These are just the points that jumped out at me, but there is so much more to this report and the Summary for Policymakers. Check out my friends' videos here for their takes on the latest IPCC: ua-cam.com/video/Awmx9922Kac/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/1J0lCBjMgvg/v-deo.html
@@ClimateAdam U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic (New York Times,1970) - The United States and the Soviet Union are mounting large‐scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid, why parts of the Arctic sea ice have recently become ominously thicker and whether the extent of that ice cover contributes to the onset of ice ages. The Cooling World (Newsweek Magazine, 1975) - Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve.
@@ClimateAdam 1000 years ago temperatures were as warm or warmer than today and in the IPCC's first report their temperature graph clearly showed that. Tide gauges from around the world going back over 100 years so show no change in the rate of sea level rise. If you study the history of climate and extreme weather events you will find claims about increasing weather extremes are false. Hottest Temperature Ever Recorded By State: These values have been evaluated by the NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information and/or by the State Climate Extremes Committee and determined to be valid. Number of states with highest temperature ever recorded in the 2000s - 3 Number of states with highest temperature ever recorded in the 1900s - 45 Number of states with highest temperature ever recorded in the 1800s - 2 Number of states with highest temperature ever recorded in the 1930s - 24
In the 1970's all the commercials about pollution and the environment seemed like "Oh this will be a easy thing to mitigate." Don't throw trash out of your car, "Give a hoot, Don't Pollute," "Only Smoky says you can prevent forest fires, etc, etc, etc. However, Corporate America has more then doubled down against this premise since then every 4th commercial is about buying new big cars, trucks and Suv's in the US. Fast food commercials, Big pharma encouraging you to buy drugs with the most bizarre names and horrific side effects I live in Texas and I sometimes am afraid to drive my Honda accord down the road with these enormous gas guzzling behemoths.
Looking forward to seeing what they say in terms of how we can adapt our impacts. In the meantime I am learning an insane amount by reading "Drawdown" By Paul Hawken
@@LeanAndMean44 I’ll put my hand up and say I’m having real trouble making that change. I did buy a ton of meat alternatives this week. So I suppose you gotta start somewhere! Which is your favourite potential solution so far?
@@C_R_O_M________ People working in the private sector have a much greater incentive to lie. The fossil fuel industry pays a lot to muddy the waters when it comes to climate change.
We're used to your clear, concise videos and this one is no exception. Thanks so much. Also, thank you for saying very clearly that this report is PART ONE because so many media outlets "forgot" to mention it!
It's really important - because while this section is the closest to my understanding, the next two are the ones that really break down what all the physical changes *mean* and what we can do about them
I can't give a reference but I recollect reading that the planet wouldn't reach 4 degrees of warming ... because before that point industrial civilization would have ceased to exist.
Yet, the 1.5 degree mark was set as the target because that's where the known feedback loops begin to prefer 6 degrees increase as the naturally desired metastability point so regardless of whether or not industrial civilization ceases, the climate will continue to warm of it's own accord once we're past the 1.5 degree mark. It's like pushing a rock on the top of a hill, once it's going fast enough, you no longer need to keep pushing as it will roll to the bottom of the hill on it's own accord. If we cease all of our fossil fuel use today, the climate will still continue to warm and indeed the models shown in the report shows that the most aggressive cessation of fossil fuel use would just stabilize the temperature around the 1.5 degree mark with perhaps a slight decline and effects such as sea level rise would continue for centuries to a thousand years. It's already way past the simplistic notion that if we were all gone, the world would revert to what it was.
@@C_R_O_M________ The history of this world? In human written history, last month was the hottest ever. In geologic records, it took ten thousand to twenty thousand years for the climate to change as much as it has in the past 150 years. In geologic history, we are in an interglacial break within an ice age and should most likely return to the glacial stage. In the geologic record, there are three metastability points of climate, the least stable being the ice age which we are in, the second least stable is the warm climate where polar and land ice does not exist year round and the most stable is the snowball Earth where all land masses are covered with ice and most of the oceans except for a narrow strip around the equator. The geologic record does not support your delusions in denying climate change, it supports it. Sure there were warmer climates in the past but never such a rapid change in a direction opposite to what the geologic record would say is more probable for our current state. The known feedback loops are not hypothetical but the ones we know if, there are many more that are hypothetical. The fact that dark surfaces absorbs heat and light ones reflect is known not hypothetical, the fact that a current of water carries it's heat is known (well enough that we use it to cool our car's engines) not hypothetical, the fact that salty water is heavier than fresh is known not hypothetical, the fact that frozen permafrost thaws when heated is known not hypothetical. You are desperately trying to defend denial.
@@C_R_O_M________ And Earth once had 99% C0₂ so what. We're not talking about 7,000 ppm only you are deluded enough to think it has to be so extreme for the greenhouse effect. It only takes a fraction of a gram to tip a balance of weights, even the current 400 ppm when our metastability normally has 300 ppm presents an ever accumulating effect, it does not need to rise to 7,000 ppm. You are just trying to defend your denial by exaggerating what is needed when it is a matter of metstabilities, of a balance and it only needs to be tipped.
@@C_R_O_M________ is it hypothetical that dark surfaces absorbs heat while light surfaces reflect? Besides what we have witness has been more heating then all the models predict. As to the models not being yours, while the climate change doesn't care and what is your model, deny, listen to websites with no credibility and claim everything else is fake news. Sure the models are wrong and we see that in that the climate has warmed more than predicted. But of course, you deny that on the basis of that it disagrees with your beliefs. Don't you realize how foolush your posts makes you seem to be. A junior high sxhool math of a linear relationship between CO₂ levels to claim values as high as 7,000 ppm are needed, how stupid is that, temperature increases only requires more energy to be received than radiated, that's not linear, that is in thresholds, in balance, radiation is linear with temperature but we're not talking about that much temperature and heat and CO₂ interferes with radiation, it prevents radiation. Just denying the models as our models instead of yours when the models underestimates what has actually happened only shows your cognitive bias and denial. Sure the conspiracy website would quote a physicist just as tobacco lobbyists had Doctors. The physicist might even be a valid one with actual research that has been misinterpreted and really "auto compression", now you're deliberately trying to sound knowledgeable by using techno babble. Yes, compression creates heat but heating causes expansion and it isn't as if there's a lid on our atmosphere for the pressure to build and our atmosphere is not sedimentation of solids where weight contains enough to increase compression, as a gas, in an open environment a teem such as auto compression would not even be used.. Don't you get it, you're falling for misinformation from conspiracy theorist who misrepresent studies with obvious technobabble and no you can not claim it isn't a conspiracy by saying the CIA conspired to call what they don't like conspiracies, that would be using a conspiracy to explain your bias.. Remember you're the one childishly claiming a linear relationship to say it would requure 15 times the concentration of CO₂ of 7000 ppm for the predictions to be true and now you're twisting to say because it's nonlinear, not everything us known. Of course not everything is known which us why the temperature rise so far exceeds all the models. Don't you see you're only scrambling to defend your false beliefs and poorly at that... If you actually thought your denial of climate change is right, the logical course if action would be to shut your mouth before you bury yourself in more fallacies as clearly your information sources have no merit, you would let it play out as you have nothing but fantasies.
