAO ve o experimentos. A Fab e o M. Da DEFESA devem ser reativados. A Ministra precisa espandir conhecimentos. Paizes evoluidos tem pos- doutourado em Clima Atmosferico. Eles ja APLICAM conhecimentos na area da DEFESA, Clima,Economica e Agronegocio. Sou gaucho, mas me fui pro Exterior a decades. E triste ver o que aconteceu no Brasil. Os partidos foram forjados pelo exterior. NAO Sao o reflexo do povo Brasileiro. God Bless!
The biggest problem that many people just comment whatever is in their heads without thinking for a second whenever it's really true. It often takes just 10 seconds to Google to find an answer, but many simply skipping that step...
@@Joseph-vt5um So what....? Somehow deniers always miss that there's *FAR* more money in big industry and fossil fuels. Following the logic of the OP, one should not believe them a single thing.
@enderwiggi The Earth cools down after every sunset and warms with every sunrise, the degrees depend on weather and wind patterns not hunan activity, human activity polution gets wiped out by natural processes, human activities do not impact the atmospheric systems.
This is not simple. I've taken courses in meteorology, planetology and planetary science and everything here is included. More detail can be given on all of these which are based on physics included spectroscopy, atomic physics and quantum field theory. One thing left out is the feedback process of the melting of polar ice. Ice reflects 75 percent of the sunlight while water only 4 to 40 percent depending on the angle of sunlight. Water absorbs more light so the more than the north polar ice cap melts, the warmer it gets in that region due to more surface area of water and less ice. It is important to know that it's not just science, but physics. Meteorology and Climatology are based on physics, chemistry, geology, geochemistry which is chemistry and geology, oceanography, spectroscopy which is based on atomic physics and quantum field theory, astrophysics and astronomy. This video does have the correct physics.
@@isabellach oh thank you so much! No it was not too painful. A little itchy. But now I'm in the afterlife and damn it's pretty kewl. Free internet all the time. I mean that's like a big perk you know??
2 роки тому+120
In Hungary, our government just started forcing cutting out trees in a never before seen rate, and our way of handling natural values has never been good either. It's so sad.
Greetings from Germany, where we also have a growing populist and right wing part of our population. Mostly countryside, religious and not too well educated. It makes me sad to see what is becoming of hungary, the country that kind of started the opening of the iron curtain. Why are people voting for their own disadvantage? I speak with colleagues from Poland and Czech Republic and they also don't get why people vote for these authoritarian governments.
@@andreaswagner8356 Because nationalism and the fostering of a persecution complex towards the outside world is a great way to control the populace and keep them mad at those outside their borders rather than their leaders within them. After all, it's not the fault of Hungary's government policies for why you are poor, no, your problems all stem from our external enemies, like a foreign, Hungarian, Jewish billionaire!
Remember when there was that solar flare that wiped out all of the pagers (pre-cell phones)? I had my pager that day and thought nothing of it, but all the rest of the doctors in the hospital were blissfully unaware that the Emergency Room lit up and the nurses were screaming "Where are all the doctors? I've paged EVERYBODY!"
Now, imagine if we went through a Carrington-level event. This was a *MASSIVE* solar flare that affected telegraph equipment in 1859, caused Aurora Borealis displays as far south as San Diego, sparks and fires at battery installations at telegraph stations. People were reported to even be able to use telegraphs without any power connected at all during the flare. If a Carrington-level event were to happen today, chaos would result. It'd cause blackouts, damage the power-grid, and our satellite networks.
@@DrachenGothik666 Also only pre 1980 vehicles would still run. Restomods? Probably not. I do not think my 2004 Envoy or the 2016 Trax is hardened enough to run after a 1859 style flare event. And the microwave in the kitchen also may not survive.
@@DrachenGothik666 It would only affect the area of the planet facing the sun though. Solar winds don't wrap around the planet, they go in straight lines. ;)
I think you have to mention that is not all of us guilty of global warming. It is mainly the rischest 10% of the people who consume most of the energy and emit most of the CO2 too. The poorest 50% of the people hardly emit any carbon. This is why economic inequality also has a big impact in our climate, scientists say...
I appreciate the vid and the explanation. But why do you use a graph at 3.00 min, where the distance down to -1.5% is equal to the distance up of 0.5%? According to the graph, the temperature dropped 1.5% from 1880 to 1910. From the 1940s to the 1970s it seems to have returned to the temperature of 1880. Then the temperature goes up approximately 0.8%, however the distance going up in the graph is three time that of the distance going down per 1%. As a result, the temperature going up from the 1970s seems visually much more than the shift down from 1880 to 1910, but the real temperature shift, according to your graph, has been 0.8% up compared to 1.5% down. Why did you make this skewd comparison?
To trick you into thinking that the temperature has dramatically increased in the last 40 to 50 years when the truth is it hasn't increased anymore than the models show the standard increase due to the fact that we are coming out of an Ice Age still the whole thing is about funneling money into corporations and large interest groups and transfer wealth from poor middle class people in the world to the wealthy
@@woodchipgardens9084 "according to the Video host geology has less force than man made forces." Please cite in the video with a time stamp, when that was actually said. I'll wait.
I find it rather amusing how you can still see the exhaustion and frustration in his eyes, even while he animates his face to be Bill Nye levels of Enthusiasm for education
I was taught in school that the Earth has gone through multiple ice age cycles. The last one having just ended, though not sure what caused the previous ice-age events.
I was taught in school that the Earth has gone through multiple ice age cycles. The last one having just ended, though not sure what caused the previous ice-age events. Wayne Patterson --- You are mistaken, because the Late Cenozoic Ice Age extending from about 34 million years ago to the Present day and the Quaternary Glaciation 2.5 million years ago to the Present Day have not "just ended." What "just ended was the Last Glacial Maximum ~20,000 years ago to ~6,000 years ago when we entered the Holocene Climatic Optimum and interglacial period which will end with the next Glacial Maximum Period in the ongoing Late Cenozoic Ice Age. The causes are a combination of events with the continuing reductions of Atmospheric mass from greater than 100 atmospheres to less than 1 atmosphere in the future due to natural biological sequestration of Carbon dioxide being one of the key factors.
Per definition we are still in a deep ice age. It's defined by at least one pole being glaciered and currently both are. Plus we are just getting close to the roman climate optimum. Climate change is real, but it's in no way proven it's man-made. Also if you care so much about climate, stop the CO2 nonesense and start caring about the seas! Simply because of the curvature of earth, we would reflect way more than would stay inside, if CO2 really had such an effect. Or did the earth heated up last time a volcano erupted?
Humans ofcourse!They are the ones who do this,aint it so??No,the ones who are calling to lessen the CO 2 to prefent climate change are the ones who dont know nothing!!Years and years they are calling that the sea rise is steadily higher and the global temperature is steadily rising!And guess what ?The temperature globally isnt rising!The rising off sea level is still the same as it was for centuries!When there was no rising off CO 2!!
The last Ice age ended around 10,000 years ago. Ice core studies have shown it basically goes 100,000 years ice age/10,000 year warm period/100k Ice age/10k warm...repeated over and over as far as they have records for. So id say we are getting closer to another ice age. So what we need is MORE carbon dioxide. As the planet is actually cooling down. What happened to all the Acid rain? That was some genuine BS!
Break the connection between Climate change, money, and power. Wait five years and see if there is still interest in climate change or if we shift our focus onto the next money or power grab. Humans have very short memories. Can humans do in a year (non-nuclear) what a single volcano can do to make a year without a summer?
20'000 years ago, Europe had the "Weichselian glaciation". The continent was covered by a 2000 by 3000 kilometer ice sheet that was up to 3 kilometers thick. The sea levels were 120 meters lower than they are today. No one knows for sure why this cold age ended. What we do know for sure is, that humans couldn't possibly have been the reason. Resonable climate change sceptics won't deny that humans influence the climate, they just say that human influence is tiny when compared to natural events.
Heat is always temporary, night time is always cooling, winter is always freezing and wild fires melt glaciers. 23.44 degree tilt determines/gaurantees that nothing can change unless we see a Volcano or Forest fire.
" they just say that human influence is tiny when compared to natural events" Which is.... nonsense. Globally averaged, change in temperature 20 000 to 10 000 years ago was about 4 °C. *Our* influence could cause a change by 4 °C in less than 200 years!
@@enderwiggin1113 You're contradicting yourself. The influence of things such as the Milankovitch cycles is literally astronomical compared to that of humans. You're acting like it is certain that the current warming is to 100% caused by humans, which it is not. It might as well be the natural continuation of the end of the ice age.
@@dh510 " is literally astronomical compared to that of humans." No, it's not. Those cycles only change the pattern of insolation, not insolation in total. That the climate changes because of them is only because of feedbacks, such as emission of CO2 from the oceans. Which takes us back at the influence of CO2 emissions of us.
I always feel like the narrative that says that climate change is not our fault, is fueled by a desire to keep living our lives the same way we are doing now. Continue buying stuff, producing stuff, driving cars everywhere. This denial of the facts seems also fueled by our general innate resistance to change and our desire for continued short term economic profit 🤷♀️ If everyone changed their ways all at once, how are these climate change causing industries continue to make money? Naw, better to say it is not your fault so please keep consuming as you’ve been consuming for the past decades instead of changing 🤷♀️😑
@Nushia But people and executives run corporations, the same people who are selfish and want higher profits and income are the same people who only care about their lives. Therefore it is not in their interest to help future executives so why would they take a hit to the business by changing people's lifestyles when it will only help other people. They'll be dead before things get bad enough that their money can't keep them comfortable. Basically, although we often think of Capitalism as an entity, any idea of preparing the world for the same status quo disappears if people aren't there to benefit from it. Edit: damnit this descended into a ramble. I am just saying that, no it isn't necessarily in the interest of capitalism to keep people alive and comfortable in a hellish future because people are selfish and eventually they will be dead and won't benefit. What matters to them is people buying now and the best way to do that is keep them living and buying exactly the same way we are now.
@@2KOOLURATOOLGaming I think it is a little more fundamental than people just being greedy. Capitalism is a teetering house of cards that requires continued growth to not fall apart entirely. Businesses need investment to keep the doors open and we are in a situation where profit margins are generally paper thin. Investment is how economic planning happens for the most part and investment will completely dry up in a system where nobody expects any return on investment and wealthy investors don't exist. And if that happens you will have a system that is incapable of innovation and providing for people's basic needs. I think the denialism is partly because some people have thought through the consequences of addressing climate change and realized it's incompatible with the continuation of capitalism and/or requires a huge intervention by the government, which they also don't like. They turn towards a kind of conspiracy that this is all made up by the left because they don't really have a solid market-based solution.
It's also about political leaning and religious beliefs, let's be honest. Deniers are listening to politicians who share their views on various topics, if that politician is wrong about this, they would have to acknowledge they could also be wrong about the other stuff they agree with. And that political side is likely not actively doing anything to combat climate change. So they can either acknowledge climate change is real and therefore acknowledge that they aren't doing anything to fix it to deny it's real. Denying it is a real problem justifies inaction.
Generally, readers of the Press can be classified into three groups: First, those who believe everything they read; Second, those who no longer believe anything; Third, those who critically examine what they read and form their judgments accordingly. I shall never believe that what is founded on lies can endure for ever. I believe in truth. I'm sure that, in the long run, truth must be victorious
Truth is winning and humanity is prevailing over tyranny. This is happening despite the fact that most people still haven't even realized we are at war. It only takes a small minority of awake people to turn it around, and that's what's happening. Covid was the wake up call. It's glorious.
Nope. Every single time it's not 20°C and partly cloudy it's man-made climate change. I do you have an urge to put on a tank top? Climate change. Did it rain yesterday? Climate change. Did it not rain yesterday, which means there was a 24 hour drought? Climate change.
It would be worth mentioning it you can explain all the fenomena that happens behind and why it only work in a really little temporary scale and don't affect in a deeply way the climatics dynamic of the world
@@davidcaro1229 Which phenomena are you talking about...? The climatic effect of vulcanoes is mainly their aerosols - which are 'washed' from the atmosphere (by rain) in months to a few years.
Even if you take the debate out of climate change, what could be the harm in trying to clean up the environment we all live in, other than it might effect some billionaires profit margin, but what good is wealth without clean water to drink, fresh clean air to breathe, healthy natural food to eat and wildlife to appreciate and possibly learn from? Just because one arrogant neighbor chooses to live like an ignorant slob and doesn’t maintain their property, throws garbage, and other junk, in their yard, but still thinks they “know everything” about any subject (from looking at tiktok,), should everyone else just lower their standards and give up trying to take care of their own? Like it or not, High Tide Is Coming, isn’t it better to at least try our best to slow it down for the sake of future generations? Where is the harm in trying?
In the name of climate, they are promoting their agenda as if they are control our food, farming, property and no job in future, basically we will become useless eaters in the name of climate SORRY FOR MY BAD ENGLISH
That is never the debate. Everyone wants clean water, better planet. These jag offs want to spend trillions to SOLVE NOTHING. climate changes. And anyone who says it’s our fault and we can fix it is criminal and evil. Please research how much co2 levels were in the Jurassic period. And how well plants, insects and dinosaurs experienced their greatest growth.
the harm in trying comes from politicians. unfortunately your argument falters at the "what could be the harm" for that exact reason. left-leaning politicians are now forcing us to be more "carbon neutral" to reduce the amount of it even if it's doing virtually nothing. vehicles that use gas produce so little co2 compared to natural events such as volcanos. your whole arrogant snob neighbor thing is a different ordeal altogether, and i don't disagree that people should take common sense precautions such as using a trash bin, not littering out of pure laziness and having a recycle bin.
Where are all these "environmentalists" when it comes to actual pollution? like the slave labor and horrendous pollution in cobalt mining? Green Tech is NO WHERE near GREEN
Are you going to tell china , usa , India to lower their emissions..?? They make up 50% of the whole global emissions!! So unless you can tell them you ain't solving "climate change" . It does not matter what you do or say it will not solve a GLOBAL issue so say if a country Like canada has a total of 1 % of global emission . Say they start cutting their emissions by 50% lol that is only .5 of the global emissions.. ??? Like do the math ..
co-friendly building practices, integrating energy-efficient designs and materials, contribute substantially to reducing the carbon footprint of construction, heralding a shift toward more sustainable infrastructure.
This -18 degrees Celsius without a greenhouse effect would be the case assuming the Earth albedo would be identical to the current one. In reality it would be way lower due to the ice and snow, as would be the temperature. In fact during the periods of a snowball Earth, the poles were so cold that the condensation of CO2 was occuring there
@@johndennis5233 I know this derivation and the assumptions used in it. This -18 deg. C mean global temperature is obtained by inserting a current value of the Earth's albedo into that formula derived from the energy balance, with the outgoing energy given by Stefan-Boltzmann law and assuming that the Earth is a perfect blackbody in the longwave regime, but not taking the greenhouse effect into the account in this derivation. But of course one can expect that on such colder Earth a value of its albedo can be be greater (as one could anticipate a snowball Earth-like state). It would decrease the absorbed energy flux, thus resulting in a temperature lower that that -18 deg. C
@@johndennis5233 Seems OK with this value of an albedo :) Although honestly I cannot say what will be the exact Bond albedo of such a planet, it requires some complicated calculations to determine. But this value would also be my rough guess, though it is of course to be taken with a grain of salt
The argument I hear alot is not a denial of change or even denial that it's caused by humans, but that the rate of change is alarmist and that the earth will be able to absorb any change we throw at it and we will all be fine. I do not agree.
Given that the Earth has survived unknown numbers of life-ending meteors slamming into it and countless volcanic eruptions that covered the sky with ash for years...yeah...
Electric school bus caught fire during morning run in Huntsville, everyone escaped unharmed when melting plastic odor appeared before the flames engulfed the vehicle, EVs catch fire without any accident occurring.
Even if it were completely natural, that doesn't change the fact that it will be devastating for us if we don't do something about it now. We're the first species that's been able to understand it or that has the ability to control the climate. For the sake of our species, we should deal with it, regardless of the cause.
Control it is probably a bit strong but maybe influence the climate to be less extreme? Yours is the first sensible comment I've come across. Every body else seems to be politically motivated to move the blame to someone else. Imagine if the dinosaurs argued over who is going to fix the asteroid problem because it's 'not their fault'. Looks like we are still a long way away from actually implementing a possible solution.
@user-yy5or8lu8v Who says that humans have to be destructive to influence climate? Housing and buildings influence climate all around the world? It's only a case of 'all or nothing' if politics tells you that those are the only two choices. Moderation is usually a decent compromise for those who are actually looking for a working solution. For example an 8W light bulb uses one seventh of the power(energy use impact) of an equivalent 60W light bulb. You still have an impact, just a much smaller impact; but it does mean that you can still have lighting. Telling people to use low power consumption light bulbs is much more doable than scaremongering people to believe that they need to not have any lighting whatsoever in order to avert 'a total disaster'. But then it is easier to watch others not have lighting from your well lit home because you choose to blame them.
@user-yy5or8lu8v We can and do change the local climate with our non-insanely drastic actions. eg dams will change the local water cycle, or the excessive burning fossil fuels in Britain resulted in Scandinavian countries having more acidic rain. The key is to have a balance that allows for a decent quality of life. We can strive to be less wasteful in the way we do things, but we don't need the hypocritical finger pointing. Making products have a longer useful life is the 'LED lightbulb' upgrade for consumer products; but for political reasons it has little backing as companies don't want to meet consumer demand by producing less.
As a meme enjoyer, I love it when you include little meme snippets. However as an Environmental Science student, it's almost frustrating that I have to stop videos to go and see where a meme is from. I'm looking at you, jiggle jiggle.
The UK used to be warmer for the Romans. When the Romans ruled Britain, known as the Roman Warm Period or Roman Climatic Optimum, is characterized by evidence of warmer conditions. This period, approximately from 250 BC to AD 400, was marked by unusually warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic. During this time, there are indications that the climate was mild enough to allow for the cultivation of grapevines in regions such as northern England, which would typically be too cool for such crops today. The warmth of the Roman period is supported by various types of evidence, including tree ring data, which suggest that the climate was warmer than previously thought, potentially making the cultivation of certain crops like grapes in northern England feasible.
"The UK used to be warmer for the Romans" Even if true (I've never seen a source for this) - so what?? Local climate is influence by *loads* of factores, this tells us nothing about the rest of the world. "was marked by unusually warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic." Indeed. But not globally. See Neukom et al (2019) 'No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era'
Humans are part of the climate equation. The big question is can we move the needle more than non-human climate forces and whether those moves are detrimental to humanity. Do we think we can stop the next ice age?
Well, we are already in an ice age but I know what you mean. We probably can't stop long-term climate change, but we can certainly stop accelerating it from what should be a few million years to a couple hundred.
@@CHMichael if tomato's are growing in Alaska, that means the places that grow tomato's now would start to look like deserts. The economic and humanitarian consequences of that should scare you a LOT more then a ice age that, even without any human caused climate change, would be 50.000 years into the future.
Except in North America co2 increases in Winter. Then drops quickly in spring all the way to end of Autumn at the 45th parallel. So does co2 circulate from China, Russia, Europe and the US? Probably. Or does it go to Southern hemisphere for a summer vacation? NASA does record it and it does happen every year in the northern hemisphere. Why is co2 added to a greenhouse environment? Maybe that ancient 2012 prophesy is not about the planet's climate. It may be about society imploding.
@@warrenpuckett4203 It goes into plantmatter (leaves, yearly plants ect) that starts growing in spring and summer, and later decays again in autumn and winter, or eaten and breathed out. That's just part of the natural carbon cycle.
Spammer. I've studied the history extensively. Vulcanic activity cause about 100times less CO2 than humans. Solar activity has been decreasing for decades. All of this is adressed in the video - why don't you actually watch it?
I believe they say it's not the fact of temperature trends oscillating, it's the rate at which they are currently changing. Over a couple hundred years vs over thousands of years. Many ecosystems and species need that time to adapt. That's my understanding
It’s really frustrating that people are still questioning this when this year alone we’ve seen the devastating effects of natural catastrophes intensified by climat change. And if you don’t « buy » the reality of climate change, biodiversity decline on its own should terrify us.
Maybe if politicians weren’t over exaggerating and pushing ridiculous talking points it would be more acceptable. The push for “green” energy and EVs is more damaging to the environment than gas combustion vehicles.
@@ivermectin7928 i absolutely agree! Even if EVs are more efficient, we need LESS. less cars, less production, less consomption and a much greater stress on the responsibility of companies and large corporations rather than the current focus on individuals turning off the tap when brushing their teeth
@@Designotherwise EVs aren’t more efficient. Strip mining harmful materials with slave labor is bad enough, yet the electric provided to power EVs is made by coal plants and other polluting means. “Green” energy products are being tossed in landfills because they can’t be recycled or it’s too hard to. None of these people care about “climate change”. They care about an agenda and control.
@@ivermectin7928 yes of course, I was talking about the efficiency of the evs engine bs a combustion engine. In that sense it is much more efficient but of course everything you said after I agree with
The most important fact I learned in this video: it actually is called a "bald-faced lie!!!" I've been saying "bold-faced" for something like 40 years without any clue how wrong I was!
well if you havent figured out by now that mainstream lies constantly on just about everything for profits, then theres no hope for you. you could take all the greenhouse gases away and the climate will still change because this big sphere we are on is rotating on its axis and true north is migrating at the rate of 50 miles per year towards siberia, and the earth is only 8500 miles in circumference, whats 8500 divided by 50? since we have learned about pole shifts in the last 50 years how long do you think we have been slowly rotating on our axis? it doesnt mean we are going to get destroyed or anything, we have been goin nice and slow so far, and if it keeps up we will be fine, but eventually cold areas will move into warm ones and warm areas will move in to cold ones, like maine will end up were florida for an example, so ya the climate is going to change no matter what, scientist were talking about this 40 years ago, do even realize that 2/3 ds of the land in the world is empty. now i dont know if you follow elon musk, but he claims that the 7.9 billion we have now could fit in the size of new york, so the world is really under populated, not to mention that only 4 countries or so that have a less then 1% birth rate, the other 150+ countries have more deaths then births, so we arent really getting bigger, that is coming to an end, we will actually start going down in numbers. i dare you to check for yourself, a scientist that has studied the weather for over 70 years says the average temp hasnt increased or decreased more then 6 degrees in the last 100 years, hardly sounds like much global warming to me, i personally know the guy, i think ill take his word over some brainwashed twat that just repeating what the marxists have been crying about since the 70's. slow pole shift, expect it, its happening now!
@@ericvulgate "Hear, Hear” is the correct expression that means an agreement with someone's point. It's short for “hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!”
The big elephant in the room that is COMPLETELY remiss in this video is that humans have only released 1.4 parts CO2 to 10,000 parts atmosphere. To claim that this TINY amount of CO2 is altering Earth's climate is like trying to turn a molehill into a mountain.
@@tww7822 I've been alive for 6 decades and the approach of human caused climate catastrophe looks to me to be right on time. Depends if you get your "predictions" from the tabloids and other dumbed down and sensationalist sources, or not.
I'm not the only one who thinks Volcanos cause excessive precipitation and cooling trends lasting for two years, I have heard this theory from many sources and this is why California goes in and out of drought conditions.
And things being done in undemocratic fashion without the population either being told and asked to vote on it. It is only those investigating what is going on that can outline the real truths
I have a problem with massive multi-billion dollar companies wanting to keep providing extra carbon while blaming your car and your cheeseburger, trying to take both away from you while they buy "carbon credits" to keep polluting. also false or misleading advertising which fails to point out that you make a much bigger carbon footprint getting a new electric vehicle if you don't keep that one for over 6 years of driving. Or politicians who refuse to work on upgrading the power grid, tell us NOT to charge EVs, but tell us that we HAVE TO buy one, when they are still full of TOXIC lithium batteries while Humans have SUCH a spotless record when it comes to waste management (see pacific garbage patch). Lithium Apocalypse everyone ?
@Nushia I have not heard of the salt battery, I have heard of the molten sodium solar mirror power plants and carbon batteries which they are still struggling to construct.
The carbon break-even point depends on how your electricity is generated which depends on where you live. If you live somewhere that still relies on coal powerplants, getting an EV isn't the planet-saving power move it would be if you lived somewhere using wind, solar, geothermal, or hydro. In the US, the break-even point is about 25k miles which is roughly 2.2 years of driving (Scientific American, March 2024).
@@nuynobi Thank you for putting in more effort than I did, providing improved precision and nuance over my vague generalization. I was more worried about my bacon cheeseburger future. Priorities.
Totally. EVs are such a scam. Lithium batteries are incredibly dangerous, you still have to charge your car with fossil fuels unless you wanna wait a few months and you need to mine them. The future of transport is public! Railway networks are absolutely amazing and incredibly efficient. You don’t need batteries for them (I think) and even if you did they carry so many people it’s ok, as well as that you waste very little energy because it’s steel on steel so there is very little friction. Driverless cars, busses and other solutions are not the future. Especially not driverless cars! Cities should also try and safely incorporate tram systems for efficient city trace and metros for large cities. Governments need to be investing on nuclear reactors because it’s much safer than traditional power plants and nuclear plants and the energy levels are INSANELY efficient. While not renewable they are zero emission and are probably the only power source capable of saving the planet because renewable energy is not advanced enough yet. In the future nuclear waste MAY be able to be sent to the moon to keep the planet safe and then later after we have all this spare nuclear power we can try setting up solar farms on planets closer to the sun and maybe one day a ‘Dyson swarm’ though that’s pretty far in the future. Edit: According to my grandfather who has worked (and still does) in the car industry for many years the protocol at a dealership if a lithium battery sets on fire is evacuate the building and wait. There is currently no way to put out a lithium fire other than waiting.
But Al Gore, friend of earth, sworn enemy of mankind and big cheif of the Gaia worshippers prophesied that the North and South pole would be melted by now.
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” -Orwell, “1984”… when the government(s) and “scientists” tell me “the science is settled” I think of this quote
Do you also think about this quote if someone tells you that the science is settled regarding the questions if the Sun circles the Earth or not and if atoms exist?
Yet here you are using a computer, trusting those pesky scientists have got it right and you can post your silly messages globally in real time. Let's just call you Mr Cliche'. You have a book full of cliche's and you are not afraid to use them. 🤣
The thing that always gets me is that people think they know better about the climate of the earth than people who study it for their entire career, overconfidence is the biggest reason people distrust science.
@@trumpelstiltzkin9068 I dunno, where? please enlighten me with your accurate sources, data, and explanations as to why these sources have any incentive to promote climate change action.
@@LineOfThy climate studies are funded by government grants and do I really need to explain to you why the government might want to push a climate change agenda
what is the optimal temperature for earth? (for the planet, not for humans, we are only passengers here) i dont think i have ever heard anyone comment about that. is a little warmer better? is a little colder better? why? is there an average over the last x million years and we use that for a measuring stick? i have a hundred questions about sciency stuff... my teachers hated when i raised my hand in school.
No one knows the absolute average Temp of Earth. Our ancestors failed us by not keeping record of such things. All we can do now is make a best guess from the data that is collected from Ice Cores in the northern and southern poles and a few other methods. As you can see, we have no accurate way of determining ancient past average temperatures on a global scale. It's all slight of hand.
@@SkepticalUSVeteran The only measurement that can provide an average temperature is the satellite system operated by the U.S. gov't. The satellites are in polar orbits that take them around the Earth ≈14X every 24 hours. They cover every square meter of the planet every day, and their platinum resistence thermocouple (PRT) sensors are calibrated to a primary physical standard. The measurements are availble publicly, and if there was the slightest rise in global warming it would have been measured. In fact, the gov't satellites satellites show a slight _cooling_ trend began around 2014. As you wrote, there is no "average" earth temperature. The planet has been in a gradual cooling trend since the Holocene took it out of the last Ice Age. That cooling trend continues. Furthermore, CO2 has _no measurable effect_ on global temperatures. If it did the satellite data would have shown it, after the recent 50%+ rise in atmospheric CO2.
Your eye-rolling tone/body language. Few you are trying to reach are going to watch past the 1 minute mark. Being condescending is the greatest gift you could ever give the other side.
You know what's condescending? People who claim (implicitely or explicitely) that thousands upon thousands of honestly working scientists have either been dumb or fraudsters - for decades.
@@veritas2222 I sympathize with you, but hopefully you can separate the message from the messenger. It's not worth it to reject a good message just to spite someone :(
I’m confused about the graph you used there at 3:04. 3 steps for positive temperature changes, but only 1 step for the negative changes.. this looks like a trick to make it look like the temperature changes more in one specific direction.. plus it all started at 1880 which is funny in itself.
The labelling is indeed wrong. He blundered. If one looks up this, it's easy to see that it should be '-0.5 °C' instead. "this looks like a trick" Ever heard about 'honest mistakes' ??
"plus it all started at 1880 which is funny in itself." Since CO2 emissions were insignificant before 1880, why not?? If one looks at larger timescales, the point becomes even more apparent: a sudden steep rise in temperature.
@enderwiggin1113 That is not when CO2 picked up. In fact his statement about the chart was wrong as well. The industrial revolution started i1740 and more or less had concluded in 1880 so was CO2 taking a break for 100 years ?
Sadly, ignorance is a cornerstone of certain value and political groups. It’s no longer an information issue; it’s become a matter of fundamental “values”, and a matter of faith for certain people.
On the topic of volcanoes, the January volcano in Tonga is said to have spewed an extraordinary amount of seawater into the atmosphere due to its caldera being water, rather than the usual predominantly sulfurous magma, so this explosion has actually increased temperatures globally, rather than reducing them as Mt. St. Helens or Mt. Pinatubo did. Does this particular greenhouse effect of additional water molecules in the stratosphere potentially lead to yet another acceleration of warming, or is it another of the relatively minor effects that diminish over time as you discussed? Thank you for your wonderful explanations!
Water can’t increase to the same degree as others, because it induces rain much faster than these other slower balancing processes :) the main risk comes from extra heat increasing the water retention of air, rather than the emission of water itself.
@@kaitlyn__Ladded 10+ water vapor to the atmosphere! Better look up facts and science as you are wrong. Water injected into the upper atmosphere does not just fall as rain. Please explain how water vapor above 40,000 feet falls as rain in subzero temps! Top of the eruption reached 55 miles!!!!! Yes it it warmed the planet and is the source of the wild floods and snow fall over the last year and will continue to disrupt the climate for years to come with heating and later maybe cooling! Settled science doesn’t exist! Webb telescope just added 14 billion years to the universe!
365.2422 days is the precise measurement of our regulated system, this never changes in our lifetime. Climate regulation is a precise event that never fails.
an important question for all viewers of this regardless of what side you believe is “what piece of data or evidence would cause you to change your mind?”
A single piece? Certainly not. Science does not work this way. A good start would be a climate model which reproduces the observations *that* well like the ones with have, but without human factors.
over the last few years i have flipped back and forth several times as i come across different evidence and perspectives that cause me to rethink my stance. at the moment i’m undecided, focusing on building myself and my business first. maybe one day ill put forth the effort to form a sagacious opinion. as of now, it’s not that big of a deal for me atm
one thing i would be very interested in though is how the temperature measurements are being taken, by whom, where, when. that’s probably what i’d look into first
A few questions I am seeing in skeptic discussions, maybe you could help clear them out: - What is the climate sensitivity for co2 or how much does earth warms upon a doubling of the co2 concentration in the atmosphere? What is this function? Is it a constant or it diminishes or increases depending the proportion of co2? - What is the average time it takes for a full cycle of a photon depositing energy from the sun onto the surface and returning back to space as radiation given co2 at 0ppm vs higher concentrations like 500ppm?
1) they dont know 2) they dont know What we do know is that the Earth is greening (more plants) as a result of the higher C02 levels, and we also know that plants are carbon capture mechanisms...
@@chrismcaulay7805 yes, that's a very good side effect of the co2 increasing. I think polution-wise co2 might be one the least problematic gases humans/animals emit given Earth's ecosystem.
@@chrismcaulay7805 what you are neglecting to take into account is that once co2 is in circulation it is in circulation until it is sequestered. The plants that may flourish under new conditions will eventually die and be eaten by bacteria and fungi that will release that carbon back to the athmosphere. Fossil fuels were created at a time when the athmosphere was toxic to species like ours AND when no organism was able to digest cellulose. This is no longer the case. All the carbon we free up is here to cycle through indefinitely.
The exact sensitivity to CO2 doubling isn't well pinned-down yet; it's usually quoted as 1.5-4.5oC or something like that. It's a big range, and a lot of people are trying to narrow it down. However, because of its narrow definition of "temperature increase at equilibrium due to doubling only CO2", there are circles in the community who don't find it super useful. There are many other GHGs besides CO2, and we certainly aren't emitting just CO2, and different regions will have their own sensitivity. Plus, as I think you're curious about, the sensitivity is definitely not constant over time. There are big arguments in the community over just how informative past climates might be in informing how future climates evolve. As a very simple example, an Earth that has massive ice caps will warm at a different rate than an Earth that doesn't have ice caps even if those two Earths absorb the same amount of energy. So it definitely changes, and it depends less on the amount of CO2 currently in the air and more on how much water is solid vs liquid, whether the most sunlight is falling on land vs ocean, things like that. You second question isn't known, and it's not a well-defined question itself, though I think I know more what you're getting at. Since it's nearly impossible to trace any single quanta of energy through the Earth system to figure out exactly when that Joule "enters" or "leaves", it's much easier to discuss the rates at which energy is entering or leaving the system. Think of it like water entering a lake from a river and then later evaporating - it's almost impossible (though definitely easier than for energy quanta) to track a single water molecule as it enters and leaves, and the actual times you'll get will range from "almost immediately" for surface water that evaporates almost immediately to "almost never" if that water makes it way to the bottom of the lake and stays there. However, by comparing the rate that the river feeds the lake against the rate of evaporation, we can figure out whether the lake is growing o drying out. Same thing with energy - we can see right now that there's an imbalance of (I believe) roughly 1 W/m2 at the top of the atmosphere, which is contributing to warming. Back when our atmosphere was closer to 280ppm CO2 instead of the 400+ it was now, there was basically no imbalance at all. If we were to somehow drop to 0ppm CO2, we'd definitely get an imbalance the other way toward cooling.
@Chris McAulay Yes, Earth is greening as a response to rising CO2. But as long as Earth is greening, that means that CO2 is rising faster than the plants are capturing it. As someone else already pointed out, plants aren't a permanent solution anyway, plus as the Earth continues to warm, temperature and water stress will outweigh the CO2 fertilization effect. Basically, the "greening" is a natural response to anthropogenic effects, and as the video already discussed, natural effects are a drop int he bucket versus the anthropogenic ones.
I have been landscaping in philadelphia for 40 years. The first 25 or so were the same season started mid april ran till mid october. Then it started around april 1st and ran till halloween....I started this season 3 days ago.....third time in the last 6 years i had to start in mid march....i now finish around mid november last year it was the 18th.....the season is around 6 to 8 weeks longer then it used to be....just so you know i am apolitical......what i am saying is not to support a political view. I am simply stating a fact. The climate is changing and i know it because it has affected my vocation. Also there always used to be a part of the season around late july where there was a break in the action due to high temps and lack of rain....the lawns would turn brown. That doesn't happen anymore because there is more rain......the lawns don't brown out and stop growing. Its a different world out there now.Things are changing. Just saying.
Yes the climate is changing, no one is arguing that. What people are arguing is if it is natural and it is when you look at the earth's actual history ie. over millions of years that has been deposited in the sediments of the earth as multiple geologists have pointed out and actual weather scientists (not the fake climate change ones).
The CO2 Greenhouse Effect There's a common belief that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere leads to more global warming. However, this idea is challenged by some scientists and the basic laws of physics: Beer's - Lambert’s Law. A study of this by H. Hug from about 50 years ago using FTIR spectroscopy supports this view. Michel van Biezen also has a series of 4-minute UA-cam lectures, Astronomy and the Atmosphere, that provide easily understandable information on this topic. The absorption of infrared heat from the Earth’s surface by CO2 is most effective at a specific wavelength (14.97 micrometers). This absorption reaches a maximum, or becomes saturated, at relatively low CO2 levels (less than 100 parts per million) just meters from the earth’s surface. Beyond this concentration, adding more CO2 doesn’t significantly increase heat absorption because all the infrared (IR) radiation that CO2 can absorb is already being fully absorbed close to the Earth’s surface. This accounts for about 10 degrees Celsius of basic Greenhouse warming. The speculation that CO2 can re-emit absorbed IR radiation into the upper atmosphere and cause further warming from CO2 conflicts with Beer’s - Lambert’s Law and with the spectroscopy data that confirms the end point to absorption. Virtually all of the heat that CO2 can absorb is already accomplished. Other wavelengths of CO2 absorption, near 2, 3, and 4 micrometers, and even in the proposed wider band of 14.8 to 16 micrometers, excluding 14.97 of course, contribute very little to overall absorption. Given these points, the focus on increasing CO2 levels and their catastrophic potential is greatly overemphasized. Instead, redirecting efforts to other effects CO2 might have, and investing in nuclear energy development would be a more effective use of resources. Sincerely, Don Kloos, Chemist.