@@johnwang9914 bro can you please simplify what you are saying? Are you saying that now we cant do anything. I think if we stop using fossil fuels right now the sea levels would be stable after few decades? Can you please clarify.
Too late. My analogy is that even if we hit the off button of the machine, it is already self-sustaining due to positive feedback and continues to run. The increase in global ambient temperature is causing more release of greenhouse gases outside of our direct control - loss of ice sheets, permafrost, and rain forests. I'm not optimistic whatsoever.
I can somewhat understand people pretending to reject all science. But why accept science that climate change is a problem and then make unscientific claims about human action not mattering? When we stop emitting greenhouse gases the warming will stop, the current IPCC report even suggests that the warming will stop sooner than previously thought.
while some things will continue after CO2 emissions stop - most notably sea level rise - the latest science is that temperatures would stabilise more or less straight away. this is discussed in a previous vid: ua-cam.com/video/HKof7NQeMQc/v-deo.html
gosh it's been a loooong time since I've used an atmospheric physics text book, and struggling to remember which I took out the library when they were needed. this list seems to have some excellent recommendations, though: bookauthority.org/books/best-atmospheric-science-books
@@ClimateAdam "The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multi-factor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure." - Richard Lindzen, MIT atmospheric science professor and lead author of Chapter 7, "Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks," of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Third Assessment Report on climate change.
Switch to plant-based meat and plant-based dairy products, don't purchase leather, invest in renewable energy and electric vehicles. I would say that's honestly the most an individual can do at this time, the rest is up to the government
The one's that own houses can fix those. And there's many more changes to travel than just electric cars (bikes, buses, trains). But yes, more than half the change needed has to be driven by government, companies and finance.
@@C_R_O_M________ Do you have empirical evidence to back up your uneducated statement? The academy of nutrition and dietetics has stated that a vegan diet is appropriate for all stages of life including infancy, pregnancy, adolescence and adulthood. Blue Zone cities with the highest populations of people over 100 are 90-100% plant-based. Don’t call yourself an environmentalist if you eat animal products
@@C_R_O_M________ So your solution is to stay ignorant instead of helping the environment by reducing your carbon footprint, what a small-minded frivolous human. You take pride in being an animal abuser that funds the animal holocaust eh?
I think the timeframes in this report are optimistic. The lack of aeresols due to all the lockdowns are letting 'extra' solar radiation in which wasn't apparent before 2020 due to the dimming effect of aeresols... I can imagine a future where SRM is going to need to be implemented at some point when people are desperate and things may go even more totally off the rails. Aeresol forcing is huge! Politicians and average people alike want an easy way out and not a hard way out, which is to downgrade our living standards to subsistence farming in developed nations and tell less developed nations they cannot advance. I just don't see the political will, people don't even want to wear a mask because they think it is government overreach.
aerosols are explicitly accounted for in assessment of all timeframes, and the report even discusses how lockdowns affected radiative forcing. note, though, that any warming effect from aerosol decreases during the pandemic (which I should note hasn't actually been detected) disappears as soon as aerosol emissions go back to normal. that's because aerosols live only a short time in the atmosphere, so their concentration depends on the rate of emissions. CO2, however, lasts hundreds of years once it's up there, so cumulative emissions are what counts.
@@ClimateAdamI'm sorry for being fatalistic, that helps no one and studies show it causes inaction. Have a thumbs up. What I can glean from the IPCC so far doesn't change my mind; but it's a massive document and I have a day job to do. I live in a badly affected area (tame compared to what many are already going through) and it is tinting the lens through which I view this. Thanks for checking me.
Everyone that the journalists have been interviewing says the report ends with optimism by saying we can still take action, that it is up to us to shape the future but they all side stepped around the fact that much of the damage is stated as already irreversible and the actions we can take would only avert even worse outcomes. That positive note is that it can and will be far worse than we've already seen if we don't take actions. Is really "it can and will be worse" really a positive note? and how sad is it that such a perspective is now considered optimistic. Sure although the best time to do something is yesterday, the second best is today but we've been living on that mantra without acting today for decades. What I see is that the situation will become serious enough for us to take dangerous geo-engineering efforts just to diffuse the problem. Low cost geo-engineering efforts such as returning jet airliners to high sulfur jet fuels to increase the albedo of clouds at the expense of acid rain would be one such acts.
Thanks Adam for this video. We have in Poland now kinda political crisis with our damned gov't but I know the news of the year was this report. When I linked via Facebook short article about report such "Facebook friends" give me back some sarcasm, insults and absurd denial theories. But I hope they are minority. Now we must fight all over the world with Climate Crisis/Catastrophy and You are the one of the few who brings me hope and motivation. Thank You!!!
@@C_R_O_M________ I don't understand why you think he is lying. In this video especially, he doesn't uses his own arguments. He actually summarizes what does the IPCC explain in its last report. I have read some other summaries of this IPCC report and they say the same as Climate Adam
Excellent, very good presentation, we really need to get cracking on with cleaning up all sectors of forestry, food, transportation, manufacturing and building stuff
Hey Adam! What do you anticipate will be response of the global leaders in the next meet, considering that all along the climate solutions they've advanced have always opted to go for carbon sinks yet simultaneously self-licensing themselves to more emissions. Do you think this report will be turning point in that it will convince leaders to finally drop carbon emissions for greener energy? Basically, should we be hopeful that a drastic change will finally take off?
honestly - as a scientist - I have no special expertise that can help me answer that question! however, I have seen momentum growing in both the public conversation and in our politics. whether that momentum is enough to motivate the dramatic changes needed to limit global warming to either of the targets of the paris climate agreement... I simply don't know.
@@LeanAndMean44 Ha ha ha, token gestures. America is the second biggest polluter after China, and by far the biggest polluter per capita in the entire world.
@@ClimateAdam What is never mentioned about C02 is that if you release C02 today, it doesnt automatically start contributing to Global warming until it has reached the upper atmosphere. This can take decades, so reducing CO2 today doesnt mean we will see the the effects until decades down the line.
Reverberations of the early 80ies..., we're over the cliff now, about half way down..., but sure, why not..., hit the breaks, you may have time to pull the hand breaks as wel...