Scientists have known for over a hundred years that adding CO2 to a planet's atmosphere makes it warmer and it isn’t a chemical effect; it's a thermodynamic effect. It is the rate of increase that leads to more global warming. Increased greenhouse gases are driving the current global warming, as the Earth system with its modified atmosphere seeks a new thermal equilibrium with surrounding space. Anyone in science knows how temperatures can rise and fall independently regardless of the CO2 levels, but there is a strong correlation between rapidly rising atmospheric CO2 and rising temperatures. It's one of the most widely accepted rules in geological history. What we have seen in the last 200 years is an incredibly rapid increase in geological time; in geological time, 200 years is practically tomorrow. To give you an idea, the current observed global warming is happening twenty times faster than any natural climate change visible in the paleoclimatic record; i.e., faster than it occurs naturally in the geological record. Brings to mind Henry's Law describes equilibrium conditions, but. Climate “skeptics” love to to bring up Henry’s Law when going on about how CO2 lags temperature when it does, but not when it doesn’t; trying to make an argument that CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere. But any one familiar with basic atmospheric physics knows Henry’s Law doesn’t apply now because there is no equilibrium now because human activity has disrupted the equilibrium, which is why oceans are absorbing too much CO2 now because the partial pressure of CO2 is higher in the air than in the ocean. Henry's Law will not apply again until equilibrium is restored. Now let's start with the fact that one can observe a noncondensing greenhouse gas in the lab as we shine different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation on it that, and can measure its absorption spectrum. There is a big spot at around 15 microns, which happens to be in the band of the Earth's surface's black-body radiation; you must have learned about black-body radiation in high school physics. If so, you know one can measure how much the gas warms up with a given energy input; also measure the absorption band across sunlight. Back to the 15 microns - long wave infrared warms the CO2 and sunlight warms it much less. Science has discovered that CO2 absorbs earthshine way better than it absorbs sunshine; note water vapour has a similar property. Of course that’s not all, we have to calculate how fast long wave infrared radiation, i.e., earthshine, makes it to space when it is getting absorbed and reemitted and absorbed and reemitted over and over. It is way slower than the incoming sunshine, which is basically unimpeded. When the Earth is in thermal equilibrium with space, that difference in transmission rate warms the surface - the greenhouse effect. Combining the discoveries of the absorption spectra of gases and the greenhouse effect and the knowledge provided by them, we know adding greenhouse gas from agriculture, forestry, and during fossil fuels increases the imbalance between how fast energy goes in and comes out. Problem with the the nuclear power industry is, it is kind of broken. It's still trying to build a technology that hasn't changed much since the early 1970s. Plants take twelve years and a 3x cost overrun if they complete them at all. iNuclear fission power should be the safest, cheapest, cleanest way to make electricity. If for no other reason than it takes so much less material and real estate than any other method. And it does has an army of cheerleaders who imagine it already is those things, and who buy into all its excuses. The job has been given to the wrong kinds of organizations. The US Navy could do it right. NASA could do it. France and Canada came close. Toshiba and Southern Nuclear, not so much. Plus the fossil fuel industry monkey-wrenching the nuclear industry for years not to mention their three decades long anti-science campaign hasn' not help matters.
This is SPAM. You post this everywhere and simply ignore each and every answer demonstrating that this nonsense which already has been refuted ad nauseum.
@@jaykanta4326 Maybe not, but take a look at the PPM levels of CO2 in the atmosphere during the Ordovician period and tell me that it's bad for the planet. My issue with the climate change and global warming argument is idk what y'all are protecting the Earth or the human race? Cause i can say for certain that we will die long before the Earth does regardless of what we do.
@@chef_loudencer6040 Non-sequitur logical fallacy. That has nothing to do with the climate of today. We're protecting LIFE on earth, not just selfish humans.
@@jaykanta4326 yah that's gonna go well in the game of survival, humans are bound to become the equivalent of universal viruses in which the planets are the cells we travel between to feed of and reproduce until we exhaust its resources and move on to the next. If a virus can't even survive its first cell then it has no place in the body at all. Call it cold to say that but the truth hurts
In the late 70's Exxon's own scientists foretasted with great accuracy the sharp & constant rise of global temperature caused by burning fossil fuels, specifically the rise of C02 ppm & the effect on temperature.
The irony is funding from the Koch Brothers and the oil industry hired a team to bust the reconstruction of the historical temperature and came up with the same results to their chagrin.
If someone says "climate change is natural" to me, I just reply "so is extinction, do you want that". Even if it was all natural, the fact is that we don't want change. We have built all of our infrastructure where it is now, over hundreds of years. If we allow climate change to happen, most of it will be lost at enormous cost. Not to mention all the food production that will also be lost. People complain about the costs of changing away from fossil fuels. But we are losing more from increased frequency of "natural" disasters, hurricanes, cyclones, flooding etc. It is also costing us in more costly food production. All of this denial is put about by fossil industry megalomaniacs who are only interested in their short term gains from the damage they cause.
Almost everything is reliant on fossil fuels. Even the IPCC in their report states there are no signals humans cause bad weather. Models predicting more bad weather is not any more factual than a 10 day weather forecast.
One may be repelled by this law of nature which demands that all living things should mutually devour one another. The fly is snapped up by a dragon-fly, which itself is swallowed by a bird, which itself falls victim to a larger bird. This last, as it grows old, becomes a prey to microbes, which end by getting the better of it. These microbes, in their turn, find their predestined ends.
When the chemicals that were found to be causing the hole in the ozone layer, we had only really been using them on mass for maybe 50 or 60 years, now most of that damage has been reversed because we took action. We’ve been pumping fossil fuels into the atmosphere for much longer and it much higher quantities Than any of the chemicals involved in damaging the ozone layer, so it’s completely understandable that we have caused this. However, unlike the air-conditioning industry, the fossil fuel industry is probably the wealthiest, most powerful and most politically connected than any other industry on earth and of course they don’t want the gravy train to stop chugging. The saddest part about all of this is, even Margaret Thatcher, the absolute darling to conservatives who tend to oppose climate change was completely bought into the fact that man-made climate change was occurring and that something needed to be done about it. And that was in the bloody 80s. Plus, most of the people who use the climate is always changing argument. Still seem to be the people saying that we should make no preparations as a species for the changes that is happening, okay, even if the sea levels weren’t rising because of us or storms weren’t getting worse because of us, you still advocate doing absolutely nothing. That’s how you know they are bad faith actors
You might be surprised that like the endless nonsense about the climate the same can be said about the hole in the Ozone layer over Antarctica. Ozone is produced around the equator (heat breaks down O2) it then is spread by winds around the planet. It was well known that the amount of Ozone changes seasonally at the Poles. The conspiracy was due to Dupont losing the patent on CFCs. They organised a " scientific paper" discussing the non issue and had them banned while they came up with a new hard to manufacture gas. Very clever but very crooked. It cost companies a lot of money to change over!
Look at satellite pictures of Africa over the last 4 decades, it's getting greener. CO2 is good. Green houses pump it into the environment at 1200ppm . Plants grow bigger, stronger and need less water. When the Dinosaurs roamed the Earth it was 4400ppm CO2. We find their bones, but no 500 foot long Escalades. It was the volcano's. Also the Earth is seeing more volcanic activity. Mount St Helens, spewed out 5 years worth of North American CO2. The last time she blew. It's not how long the eruption is, it's the volume of the eruption, how powerful the eruption is. If Yellowstone blows, we are looking at a nuclear winter. Not global warming.
I did the math with figures from 7:40 graphic, and if ALL of the energy were deposited in the atmosphere, and none in the soil or oceans, the air would have increased its temperature by 18 degrees celcius every decade. Thanks to high heat capacity of water for not letting that happen i guess...
By ALL of the energy i mean all of those extra net 0.6 Wm^-2 absorbed by earth, after the atmosphere and earth radiated so much of the suns heat away as they could.
whoops, update after reaching 20:24 Turns out Joe got 60 degrees and not 18... Well imma have to get back into the calculations tomorrow to see if I can spot any mistake in my calculations...
All (99.999...%) of the incident solar radiation is re-radiated. There is an energy balance. If it accumulates even a little, you would have far, far more of a temperature rise than what you calculate.
The North Pole rotates counter clockwise but the winds rotate the Glaciers clockwise into the Atlantic, interesting how winds travel the opposite direction, winds at the equator travel eastward.
I don't think this vid is conducive to educating old people. My grandfather says this anytime it's brought up, and he thinks human influence on the environment has been negligible. It's very frustrating.
I have an older coworker who has stated that we have 'different opinions' about climate change. Part of the problem is a lack of scientifically literacy . You can't educate someone who thinks that their trust of news personality they agree with can be compared to your trust of an expert.
@@chrismcaulay7805 I mean, my dad - who is sixty - use to play a game with friends where they would run along the street after this truck that sprayed some kind of pesticide chemical, seeing who could get closest and stay closest without choking. It's a little tough for me to believe they're always right about this stuff
How did President Reagan put it? “It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.” This correlates to the progressive lefts religion of believing 100% in man made Climate Change because it is imbedded in their ideology (no proof required), even though true scientific evidence proves the opposite. The truth is that an increase in ocean temperature has to come first (500 - 800 years to heat up our deep oceans) before CO2 starts to increase, not the other away around. Ice core analysis clearly shows this fact, which contradicts Al Gore's Inconvenient Lie movie.
Unfortunately it is hard to reason with people who believe. Great video, but not until we get several record high/low in the next few years that kills farmland and really messes things up, the remaining half of people won't buy the idea.
"people who believe" are those that believe this Global warming... Those that dont believe are the ones that can see that the Earth is greening (meaning has a higher carbon carrying capacity over time), and that the Earth is already reacting and handling the increase in CO2... This moron doesnt even cover that.
You should have included how we have already fixed massive environmental disasters like acid rain and the ozone hole by cap and trade on sulfur and the Montreal protocol.
Persistent westerly winds have also dragged the current in one direction for over 20 years, increasing the speed and size of the clockwise current and preventing the fresh water from leaving the Arctic Ocean. This decades-long western wind is unusual for the region, where previously, the winds changed direction every five to seven years. Scientists have been keeping an eye on the Beaufort Gyre in case the wind changes direction again. If the direction were to change, the wind would reverse the current, pulling it counterclockwise and releasing the water it has accumulated all at once. “If the Beaufort Gyre were to release the excess fresh water into the Atlantic Ocean, it could potentially slow down its circulation. And that would have hemisphere-wide implications for the climate, especially in Western Europe,” said Tom Armitage, lead author of the study and polar scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. Fresh water released from the Arctic Ocean to the North Atlantic can change the density of surface waters. Normally, water from the Arctic loses heat and moisture to the atmosphere and sinks to the bottom of the ocean, where it drives water from the north Atlantic Ocean down to the tropics like a conveyor belt. This important current is called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and helps regulate the planet’s climate by carrying heat from the tropically-warmed water to northern latitudes like Europe and North America. If slowed enough, it could negatively impact marine life and the communities that depend on it. “We don’t expect a shutting down of the Gulf Stream, but we do expect impacts. That’s why we’re monitoring the Beaufort Gyre so closely,” said Alek Petty, a co-author on the paper and polar scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. The study also found that, although the Beaufort Gyre is out of balance because of the added energy from the wind, the current expels that excess energy by forming small, circular eddies of water. While the increased turbulence has helped keep the system balanced, it has the potential to lead to further ice melt because it mixes layers of cold, fresh water with relatively warm, salt water below. The melting ice could, in turn, lead to changes in how nutrients and organic material in the ocean are mixed, significantly affecting the food chain and wildlife in the Arctic. The results reveal a delicate balance between wind and ocean as the sea ice pack recedes under climate change. “What this study is showing is that the loss of sea ice has really important impacts on our climate system that we’re only just discovering,” said Petty. Rexana Vizza / Matthew Segal Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. 818-393-1931 / 818-354-8307 rexana.v.vizza@jpl.nasa.gov / matthew.j.segal@jpl.nasa.gov 2020-025
I just hope that the climate change deniers that troll the PBS Terra channel don't come troll the place here as for a lot of them there is absolutely no amount of knowledge that will make them change their mind. Like I already said, I'm not worried about the earth as a chunk of rock; I'm worried about the quality of life we'll have here. The big goal in the end is not to save the the big boulder we live on, but to save ourselves as we have no other place to go.
I'm regularly getting angry about the ignorance non scientists have towards scientific research (that's not even much disputed in the scientifc community). If the scientists, the smartest people we have in the field of research, come to a conclusion and almost all of them agree on the issue, who is someone who "did his own research" by watching some conspiracy theories online, sponsored by groups of interest whos business depends on continuing the status quo, to disagree with the vigor they do?
climate change or global warming or extreme weather or any other boogieman name u want to call it doesn't make it real. plenty of scientists agree its not real, so u can walk or bicycle anywhere u want, i'll continue to happly drive my gas guzzler everywhere and enjoy every minute
@@thangnguyen-iy4xf "plenty of scientists agree its not real," If you call 0.03% 'plenty - so be it. Hint: this is about the *evidence* - not about what those supposed scientists 'agree' on.
The argument shouldn't be: trust the scientists, that has nothing to do with science. The 97% is a myth. There is no such thing. It is made up to make you believe it. Same as the 97% efficacy of a certain needle millions put in their arms recently. It is marketing pur sang.
Yawn. This urban myth again. No. The medis simply quoted mostly those who predicted cooling. The majority said otherwise. See 'What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?' (skepticalscience) Add to this: those wrong predictions were based on the large emissions of industry which caused aerosols (which have a cooling effect) . Since filters were added in in the 1970ties and 1980ties, this cooling effect largely vanished. A nice example for how we influence climate!
We should put an end to planned obsolescence. For our planet and our pocketbooks. PS the look on your face when informed it wasn't John Malenkovich.... priceless
Must pur on my climate scientist har for a moment. I saw the thumbnail. Climate change is natural. What isn't natural is the rate of change. The rate is unprecenteded. In the past, climate swings took thousands of years. We have managed to completely shift the climate in just a few hundred. The last big climate swing we caused was due to agriculture and even that took over 1000 years. That is why we are all worried. It is hard to understand how species can adapt to climate shifts when every other change they have endured took eons to occur.
You are wrong, in this video he also made the point that climate change is not new but the rate of change is not. Then he went on to show nothing to back up that claim. It looks like the 1.1 C rise over 142 years looks fairly common when compared to many ice core samples. I think that is why he never showed that our recent change is unnatural, because its not.
@@kmoses582 It's because of scales involved. If you compare it in hundreds of thousands to millions of years, then it is a spike, but not yet an obvious one.
@@gorantev In the past a 1.1 degree C change over 142 is common. That is why he never used data to back up his claim, he knows better. That is my problem with these guys is that they are don't tell the whole story until they have to.
Listening to this video made me realize that why the planet is warming is irrelevant. It is warming and much to fast for the ecosystems to adjust. We face mass extinctions and if humans want to continue to live, we should do something about it (even if we would not have been responsible). The fact that we are causing climate change means we are also able to get us out of that mess
Your comment makes no sense, you say that why the planet is warming is irrelevant. Then you say that we are causing it and means that we are able to get out of the mess. Then why is the source irrelevant? If it's mostly natural we have zero control.
@@kmoses582 (English is not my first language, maybe I am not good at explaining my thoughts) What I am trying to say is: whatever the source of the warming is, it is warming and there is dangerous consequences to it and we have to do something if we want to survive. Even if it were natural, we should try to get out of this mess. The only thing knowing we are the cause do, is giving us (me at least) some hope that we have power over it. Much more than if we were not.
@@sourisdebibliotheque The reason why I think understanding past climate is relevant is that it shows the changes we are going through now is not new or unprecedented. This helps us understand that human and wildlife alive today survived in the past and we will do just fine. Yes human activity is warming the world, but we must put it into perspective. I don't think we have any real control over our climate though, we are along for the ride.
@@enderwiggin1113 thanks! I wanted some references on what he says at 2:43 "every climate model factors in these natural forces... the only way to get climate models is to add in all the stuff that humans are doing to the climate". It's very well explained and wanted to read a bit more about it.
At 65 with no family you have me mixed up with someone that GAF. Having seen where most of our "recycling" goes, might just as well chuck it in trash in first place!
What I think is the biggest cause that is at the root of our current climate problem: we are with far too many people on this planet. For some reason "we" seem to believe that how well we are doing, is measured in progress. Progress is measured in technical prowess and the size of our economy, hoe much new stuff we produce and sell. "We" also seem to relentlessly want more of everything, consume more of everything. And at the same time our numbers are growing. But our resources are finite, as is the habitable space on the surface of our home. The surface that is not habited, is either uninhabitable, or used for growing our food - which we need more and more of. The balance is off way in the wrong direction. Technology isn't going to solve this.
Vermont students claim insects were found 2 miles under the Ice in Greenland confirming a recent Ice Age. They claim humans will cause the same effects that occured 1000s of years ago, how convienent this explantion is.
Persistent westerly winds have also dragged the current in one direction for over 20 years, increasing the speed and size of the clockwise current and preventing the fresh water from leaving the Arctic Ocean. This decades-long western wind is unusual for the region, where previously, the winds changed direction every five to seven years. Scientists have been keeping an eye on the Beaufort Gyre in case the wind changes direction again. If the direction were to change, the wind would reverse the current, pulling it counterclockwise and releasing the water it has accumulated all at once. “If the Beaufort Gyre were to release the excess fresh water into the Atlantic Ocean, it could potentially slow down its circulation. And that would have hemisphere-wide implications for the climate, especially in Western Europe,” said Tom Armitage, lead author of the study and polar scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. Fresh water released from the Arctic Ocean to the North Atlantic can change the density of surface waters. Normally, water from the Arctic loses heat and moisture to the atmosphere and sinks to the bottom of the ocean, where it drives water from the north Atlantic Ocean down to the tropics like a conveyor belt. This important current is called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and helps regulate the planet’s climate by carrying heat from the tropically-warmed water to northern latitudes like Europe and North America. If slowed enough, it could negatively impact marine life and the communities that depend on it. “We don’t expect a shutting down of the Gulf Stream, but we do expect impacts. That’s why we’re monitoring the Beaufort Gyre so closely,” said Alek Petty, a co-author on the paper and polar scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. The study also found that, although the Beaufort Gyre is out of balance because of the added energy from the wind, the current expels that excess energy by forming small, circular eddies of water. While the increased turbulence has helped keep the system balanced, it has the potential to lead to further ice melt because it mixes layers of cold, fresh water with relatively warm, salt water below. The melting ice could, in turn, lead to changes in how nutrients and organic material in the ocean are mixed, significantly affecting the food chain and wildlife in the Arctic. The results reveal a delicate balance between wind and ocean as the sea ice pack recedes under climate change. “What this study is showing is that the loss of sea ice has really important impacts on our climate system that we’re only just discovering,” said Petty. Rexana Vizza / Matthew Segal Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. 818-393-1931 / 818-354-8307 rexana.v.vizza@jpl.nasa.gov / matthew.j.segal@jpl.nasa.gov 2020-025
We hear about "trigger points" all the time now a days. Since the last ice age, the glacial front has receded about 20 miles per year. As these glacial recede, they reveal darker masses underneath them. These darker masses absorb more heat than would have been reflected by the ice sheets. So, as more and more of these dark masses where revealed, did we hit a "trigger point" that accelerated the melting and allowed for more temperature absorption?
SittingInDetroit --- So, as more and more of these dark masses where revealed, did we hit a "trigger point" that accelerated the melting and allowed for more temperature absorption? Wayne Patterson --- No. The Solar thermal energy resident within the Atmosphere is somewhere on the order of only about 17 percent of the Earth's gain in Solar energy. The vast majority of the Solar thermal gain is resident in the Hydrosphere and Cryosphere. Consequently, the currently small percentage change in the land surface albedo in the absence of the Cryosphere is relatively insignificant for the Earth as a whole.
SID: Tipping points (or trigger points as you call them) refer to situations where some kind of discontinuity is passed. The reduction in albedo due to loss of snow/ice cover (whether on land or sea) is certainly a positive feedback to warming, as you suggest, due to the reduction in the amount of incoming solar radiation that is reflected (harmlessly) back into space. (Wayne's comment doesn't make sense). Trouble is we don't know with any great certainty when we might cross the various possible tipping points. This article in Nature also has a number of references: Nature "Climate tipping points - too risky to bet against" 27 November 2019
@@Tengooda Something that is seldom talked about is the worlds temperature rise number is made up of 100s/1000s of measurements. The trend is that the colder areas are changing at a higher rate while the warmer areas are not changing or very little. This leads me to wonder about the increased land mass theory.
@@waynepatterson5843 So, you believe that the whole "tipping point" is not true. The "tipping point" theory says that a very small change can be the last bit that causes massive and accelerated change.
@@Tengooda Yes, it seems he believe that the tipping point argument only works if it helps justify his position or can effectively be used to create fear (and funding).....
So what is the solution to eliminating or reducing our effect on the climate? Most of the proposed solutions offer a cure that is worse than the disease. I want over the entire ipcc report but not the newest one
1. End sprawl 2. End planned obsolescence 3. Use hydro (tides, rivers, waves) power 4. Use wind power 5. Use solar power like solar towers, mirrors 6. Develop high speed rail 7. Make cities pedestrian 8. End the manufacture of all single use plastics.(ban plastic bags, plastic bottles etc) 9. Go back to reusable glass bottles
I don’t always agree with your take on things but I appreciate that you give people the benefit of the doubt. It’s important for representing your cause: not demeaning people who disagree with you.
Yes, he is representing his cause by backing it up with a lot of compelling facts and reasoning. I would like to see those people who disagree with him provide comparably compelling facts and reasoning to back up their own counter cause.
@@christopherdaffron8115 well the thing most people miss about reasoning is that it’s ultimately built on top of the things each side cares about. So you can bring all the facts you want, but the two sides of an issue are still going to interpret those facts differently. The effort matters though and that’s perhaps a critical oversight for our generation. It’s not enough to just name drop “facts” and expect that people should fall in line. Persuasion matters and condescension is divisive.
@@addisontaylor5979 Yes, I agree that you are hard pressed to win over the other side by shaming or insulting them. Persuasion only works if it appeals to people's self-interests. Facts aren't intended to be interpreted. If you concede them to be actual facts, you can only argue about their consequences.
@@christopherdaffron8115 i mostly agree with you. Say for example a virus breaks out with a 2% mortality rate. Someone might call that dangerous and someone might say it’s not enough to call for lock downs. Depends on the original priorities of the beholders. Facts always get interpreted.
Nice video, perhaps some scientific facts might help paint the real picture. Please do another one and touch on where in the atmosphere the heating occurs and what causes the heating. How does different frequency absorption affect temperatures and why the stratosphere temperature shows warming as height increases around 15 to 90 kilometres. Also please explain why doubling the CO2 does not seem to have any effect. Some actual science would greatly help.
just the other day i watched a video talking about the icebergs in iceland and climate change... and i was actually shocked at the amount of people in the comments saying we basically can't do anything about it because it's "all natural" and we shouldn't try to fix it because "there's nothing to fix" and just "prepare" for it... even when there was an expert in the video talking about it very much being accelerated by us even if it's natural... which... do people really need an expert to say it... like for real?? it's more than obvious we are destroying this planet..
People fear change and accountability so much, that they'll accept their own (eventual) annihilation over long-term self-preservation, in an effort to sustain their short-term addictions. If consequences aren't immediate or blatantly impactful, people will remain too slow to react. Worst of all, they drag down the most meaningful and committed. After 10 yrs of vegan zero-waste commitment, I became exhausted and jaded. Covid also didn't help. I switched down to 90% plant-based & 10% dairy (still guilt-ridden about it) and became minimalist instead of full-on ZW. Decided to enjoy my life instead of trying to single-handedly save the world. It sucks bc I really wanted to make a difference, but it's not fair trying to change when the entire world around you is intent on making it difficult - or worse, shaming you and accusing you of joining cults. I left religion 12 years ago, so I'm pretty sure I'd avoid ending up back in cults again. They usually don't look like populist grass-roots movements either, so I think I was ok. One day I'll get back into it, but right now, the few of us that are willing simply can't carry the entire worlds on our backs. Everyone needs to be on board, otherwise we lose some people to environmental martyrdom.
@@kmoses582 we are overfishing and polluting our waters causing damage to the flora and fauna, polluting the air and cutting down forests, hunting animals to extinction.. you know just casual human things i believe aren't good for our planet.
@@YourMajesty143 i agree. i try to be zero waste as much as possible (for years now) and eat a mostly vegetarian diet but.. it's so hard, especially the zero waste part.. most times i don't have a choice and the best thing i can do is simply try to recycle. it's tiring to keep feeling so guilty as if it all depends on me when there's people that don't care at all and even throw trash outside on the streets.. i just wish more people actually cared... we need to remember that we don't need all to be 100% zero waste and vegan.. but if everyone tried a little it would make a difference.
... and the vastly greater number of hot records. When climate is destabilised then BOTH hot and cold records are broken. When climate is destabilised with a warming trend then MORE hot records are broken than cold.THAT is what is happening.
@@Tengooda ... and the vastly greater number of hot records. Wayne Patterson --- Those alleged "greater number of hot records" are works of fiction and a fraud. Tengooda ... When climate is destabilised then BOTH hot and cold records are broken. Wayne Patterson --- False claim and another example of practicing a superstitous pseudoscience with make believe fictional temperatures. The Solar Minimum periodically causes the circumpolar jet streams to weaken which in turn allows the warm and cold air masses to vary much greater in their latitudinal excursions. The wider ranges in air mass movements result in heat waves and cold waves. They are entirely natural variations in weather due to changes in Solar activity. The so-called records" are not relevant due to there not having been enough years for the recordkeepers to compile a true representation of natural weather variability. Tengooda ... When climate is destabilised with a warming trend then MORE hot records are broken than cold.THAT is what is happening. Wayne Patterson --- The alleged unnatural "hot records" are works of fiction that were not observed in Nature. They were fabricated by the extremest Climate Change Alarmists.
@@Tengooda Try having a look at all the cold records being broken around the globe currently. 20 in 1 day in Australia last week, it's supposed to be Summer and we had snow. Satellites are showing a decline since 2016.
@@kmoses582 I don't doubt it. So what? The 1930s in the U.S. was a time of much higher temperatures than had been previously recorded (since 1880), partly caused by the ploughing of the prairies that allowed the soil to dry out, allowing more warming to occur: the dust bowl was largely a human caused disaster. Thus lots of records were broken in the 1930s. Having had high temperature records of course means that in subsequent years it is harder to break those records. But three facts remain that you ignore: 1. The average contiguous U.S. temperature for the last ten years has been 53.92degF. The average contiguous U.S. temperature for the 1930s was 52.64degF (source: NOAA National Centers for Environmental information, Climate at a Glance: National Time Series, published December 2022, retrieved on December 18, 2022) 2. The number of record highs in the contiguous U.S. from 1988 to 2017 was 2.3 million. The number of record lows for the same period was 1.8 million. (source NOAA "Record High Temperatures Outpace Record Lows" 3. The contiguous USA comprises just 1.65% of the Earth's surface, so any trends therefrom do NOT represent global trends and CANNOT be used to draw conclusions about GLOBAL warming.
The 1930s had some of the hottest days on record here in the USA. In 1931 over 90% of the country was 95 degrees or higher in the month of July. 1936 was much of the same. The CO2 levels were much lower than they are now. I don't think this country has seen anything like that since. Unfortunately, most climate alarmists ignore anything that occurred before 1985.
Your post is misinformation. 1. "most climate alarmists ignore anything that occurred before 1985." Nonsense. 2. " In 1931 over 90% of the country was 95 degrees or higher in the month of July." To be precise, the July average high temperature for Arizona in 1931 was 96F and during the rest of the 1930's varied between 91F and 96F. In 2023, the July average high temperature for Arizona was over 101F. Every decade since the 1930s has seen the July average high temperature for Arizona exceed 96F slightly, and since the year 2000 those high temperatures have increased: 99F in 2003 & 2005, 97F in 2009 and 98F in 2020.
One more who posts some single weather extrems as counterexamples to a trend. Sigh Edit: Tengooda explained a *trend* which showed that there has been an increase since 1931 - whereas the OP focused on a single year. As if this wasn't crystally clear - kmoses nevertheless pretended not to understand it.
Nicely explained but it is still a bad idea to capture carbon in an old oli feild or to stop growing things on a field to put up solar panels not saying we don't have an effect but running for a solution is a good way to make things worse
Enjoy this short video about climate change! I'll heart any comment if you can prove you watched the whole thing 🤓
This comment is the proof that I haven't watched it yet but you can give a heart for honesty Joe
Thanks it helped me in my school project.
@@Tanishkitchen20 bruh You are so early there's no way it helped you in any way yet.
Climate change is natural.
@@nishantmanchanda3221 yes
I've not got an issue with is it us or isn't it. I have an issue with us being told we need to be more "Carbon neutral" BUT the politicians don't actually do anything about it, they just take more money and MOVE the carbon footprint to another country to then say that we are doing out bit.
that is a very valid concern. we need governments to take this disaster seriously and make real efforts to restore our planet and prevent the further destruction of it. we must make them change
I get what you mean. I think that we definitly do have responsibility and should all try to reduce carbon since significant change can only happen if most people participate. It obviously is frustrating to see governments and companies to continue as before though, or also seeing rich people blast a bunch of CO2 into the athmosphere for a 10 minute trip with their private jets.
Those are really significant factors that need to change, too, not just the general population.
But the sad reality is that if you are wealthy and got power in this system, you will suffer less than many others that are less privileged and for example will have to leave their homes and countries or die as a result of climate change if we don't act now.
Great, recent example which has angered a lot of people in germany:
Just last month, a german company called RWE demolished a village called Lützerath in order to dig for estimated 280 million tons of carbon beneath it.
They persuaded the people living there into selling their homes to them, and even though they got compensated, many felt pressured into that decision and aren't happy with it now. Lützerath also stopped getting supported by things like good public transport, kindergardens or supermarkets in order to make living there even less attractive.
The government of northrhine-westphalia (the german state which Lützerath belonged to) allowed the demolishion after making deals with RWE.
After harsh criticism, they started telling the population that we would need that carbon because of the energy crisis in correlation to the war in Ukraine, which is opposed by scientific institutes. Germsny actually managed to stop being dependent on russian oil, carbon and gas and stopped buying those in the beginning of 2023. We have enough reserves, too.
Furthermore, the government acts like it's okay to demolish Lützerath because RWE has to leave the other villages in that area alone, like that's a fair compromise. Lützerath is even treated as a symbol for climate protection, which ignores the fact that it's more than that and that the decision has an actual impact. Our planet doesn't care about such compromises and symbols though, and even if we only use the carbon below Lützerath, germany still won't be able to meet the goals of the paris agreement on climate goals from 2015.
Protesters occupied the village over multiple years but got evacuated by the police this january as a order of the government, so RWE can get to work. During the evacuation, 35.000 people also went there to protest. Police violence took place and the single officers didn't have individual numbers to be identifiable but instead only had group numbers, which makes it even harder to sue an officer for violence (besides the fact that it's already extremely hard to get justice when you literally have to go to the police for that).
Companies such as RWE really try to profit as much off of carbon until they finally _have_ to stop in 2030, instead of taking responsibility asap and actually starting to reduce the use of carbon and extendimg climate friendly, renewable energy sources as much as possible.
And our government protects these companies instead the future of humanity.
We all need to start working together to solve this problem, or at least reduce the consequences as much we still can in order to protect this planet, but sadly it doesn't look too good.
@@PansyPunx I think if ALL Governments around the world stopped using private jets for their meetings and just used the internet, that alone would be a saving worth more than millions of people turning off a light or TV or doing 1 less trip in the car. If they want us to start, they need to start showing some real concern at the top, because what they're saying doesn't match with anything they're doing. Like buying up all the cheap properties by the sea where they have scared off the residents. Doesn't seem quite right that after saying we'll be under water in 12 years. They're either lying to us or know something we don't. And for someone like Obama to buy that property for millions is a kick in the teeth.
@@CyanDreams1312 With a name like "Rain" I would be surprised if you _didn't_ think like that.
Were your Mom and Dad hippies?
@@PansyPunx Do you actually believe that adding to a wisp of a trace gas, by a hundred parts per _million_ or so will cause a climate catastrophe?
If so... Your Indoctrination is Complete.
Carry on.
Anyone, everyone in fact, that had decided the science is done has already abandoned science in favor of politics.
The science is clear: Man made climate change is a fact.
The only uncertainly left in the science is how bad the effect will be.
But the science is also says we can't take the risk to wait for the science to become more precise.
Anyone that says we should do nothing is deliberate ignoring all the science for the sake of short term convenience.
And what we actually do about it is inherently political.
They've been saying this for over 50 years. The ozone, a coming ice age, al gore saying by 2016 the coast will be underwater and most recently aoc saying we only have 12 years back in 2018
@@MineralGPK it only needs to happen once after tipping point reaches... Many islands are already under water
And oceans did grow by 400 feet after last glacial maximum
Go read the story of great flood in ur bible and every other culture... Where do u think that water came from?
@@themanof oh yeah. How about the Cayman islands
I DEMAND physical proof
honestly love the way you talk about this
"the people who discovered how the climate naturally changes over time are climate scientists, the same group of people who discovered the climate change we're currently facing is human caused." is kind of a connection that should be obvious but it really hits different when spoken out loud.
kind of a fun realization seeing how the reason the example comment at the start of the video knows about it in the first place are the same people he's trying to use that argument against.
This is actually a mistake in the video. Exxon found out about climate change more than 40 years ago. Climate scientist later on simply researched further into it.
Haha, I was actually thinking this as he was speaking about the first myth.
@@Ashitaka255 exept Milankovitch Cycles are some misleading informations like it was only in some parts of europe was short time changing climate it was warm not only in europe in XI century was so warm that wikings make farming colony on greenland in XI century was global warmig that way greenland has name greenland after wiking left because get much colder after in XVII century it was so cold that they call it litle ice age He also downplay influence of volcanos on climate 1815 Mount Tambora eruption and year 1816 was call Year Without a Summer far over 100,000 people died worldwide from hunger. And Politics who shout about global warming buying big mansions for tens of milions dolars on florida beach which supose to be soon under water... florRegis-Michel Leclerc make good point about electric vehicles, wind turbines or, worse, solar panel and batteries? Long term pollution of water bodies, air and soil. I add to this that electrity to charge electric cars is made from fossil fuels and we dont have electric grid to charge many milions of electric cars also will be milions tons of toxic waste from bateries and solar panels we need clean way to store energy when sun is not shining and no wind even industry still use fossil fuels only way we can now produce clean energy is atomic electric plant it produce small amount toxic waste which can be safe to store and is even safer than wind turbines including charnobyl and fukushima its lest dead for megawat than any other electric plants. but warriors with global warming want to close atomic electric plants.....
Find this actually to be a bad argument, can't use truth in an argument because both were discovered by scientist? And you think its a good argument?
@@kmoses582 Did you even watch the video? The argument is that the climate scientists, being the ones who discovered the natural cycles in the first place, already took them into account when coming to the conclusion that the current climate change crisis is man-made.
Hey! I am from Brazil and I loved this class. We are going through difficult times because of the tragedy in Rio Grande do Sul and your class explained a lot. Thank you
Ola, Nice,
Experiments.Eles os Poderosos, transferiram o carbon footprint pra outro Paiz.
Experimentos em Eletromagnetismo.
Com resultados aumentados e imprevisiveis.
Vc viu microrsplosoes nas Nuvens no Radar?
So cego NAO ve o experimentos.
A Fab e o M. Da DEFESA devem ser reativados. A Ministra precisa espandir conhecimentos.
Paizes evoluidos tem pos- doutourado em Clima Atmosferico.
Eles ja APLICAM conhecimentos na area da DEFESA, Clima,Economica e Agronegocio.
Sou gaucho, mas me fui pro Exterior a decades.
E triste ver o que aconteceu no Brasil.
Os partidos foram forjados pelo exterior.
NAO Sao o reflexo do povo Brasileiro.
God Bless!
Don't be fooled
@@AnnKelly-v8v Exactly, don't be fooled by man made climate change deniers.
Ignorance in itself is not a major problem. It becomes a major problem when combined with arrogance.
Yes! I call that “weaponized ignorance” 😂
Ignorence + social media = major problem.
@@PeterAden ignorance *
Ignorance*arrogance + Social Media + Conspiracy bubble = Mass Movement of Arrogance*Ignorance = Biggest problem
The biggest problem that many people just comment whatever is in their heads without thinking for a second whenever it's really true. It often takes just 10 seconds to Google to find an answer, but many simply skipping that step...
As long as money runs the world, it will always be about money.
Um, no. This simply does not follow. I'm sure you can think about *a lot* of things which are *not* about money yourself.
@@enderwiggin1113to be fair it IS a lot about money.
@@Joseph-vt5um So what....? Somehow deniers always miss that there's *FAR* more money in big industry and fossil fuels. Following the logic of the OP, one should not believe them a single thing.
@enderwiggi The Earth cools down after every sunset and warms with every sunrise, the degrees depend on weather and wind patterns not hunan activity, human activity polution gets wiped out by natural processes, human activities do not impact the atmospheric systems.
SPAMMER
The first rule of science: IT'S NEVER THAT SIMPLE.
oh yes it is: you're the problem. Now pay more taxes and more for your energy. period
@@philosophicaltool5469 No
This is not simple. I've taken courses in meteorology, planetology and planetary science and everything here is included. More detail can be given on all of these which are based on physics included spectroscopy, atomic physics and quantum field theory. One thing left out is the feedback process of the melting of polar ice. Ice reflects 75 percent of the sunlight while water only 4 to 40 percent depending on the angle of sunlight. Water absorbs more light so the more than the north polar ice cap melts, the warmer it gets in that region due to more surface area of water and less ice. It is important to know that it's not just science, but physics. Meteorology and Climatology are based on physics, chemistry, geology, geochemistry which is chemistry and geology, oceanography, spectroscopy which is based on atomic physics and quantum field theory, astrophysics and astronomy. This video does have the correct physics.
Why pay more taxes? To finance the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex?
@@philosophicaltool5469 aaaaaaand you prove his point
I have been on this planet for 65 years and I want to know what has unequivocally happened in the last 65 years that is truly unprecedented?
The rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 has increased about 100 times faster over the past 60 years than it did during natural increases in the past.
popuLation happened (to increasExponentiaLLy)
Burpy volcanoes can def be a serious drag. As someone who was once killed by a volcano that had really bad gas, I can confirm.
I hope your death did not hurt too much
@@isabellach oh thank you so much! No it was not too painful. A little itchy. But now I'm in the afterlife and damn it's pretty kewl. Free internet all the time. I mean that's like a big perk you know??