Sea level rise of 2m by end of century would be gentle and certainly not even nearly the greatest concern, though those in Bangladesh and Island states such as the Maldives are unlikely to have a country within years. 6-10m minimum (I understood 6 or 60, so am going for the lower number here not to exaggerate incorrectly) rises are possible if we lose the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, and loss of planet’s ice sheets (almost inevitable within a decade with the Arctic), resulting release of methane en masse (around Siberia and elsewhere) could lead to runaway warming resulting in extinction. The impact of both fires plus change in forest behaviour of releasing rather than capturing carbon adding to carbon in the atmosphere, plus heatwaves, floods, and all other extreme, frequent, and non-seasonal weather events impacting food and water shortages and habitability of areas of the planet leading to mass-migration and food shortages for are immediate concerns. The IPCC report contains the elements ALL the scientists have agreed on. It will not include the outlying predictions, which are the true worst case scenarios. It has always been tempered, and scientists have a hard time getting their message out there with governments (lobbying and laws) being controlled by global corporations. Media will not tell us straight either; and who wants mass panic? Greta clocked this years ago when she said the house was on fire. Now it is - from Europe to Siberia, qnd it is currently snowing in Lesotho, Africa. Plus deserts have flooded. But President Lyndon B. Johnson was warned about climate change by scientists in 1965! And Greta’s grandfather and others knew about climate change over 100 years ago. Yet the majority of damage has been done in the last 50 years since 1970. This is not the start of dealing with it - this is the end game. It is very good that young people - all people - are speaking out, and I really liked that you recognised each incremental rise means the world is over for someone and some people (and animals, btw - individually and extinction) on the planet. We are less divided by geography as habitable conditions per species. What happens in the Arctic, doesn’t stay in the Arctic. And what happens to people in the Mexican gulf, crop growth in Africa, or tree health in Amazonian or Boreal forests will affect us. The coral reef is unfortunately already dead. I remember diving that in Australia when I was your age not so long ago. Don’t underestimate the speed with which things are capable of changing.
there are many actions we can take, both to encourage our societies to take the shifts needed, and to reduce our personal emissions. I discuss a bunch (and why both are important) in this vid I made a couple of years back with zentouro: ua-cam.com/video/OLeieEcLVyQ/v-deo.html
Viable solution to climate crisis: Rich Americans consume more like poor Africans? Simple low tech lifestyle changes can allow all humanity to reach IPCC warming goals by 2050? How is this going to happen? Did I miss something? I am already there. It can be done. I am far healthier, more psychologically content and save roughly an average of $750 per month.
Scientists are the expert sceptics that are willing to change their opinions if facing new and convincing evidence. The deniers are just that - they will _never_ change their opinions because they cling to them like religious beliefs.
@SHEISTER CAM One new denier argument I saw recently was that the warming was caused by increased UV-B radiation due to the ozone depletion since UV-B is 48 times "hotter" than the IR radiation absorbed by CO₂. (I guess that refers to the energy content per photon) Apparently, he didn't know that UV-B accounts for only 2 % of the total solar radiation outside the Earth's atmosphere, and that roughly 1 % of those 2 % or 0.02 % of the total solar energy reaches the Earth surface. Even if that fraction should double (which could be a significant health and environmental problem), its climate forcing would be only a tiny fraction of CO₂. It's also worth noting that ozone itself is a greenhouse gas, but he didn't seem to know that, either.
Doesn't the potential 2 metres sea level rise by 2100 still depend on whether humanity follows the R.C.P 8.5 type scenarios or not, which are now regarded as being difficult or impossible to 'achieve'? If we limit it to 1.5°C or 2.0°C that outcome would be extremely unlikely, as it would rely on 'unknown unknowns' in the dynamics of ice sheet collapse.
absolutely - that's what I was trying to communicate when I said "this is what would happen if we kept emitting more and more..." - i.e. that emissions keep increasing. while these ice sheet processes could still occur if we limited warming to 1.5 or 2 degrees, we would *not* expect this to happen to the same speed or extent as in the 2m by 2100 scenario described.
@@ClimateAdam Yup. Changing ice sheet dynamics are not very well understood yet. As Greg Craven (who wrote the book 'What's the Worst that could Happen' - which I had a small input into) said "it's all very well saying wait for the results of this experiment we are doing with the atmosphere, but remember - we're in the test tube...
@@C_R_O_M________ "Grand scale lies"? Hmm. Perhaps you ought to remember that climate science is about 150 years old and the denialist sources that have warped your perceptions are about 30 years old, have been repeatedly debunked not to mention some have been exposed as being run by politically extreme deceivers. Further, remember that every National Academy and major scientific organisation on earth have endorsed the findings of 150 years+ of climate science. Every nation on Earth (about (195) has signed, and almost all have ratified, the Paris agreement. Never forget that the giant fossil fuel energy companies, who have the most humongous financial motive to want to find any significant holes in climate science to protect their enormous income and future sales, have checked out the extreme ‘sceptic’ sources you have been sucked in by and found they have no scientific credibility whatsoever. Remember, Big Oil has their own scientists too who would all have an enormous career motivation to tell their bosses not to worry if only they could. Think about it - if Big Fossil Fuel had found any validity in denialist mish-mashes of blurry thinking, strawman arguments, fallacious conclusions, deceptive misdirection and pseudoscience, they would have been shouting it out from the rooftops for a decade or more with double page ads in top global newspapers and carpet bombing infomercials on every major TV and radio channel on the planet. Hard nosed coal, oil and gas executives, who can throw more money than god at employing the best, least biased, analysts on earth to check out denialist clap-trap for any get-out-of-jail-free cards to save their business model, now make clear statements on just about all their corporate websites - check them out, starting with the largest - Exxon-Mobil - right on down. I think you’ll discover that (apart from Iran Oil!) it’s almost universal that even Big Fossil Fuel now fully accepts the mainstream scientific conclusions that show we do have a big problem which needs serious efforts to solve. Consider all the foregoing and then try to understand why the world sees paranoid thinking conspiracy theory types like you as borderline insane, malignantly deceitful or, at least, deluded to the point of being pathologically irresponsible.
@@C_R_O_M________ wrote "It so happens that their 1850-1900 period - their point of reference to estimate this "alarming warming" - was also the lowest point in GMSTs in 10000 years!" Bollacks. It is appropriate to show the changes we have initiated since we started seriously loading the atmosphere with extra greenhouse gases. Try showing the world a link to a credible source backing up your insinuations - or don't, if you don't like being laughed at. Actually, any person with their head screwed should have realised that, if the whole scientific establishment, and all governments - and even those giant corporations with a huge financial motivation to want to find any genuine 'get out of jail free' cards in denialist garbage - accept the science, then the chances are infinitesimal that some random internet denialist such as you, spreading deluded and fallacious misinformation, knows better than just about everyone else.
This is gonna be interesting in the airport lobby, I'm gonna fly over to England for 2 days for an anime convention for some cosplay fun and free hugs since they aren't allowed here yet lol
the IPCC isn't a charity, they're not asking for money. it's just an overview of what a diverse group of scientists around the world have found in their research. Adam has a video explaining how it works if you'd like to learn more about it.
You speak of extreme weather. I assume you mean, floods, droughts, fires etc. Weather anomalies are more likely from weather manipulation through geoenginerring. The ability to make rain in one area, but deny it in another is creating these scenarios. Any 5 minute satellite weather video of potential rain clouds approaching the coast of California, only to be broken up by HAARP. Will sum up their capabilities.