In Hungary, our government just started forcing cutting out trees in a never before seen rate, and our way of handling natural values has never been good either. It's so sad.
We will help you.
Signed, Brussels 🤣
@@LMB222 just please don't kick us out of the EU, we just need some... adjustments to our leadership :D
Or it's forest management.
Greetings from Germany, where we also have a growing populist and right wing part of our population. Mostly countryside, religious and not too well educated.
It makes me sad to see what is becoming of hungary, the country that kind of started the opening of the iron curtain. Why are people voting for their own disadvantage?
I speak with colleagues from Poland and Czech Republic and they also don't get why people vote for these authoritarian governments.
@@andreaswagner8356 Because nationalism and the fostering of a persecution complex towards the outside world is a great way to control the populace and keep them mad at those outside their borders rather than their leaders within them. After all, it's not the fault of Hungary's government policies for why you are poor, no, your problems all stem from our external enemies, like a foreign, Hungarian, Jewish billionaire!
Remember when there was that solar flare that wiped out all of the pagers (pre-cell phones)? I had my pager that day and thought nothing of it, but all the rest of the doctors in the hospital were blissfully unaware that the Emergency Room lit up and the nurses were screaming "Where are all the doctors? I've paged EVERYBODY!"
Remember when Brentford beat Manchester City?
Now, imagine if we went through a Carrington-level event. This was a *MASSIVE* solar flare that affected telegraph equipment in 1859, caused Aurora Borealis displays as far south as San Diego, sparks and fires at battery installations at telegraph stations. People were reported to even be able to use telegraphs without any power connected at all during the flare. If a Carrington-level event were to happen today, chaos would result. It'd cause blackouts, damage the power-grid, and our satellite networks.
@@DrachenGothik666 Also only pre 1980 vehicles would still run. Restomods? Probably not.
I do not think my 2004 Envoy or the 2016 Trax is hardened enough to run after a 1859 style flare event.
And the microwave in the kitchen also may not survive.
@@DrachenGothik666 It would only affect the area of the planet facing the sun though. Solar winds don't wrap around the planet, they go in straight lines. ;)
But what does that have to do with climate change?
There's a better chance of living on the bottom of the ocean than life on Mars.
I think you have to mention that is not all of us guilty of global warming. It is mainly the rischest 10% of the people who consume most of the energy and emit most of the CO2 too. The poorest 50% of the people hardly emit any carbon. This is why economic inequality also has a big impact in our climate, scientists say...
If you take into account the entire world population, every US citizen is in the top 1%.
Global warming is a change to less cold and ice. It is a change for the better.
Fossil fuels made 7 out of 8 people alive today possible. They doubled your life span.
Warmer and wetter with higher CO2 and O2 makes a better biosphere for most every family of Life.
Sorry scooter, 80% of the CO2 is combing from India and China. Read a book.
I appreciate the vid and the explanation. But why do you use a graph at 3.00 min, where the distance down to -1.5% is equal to the distance up of 0.5%? According to the graph, the temperature dropped 1.5% from 1880 to 1910. From the 1940s to the 1970s it seems to have returned to the temperature of 1880. Then the temperature goes up approximately 0.8%, however the distance going up in the graph is three time that of the distance going down per 1%. As a result, the temperature going up from the 1970s seems visually much more than the shift down from 1880 to 1910, but the real temperature shift, according to your graph, has been 0.8% up compared to 1.5% down. Why did you make this skewd comparison?
All of this climate data is skewed.
To trick you into thinking that the temperature has dramatically increased in the last 40 to 50 years when the truth is it hasn't increased anymore than the models show the standard increase due to the fact that we are coming out of an Ice Age still the whole thing is about funneling money into corporations and large interest groups and transfer wealth from poor middle class people in the world to the wealthy
Oof yeah that’s a disingenuous graph
He also completely omitted how the earth's magnetic field reflects solar radiation. And protects u from harmful UV rays...
Actually no he’s showing the accurate graph, you are just trying to make a point that literally makes no sense
"Did Geology stop when humans arrived on the planet?" Greatest quote ever!!
Geological time includes now.
@@nik07nikaccording to the Video host geology has less force than man made forces.
Tom Nelson has 197 Interviews regarding Climate Crisis.
@@woodchipgardens9084 "according to the Video host geology has less force than man made forces."
Please cite in the video with a time stamp, when that was actually said. I'll wait.
Scammer
I extend my sincere respect to you. Your enthusiasm cannot be explained without a real concern about goodness.
I find it rather amusing how you can still see the exhaustion and frustration in his eyes, even while he animates his face to be Bill Nye levels of Enthusiasm for education
That is what fanaticism looks like.
Science is worthy of such things
@@phoenixthedragon6798 You left off the "not".
@@boogathon where tho
@@phoenixthedragon6798 There's only one place it could go...
I was taught in school that the Earth has gone through multiple ice age cycles. The last one having just ended, though not sure what caused the previous ice-age events.
I was taught in school that the Earth has gone through multiple ice age cycles. The last one having just ended, though not sure what caused the previous ice-age events.
Wayne Patterson --- You are mistaken, because the Late Cenozoic Ice Age extending from about 34 million years ago to the Present day and the Quaternary Glaciation 2.5 million years ago to the Present Day have not "just ended." What "just ended was the Last Glacial Maximum ~20,000 years ago to ~6,000 years ago when we entered the Holocene Climatic Optimum and interglacial period which will end with the next Glacial Maximum Period in the ongoing Late Cenozoic Ice Age. The causes are a combination of events with the continuing reductions of Atmospheric mass from greater than 100 atmospheres to less than 1 atmosphere in the future due to natural biological sequestration of Carbon dioxide being one of the key factors.
Per definition we are still in a deep ice age. It's defined by at least one pole being glaciered and currently both are.
Plus we are just getting close to the roman climate optimum.
Climate change is real, but it's in no way proven it's man-made.
Also if you care so much about climate, stop the CO2 nonesense and start caring about the seas!
Simply because of the curvature of earth, we would reflect way more than would stay inside, if CO2 really had such an effect.
Or did the earth heated up last time a volcano erupted?
Humans ofcourse!They are the ones who do this,aint it so??No,the ones who are calling to lessen the CO 2 to prefent climate change are the ones who dont know nothing!!Years and years they are calling that the sea rise is steadily higher and the global temperature is steadily rising!And guess what ?The temperature globally isnt rising!The rising off sea level is still the same as it was for centuries!When there was no rising off CO 2!!
MILANCOVIC CYCLES
The last Ice age ended around 10,000 years ago. Ice core studies have shown it basically goes 100,000 years ice age/10,000 year warm period/100k Ice age/10k warm...repeated over and over as far as they have records for. So id say we are getting closer to another ice age. So what we need is MORE carbon dioxide. As the planet is actually cooling down. What happened to all the Acid rain? That was some genuine BS!
Break the connection between Climate change, money, and power. Wait five years and see if there is still interest in climate change or if we shift our focus onto the next money or power grab. Humans have very short memories. Can humans do in a year (non-nuclear) what a single volcano can do to make a year without a summer?
he waits so long to bring up long term time scale and ignores it. what is the TOTAL change over 100 million years?
20'000 years ago, Europe had the "Weichselian glaciation".
The continent was covered by a 2000 by 3000 kilometer ice sheet that was up to 3 kilometers thick.
The sea levels were 120 meters lower than they are today.
No one knows for sure why this cold age ended. What we do know for sure is, that humans couldn't possibly have been the reason.
Resonable climate change sceptics won't deny that humans influence the climate, they just say that human influence is tiny when compared to natural events.
Heat is always temporary, night time is always cooling, winter is always freezing and wild fires melt glaciers. 23.44 degree tilt determines/gaurantees that nothing can change unless we see a Volcano or Forest fire.
"No one knows for sure why this cold age ended."
*OF COURSE* we know! It's even in the video: Milancovitch cycles.
" they just say that human influence is tiny when compared to natural events"
Which is.... nonsense. Globally averaged, change in temperature 20 000 to 10 000 years ago was about 4 °C. *Our* influence could cause a change by 4 °C in less than 200 years!
@@enderwiggin1113 You're contradicting yourself.
The influence of things such as the Milankovitch cycles is literally astronomical compared to that of humans.
You're acting like it is certain that the current warming is to 100% caused by humans, which it is not. It might as well be the natural continuation of the end of the ice age.
@@dh510 " is literally astronomical compared to that of humans."
No, it's not. Those cycles only change the pattern of insolation, not insolation in total. That the climate changes because of them is only because of feedbacks, such as emission of CO2 from the oceans. Which takes us back at the influence of CO2 emissions of us.
I always feel like the narrative that says that climate change is not our fault, is fueled by a desire to keep living our lives the same way we are doing now. Continue buying stuff, producing stuff, driving cars everywhere. This denial of the facts seems also fueled by our general innate resistance to change and our desire for continued short term economic profit 🤷♀️ If everyone changed their ways all at once, how are these climate change causing industries continue to make money? Naw, better to say it is not your fault so please keep consuming as you’ve been consuming for the past decades instead of changing 🤷♀️😑
@Nushia But people and executives run corporations, the same people who are selfish and want higher profits and income are the same people who only care about their lives. Therefore it is not in their interest to help future executives so why would they take a hit to the business by changing people's lifestyles when it will only help other people. They'll be dead before things get bad enough that their money can't keep them comfortable.
Basically, although we often think of Capitalism as an entity, any idea of preparing the world for the same status quo disappears if people aren't there to benefit from it.
Edit: damnit this descended into a ramble.
I am just saying that, no it isn't necessarily in the interest of capitalism to keep people alive and comfortable in a hellish future because people are selfish and eventually they will be dead and won't benefit. What matters to them is people buying now and the best way to do that is keep them living and buying exactly the same way we are now.
@@2KOOLURATOOLGaming I think it is a little more fundamental than people just being greedy. Capitalism is a teetering house of cards that requires continued growth to not fall apart entirely. Businesses need investment to keep the doors open and we are in a situation where profit margins are generally paper thin. Investment is how economic planning happens for the most part and investment will completely dry up in a system where nobody expects any return on investment and wealthy investors don't exist. And if that happens you will have a system that is incapable of innovation and providing for people's basic needs. I think the denialism is partly because some people have thought through the consequences of addressing climate change and realized it's incompatible with the continuation of capitalism and/or requires a huge intervention by the government, which they also don't like. They turn towards a kind of conspiracy that this is all made up by the left because they don't really have a solid market-based solution.
@Nushia Rave on.
It's also about political leaning and religious beliefs, let's be honest. Deniers are listening to politicians who share their views on various topics, if that politician is wrong about this, they would have to acknowledge they could also be wrong about the other stuff they agree with. And that political side is likely not actively doing anything to combat climate change. So they can either acknowledge climate change is real and therefore acknowledge that they aren't doing anything to fix it to deny it's real. Denying it is a real problem justifies inaction.
Get real
Generally, readers of the Press can be classified into three groups: First, those who believe everything they read; Second, those who no longer believe anything; Third, those who critically examine what they read and form their judgments accordingly. I shall never believe that what is founded on lies can endure for ever. I believe in truth. I'm sure that, in the long run, truth must be victorious
Unfortuneatly,scientists monitor theories that the do not agree with and stiffle them.They will be the death of us.
Truth is winning and humanity is prevailing over tyranny. This is happening despite the fact that most people still haven't even realized we are at war. It only takes a small minority of awake people to turn it around, and that's what's happening. Covid was the wake up call. It's glorious.
Some people dont deny climate change they just dont like it being used as a political tool
Everything that can become policy to help humans and nature IS by definition political...
@zlinos139 A naive response, but the comment was a bit vague, so understandable.
They imagine it's being used as a political tool inorder to explain it away.
If "Global Warming" were a legitimate problem it would stand on it's own merits! It wouldn't need so many people trying to defend it...
I’m in the middle of a debate about climate change and rising sea level right now
Your point? Do you have specific questions?
Rising sea levels?....hahahaha....really?
@@calikalbocalikalbo6082 Yes, they are really rising.
@@enderwiggin1113 4mm a year for centuries now..not because my Toyota has an exhaust pipe.
FUN FACT: CO2 levels have only gone up 1.3 parts per 10,000 since 1880. Too tiny to have moved the thermometer by any measurable amount.
Ice ages are natural, as are global warming events. But then so are mass extinctions.
Indeed. Add to this that humans also have an influence.
unless you believe that humans are some kind of supernatural entities.
then even anthropic climate change is completely natural.
@@gelmir7322 That's just semantic games. The common usage of the term 'natural' just means 'not caused by humans'
Nope. Every single time it's not 20°C and partly cloudy it's man-made climate change. I do you have an urge to put on a tank top? Climate change. Did it rain yesterday? Climate change. Did it not rain yesterday, which means there was a 24 hour drought? Climate change.
@@gelmir7322 With that logic, you can say that killing someone is "natural", hey man, everything is "natural" so it's ok! Erm - No! Duh.
I think that the fact that volcanoes can lower temperatures by like a degree is worth mentioning.
This is only for a few years. So this doesn't change anything in total.
It would be worth mentioning it you can explain all the fenomena that happens behind and why it only work in a really little temporary scale and don't affect in a deeply way the climatics dynamic of the world
@@davidcaro1229 Which phenomena are you talking about...?
The climatic effect of vulcanoes is mainly their aerosols - which are 'washed' from the atmosphere (by rain) in months to a few years.
@@enderwiggin1113 Yeah forget about the millions of tons of CO2, it's manily aerosols. Lmao.
This is temporary
Even if you take the debate out of climate change, what could be the harm in trying to clean up the environment we all live in, other than it might effect some billionaires profit margin, but what good is wealth without clean water to drink, fresh clean air to breathe, healthy natural food to eat and wildlife to appreciate and possibly learn from? Just because one arrogant neighbor chooses to live like an ignorant slob and doesn’t maintain their property, throws garbage, and other junk, in their yard, but still thinks they “know everything” about any subject (from looking at tiktok,), should everyone else just lower their standards and give up trying to take care of their own? Like it or not, High Tide Is Coming, isn’t it better to at least try our best to slow it down for the sake of future generations? Where is the harm in trying?
In the name of climate, they are promoting their agenda as if they are control our food, farming, property and no job in future, basically we will become useless eaters in the name of climate
SORRY FOR MY BAD ENGLISH
That is never the debate. Everyone wants clean water, better planet. These jag offs want to spend trillions to SOLVE NOTHING. climate changes. And anyone who says it’s our fault and we can fix it is criminal and evil. Please research how much co2 levels were in the Jurassic period. And how well plants, insects and dinosaurs experienced their greatest growth.
the harm in trying comes from politicians. unfortunately your argument falters at the "what could be the harm" for that exact reason. left-leaning politicians are now forcing us to be more "carbon neutral" to reduce the amount of it even if it's doing virtually nothing. vehicles that use gas produce so little co2 compared to natural events such as volcanos. your whole arrogant snob neighbor thing is a different ordeal altogether, and i don't disagree that people should take common sense precautions such as using a trash bin, not littering out of pure laziness and having a recycle bin.
Where are all these "environmentalists" when it comes to actual pollution? like the slave labor and horrendous pollution in cobalt mining? Green Tech is NO WHERE near GREEN
Are you going to tell china , usa , India to lower their emissions..?? They make up 50% of the whole global emissions!! So unless you can tell them you ain't solving "climate change" . It does not matter what you do or say it will not solve a GLOBAL issue so say if a country Like canada has a total of 1 % of global emission . Say they start cutting their emissions by 50% lol that is only .5 of the global emissions.. ??? Like do the math ..
co-friendly building practices, integrating energy-efficient designs and materials, contribute substantially to reducing the carbon footprint of construction, heralding a shift toward more sustainable infrastructure.
This -18 degrees Celsius without a greenhouse effect would be the case assuming the Earth albedo would be identical to the current one. In reality it would be way lower due to the ice and snow, as would be the temperature. In fact during the periods of a snowball Earth, the poles were so cold that the condensation of CO2 was occuring there
@@johndennis5233 I know this derivation and the assumptions used in it. This -18 deg. C mean global temperature is obtained by inserting a current value of the Earth's albedo into that formula derived from the energy balance, with the outgoing energy given by Stefan-Boltzmann law and assuming that the Earth is a perfect blackbody in the longwave regime, but not taking the greenhouse effect into the account in this derivation. But of course one can expect that on such colder Earth a value of its albedo can be be greater (as one could anticipate a snowball Earth-like state). It would decrease the absorbed energy flux, thus resulting in a temperature lower that that -18 deg. C
@@johndennis5233 Seems OK with this value of an albedo :) Although honestly I cannot say what will be the exact Bond albedo of such a planet, it requires some complicated calculations to determine. But this value would also be my rough guess, though it is of course to be taken with a grain of salt
The argument I hear alot is not a denial of change or even denial that it's caused by humans, but that the rate of change is alarmist and that the earth will be able to absorb any change we throw at it and we will all be fine. I do not agree.
Given that the Earth has survived unknown numbers of life-ending meteors slamming into it and countless volcanic eruptions that covered the sky with ash for years...yeah...
@@macethorns1168 I believe the earth will survive. Humans might, but everyday life as we know it will not.
@@macethorns1168 🤦
Yet they have been right and the alarmists* haven't been not once. You can go back nearly 100 years for alarmist predictions that fall flat.
@@macethorns1168 and everything the size of a human died then🙂
Electric school bus caught fire during morning run in Huntsville, everyone escaped unharmed when melting plastic odor appeared before the flames engulfed the vehicle, EVs catch fire without any accident occurring.
Even if it were completely natural, that doesn't change the fact that it will be devastating for us if we don't do something about it now. We're the first species that's been able to understand it or that has the ability to control the climate. For the sake of our species, we should deal with it, regardless of the cause.
I don't think we can do much about the natural part of climate change. But that part isn't noticeable over decades like the human induced part is.
Control it is probably a bit strong but maybe influence the climate to be less extreme? Yours is the first sensible comment I've come across. Every body else seems to be politically motivated to move the blame to someone else. Imagine if the dinosaurs argued over who is going to fix the asteroid problem because it's 'not their fault'. Looks like we are still a long way away from actually implementing a possible solution.
@user-yy5or8lu8v Who says that humans have to be destructive to influence climate? Housing and buildings influence climate all around the world? It's only a case of 'all or nothing' if politics tells you that those are the only two choices. Moderation is usually a decent compromise for those who are actually looking for a working solution.
For example an 8W light bulb uses one seventh of the power(energy use impact) of an equivalent 60W light bulb. You still have an impact, just a much smaller impact; but it does mean that you can still have lighting. Telling people to use low power consumption light bulbs is much more doable than scaremongering people to believe that they need to not have any lighting whatsoever in order to avert 'a total disaster'. But then it is easier to watch others not have lighting from your well lit home because you choose to blame them.
@user-yy5or8lu8v We can and do change the local climate with our non-insanely drastic actions. eg dams will change the local water cycle, or the excessive burning fossil fuels in Britain resulted in Scandinavian countries having more acidic rain. The key is to have a balance that allows for a decent quality of life. We can strive to be less wasteful in the way we do things, but we don't need the hypocritical finger pointing. Making products have a longer useful life is the 'LED lightbulb' upgrade for consumer products; but for political reasons it has little backing as companies don't want to meet consumer demand by producing less.