@Niding Don't get me wrong. Beckwith is a genuine scientist who knows his field. Where I (and others in his field of expertise) think he goes 'off the deep end' is he portrays outcomes which many in his field think extremely unlikely as if they were quite likely. In order for the public to come to valid judgements and to assess the risks well it is, of course, important to know what the worst that could happen is - even if it is very unlikely - but it is equally important that the public are told what the chances are, and this is where Beckwith and a few others like him, not to mention extremist activists (who are much worse than Paul), fall down. 'Fear porn' is getting recognised amongst climate communicators as unhelpful at best and actually harmful at worst. This happens for a couple of reasons. Firstly, people can get so scared by it that they are overwhelmed and feel as if there is no point doing anything to avoid 'it' because it is 'too late' and 'we're all doomed'. Secondly, activists will go even further with their wild speculations and assertions until the public realise they are spreading the old story of 'doomism' to further their agendas which turns the public off or, worse, moves them towards the 'sceptic/denialist' side. Thirdly, it gives a lot of ammunition to the denialist movement who have accumulated all the terrible (and wrong) predictions of the past into long lists which they use in their propaganda to persuade the public that the mainstream science itself, as opposed to a few mavericks, is 'alarmist' and frequently wrong. They attempt to smear by proxy. Modern promulgators of fear porn are easily discredited in the public's mind by dragging out these lists and unfortunately, this means that quite a lot of the mud is made to stick to the conservative and legitimate middle ground of climate science too.
@Niding Carter has always been a 'catastrophist'. He's a retired medical physician (i.e. not a credentialled climate scientist) 'criticising' Nordhaus, who received the Nobel prize "for integrating climate change into long-run macroeconomic analysis". Here's what should be a big red flag from an interview Carter did: P.C. "Now, the other big issue - a big, horrible impact of climate change - is what’s called runaway. And that will wipe out just about all life from the planet" No credible climate scientist says that we can spark off such a runaway more or less whatever we do. James Hansen, when he first brought the subject of climate change to the attention of Congress in his famous speech 33 years ago in 1988 initially thought that global warming could spark off a 'runaway' leading to Earth getting as hot as Venus but, as the science developed, he realised that could not happen. Carter actually reminds me very much of Roger Hallam, one of the co-founders of Extinction Rebellion who got rightly condemned for his extreme fear porn, some of which asserted that the science meant that 'near term human extinction' was on the cards and also: R.H. "I am talking about the slaughter, death, and starvation of 6 billion people this century-that's what the science predicts." These statements were so extreme (and scientifically bonkers) that they contributed to Extinction Rebellion, who are not above using fear porn themselves, kicking him out of the organisation!
"Human influence"? Does that include indigenous peoples? Or is the "Enlightenment" , "industrial revolution" and the ensuing colonialism a bit more specific?
@@ClimateAdam didnt indigenous cultures warn us about the dangers of over exploiting the environment for greed? To honor and respect nature and to live as one with it. But then we were told that they were backward, savages, irrelevant and of no value. They were right all along. Bless the indigenous peoples, they carry the truth.
In the Netherlands sea level is rising 0,19 mm per year. It’s going on for 129 years. 24cm in Total. Not progressing the last 3 decades. Please check your sources and bias.
You are literally commenting under a video determined to one of the best researched publications worldwide and ask them to state sources while not stating any source on your own statement? Besides the fact that your own comment is contradicting itself, you can literally visit any Dutch newspaper site and you will find dozens of articles about the problems that Netherlands are going to face/are facing rn because of the rise of sea levels. The Dutch institute for meteorology and the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research both have multiple articles showing current problems due to sea levels rising around Netherlands.
@̐ No they did not. The 2013 predictions turned out to be true and sometimes even to conservative. These aren't the same kind of "predictions" like market crash predictions, which are almost always wrong. These are predictions based on physics. And if there is one set of laws on earth that will never not be enforced, it's the laws of physics.
When Michael Mann produced his CO2 hockeystick graph, which made All Gore a billionaire, who to make his bias scientific claim. Little did he known he would be convicted for fraude. Models are the worst predictors of your future. I think it’s leftist water melon green (green on the outside, red from the inside, which they don’t even see in their mirror) is becoming a more and more fascistic in their fear mongering. Sponsored by big industrial capital. Ideologs using each IPCC report first chapter as a modern day mein kamf.
Hahaha, he tries to present it convincingly but if one thing is very clear this person has not read/studied the IPCC report. I had a good laugh about it. thanks😂
Here's the thing that you and every other bloke are missing. We (all humans) are born into tribal social groups and very few escape that condition. No one outside a tribe believes or gives a damn about out-tribe information, or people for that matter. Which means you can only preach to the tribal choir. And when the environmental shit hits the fan, tribalism will get infinitely worse. That's just the way it is.
![АЛАУДИНОВ у Скабеевой: эти их ВСУ нас НЕ ДОГОНЯТ 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/an0anqU4WGQ/mqdefault.jpg)
These are just the points that jumped out at me, but there is so much more to this report and the Summary for Policymakers. Check out my friends' videos here for their takes on the latest IPCC:
ua-cam.com/video/Awmx9922Kac/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/1J0lCBjMgvg/v-deo.html
Hi Adam, how can I reach you, for speaker projects?
@@M_Maluva feel free to reach out on social media - links in the description to the video
@@ClimateAdam U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic (New York Times,1970) - The United States and the Soviet Union are mounting large‐scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid, why parts of the Arctic sea ice have recently become ominously thicker and whether the extent of that ice cover contributes to the onset of ice ages.
The Cooling World (Newsweek Magazine, 1975) - Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve.
@@ClimateAdam 1000 years ago temperatures were as warm or warmer than today and in the IPCC's first report their temperature graph clearly showed that. Tide gauges from around the world going back over 100 years so show no change in the rate of sea level rise. If you study the history of climate and extreme weather events you will find claims about increasing weather extremes are false.
Hottest Temperature Ever Recorded By State: These values have been evaluated by the NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information and/or by the State Climate Extremes Committee and determined to be valid.
Number of states with highest temperature ever recorded in the 2000s - 3
Number of states with highest temperature ever recorded in the 1900s - 45
Number of states with highest temperature ever recorded in the 1800s - 2
Number of states with highest temperature ever recorded in the 1930s - 24
In the 1970's all the commercials about pollution and the environment seemed like "Oh this will be a easy thing to mitigate." Don't throw trash out of your car, "Give a hoot, Don't Pollute," "Only Smoky says you can prevent forest fires, etc, etc, etc. However, Corporate America has more then doubled down against this premise since then every 4th commercial is about buying new big cars, trucks and Suv's in the US. Fast food commercials, Big pharma encouraging you to buy drugs with the most bizarre names and horrific side effects I live in Texas and I sometimes am afraid to drive my Honda accord down the road with these enormous gas guzzling behemoths.
If you're looking for away to help the environment and fight climate change you can use ecosia they are a search engine that plants trees
Looking forward to seeing what they say in terms of how we can adapt our impacts. In the meantime I am learning an insane amount by reading "Drawdown" By Paul Hawken
Ah! I love Project Drawdown. Am getting the book soon.
@@LeanAndMean44 all I’ll say is go straight to the 4th top way to curb global warming. 🤯
@@onthemandelpiece4310 ah - the plant-based diet?!
@@LeanAndMean44 I’ll put my hand up and say I’m having real trouble making that change. I did buy a ton of meat alternatives this week. So I suppose you gotta start somewhere!
Which is your favourite potential solution so far?
@@C_R_O_M________ People working in the private sector have a much greater incentive to lie. The fossil fuel industry pays a lot to muddy the waters when it comes to climate change.
We're used to your clear, concise videos and this one is no exception. Thanks so much. Also, thank you for saying very clearly that this report is PART ONE because so many media outlets "forgot" to mention it!
It's really important - because while this section is the closest to my understanding, the next two are the ones that really break down what all the physical changes *mean* and what we can do about them
I can't give a reference but I recollect reading that the planet wouldn't reach 4 degrees of warming ... because before that point industrial civilization would have ceased to exist.
Yet, the 1.5 degree mark was set as the target because that's where the known feedback loops begin to prefer 6 degrees increase as the naturally desired metastability point so regardless of whether or not industrial civilization ceases, the climate will continue to warm of it's own accord once we're past the 1.5 degree mark. It's like pushing a rock on the top of a hill, once it's going fast enough, you no longer need to keep pushing as it will roll to the bottom of the hill on it's own accord. If we cease all of our fossil fuel use today, the climate will still continue to warm and indeed the models shown in the report shows that the most aggressive cessation of fossil fuel use would just stabilize the temperature around the 1.5 degree mark with perhaps a slight decline and effects such as sea level rise would continue for centuries to a thousand years. It's already way past the simplistic notion that if we were all gone, the world would revert to what it was.
@@C_R_O_M________ The history of this world? In human written history, last month was the hottest ever. In geologic records, it took ten thousand to twenty thousand years for the climate to change as much as it has in the past 150 years. In geologic history, we are in an interglacial break within an ice age and should most likely return to the glacial stage. In the geologic record, there are three metastability points of climate, the least stable being the ice age which we are in, the second least stable is the warm climate where polar and land ice does not exist year round and the most stable is the snowball Earth where all land masses are covered with ice and most of the oceans except for a narrow strip around the equator. The geologic record does not support your delusions in denying climate change, it supports it. Sure there were warmer climates in the past but never such a rapid change in a direction opposite to what the geologic record would say is more probable for our current state.
The known feedback loops are not hypothetical but the ones we know if, there are many more that are hypothetical. The fact that dark surfaces absorbs heat and light ones reflect is known not hypothetical, the fact that a current of water carries it's heat is known (well enough that we use it to cool our car's engines) not hypothetical, the fact that salty water is heavier than fresh is known not hypothetical, the fact that frozen permafrost thaws when heated is known not hypothetical. You are desperately trying to defend denial.
@@C_R_O_M________ And Earth once had 99% C0₂ so what. We're not talking about 7,000 ppm only you are deluded enough to think it has to be so extreme for the greenhouse effect. It only takes a fraction of a gram to tip a balance of weights, even the current 400 ppm when our metastability normally has 300 ppm presents an ever accumulating effect, it does not need to rise to 7,000 ppm. You are just trying to defend your denial by exaggerating what is needed when it is a matter of metstabilities, of a balance and it only needs to be tipped.
@@C_R_O_M________ is it hypothetical that dark surfaces absorbs heat while light surfaces reflect? Besides what we have witness has been more heating then all the models predict. As to the models not being yours, while the climate change doesn't care and what is your model, deny, listen to websites with no credibility and claim everything else is fake news. Sure the models are wrong and we see that in that the climate has warmed more than predicted. But of course, you deny that on the basis of that it disagrees with your beliefs. Don't you realize how foolush your posts makes you seem to be. A junior high sxhool math of a linear relationship between CO₂ levels to claim values as high as 7,000 ppm are needed, how stupid is that, temperature increases only requires more energy to be received than radiated, that's not linear, that is in thresholds, in balance, radiation is linear with temperature but we're not talking about that much temperature and heat and CO₂ interferes with radiation, it prevents radiation. Just denying the models as our models instead of yours when the models underestimates what has actually happened only shows your cognitive bias and denial.
Sure the conspiracy website would quote a physicist just as tobacco lobbyists had Doctors. The physicist might even be a valid one with actual research that has been misinterpreted and really "auto compression", now you're deliberately trying to sound knowledgeable by using techno babble. Yes, compression creates heat but heating causes expansion and it isn't as if there's a lid on our atmosphere for the pressure to build and our atmosphere is not sedimentation of solids where weight contains enough to increase compression, as a gas, in an open environment a teem such as auto compression would not even be used.. Don't you get it, you're falling for misinformation from conspiracy theorist who misrepresent studies with obvious technobabble and no you can not claim it isn't a conspiracy by saying the CIA conspired to call what they don't like conspiracies, that would be using a conspiracy to explain your bias..
Remember you're the one childishly claiming a linear relationship to say it would requure 15 times the concentration of CO₂ of 7000 ppm for the predictions to be true and now you're twisting to say because it's nonlinear, not everything us known. Of course not everything is known which us why the temperature rise so far exceeds all the models. Don't you see you're only scrambling to defend your false beliefs and poorly at that... If you actually thought your denial of climate change is right, the logical course if action would be to shut your mouth before you bury yourself in more fallacies as clearly your information sources have no merit, you would let it play out as you have nothing but fantasies.
@@johnwang9914 bro can you please simplify what you are saying? Are you saying that now we cant do anything. I think if we stop using fossil fuels right now the sea levels would be stable after few decades? Can you please clarify.
Too late. My analogy is that even if we hit the off button of the machine, it is already self-sustaining due to positive feedback and continues to run. The increase in global ambient temperature is causing more release of greenhouse gases outside of our direct control - loss of ice sheets, permafrost, and rain forests. I'm not optimistic whatsoever.
I can somewhat understand people pretending to reject all science. But why accept science that climate change is a problem and then make unscientific claims about human action not mattering? When we stop emitting greenhouse gases the warming will stop, the current IPCC report even suggests that the warming will stop sooner than previously thought.
while some things will continue after CO2 emissions stop - most notably sea level rise - the latest science is that temperatures would stabilise more or less straight away. this is discussed in a previous vid:
ua-cam.com/video/HKof7NQeMQc/v-deo.html
What are some good rigorous mathematics/physics textbooks on Earth system and climate science that you recommend?
gosh it's been a loooong time since I've used an atmospheric physics text book, and struggling to remember which I took out the library when they were needed. this list seems to have some excellent recommendations, though:
bookauthority.org/books/best-atmospheric-science-books
@@ClimateAdam Thanks!