As a meme enjoyer, I love it when you include little meme snippets.
However as an Environmental Science student, it's almost frustrating that I have to stop videos to go and see where a meme is from.
I'm looking at you, jiggle jiggle.
🤓
why do i feel like its a teacher explaining it to a 3rd grader xd
Looking into the sun bad. Don't look into the sun you dummy.
Because our politicians and journalists have the mind set of a 3rd grader.
because his guy is nothing more than an pompous windbag.
The UK used to be warmer for the Romans. When the Romans ruled Britain, known as the Roman Warm Period or Roman Climatic Optimum, is characterized by evidence of warmer conditions. This period, approximately from 250 BC to AD 400, was marked by unusually warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic.
During this time, there are indications that the climate was mild enough to allow for the cultivation of grapevines in regions such as northern England, which would typically be too cool for such crops today. The warmth of the Roman period is supported by various types of evidence, including tree ring data, which suggest that the climate was warmer than previously thought, potentially making the cultivation of certain crops like grapes in northern England feasible.
"The UK used to be warmer for the Romans"
Even if true (I've never seen a source for this) - so what?? Local climate is influence by *loads* of factores, this tells us nothing about the rest of the world.
"was marked by unusually warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic."
Indeed. But not globally. See Neukom et al (2019) 'No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era'
Try this article: 'Vineyards in The North of England & Scotland' (englishwine)
Surprise, surprise.
The fact that we still are having this conversation after 20-30 years makes be sad.
wasn't 20 years ago when Al Gore said no ice caps by 2013? maybe that's why...
We are suppose to be dead now according to that girl that sailed a yacht to the US
Damn man Biden just bought a few beach home right at the water. Thats crazy bet he got them for a deal since they are underwater LOL
@@ac4185How dare you.
Humans are part of the climate equation. The big question is can we move the needle more than non-human climate forces and whether those moves are detrimental to humanity. Do we think we can stop the next ice age?
Well, we are already in an ice age but I know what you mean. We probably can't stop long-term climate change, but we can certainly stop accelerating it from what should be a few million years to a couple hundred.
I'm also more concerned about an ice age that Alaska growing tomatoes ( aside from the gulf stream collapsing)
@@CHMichael if tomato's are growing in Alaska, that means the places that grow tomato's now would start to look like deserts. The economic and humanitarian consequences of that should scare you a LOT more then a ice age that, even without any human caused climate change, would be 50.000 years into the future.
Except in North America co2 increases in Winter. Then drops quickly in spring all the way to end of Autumn at the 45th parallel.
So does co2 circulate from China, Russia, Europe and the US? Probably. Or does it go to Southern hemisphere for a summer vacation?
NASA does record it and it does happen every year in the northern hemisphere. Why is co2 added to a greenhouse environment?
Maybe that ancient 2012 prophesy is not about the planet's climate. It may be about society imploding.
@@warrenpuckett4203 It goes into plantmatter (leaves, yearly plants ect) that starts growing in spring and summer, and later decays again in autumn and winter, or eaten and breathed out.
That's just part of the natural carbon cycle.
Have you seen Sunspot Observatory and seen the sun and its constant changes , not just sun spot but also regular flares?
Another one who has not even watched the video. Try 11:00 to 13:00.
Flares are mostly the cause of sunspots.
Spammer.
I've studied the history extensively. Vulcanic activity cause about 100times less CO2 than humans. Solar activity has been decreasing for decades.
All of this is adressed in the video - why don't you actually watch it?
My question is. If the heat trend changes from hot to cold and cold to hot why does us heating the planet an issue?
I believe they say it's not the fact of temperature trends oscillating, it's the rate at which they are currently changing. Over a couple hundred years vs over thousands of years. Many ecosystems and species need that time to adapt. That's my understanding
@@_Feyd-Rauthayeah, and we weren’t here before for the catastrophic drama.
thats what I say also, how can the regulation be stopped, answer is it cant be stopped.
It’s really frustrating that people are still questioning this when this year alone we’ve seen the devastating effects of natural catastrophes intensified by climat change.
And if you don’t « buy » the reality of climate change, biodiversity decline on its own should terrify us.
Maybe if politicians weren’t over exaggerating and pushing ridiculous talking points it would be more acceptable. The push for “green” energy and EVs is more damaging to the environment than gas combustion vehicles.
@@ivermectin7928 i absolutely agree! Even if EVs are more efficient, we need LESS. less cars, less production, less consomption and a much greater stress on the responsibility of companies and large corporations rather than the current focus on individuals turning off the tap when brushing their teeth
@@Designotherwise EVs aren’t more efficient. Strip mining harmful materials with slave labor is bad enough, yet the electric provided to power EVs is made by coal plants and other polluting means. “Green” energy products are being tossed in landfills because they can’t be recycled or it’s too hard to. None of these people care about “climate change”. They care about an agenda and control.
@@ivermectin7928 yes of course, I was talking about the efficiency of the evs engine bs a combustion engine. In that sense it is much more efficient but of course everything you said after I agree with
@@ivermectin7928 Look at you lie.
The most important fact I learned in this video: it actually is called a "bald-faced lie!!!"
I've been saying "bold-faced" for something like 40 years without any clue how wrong I was!
Hear! Hear!...
Or is it 'Here! Here!' ?
well if you havent figured out by now that mainstream lies constantly on just about everything for profits, then theres no hope for you. you could take all the greenhouse gases away and the climate will still change because this big sphere we are on is rotating on its axis and true north is migrating at the rate of 50 miles per year towards siberia, and the earth is only 8500 miles in circumference, whats 8500 divided by 50? since we have learned about pole shifts in the last 50 years how long do you think we have been slowly rotating on our axis? it doesnt mean we are going to get destroyed or anything, we have been goin nice and slow so far, and if it keeps up we will be fine, but eventually cold areas will move into warm ones and warm areas will move in to cold ones, like maine will end up were florida for an example, so ya the climate is going to change no matter what, scientist were talking about this 40 years ago, do even realize that 2/3 ds of the land in the world is empty. now i dont know if you follow elon musk, but he claims that the 7.9 billion we have now could fit in the size of new york, so the world is really under populated, not to mention that only 4 countries or so that have a less then 1% birth rate, the other 150+ countries have more deaths then births, so we arent really getting bigger, that is coming to an end, we will actually start going down in numbers. i dare you to check for yourself, a scientist that has studied the weather for over 70 years says the average temp hasnt increased or decreased more then 6 degrees in the last 100 years, hardly sounds like much global warming to me, i personally know the guy, i think ill take his word over some brainwashed twat that just repeating what the marxists have been crying about since the 70's. slow pole shift, expect it, its happening now!
@@ericvulgate "Hear, Hear” is the correct expression that means an agreement with someone's point. It's short for “hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!”
@@ericvulgate They're both correct for all intensive purposes.
@@damonedwards1544 brilliant ;)
This is great, but you guys should cite your sources! The description says they're there, but I'm not seeing them.
The big elephant in the room that is COMPLETELY remiss in this video is that humans have only released 1.4 parts CO2 to 10,000 parts atmosphere. To claim that this TINY amount of CO2 is altering Earth's climate is like trying to turn a molehill into a mountain.
Cite sources??? I've been alive for over 5 decade, and every prediction has not happened.
@@tww7822 I've been alive for 6 decades and the approach of human caused climate catastrophe looks to me to be right on time. Depends if you get your "predictions" from the tabloids and other dumbed down and sensationalist sources, or not.
@@YourInvestmentAdvise Then how has atmospheric CO2 got from 280ppm pre industrial to over 400ppm now.
@@petewright4640 lololol
I'm not the only one who thinks Volcanos cause excessive precipitation and cooling trends lasting for two years, I have heard this theory from many sources and this is why California goes in and out of drought conditions.
Yet bezoz builds a $500,000,000 yacht.🤣
Do you have a yacht?
@@remigiuscaesar8307 do you have a yacht?
But I do worry sometimes especially when I see changes that media reports without giving sound explanations..
Because they are lying is all political
Movement.
And things being done in undemocratic fashion without the population either being told and asked to vote on it. It is only those investigating what is going on that can outline the real truths
Somebody give me One year that New York City didnt have flood waters.
Uh, whether I fell or was pushed, if I am holding a branch to keep from falling down the cliff, I must do what I can-I do not eat the branch.
I have a problem with massive multi-billion dollar companies wanting to keep providing extra carbon while blaming your car and your cheeseburger, trying to take both away from you while they buy "carbon credits" to keep polluting. also false or misleading advertising which fails to point out that you make a much bigger carbon footprint getting a new electric vehicle if you don't keep that one for over 6 years of driving. Or politicians who refuse to work on upgrading the power grid, tell us NOT to charge EVs, but tell us that we HAVE TO buy one, when they are still full of TOXIC lithium batteries while Humans have SUCH a spotless record when it comes to waste management (see pacific garbage patch). Lithium Apocalypse everyone ?
@Nushia I have not heard of the salt battery, I have heard of the molten sodium solar mirror power plants and carbon batteries which they are still struggling to construct.
The carbon break-even point depends on how your electricity is generated which depends on where you live. If you live somewhere that still relies on coal powerplants, getting an EV isn't the planet-saving power move it would be if you lived somewhere using wind, solar, geothermal, or hydro. In the US, the break-even point is about 25k miles which is roughly 2.2 years of driving (Scientific American, March 2024).
@@nuynobi Thank you for putting in more effort than I did, providing improved precision and nuance over my vague generalization. I was more worried about my bacon cheeseburger future. Priorities.
Totally. EVs are such a scam. Lithium batteries are incredibly dangerous, you still have to charge your car with fossil fuels unless you wanna wait a few months and you need to mine them.
The future of transport is public! Railway networks are absolutely amazing and incredibly efficient. You don’t need batteries for them (I think) and even if you did they carry so many people it’s ok, as well as that you waste very little energy because it’s steel on steel so there is very little friction.
Driverless cars, busses and other solutions are not the future. Especially not driverless cars!
Cities should also try and safely incorporate tram systems for efficient city trace and metros for large cities.
Governments need to be investing on nuclear reactors because it’s much safer than traditional power plants and nuclear plants and the energy levels are INSANELY efficient. While not renewable they are zero emission and are probably the only power source capable of saving the planet because renewable energy is not advanced enough yet.
In the future nuclear waste MAY be able to be sent to the moon to keep the planet safe and then later after we have all this spare nuclear power we can try setting up solar farms on planets closer to the sun and maybe one day a ‘Dyson swarm’ though that’s pretty far in the future.
Edit: According to my grandfather who has worked (and still does) in the car industry for many years the protocol at a dealership if a lithium battery sets on fire is evacuate the building and wait. There is currently no way to put out a lithium fire other than waiting.
Simple thing gone wrong - measuring temperature. And then sensorship!
Kensorship.
yeah because obviously the government cares so much about shutting you up
You can't censor thousands of independent scientists and researchers from multiple countries, some of them even enemies to one another's
* facepalm
But Al Gore, friend of earth, sworn enemy of mankind and big cheif of the Gaia worshippers prophesied that the North and South pole would be melted by now.
@@DarthVaderfr what??? yes you can lmfao look at the major search engine's, specially google how they changed and what exactly they changed...
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” -Orwell, “1984”… when the government(s) and “scientists” tell me “the science is settled” I think of this quote
Do you also think about this quote if someone tells you that the science is settled regarding the questions if the Sun circles the Earth or not and if atoms exist?
"Way to dodge the essence of what's being mentioned."
And this supposed 'essence' is...?
Yet here you are using a computer, trusting those pesky scientists have got it right and you can post your silly messages globally in real time.
Let's just call you Mr Cliche'. You have a book full of cliche's and you are not afraid to use them. 🤣
Video starts at 2:05
The thing that always gets me is that people think they know better about the climate of the earth than people who study it for their entire career, overconfidence is the biggest reason people distrust science.
Its always the Dunning-Kruger. I wish people would just accept that they aren't always right.
The ppl who study climate where do you think they get the funding from to conduct all their experiments and research ..........
@@trumpelstiltzkin9068 I dunno, where? please enlighten me with your accurate sources, data, and explanations as to why these sources have any incentive to promote climate change action.
@@LineOfThy I'll give you 3 guesses
@@LineOfThy climate studies are funded by government grants and do I really need to explain to you why the government might want to push a climate change agenda
what is the optimal temperature for earth? (for the planet, not for humans, we are only passengers here) i dont think i have ever heard anyone comment about that. is a little warmer better? is a little colder better? why? is there an average over the last x million years and we use that for a measuring stick? i have a hundred questions about sciency stuff... my teachers hated when i raised my hand in school.
What is the optimal amount of blue eyed people in Ireland?
Well, _my_ teachers thought I'd grow up to be an astronaut!
I'm sure of it; I heard one of them tell my Mom that I was taking up space in class...
No one knows the absolute average Temp of Earth. Our ancestors failed us by not keeping record of such things. All we can do now is make a best guess from the data that is collected from Ice Cores in the northern and southern poles and a few other methods. As you can see, we have no accurate way of determining ancient past average temperatures on a global scale. It's all slight of hand.
@@SkepticalUSVeteran The only measurement that can provide an average temperature is the satellite system operated by the U.S. gov't.
The satellites are in polar orbits that take them around the Earth ≈14X every 24 hours. They cover every square meter of the planet every day, and their platinum resistence thermocouple (PRT) sensors are calibrated to a primary physical standard.
The measurements are availble publicly, and if there was the slightest rise in global warming it would have been measured.
In fact, the gov't satellites satellites show a slight _cooling_ trend began around 2014.
As you wrote, there is no "average" earth temperature. The planet has been in a gradual cooling trend since the Holocene took it out of the last Ice Age. That cooling trend continues.
Furthermore, CO2 has _no measurable effect_ on global temperatures. If it did the satellite data would have shown it, after the recent 50%+ rise in atmospheric CO2.
@@boogathon ok, so, only MERICA have sattelites.
Your eye-rolling tone/body language. Few you are trying to reach are going to watch past the 1 minute mark. Being condescending is the greatest gift you could ever give the other side.
You know what's condescending? People who claim (implicitely or explicitely) that thousands upon thousands of honestly working scientists have either been dumb or fraudsters - for decades.
Thank you! I couldn’t wait till it ended, and asked my algorithm to NEVER bring him back.
@@veritas2222 I sympathize with you, but hopefully you can separate the message from the messenger. It's not worth it to reject a good message just to spite someone :(
Californias largest lithium battery factory is Burning faster than a Russian Oil Depo.
I’m confused about the graph you used there at 3:04. 3 steps for positive temperature changes, but only 1 step for the negative changes.. this looks like a trick to make it look like the temperature changes more in one specific direction.. plus it all started at 1880 which is funny in itself.
The labelling is indeed wrong. He blundered. If one looks up this, it's easy to see that it should be '-0.5 °C' instead.
"this looks like a trick"
Ever heard about 'honest mistakes' ??
"plus it all started at 1880 which is funny in itself."
Since CO2 emissions were insignificant before 1880, why not?? If one looks at larger timescales, the point becomes even more apparent: a sudden steep rise in temperature.
@@enderwiggin1113lying again about nonsense people cant easily follow.
@@enderwiggin1113lying again about nonsense people cant easily follow.
@enderwiggin1113 That is not when CO2 picked up. In fact his statement about the chart was wrong as well. The industrial revolution started i1740 and more or less had concluded in 1880 so was CO2 taking a break for 100 years ?
Sadly, ignorance is a cornerstone of certain value and political groups. It’s no longer an information issue; it’s become a matter of fundamental “values”, and a matter of faith for certain people.
yeah, faith in the nonsense of 97% of climate scientists agreeing..
How very science..
On the topic of volcanoes, the January volcano in Tonga is said to have spewed an extraordinary amount of seawater into the atmosphere due to its caldera being water, rather than the usual predominantly sulfurous magma, so this explosion has actually increased temperatures globally, rather than reducing them as Mt. St. Helens or Mt. Pinatubo did. Does this particular greenhouse effect of additional water molecules in the stratosphere potentially lead to yet another acceleration of warming, or is it another of the relatively minor effects that diminish over time as you discussed? Thank you for your wonderful explanations!
Water can’t increase to the same degree as others, because it induces rain much faster than these other slower balancing processes :) the main risk comes from extra heat increasing the water retention of air, rather than the emission of water itself.
Hey, Wsauce here. The carbon /toxicity boot print of the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex anybody?
@@kaitlyn__Ladded 10+ water vapor to the atmosphere! Better look up facts and science as you are wrong. Water injected into the upper atmosphere does not just fall as rain. Please explain how water vapor above 40,000 feet falls as rain in subzero temps! Top of the eruption reached 55 miles!!!!! Yes it it warmed the planet and is the source of the wild floods and snow fall over the last year and will continue to disrupt the climate for years to come with heating and later maybe cooling! Settled science doesn’t exist! Webb telescope just added 14 billion years to the universe!
365.2422 days is the precise measurement of our regulated system, this never changes in our lifetime. Climate regulation is a precise event that never fails.
an important question for all viewers of this regardless of what side you believe is “what piece of data or evidence would cause you to change your mind?”
A single piece? Certainly not. Science does not work this way.
A good start would be a climate model which reproduces the observations *that* well like the ones with have, but without human factors.
What's your *own* answer to your question?
over the last few years i have flipped back and forth several times as i come across different evidence and perspectives that cause me to rethink my stance. at the moment i’m undecided, focusing on building myself and my business first. maybe one day ill put forth the effort to form a sagacious opinion. as of now, it’s not that big of a deal for me atm
one thing i would be very interested in though is how the temperature measurements are being taken, by whom, where, when. that’s probably what i’d look into first
@@GrowWithConrad Well, just look at the websites of the metereological services. They explain this in great detail.
A few questions I am seeing in skeptic discussions, maybe you could help clear them out:
- What is the climate sensitivity for co2 or how much does earth warms upon a doubling of the co2 concentration in the atmosphere? What is this function? Is it a constant or it diminishes or increases depending the proportion of co2?
- What is the average time it takes for a full cycle of a photon depositing energy from the sun onto the surface and returning back to space as radiation given co2 at 0ppm vs higher concentrations like 500ppm?
1) they dont know
2) they dont know
What we do know is that the Earth is greening (more plants) as a result of the higher C02 levels, and we also know that plants are carbon capture mechanisms...
@@chrismcaulay7805 yes, that's a very good side effect of the co2 increasing. I think polution-wise co2 might be one the least problematic gases humans/animals emit given Earth's ecosystem.
@@chrismcaulay7805 what you are neglecting to take into account is that once co2 is in circulation it is in circulation until it is sequestered. The plants that may flourish under new conditions will eventually die and be eaten by bacteria and fungi that will release that carbon back to the athmosphere. Fossil fuels were created at a time when the athmosphere was toxic to species like ours AND when no organism was able to digest cellulose. This is no longer the case. All the carbon we free up is here to cycle through indefinitely.
The exact sensitivity to CO2 doubling isn't well pinned-down yet; it's usually quoted as 1.5-4.5oC or something like that. It's a big range, and a lot of people are trying to narrow it down. However, because of its narrow definition of "temperature increase at equilibrium due to doubling only CO2", there are circles in the community who don't find it super useful. There are many other GHGs besides CO2, and we certainly aren't emitting just CO2, and different regions will have their own sensitivity. Plus, as I think you're curious about, the sensitivity is definitely not constant over time. There are big arguments in the community over just how informative past climates might be in informing how future climates evolve. As a very simple example, an Earth that has massive ice caps will warm at a different rate than an Earth that doesn't have ice caps even if those two Earths absorb the same amount of energy. So it definitely changes, and it depends less on the amount of CO2 currently in the air and more on how much water is solid vs liquid, whether the most sunlight is falling on land vs ocean, things like that.
You second question isn't known, and it's not a well-defined question itself, though I think I know more what you're getting at. Since it's nearly impossible to trace any single quanta of energy through the Earth system to figure out exactly when that Joule "enters" or "leaves", it's much easier to discuss the rates at which energy is entering or leaving the system. Think of it like water entering a lake from a river and then later evaporating - it's almost impossible (though definitely easier than for energy quanta) to track a single water molecule as it enters and leaves, and the actual times you'll get will range from "almost immediately" for surface water that evaporates almost immediately to "almost never" if that water makes it way to the bottom of the lake and stays there. However, by comparing the rate that the river feeds the lake against the rate of evaporation, we can figure out whether the lake is growing o drying out. Same thing with energy - we can see right now that there's an imbalance of (I believe) roughly 1 W/m2 at the top of the atmosphere, which is contributing to warming. Back when our atmosphere was closer to 280ppm CO2 instead of the 400+ it was now, there was basically no imbalance at all. If we were to somehow drop to 0ppm CO2, we'd definitely get an imbalance the other way toward cooling.
@Chris McAulay Yes, Earth is greening as a response to rising CO2. But as long as Earth is greening, that means that CO2 is rising faster than the plants are capturing it. As someone else already pointed out, plants aren't a permanent solution anyway, plus as the Earth continues to warm, temperature and water stress will outweigh the CO2 fertilization effect. Basically, the "greening" is a natural response to anthropogenic effects, and as the video already discussed, natural effects are a drop int he bucket versus the anthropogenic ones.
I have been landscaping in philadelphia for 40 years. The first 25 or so were the same season started mid april ran till mid october. Then it started around april 1st and ran till halloween....I started this season 3 days ago.....third time in the last 6 years i had to start in mid march....i now finish around mid november last year it was the 18th.....the season is around 6 to 8 weeks longer then it used to be....just so you know i am apolitical......what i am saying is not to support a political view. I am simply stating a fact. The climate is changing and i know it because it has affected my vocation. Also there always used to be a part of the season around late july where there was a break in the action due to high temps and lack of rain....the lawns would turn brown. That doesn't happen anymore
because there is more rain......the lawns don't brown out and stop growing. Its a different world out there now.Things are changing. Just saying.
The video is about the question what *causes* this change.
There was never a time when it wasn't changing, and there never will be.
@@emergentform1188 Right. Your point? That's climatology 101.
As I said: the video is about the *cause* of the change.
And they always have and they always will. ‘40 years’ 😂😂😂😂
Yes the climate is changing, no one is arguing that. What people are arguing is if it is natural and it is when you look at the earth's actual history ie. over millions of years that has been deposited in the sediments of the earth as multiple geologists have pointed out and actual weather scientists (not the fake climate change ones).
The CO2 Greenhouse Effect
There's a common belief that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere leads to more global warming.
However, this idea is challenged by some scientists and the basic laws of physics: Beer's - Lambert’s Law. A study of this by H. Hug from about 50 years ago using FTIR spectroscopy supports this view. Michel van Biezen also has a series of 4-minute UA-cam lectures, Astronomy and the Atmosphere, that provide easily understandable information on this topic.
The absorption of infrared heat from the Earth’s surface by CO2 is most effective at a specific wavelength (14.97 micrometers). This absorption reaches a maximum, or becomes saturated, at relatively low CO2 levels (less than 100 parts per million) just meters from the earth’s surface. Beyond this concentration, adding more CO2 doesn’t significantly increase heat absorption because all the infrared (IR) radiation that CO2 can absorb is already being fully absorbed close to the Earth’s surface. This accounts for about 10 degrees Celsius of basic Greenhouse warming.
The speculation that CO2 can re-emit absorbed IR radiation into the upper atmosphere and cause further warming from CO2 conflicts with Beer’s - Lambert’s Law and with the spectroscopy data that confirms the end point to absorption. Virtually all of the heat that CO2 can absorb is already accomplished. Other wavelengths of CO2 absorption, near 2, 3, and 4 micrometers, and even in the proposed wider band of 14.8 to 16 micrometers, excluding 14.97 of course, contribute very little to overall absorption.
Given these points, the focus on increasing CO2 levels and their catastrophic potential is greatly overemphasized. Instead, redirecting efforts to other effects CO2 might have, and investing in nuclear energy development would be a more effective use of resources.
Sincerely, Don Kloos, Chemist.
Scientists have known for over a hundred years that adding CO2 to a planet's atmosphere makes it warmer and it isn’t a chemical effect; it's a thermodynamic effect.
It is the rate of increase that leads to more global warming. Increased greenhouse gases are driving the current global warming, as the Earth system with its modified atmosphere seeks a new thermal equilibrium with surrounding space.
Anyone in science knows how temperatures can rise and fall independently regardless of the CO2 levels, but there is a strong correlation between rapidly rising atmospheric CO2 and rising temperatures. It's one of the most widely accepted rules in geological history. What we have seen in the last 200 years is an incredibly rapid increase in geological time; in geological time, 200 years is practically tomorrow. To give you an idea, the current observed global warming is happening twenty times faster than any natural climate change visible in the paleoclimatic record; i.e., faster than it occurs naturally in the geological record.
Brings to mind Henry's Law describes equilibrium conditions, but. Climate “skeptics” love to to bring up Henry’s Law when going on about how CO2 lags temperature when it does, but not when it doesn’t; trying to make an argument that CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere. But any one familiar with basic atmospheric physics knows Henry’s Law doesn’t apply now because there is no equilibrium now because human activity has disrupted the equilibrium, which is why oceans are absorbing too much CO2 now because the partial pressure of CO2 is higher in the air than in the ocean. Henry's Law will not apply again until equilibrium is restored.
Now let's start with the fact that one can observe a noncondensing greenhouse gas in the lab as we shine different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation on it that, and can measure its absorption spectrum. There is a big spot at around 15 microns, which happens to be in the band of the Earth's surface's black-body radiation; you must have learned about black-body radiation in high school physics. If so, you know one can measure how much the gas warms up with a given energy input; also measure the absorption band across sunlight. Back to the 15 microns - long wave infrared warms the CO2 and sunlight warms it much less. Science has discovered that CO2 absorbs earthshine way better than it absorbs sunshine; note water vapour has a similar property. Of course that’s not all, we have to calculate how fast long wave infrared radiation, i.e., earthshine, makes it to space when it is getting absorbed and reemitted and absorbed and reemitted over and over. It is way slower than the incoming sunshine, which is basically unimpeded. When the Earth is in thermal equilibrium with space, that difference in transmission rate warms the surface - the greenhouse effect.
Combining the discoveries of the absorption spectra of gases and the greenhouse effect and the knowledge provided by them, we know adding greenhouse gas from agriculture, forestry, and during fossil fuels increases the imbalance between how fast energy goes in and comes out.
Problem with the the nuclear power industry is, it is kind of broken. It's still trying to build a technology that hasn't changed much since the early 1970s. Plants take twelve years and a 3x cost overrun if they complete them at all. iNuclear fission power should be the safest, cheapest, cleanest way to make electricity. If for no other reason than it takes so much less material and real estate than any other method. And it does has an army of cheerleaders who imagine it already is those things, and who buy into all its excuses. The job has been given to the wrong kinds of organizations. The US Navy could do it right. NASA could do it. France and Canada came close. Toshiba and Southern Nuclear, not so much. Plus the fossil fuel industry monkey-wrenching the nuclear industry for years not to mention their three decades long anti-science campaign hasn' not help matters.
@@rps1689heat is always temporary, night time is always cooling and Canadian Wild Fires melt Glaciers.
This is SPAM. You post this everywhere and simply ignore each and every answer demonstrating that this nonsense which already has been refuted ad nauseum.
You said a whole bunch of nothing
@@draco_1876 Heat is always temporary, night time is always cooling, winter is always freezing and wild fires melt glaciers.
When you can prove with middle school science experiments that CO2 acts like a greenhouses there really should be no contesting it.
Plants need CO2 like we need oxygen to breathe.
@@RevTox What a stupid comment, no one is saying we take all of the CO2 out of the atmosphere.
@@jaykanta4326 Maybe not, but take a look at the PPM levels of CO2 in the atmosphere during the Ordovician period and tell me that it's bad for the planet. My issue with the climate change and global warming argument is idk what y'all are protecting the Earth or the human race? Cause i can say for certain that we will die long before the Earth does regardless of what we do.
@@chef_loudencer6040 Non-sequitur logical fallacy. That has nothing to do with the climate of today.
We're protecting LIFE on earth, not just selfish humans.
@@jaykanta4326 yah that's gonna go well in the game of survival, humans are bound to become the equivalent of universal viruses in which the planets are the cells we travel between to feed of and reproduce until we exhaust its resources and move on to the next. If a virus can't even survive its first cell then it has no place in the body at all. Call it cold to say that but the truth hurts
It's actually so funny how he sounds so done lol
One look at the comments section will reinforce why
In the late 70's Exxon's own scientists foretasted with great accuracy the sharp & constant rise of global temperature caused by burning fossil fuels, specifically the rise of C02 ppm & the effect on temperature.
The irony is funding from the Koch Brothers and the oil industry hired a team to bust the reconstruction of the historical temperature and came up with the same results to their chagrin.
@@rps1689 Are you talking about Berkeley-Earth-Surface-Temperature (Richard A. Muller)?
If someone says "climate change is natural" to me, I just reply "so is extinction, do you want that".
Even if it was all natural, the fact is that we don't want change. We have built all of our infrastructure where it is now, over hundreds of years. If we allow climate change to happen, most of it will be lost at enormous cost. Not to mention all the food production that will also be lost.
People complain about the costs of changing away from fossil fuels. But we are losing more from increased frequency of "natural" disasters, hurricanes, cyclones, flooding etc. It is also costing us in more costly food production.
All of this denial is put about by fossil industry megalomaniacs who are only interested in their short term gains from the damage they cause.
Why are food commodity prices not going up?
@@kmoses582As far as I am aware, they are. Certainly in my part of the world.
@@lesh4357 Which market are you refering too? I am using the Chicago Board of Trade
SO YOU THINK WE CAN REGULATE THE CLIMATE? FREAKING HILARIOUS.
Almost everything is reliant on fossil fuels. Even the IPCC in their report states there are no signals humans cause bad weather. Models predicting more bad weather is not any more factual than a 10 day weather forecast.
One may be repelled by this law of nature which demands that all living things should mutually devour one another. The fly is snapped up by a dragon-fly, which itself is swallowed by a bird, which itself falls victim to a larger bird. This last, as it grows old, becomes a prey to microbes, which end by getting the better of it. These microbes, in their turn, find their predestined ends.
When the chemicals that were found to be causing the hole in the ozone layer, we had only really been using them on mass for maybe 50 or 60 years, now most of that damage has been reversed because we took action. We’ve been pumping fossil fuels into the atmosphere for much longer and it much higher quantities Than any of the chemicals involved in damaging the ozone layer, so it’s completely understandable that we have caused this. However, unlike the air-conditioning industry, the fossil fuel industry is probably the wealthiest, most powerful and most politically connected than any other industry on earth and of course they don’t want the gravy train to stop chugging. The saddest part about all of this is, even Margaret Thatcher, the absolute darling to conservatives who tend to oppose climate change was completely bought into the fact that man-made climate change was occurring and that something needed to be done about it. And that was in the bloody 80s. Plus, most of the people who use the climate is always changing argument. Still seem to be the people saying that we should make no preparations as a species for the changes that is happening, okay, even if the sea levels weren’t rising because of us or storms weren’t getting worse because of us, you still advocate doing absolutely nothing. That’s how you know they are bad faith actors
Volcanos gave us atmosphere and will never go away.
Accurate coners4430
You might be surprised that like the endless nonsense about the climate the same can be said about the hole in the Ozone layer over Antarctica. Ozone is produced around the equator (heat breaks down O2) it then is spread by winds around the planet. It was well known that the amount of Ozone changes seasonally at the Poles. The conspiracy was due to Dupont losing the patent on CFCs. They organised a " scientific paper" discussing the non issue and had them banned while they came up with a new hard to manufacture gas. Very clever but very crooked. It cost companies a lot of money to change over!
The storms are the same, we have the www. More coverage, so these disasters are more known not more frequent.
Look at satellite pictures of Africa over the last 4 decades, it's getting greener. CO2 is good. Green houses pump it into the environment at 1200ppm . Plants grow bigger, stronger and need less water. When the Dinosaurs roamed the Earth it was 4400ppm CO2. We find their bones, but no 500 foot long Escalades. It was the volcano's. Also the Earth is seeing more volcanic activity. Mount St Helens, spewed out 5 years worth of North American CO2. The last time she blew. It's not how long the eruption is, it's the volume of the eruption, how powerful the eruption is. If Yellowstone blows, we are looking at a nuclear winter. Not global warming.
I did the math with figures from 7:40 graphic, and if ALL of the energy were deposited in the atmosphere, and none in the soil or oceans, the air would have increased its temperature by 18 degrees celcius every decade. Thanks to high heat capacity of water for not letting that happen i guess...
By ALL of the energy i mean all of those extra net 0.6 Wm^-2 absorbed by earth, after the atmosphere and earth radiated so much of the suns heat away as they could.
whoops, update after reaching 20:24
Turns out Joe got 60 degrees and not 18... Well imma have to get back into the calculations tomorrow to see if I can spot any mistake in my calculations...
You did it by decade, and I believe his was "over all" so your numbers may not be that far off.
All (99.999...%) of the incident solar radiation is re-radiated. There is an energy balance. If it accumulates even a little, you would have far, far more of a temperature rise than what you calculate.
@@Gildedmuse Oh, thanks! Didn't even think of that. Feeling clever in a stupid way rn, or maybe the other way around
The North Pole rotates counter clockwise but the winds rotate the Glaciers clockwise into the Atlantic, interesting how winds travel the opposite direction, winds at the equator travel eastward.
I don't think this vid is conducive to educating old people.
My grandfather says this anytime it's brought up, and he thinks human influence on the environment has been negligible. It's very frustrating.
I have an older coworker who has stated that we have 'different opinions' about climate change. Part of the problem is a lack of scientifically literacy . You can't educate someone who thinks that their trust of news personality they agree with can be compared to your trust of an expert.
The funny part is the old people are almost always right... and this case in no different, your grand father is correct :)
@@chrismcaulay7805 NO. The human influence on the environment hasn't been neglected.
@@chrismcaulay7805 I mean, my dad - who is sixty - use to play a game with friends where they would run along the street after this truck that sprayed some kind of pesticide chemical, seeing who could get closest and stay closest without choking.
It's a little tough for me to believe they're always right about this stuff
what is the measurement of human influence on the environment, Mike? as if you know?
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”
Daniel J. Boorstin
How did President Reagan put it? “It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”
This correlates to the progressive lefts religion of believing 100% in man made Climate Change because it is imbedded in their ideology (no proof required), even though true scientific evidence proves the opposite. The truth is that an increase in ocean temperature has to come first (500 - 800 years to heat up our deep oceans) before CO2 starts to increase, not the other away around. Ice core analysis clearly shows this fact, which contradicts Al Gore's Inconvenient Lie movie.
Unfortunately it is hard to reason with people who believe. Great video, but not until we get several record high/low in the next few years that kills farmland and really messes things up, the remaining half of people won't buy the idea.
Funny thing is these people often seem to to think they're rebel underdogs fighting the power when they're on the same side as oil companies
Many still won’t. They’re tied to a belief system that doesn’t require cause and effect to be a real thing, because magic or god.
"people who believe" are those that believe this Global warming... Those that dont believe are the ones that can see that the Earth is greening (meaning has a higher carbon carrying capacity over time), and that the Earth is already reacting and handling the increase in CO2...
This moron doesnt even cover that.
You should have included how we have already fixed massive environmental disasters like acid rain and the ozone hole by cap and trade on sulfur and the Montreal protocol.
The ozone hole is NOT fixed. Lmfao!
@@butthole9843 it's not getting worse due to CFCs.
@@butthole9843 what doesn't even exist can't be fixed
@@Biochemistry-Debunks-Corona *smh*
Persistent westerly winds have also dragged the current in one direction for over 20 years, increasing the speed and size of the clockwise current and preventing the fresh water from leaving the Arctic Ocean. This decades-long western wind is unusual for the region, where previously, the winds changed direction every five to seven years.
Scientists have been keeping an eye on the Beaufort Gyre in case the wind changes direction again. If the direction were to change, the wind would reverse the current, pulling it counterclockwise and releasing the water it has accumulated all at once.
“If the Beaufort Gyre were to release the excess fresh water into the Atlantic Ocean, it could potentially slow down its circulation. And that would have hemisphere-wide implications for the climate, especially in Western Europe,” said Tom Armitage, lead author of the study and polar scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.
Fresh water released from the Arctic Ocean to the North Atlantic can change the density of surface waters. Normally, water from the Arctic loses heat and moisture to the atmosphere and sinks to the bottom of the ocean, where it drives water from the north Atlantic Ocean down to the tropics like a conveyor belt.
This important current is called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and helps regulate the planet’s climate by carrying heat from the tropically-warmed water to northern latitudes like Europe and North America. If slowed enough, it could negatively impact marine life and the communities that depend on it.
“We don’t expect a shutting down of the Gulf Stream, but we do expect impacts. That’s why we’re monitoring the Beaufort Gyre so closely,” said Alek Petty, a co-author on the paper and polar scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.
The study also found that, although the Beaufort Gyre is out of balance because of the added energy from the wind, the current expels that excess energy by forming small, circular eddies of water. While the increased turbulence has helped keep the system balanced, it has the potential to lead to further ice melt because it mixes layers of cold, fresh water with relatively warm, salt water below. The melting ice could, in turn, lead to changes in how nutrients and organic material in the ocean are mixed, significantly affecting the food chain and wildlife in the Arctic. The results reveal a delicate balance between wind and ocean as the sea ice pack recedes under climate change.
“What this study is showing is that the loss of sea ice has really important impacts on our climate system that we’re only just discovering,” said Petty.
Rexana Vizza / Matthew Segal
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
818-393-1931 / 818-354-8307
rexana.v.vizza@jpl.nasa.gov / matthew.j.segal@jpl.nasa.gov
2020-025
I just hope that the climate change deniers that troll the PBS Terra channel don't come troll the place here as for a lot of them there is absolutely no amount of knowledge that will make them change their mind.