@@ClimateAdam "The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multi-factor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure." - Richard Lindzen, MIT atmospheric science professor and lead author of Chapter 7, "Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks," of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Third Assessment Report on climate change.
@@Celtics-x4w what does this have to do with the question?
Amazing video as always. Thanks for cramming so much nuance into such a short video.
Nuclear power plants is the way to go..
Switch to plant-based meat and plant-based dairy products, don't purchase leather, invest in renewable energy and electric vehicles. I would say that's honestly the most an individual can do at this time, the rest is up to the government
The one's that own houses can fix those. And there's many more changes to travel than just electric cars (bikes, buses, trains). But yes, more than half the change needed has to be driven by government, companies and finance.
@@C_R_O_M________ Do you have empirical evidence to back up your uneducated statement? The academy of nutrition and dietetics has stated that a vegan diet is appropriate for all stages of life including infancy, pregnancy, adolescence and adulthood. Blue Zone cities with the highest populations of people over 100 are 90-100% plant-based. Don’t call yourself an environmentalist if you eat animal products
@@C_R_O_M________ So your solution is to stay ignorant instead of helping the environment by reducing your carbon footprint, what a small-minded frivolous human. You take pride in being an animal abuser that funds the animal holocaust eh?
I think the timeframes in this report are optimistic. The lack of aeresols due to all the lockdowns are letting 'extra' solar radiation in which wasn't apparent before 2020 due to the dimming effect of aeresols... I can imagine a future where SRM is going to need to be implemented at some point when people are desperate and things may go even more totally off the rails. Aeresol forcing is huge! Politicians and average people alike want an easy way out and not a hard way out, which is to downgrade our living standards to subsistence farming in developed nations and tell less developed nations they cannot advance. I just don't see the political will, people don't even want to wear a mask because they think it is government overreach.
aerosols are explicitly accounted for in assessment of all timeframes, and the report even discusses how lockdowns affected radiative forcing.
note, though, that any warming effect from aerosol decreases during the pandemic (which I should note hasn't actually been detected) disappears as soon as aerosol emissions go back to normal. that's because aerosols live only a short time in the atmosphere, so their concentration depends on the rate of emissions. CO2, however, lasts hundreds of years once it's up there, so cumulative emissions are what counts.
@@ClimateAdamI'm sorry for being fatalistic, that helps no one and studies show it causes inaction. Have a thumbs up. What I can glean from the IPCC so far doesn't change my mind; but it's a massive document and I have a day job to do. I live in a badly affected area (tame compared to what many are already going through) and it is tinting the lens through which I view this. Thanks for checking me.
Everyone that the journalists have been interviewing says the report ends with optimism by saying we can still take action, that it is up to us to shape the future but they all side stepped around the fact that much of the damage is stated as already irreversible and the actions we can take would only avert even worse outcomes. That positive note is that it can and will be far worse than we've already seen if we don't take actions. Is really "it can and will be worse" really a positive note? and how sad is it that such a perspective is now considered optimistic. Sure although the best time to do something is yesterday, the second best is today but we've been living on that mantra without acting today for decades.
What I see is that the situation will become serious enough for us to take dangerous geo-engineering efforts just to diffuse the problem. Low cost geo-engineering efforts such as returning jet airliners to high sulfur jet fuels to increase the albedo of clouds at the expense of acid rain would be one such acts.
Thanks Adam for this video. We have in Poland now kinda political crisis with our damned gov't but I know the news of the year was this report.
When I linked via Facebook short article about report such "Facebook friends" give me back some sarcasm, insults and absurd denial theories. But I hope they are minority. Now we must fight all over the world with Climate Crisis/Catastrophy and You are the one of the few who brings me hope and motivation. Thank You!!!
Thanks for another excellent video Adam, as always a precise and helpful source of quality info 👌
that means a lot coming from you, Ella!
Thank you for your video, it is really helpful !
@@C_R_O_M________ I don't understand why you think he is lying. In this video especially, he doesn't uses his own arguments. He actually summarizes what does the IPCC explain in its last report.
I have read some other summaries of this IPCC report and they say the same as Climate Adam
You have a new sub! Thanks for the climate info.
welcome, Ryan! good to have you here
Thank you, so very informative!!
Thanks for sharing
Excellent, very good presentation, we really need to get cracking on with cleaning up all sectors of forestry, food, transportation, manufacturing and building stuff
Functionally extinct.
Hey Adam!
What do you anticipate will be response of the global leaders in the next meet, considering that all along the climate solutions they've advanced have always opted to go for carbon sinks yet simultaneously self-licensing themselves to more emissions. Do you think this report will be turning point in that it will convince leaders to finally drop carbon emissions for greener energy? Basically, should we be hopeful that a drastic change will finally take off?
Of course it wont. Unless China, USA, India, Brazil and Russia do anything, and they aren't then it doesnt matter what anyone else does.
@@sandersson2813 USA is doing something.
honestly - as a scientist - I have no special expertise that can help me answer that question! however, I have seen momentum growing in both the public conversation and in our politics. whether that momentum is enough to motivate the dramatic changes needed to limit global warming to either of the targets of the paris climate agreement... I simply don't know.
@@LeanAndMean44 Ha ha ha, token gestures.
America is the second biggest polluter after China, and by far the biggest polluter per capita in the entire world.
@@ClimateAdam What is never mentioned about C02 is that if you release C02 today, it doesnt automatically start contributing to Global warming until it has reached the upper atmosphere.
This can take decades, so reducing CO2 today doesnt mean we will see the the effects until decades down the line.
Thanks Adam, this is a very helpful video. I shall also check out the other videos you mention in the comments.
really glad you found it useful!
more people should see your videos :'(
aw thanks - I'm honestly thrilled that so many already do!
Well done Adam... keep up the good work, it's much needed by all ages and generations. Brian, Aotearoa, Haere pai
aw thanks Brian!
Doing great work Adam
thanks Brady!
Great video, thanks!
Reverberations of the early 80ies..., we're over the cliff now, about half way down..., but sure, why not..., hit the breaks, you may have time to pull the hand breaks as wel...
Sea level rise of 2m by end of century would be gentle and certainly not even nearly the greatest concern, though those in Bangladesh and Island states such as the Maldives are unlikely to have a country within years. 6-10m minimum (I understood 6 or 60, so am going for the lower number here not to exaggerate incorrectly) rises are possible if we lose the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, and loss of planet’s ice sheets (almost inevitable within a decade with the Arctic), resulting release of methane en masse (around Siberia and elsewhere) could lead to runaway warming resulting in extinction. The impact of both fires plus change in forest behaviour of releasing rather than capturing carbon adding to carbon in the atmosphere, plus heatwaves, floods, and all other extreme, frequent, and non-seasonal weather events impacting food and water shortages and habitability of areas of the planet leading to mass-migration and food shortages for are immediate concerns. The IPCC report contains the elements ALL the scientists have agreed on. It will not include the outlying predictions, which are the true worst case scenarios. It has always been tempered, and scientists have a hard time getting their message out there with governments (lobbying and laws) being controlled by global corporations. Media will not tell us straight either; and who wants mass panic? Greta clocked this years ago when she said the house was on fire. Now it is - from Europe to Siberia, qnd it is currently snowing in Lesotho, Africa. Plus deserts have flooded. But President Lyndon B. Johnson was warned about climate change by scientists in 1965! And Greta’s grandfather and others knew about climate change over 100 years ago. Yet the majority of damage has been done in the last 50 years since 1970. This is not the start of dealing with it - this is the end game. It is very good that young people - all people - are speaking out, and I really liked that you recognised each incremental rise means the world is over for someone and some people (and animals, btw - individually and extinction) on the planet. We are less divided by geography as habitable conditions per species. What happens in the Arctic, doesn’t stay in the Arctic. And what happens to people in the Mexican gulf, crop growth in Africa, or tree health in Amazonian or Boreal forests will affect us. The coral reef is unfortunately already dead. I remember diving that in Australia when I was your age not so long ago. Don’t underestimate the speed with which things are capable of changing.
How can we help?
They should get serious like they did when COVID first broke out. They need to tell us what to do ASAP in order to help
there are many actions we can take, both to encourage our societies to take the shifts needed, and to reduce our personal emissions. I discuss a bunch (and why both are important) in this vid I made a couple of years back with zentouro:
ua-cam.com/video/OLeieEcLVyQ/v-deo.html
Finally!!!!!
Viable solution to climate crisis: Rich Americans consume more like poor Africans? Simple low tech lifestyle changes can allow all humanity to reach IPCC warming goals by 2050? How is this going to happen? Did I miss something? I am already there. It can be done. I am far healthier, more psychologically content and save roughly an average of $750 per month.
Thank you for this video! :D I hope that many people watch this! :)
aw thanks - me too!
I agree with what you say but idiotic deniers don't watch your channel, they would rather watch silly programmes on you tube.
Scientists are the expert sceptics that are willing to change their opinions if facing new and convincing evidence.
The deniers are just that - they will _never_ change their opinions because they cling to them like religious beliefs.
@SHEISTER CAM
Well said!
@SHEISTER CAM
One new denier argument I saw recently was that the warming was caused by increased UV-B radiation due to the ozone depletion since UV-B is 48 times "hotter" than the IR radiation absorbed by CO₂. (I guess that refers to the energy content per photon)
Apparently, he didn't know that UV-B accounts for only 2 % of the total solar radiation outside the Earth's atmosphere, and that roughly 1 % of those 2 % or 0.02 % of the total solar energy reaches the Earth surface.
Even if that fraction should double (which could be a significant health and environmental problem), its climate forcing would be only a tiny fraction of CO₂.
It's also worth noting that ozone itself is a greenhouse gas, but he didn't seem to know that, either.
Enjoy the remaining good times because the party is nearly over
Doesn't the potential 2 metres sea level rise by 2100 still depend on whether humanity follows the R.C.P 8.5 type scenarios or not, which are now regarded as being difficult or impossible to 'achieve'? If we limit it to 1.5°C or 2.0°C that outcome would be extremely unlikely, as it would rely on 'unknown unknowns' in the dynamics of ice sheet collapse.
absolutely - that's what I was trying to communicate when I said "this is what would happen if we kept emitting more and more..." - i.e. that emissions keep increasing.
while these ice sheet processes could still occur if we limited warming to 1.5 or 2 degrees, we would *not* expect this to happen to the same speed or extent as in the 2m by 2100 scenario described.
@@ClimateAdam Yup. Changing ice sheet dynamics are not very well understood yet. As Greg Craven (who wrote the book 'What's the Worst that could Happen' - which I had a small input into) said "it's all very well saying wait for the results of this experiment we are doing with the atmosphere, but remember - we're in the test tube...
@@C_R_O_M________ "Grand scale lies"?
Hmm. Perhaps you ought to remember that climate science is about 150 years old and the denialist sources that have warped your perceptions are about 30 years old, have been repeatedly debunked not to mention some have been exposed as being run by politically extreme deceivers.
Further, remember that every National Academy and major scientific organisation on earth have endorsed the findings of 150 years+ of climate science. Every nation on Earth (about (195) has signed, and almost all have ratified, the Paris agreement. Never forget that the giant fossil fuel energy companies, who have the most humongous financial motive to want to find any significant holes in climate science to protect their enormous income and future sales, have checked out the extreme ‘sceptic’ sources you have been sucked in by and found they have no scientific credibility whatsoever. Remember, Big Oil has their own scientists too who would all have an enormous career motivation to tell their bosses not to worry if only they could. Think about it - if Big Fossil Fuel had found any validity in denialist mish-mashes of blurry thinking, strawman arguments, fallacious conclusions, deceptive misdirection and pseudoscience, they would have been shouting it out from the rooftops for a decade or more with double page ads in top global newspapers and carpet bombing infomercials on every major TV and radio channel on the planet.
Hard nosed coal, oil and gas executives, who can throw more money than god at employing the best, least biased, analysts on earth to check out denialist clap-trap for any get-out-of-jail-free cards to save their business model, now make clear statements on just about all their corporate websites - check them out, starting with the largest - Exxon-Mobil - right on down. I think you’ll discover that (apart from Iran Oil!) it’s almost universal that even Big Fossil Fuel now fully accepts the mainstream scientific conclusions that show we do have a big problem which needs serious efforts to solve.
Consider all the foregoing and then try to understand why the world sees paranoid thinking conspiracy theory types like you as borderline insane, malignantly deceitful or, at least, deluded to the point of being pathologically irresponsible.
@@C_R_O_M________ wrote "It so happens that their 1850-1900 period - their point of reference to estimate this "alarming warming" - was also the lowest point in GMSTs in 10000 years!"
Bollacks. It is appropriate to show the changes we have initiated since we started seriously loading the atmosphere with extra greenhouse gases. Try showing the world a link to a credible source backing up your insinuations - or don't, if you don't like being laughed at.
Actually, any person with their head screwed should have realised that, if the whole scientific establishment, and all governments - and even those giant corporations with a huge financial motivation to want to find any genuine 'get out of jail free' cards in denialist garbage - accept the science, then the chances are infinitesimal that some random internet denialist such as you, spreading deluded and fallacious misinformation, knows better than just about everyone else.
Forget the gutless IPCC, read Guy McPherson or the Arctic News Blog.
ua-cam.com/video/HKof7NQeMQc/v-deo.html
Or James Hansen.
You are a genius!