Like I already said, I'm not worried about the earth as a chunk of rock; I'm worried about the quality of life we'll have here.
The big goal in the end is not to save the the big boulder we live on, but to save ourselves as we have no other place to go.
Oh for sure,PBS Terra gets hit hard by the trolls. Those comments are rough.
Scishow gets hit hard too, especially right after the Vids get posted
Climate change is natural.
This looks familiar. I know. It's like the part in Wizard of Oz where the Wizard says "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".
I'm regularly getting angry about the ignorance non scientists have towards scientific research (that's not even much disputed in the scientifc community). If the scientists, the smartest people we have in the field of research, come to a conclusion and almost all of them agree on the issue, who is someone who "did his own research" by watching some conspiracy theories online, sponsored by groups of interest whos business depends on continuing the status quo, to disagree with the vigor they do?
climate change or global warming or extreme weather or any other boogieman name u want to call it doesn't make it real. plenty of scientists agree its not real, so u can walk or bicycle anywhere u want, i'll continue to happly drive my gas guzzler everywhere and enjoy every minute
@@thangnguyen-iy4xf "plenty of scientists agree its not real,"
If you call 0.03% 'plenty - so be it.
Hint: this is about the *evidence* - not about what those supposed scientists 'agree' on.
The argument shouldn't be: trust the scientists, that has nothing to do with science. The 97% is a myth. There is no such thing. It is made up to make you believe it. Same as the 97% efficacy of a certain needle millions put in their arms recently. It is marketing pur sang.
I see your point but in the late 1970's almost "All of them" agreed that we were heading toward another ice age!
Yawn. This urban myth again. No. The medis simply quoted mostly those who predicted cooling. The majority said otherwise.
See 'What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?' (skepticalscience)
Add to this: those wrong predictions were based on the large emissions of industry which caused aerosols (which have a cooling effect) . Since filters were added in in the 1970ties and 1980ties, this cooling effect largely vanished. A nice example for how we influence climate!
Ever notice that a lot of change cheerleaders happen to be gay.
Wow. Thanks a lot .
We should put an end to planned obsolescence. For our planet and our pocketbooks.
PS the look on your face when informed it wasn't John Malenkovich.... priceless
I 100 percent agree.
Dr. Gates decided that Depop. is a way better and most effective method.
You really think that corporations design things to break? What proof do you have?
Must pur on my climate scientist har for a moment. I saw the thumbnail. Climate change is natural. What isn't natural is the rate of change. The rate is unprecenteded. In the past, climate swings took thousands of years. We have managed to completely shift the climate in just a few hundred. The last big climate swing we caused was due to agriculture and even that took over 1000 years. That is why we are all worried. It is hard to understand how species can adapt to climate shifts when every other change they have endured took eons to occur.
Yup
You are wrong, in this video he also made the point that climate change is not new but the rate of change is not. Then he went on to show nothing to back up that claim. It looks like the 1.1 C rise over 142 years looks fairly common when compared to many ice core samples. I think that is why he never showed that our recent change is unnatural, because its not.
@@kmoses582 It's because of scales involved. If you compare it in hundreds of thousands to millions of years, then it is a spike, but not yet an obvious one.
@@gorantev In the past a 1.1 degree C change over 142 is common. That is why he never used data to back up his claim, he knows better. That is my problem with these guys is that they are don't tell the whole story until they have to.
Why do we keep separating humans from nature, as if we're not a part of it?
Listening to this video made me realize that why the planet is warming is irrelevant. It is warming and much to fast for the ecosystems to adjust. We face mass extinctions and if humans want to continue to live, we should do something about it (even if we would not have been responsible).
The fact that we are causing climate change means we are also able to get us out of that mess
Your comment makes no sense, you say that why the planet is warming is irrelevant. Then you say that we are causing it and means that we are able to get out of the mess. Then why is the source irrelevant? If it's mostly natural we have zero control.
@@kmoses582 (English is not my first language, maybe I am not good at explaining my thoughts)
What I am trying to say is: whatever the source of the warming is, it is warming and there is dangerous consequences to it and we have to do something if we want to survive. Even if it were natural, we should try to get out of this mess. The only thing knowing we are the cause do, is giving us (me at least) some hope that we have power over it. Much more than if we were not.
@@sourisdebibliotheque The reason why I think understanding past climate is relevant is that it shows the changes we are going through now is not new or unprecedented. This helps us understand that human and wildlife alive today survived in the past and we will do just fine. Yes human activity is warming the world, but we must put it into perspective. I don't think we have any real control over our climate though, we are along for the ride.
LOL
Great work and research put in a easy to understand way,thanks
I cant find the sources in the description. Can anybody help me?
It's mostly from NASA. Just ask for specific things, I'm glad to help.
@@enderwiggin1113 thanks! I wanted some references on what he says at 2:43 "every climate model factors in these natural forces... the only way to get climate models is to add in all the stuff that humans are doing to the climate". It's very well explained and wanted to read a bit more about it.
NASA 'Human and Natural Drivers of Climate Change (1850-2018) '
and 'Is Current Warming Natural?'
@@enderwiggin1113 thanks!
Yes let's destroy our economy to do nothing it's good to strive to make things better but not by the extreme things that will destroy the economy
The economy isn’t going to mean much if the planet can’t sustain life
At 65 with no family you have me mixed up with someone that GAF. Having seen where most of our "recycling" goes, might just as well chuck it in trash in first place!
What I think is the biggest cause that is at the root of our current climate problem: we are with far too many people on this planet.
For some reason "we" seem to believe that how well we are doing, is measured in progress. Progress is measured in technical prowess and the size of our economy, hoe much new stuff we produce and sell. "We" also seem to relentlessly want more of everything, consume more of everything. And at the same time our numbers are growing. But our resources are finite, as is the habitable space on the surface of our home. The surface that is not habited, is either uninhabitable, or used for growing our food - which we need more and more of. The balance is off way in the wrong direction. Technology isn't going to solve this.
Vermont students claim insects were found 2 miles under the Ice in Greenland confirming a recent Ice Age. They claim humans will cause the same effects that occured 1000s of years ago, how convienent this explantion is.
Persistent westerly winds have also dragged the current in one direction for over 20 years, increasing the speed and size of the clockwise current and preventing the fresh water from leaving the Arctic Ocean. This decades-long western wind is unusual for the region, where previously, the winds changed direction every five to seven years.
Scientists have been keeping an eye on the Beaufort Gyre in case the wind changes direction again. If the direction were to change, the wind would reverse the current, pulling it counterclockwise and releasing the water it has accumulated all at once.
“If the Beaufort Gyre were to release the excess fresh water into the Atlantic Ocean, it could potentially slow down its circulation. And that would have hemisphere-wide implications for the climate, especially in Western Europe,” said Tom Armitage, lead author of the study and polar scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.
Fresh water released from the Arctic Ocean to the North Atlantic can change the density of surface waters. Normally, water from the Arctic loses heat and moisture to the atmosphere and sinks to the bottom of the ocean, where it drives water from the north Atlantic Ocean down to the tropics like a conveyor belt.
This important current is called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and helps regulate the planet’s climate by carrying heat from the tropically-warmed water to northern latitudes like Europe and North America. If slowed enough, it could negatively impact marine life and the communities that depend on it.
“We don’t expect a shutting down of the Gulf Stream, but we do expect impacts. That’s why we’re monitoring the Beaufort Gyre so closely,” said Alek Petty, a co-author on the paper and polar scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.
The study also found that, although the Beaufort Gyre is out of balance because of the added energy from the wind, the current expels that excess energy by forming small, circular eddies of water. While the increased turbulence has helped keep the system balanced, it has the potential to lead to further ice melt because it mixes layers of cold, fresh water with relatively warm, salt water below. The melting ice could, in turn, lead to changes in how nutrients and organic material in the ocean are mixed, significantly affecting the food chain and wildlife in the Arctic. The results reveal a delicate balance between wind and ocean as the sea ice pack recedes under climate change.
“What this study is showing is that the loss of sea ice has really important impacts on our climate system that we’re only just discovering,” said Petty.
Rexana Vizza / Matthew Segal
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
818-393-1931 / 818-354-8307
rexana.v.vizza@jpl.nasa.gov / matthew.j.segal@jpl.nasa.gov
2020-025
We hear about "trigger points" all the time now a days. Since the last ice age, the glacial front has receded about 20 miles per year. As these glacial recede, they reveal darker masses underneath them. These darker masses absorb more heat than would have been reflected by the ice sheets. So, as more and more of these dark masses where revealed, did we hit a "trigger point" that accelerated the melting and allowed for more temperature absorption?
SittingInDetroit --- So, as more and more of these dark masses where revealed, did we hit a "trigger point" that accelerated the melting and allowed for more temperature absorption?
Wayne Patterson --- No. The Solar thermal energy resident within the Atmosphere is somewhere on the order of only about 17 percent of the Earth's gain in Solar energy. The vast majority of the Solar thermal gain is resident in the Hydrosphere and Cryosphere. Consequently, the currently small percentage change in the land surface albedo in the absence of the Cryosphere is relatively insignificant for the Earth as a whole.
SID: Tipping points (or trigger points as you call them) refer to situations where some kind of discontinuity is passed. The reduction in albedo due to loss of snow/ice cover (whether on land or sea) is certainly a positive feedback to warming, as you suggest, due to the reduction in the amount of incoming solar radiation that is reflected (harmlessly) back into space. (Wayne's comment doesn't make sense).
Trouble is we don't know with any great certainty when we might cross the various possible tipping points.
This article in Nature also has a number of references:
Nature "Climate tipping points - too risky to bet against" 27 November 2019
@@Tengooda Something that is seldom talked about is the worlds temperature rise number is made up of 100s/1000s of measurements. The trend is that the colder areas are changing at a higher rate while the warmer areas are not changing or very little. This leads me to wonder about the increased land mass theory.
@@waynepatterson5843 So, you believe that the whole "tipping point" is not true. The "tipping point" theory says that a very small change can be the last bit that causes massive and accelerated change.
@@Tengooda Yes, it seems he believe that the tipping point argument only works if it helps justify his position or can effectively be used to create fear (and funding).....
So what is the solution to eliminating or reducing our effect on the climate? Most of the proposed solutions offer a cure that is worse than the disease. I want over the entire ipcc report but not the newest one
1. End sprawl
2. End planned obsolescence
3. Use hydro (tides, rivers, waves) power
4. Use wind power
5. Use solar power like solar towers, mirrors
6. Develop high speed rail
7. Make cities pedestrian
8. End the manufacture of all single use plastics.(ban plastic bags, plastic bottles etc)
9. Go back to reusable glass bottles
@@-Subtle- nonsense , stop letting third worlders over breed ,too many humans on the planet ,get it back to 4 billion
@@-Subtle- in short, end dependance on oil and coal
@@girlsdrinkfeck That is... literally so dumb...
Why in god's name would we do that ?
@@-Subtle- You didn't mention anything about storage of energy: It costs more to store energy than to create it.
I don’t always agree with your take on things but I appreciate that you give people the benefit of the doubt. It’s important for representing your cause: not demeaning people who disagree with you.
Yes, he is representing his cause by backing it up with a lot of compelling facts and reasoning. I would like to see those people who disagree with him provide comparably compelling facts and reasoning to back up their own counter cause.
@@christopherdaffron8115 well the thing most people miss about reasoning is that it’s ultimately built on top of the things each side cares about. So you can bring all the facts you want, but the two sides of an issue are still going to interpret those facts differently.
The effort matters though and that’s perhaps a critical oversight for our generation. It’s not enough to just name drop “facts” and expect that people should fall in line. Persuasion matters and condescension is divisive.
@@addisontaylor5979 Yes, I agree that you are hard pressed to win over the other side by shaming or insulting them. Persuasion only works if it appeals to people's self-interests. Facts aren't intended to be interpreted. If you concede them to be actual facts, you can only argue about their consequences.
@@christopherdaffron8115 i mostly agree with you. Say for example a virus breaks out with a 2% mortality rate. Someone might call that dangerous and someone might say it’s not enough to call for lock downs. Depends on the original priorities of the beholders. Facts always get interpreted.
Nice video, perhaps some scientific facts might help paint the real picture. Please do another one and touch on where in the atmosphere the heating occurs and what causes the heating. How does different frequency absorption affect temperatures and why the stratosphere temperature shows warming as height increases around 15 to 90 kilometres. Also please explain why doubling the CO2 does not seem to have any effect. Some actual science would greatly help.
Nifty, that won't do any good, if the warmers disagree with it they just CANCEL the Info and the Author...
just the other day i watched a video talking about the icebergs in iceland and climate change... and i was actually shocked at the amount of people in the comments saying we basically can't do anything about it because it's "all natural" and we shouldn't try to fix it because "there's nothing to fix" and just "prepare" for it... even when there was an expert in the video talking about it very much being accelerated by us even if it's natural... which... do people really need an expert to say it... like for real?? it's more than obvious we are destroying this planet..
People fear change and accountability so much, that they'll accept their own (eventual) annihilation over long-term self-preservation, in an effort to sustain their short-term addictions. If consequences aren't immediate or blatantly impactful, people will remain too slow to react. Worst of all, they drag down the most meaningful and committed. After 10 yrs of vegan zero-waste commitment, I became exhausted and jaded. Covid also didn't help. I switched down to 90% plant-based & 10% dairy (still guilt-ridden about it) and became minimalist instead of full-on ZW. Decided to enjoy my life instead of trying to single-handedly save the world. It sucks bc I really wanted to make a difference, but it's not fair trying to change when the entire world around you is intent on making it difficult - or worse, shaming you and accusing you of joining cults. I left religion 12 years ago, so I'm pretty sure I'd avoid ending up back in cults again. They usually don't look like populist grass-roots movements either, so I think I was ok. One day I'll get back into it, but right now, the few of us that are willing simply can't carry the entire worlds on our backs. Everyone needs to be on board, otherwise we lose some people to environmental martyrdom.
Why do you think we are destroying the planet?
@@kmoses582 we are overfishing and polluting our waters causing damage to the flora and fauna, polluting the air and cutting down forests, hunting animals to extinction.. you know just casual human things i believe aren't good for our planet.
@@YourMajesty143 i agree. i try to be zero waste as much as possible (for years now) and eat a mostly vegetarian diet but.. it's so hard, especially the zero waste part.. most times i don't have a choice and the best thing i can do is simply try to recycle. it's tiring to keep feeling so guilty as if it all depends on me when there's people that don't care at all and even throw trash outside on the streets.. i just wish more people actually cared... we need to remember that we don't need all to be 100% zero waste and vegan.. but if everyone tried a little it would make a difference.
@@edelleaa Why did you change the subject? I asked in relation to your first question
Name one natural force at large scale that can be accurately predicted... not a denial but truth is hard to determine at scale
Gravity?
Try explaining the Roman & Medieval Warm Periods, what caused those? Then the thousands of snowfall and cold records broken across globe in 2022??
... and the vastly greater number of hot records.
When climate is destabilised then BOTH hot and cold records are broken.
When climate is destabilised with a warming trend then MORE hot records are broken than cold.THAT is what is happening.
@@Tengooda ... and the vastly greater number of hot records.
Wayne Patterson --- Those alleged "greater number of hot records" are works of fiction and a fraud.
Tengooda ... When climate is destabilised then BOTH hot and cold records are broken.
Wayne Patterson --- False claim and another example of practicing a superstitous pseudoscience with make believe fictional temperatures. The Solar Minimum periodically causes the circumpolar jet streams to weaken which in turn allows the warm and cold air masses to vary much greater in their latitudinal excursions. The wider ranges in air mass movements result in heat waves and cold waves. They are entirely natural variations in weather due to changes in Solar activity. The so-called records" are not relevant due to there not having been enough years for the recordkeepers to compile a true representation of natural weather variability.
Tengooda ... When climate is destabilised with a warming trend then MORE hot records are broken than cold.THAT is what is happening.
Wayne Patterson --- The alleged unnatural "hot records" are works of fiction that were not observed in Nature. They were fabricated by the extremest Climate Change Alarmists.
@@Tengooda Try having a look at all the cold records being broken around the globe currently. 20 in 1 day in Australia last week, it's supposed to be Summer and we had snow. Satellites are showing a decline since 2016.
@@Tengooda In the U.S. more record high state records were set in the 1930s then the 21st century
@@kmoses582 I don't doubt it. So what? The 1930s in the U.S. was a time of much higher temperatures than had been previously recorded (since 1880), partly caused by the ploughing of the prairies that allowed the soil to dry out, allowing more warming to occur: the dust bowl was largely a human caused disaster. Thus lots of records were broken in the 1930s. Having had high temperature records of course means that in subsequent years it is harder to break those records.
But three facts remain that you ignore:
1. The average contiguous U.S. temperature for the last ten years has been 53.92degF.
The average contiguous U.S. temperature for the 1930s was 52.64degF (source: NOAA National Centers for Environmental information, Climate at a Glance: National Time Series, published December 2022, retrieved on December 18, 2022)
2. The number of record highs in the contiguous U.S. from 1988 to 2017 was 2.3 million. The number of record lows for the same period was 1.8 million. (source NOAA "Record High Temperatures Outpace Record Lows"
3. The contiguous USA comprises just 1.65% of the Earth's surface, so any trends therefrom do NOT represent global trends and CANNOT be used to draw conclusions about GLOBAL warming.
Science Man says, "Never look at the sun." What are they hiding?!!😂
The 1930s had some of the hottest days on record here in the USA. In 1931 over 90% of the country was 95 degrees or higher in the month of July. 1936 was much of the same. The CO2 levels were much lower than they are now. I don't think this country has seen anything like that since. Unfortunately, most climate alarmists ignore anything that occurred before 1985.
Your post is misinformation.
1. "most climate alarmists ignore anything that occurred before 1985." Nonsense.
2. " In 1931 over 90% of the country was 95 degrees or higher in the month of July."
To be precise, the July average high temperature for Arizona in 1931 was 96F and during the rest of the 1930's varied between 91F and 96F.
In 2023, the July average high temperature for Arizona was over 101F.
Every decade since the 1930s has seen the July average high temperature for Arizona exceed 96F slightly, and since the year 2000 those high temperatures have increased: 99F in 2003 & 2005, 97F in 2009 and 98F in 2020.
@@Tengooda Are you talking Arizona or Phoenix. Arizona has many different climates.
One more who posts some single weather extrems as counterexamples to a trend. Sigh
Edit: Tengooda explained a *trend* which showed that there has been an increase since 1931 - whereas the OP focused on a single year.
As if this wasn't crystally clear - kmoses nevertheless pretended not to understand it.
@@enderwiggin1113 Let me guess, Tengooda's Arizona example is global
Good point!
What caused the glaciers to melt and then become the GREAT LAKES?
We need to refreeze them fast or else this will affect so many people!
Nicely explained but it is still a bad idea to capture carbon in an old oli feild or to stop growing things on a field to put up solar panels not saying we don't have an effect but running for a solution is a good way to make things worse