This is gonna be interesting in the airport lobby, I'm gonna fly over to England for 2 days for an anime convention for some cosplay fun and free hugs since they aren't allowed here yet lol
International Political Climate Con. They'll save the world, as long as you donate $$$ to them.
So its much better to donate tonnes of $$$ to the fossil fuel industry?
the IPCC isn't a charity, they're not asking for money. it's just an overview of what a diverse group of scientists around the world have found in their research. Adam has a video explaining how it works if you'd like to learn more about it.
@@pseudonamed Of course the IPCC isn't a charity. If it were it might actually do something useful.
You speak of extreme weather. I assume you mean, floods, droughts, fires etc. Weather anomalies are more likely from weather manipulation through geoenginerring. The ability to make rain in one area, but deny it in another is creating these scenarios. Any 5 minute satellite weather video of potential rain clouds approaching the coast of California, only to be broken up by HAARP. Will sum up their capabilities.
See Paul Beckwith for an "alternative" approach.
No. Don't. Beckwith is a purveyor of 'fear porn' and departs a long way from mainstream climate to spin his narratives...
@Niding Don't get me wrong. Beckwith is a genuine scientist who knows his field. Where I (and others in his field of expertise) think he goes 'off the deep end' is he portrays outcomes which many in his field think extremely unlikely as if they were quite likely.
In order for the public to come to valid judgements and to assess the risks well it is, of course, important to know what the worst that could happen is - even if it is very unlikely - but it is equally important that the public are told what the chances are, and this is where Beckwith and a few others like him, not to mention extremist activists (who are much worse than Paul), fall down.
'Fear porn' is getting recognised amongst climate communicators as unhelpful at best and actually harmful at worst. This happens for a couple of reasons. Firstly, people can get so scared by it that they are overwhelmed and feel as if there is no point doing anything to avoid 'it' because it is 'too late' and 'we're all doomed'.
Secondly, activists will go even further with their wild speculations and assertions until the public realise they are spreading the old story of 'doomism' to further their agendas which turns the public off or, worse, moves them towards the 'sceptic/denialist' side.
Thirdly, it gives a lot of ammunition to the denialist movement who have accumulated all the terrible (and wrong) predictions of the past into long lists which they use in their propaganda to persuade the public that the mainstream science itself, as opposed to a few mavericks, is 'alarmist' and frequently wrong. They attempt to smear by proxy. Modern promulgators of fear porn are easily discredited in the public's mind by dragging out these lists and unfortunately, this means that quite a lot of the mud is made to stick to the conservative and legitimate middle ground of climate science too.
@Niding Carter has always been a 'catastrophist'. He's a retired medical physician (i.e. not a credentialled climate scientist) 'criticising' Nordhaus, who received the Nobel prize "for integrating climate change into long-run macroeconomic analysis".
Here's what should be a big red flag from an interview Carter did:
P.C. "Now, the other big issue - a big, horrible impact of climate change - is what’s called runaway. And that will wipe out just about all life from the planet"
No credible climate scientist says that we can spark off such a runaway more or less whatever we do. James Hansen, when he first brought the subject of climate change to the attention of Congress in his famous speech 33 years ago in 1988 initially thought that global warming could spark off a 'runaway' leading to Earth getting as hot as Venus but, as the science developed, he realised that could not happen.
Carter actually reminds me very much of Roger Hallam, one of the co-founders of Extinction Rebellion who got rightly condemned for his extreme fear porn, some of which asserted that the science meant that 'near term human extinction' was on the cards and also: R.H. "I am talking about the slaughter, death, and starvation of 6 billion people this century-that's what the science predicts." These statements were so extreme (and scientifically bonkers) that they contributed to Extinction Rebellion, who are not above using fear porn themselves, kicking him out of the organisation!
Thanks for putting it in layman’s terms! Unfortunately all the knuckle draggers and Joe six packs are helplessness.
"Human influence"? Does that include indigenous peoples? Or is the "Enlightenment" , "industrial revolution" and the ensuing colonialism a bit more specific?
it's certainly fair to say that humans have influenced the climate, but that not all humans have anything like equal responsibility for that.
@@ClimateAdam didnt indigenous cultures warn us about the dangers of over exploiting the environment for greed? To honor and respect nature and to live as one with it. But then we were told that they were backward, savages, irrelevant and of no value. They were right all along. Bless the indigenous peoples, they carry the truth.
In the Netherlands sea level is rising 0,19 mm per year. It’s going on for 129 years. 24cm in Total. Not progressing the last 3 decades. Please check your sources and bias.
You are literally commenting under a video determined to one of the best researched publications worldwide and ask them to state sources while not stating any source on your own statement?
Besides the fact that your own comment is contradicting itself, you can literally visit any Dutch newspaper site and you will find dozens of articles about the problems that Netherlands are going to face/are facing rn because of the rise of sea levels. The Dutch institute for meteorology and the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research both have multiple articles showing current problems due to sea levels rising around Netherlands.
@@lesand5484 Don’t waste your time with people like this. They won’t change until it’s on their door step.
@@izzyboss6875 you are probably right, but it's a bit of a hobby... :D
@̐ No they did not. The 2013 predictions turned out to be true and sometimes even to conservative. These aren't the same kind of "predictions" like market crash predictions, which are almost always wrong. These are predictions based on physics. And if there is one set of laws on earth that will never not be enforced, it's the laws of physics.
When Michael Mann produced his CO2 hockeystick graph, which made All Gore a billionaire, who to make his bias scientific claim. Little did he known he would be convicted for fraude. Models are the worst predictors of your future. I think it’s leftist water melon green (green on the outside, red from the inside, which they don’t even see in their mirror) is becoming a more and more fascistic in their fear mongering. Sponsored by big industrial capital. Ideologs using each IPCC report first chapter as a modern day mein kamf.
Stop with the hopium, it's pathetic
The hopium being the expert opinion of the majority of scientists in the field?
Right we are warming the planet, and the 40 thousand death due to heat waves in Paris alone in 1911 is because now in 2021 i drive a fossil fuel car.
They have it all wrong they are not including enough Information sad bunch of people lied Wow 🤣 don't believe a single word !
Hahaha, he tries to present it convincingly but if one thing is very clear this person has not read/studied the IPCC report. I had a good laugh about it. thanks😂
Here's the thing that you and every other bloke are missing. We (all humans) are born into tribal social groups and very few escape that condition. No one outside a tribe believes or gives a damn about out-tribe information, or people for that matter. Which means you can only preach to the tribal choir. And when the environmental shit hits the fan, tribalism will get infinitely worse. That's just the way it is.
Theres an interesting paragraph in the report which states that "temperatures MIGHT rise 1.5c by the end of the century OR NEVER"
I strongly doubt it was put that way.
We will almost certainly pass 1.5°C in the 2030s since we already have reached 1.2°C.
@@fromnorway643 The question is, will it matter?
Think your 1.2 is Fahrenheit, which only Yanks use.
on what page?
@@LeanAndMean44 There's 4000 pages,