James Hansen: Why I must speak out about climate change
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 бер 2012
- www.ted.com Top climate scientist James Hansen tells the story of his involvement in the science of and debate over global climate change. In doing so he outlines the overwhelming evidence that change is happening and why that makes him deeply worried about the future.
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes. Featured speakers have included Al Gore on climate change, Philippe Starck on design, Jill Bolte Taylor on observing her own stroke, Nicholas Negroponte on One Laptop per Child, Jane Goodall on chimpanzees, Bill Gates on malaria and mosquitoes, Pattie Maes on the "Sixth Sense" wearable tech, and "Lost" producer JJ Abrams on the allure of mystery. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, development and the arts. Closed captions and translated subtitles in a variety of languages are now available on TED.com, at www.ted.com/translate
If you have questions or comments about this or other TED videos, please go to support.ted.com - Наука та технологія
As powerful and relevant in 2023 as it was in 2011. Nothing has changed, except all climate indicators have got worse, at rates much faster than anticipated back then.
Yes James E. Hansen is now emphasizing the Aerosol Masking Effect - you can sign up to get his emails - on his website. In other words a 40% decrease of sulfur particulates (mainly from burning coal) heats up Earth another 1 degree celsius global average! Kind of wild this still doesn't get mentioned in the corporate media - and yet now Hansen says it's the fastest cause of temperature increases.
@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885Now the question is, should they add sulphur back to cargo ship fuel or not. Sulphur dims and cools the atmosphere. Maybe cloud seeding to reflect the heat?
@@after_midnight9592 Of course that's what the corporate-state elite are planning on doing but it will just make things worse. I discussed this with physics professor Raymond Pierrehumbert who is an expert on planetary climate. "If the world fails to achieve net zero carbon dioxide emissions, then each year’s emissions will add to the stock of atmospheric carbon dioxide, requiring ever-escalating ratcheting up any techno-fix and ever-escalating increase in the damage wrought by termination shock. And meanwhile, other dangerous effects of accumulating carbon pollution, such as ocean acidification, continue to worsen over time.
If the world decarbonizes eventually but only after pumping out so much carbon dioxide that it renders the world lethally hot, then deploying sun-dimming as a survival tactic puts the world in a precarious state, one in which current and future generations would live in perpetual fear of sudden death by termination shock. "
Michael Mann and Raymond Pierrehumbert are correct about this.
"If we emit a trillion tons of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide before we decarbonize the economy (we’ve already emitted more than half that) it will cause about 2 degrees Celsius of warming, and most of that warming will still be around in 10,000 years." Raymond Pierrehumbert
"What is the morality of committing 10,000 years of future humanity to maintaining an activity year in and year out without fail? What is our track record as a species of maintaining any technological activity for more than a century or two? Oliver Morton, in his thoughtful (but ultimately boosterish) book puts forth the vision of albedo modification as just another stage in the cycle of technological dependencies that make the life of humanity better, rather like the Haber Process for making fertilizer has allowed agriculture to support a much larger population. It’s an interesting point, but there remains the uncomfortable issue of whether a global-scale intervention like albedo modification is really in the same category. "
"Or, more broadly, is our ever-expanding wave of technological dependency increasing the resilience of human society or just setting us up for a harder fall when it all becomes unsustainable? Albedo modification is sometimes thought of as something you can do to hold warming in check while “buying time” to decarbonize the economy, but this is a fundamental misconception. Each additional kilogram of carbon dioxide emitted commits the Earth to a certain amount of warming that essentially never goes away (unless we learn how to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere in massive amounts quickly-a very debatable prospect). And so the need for continued geoengineering to counteract that additional warming never goes away-even after carbon dioxide emissions are eventually brought to zero.
Moreover, because carbon dioxide accumulates inexorably in the atmosphere so long as emissions continue, one cannot even achieve the more modest goal of slowing the rate of warming without inexorably increasing the amount of albedo modification deployed each year. It’s like drinking water contaminated with a poison like mercury that accumulates in your body, but trying to cancel out the effects with ever greater dosages of antidote. So long as there is any poison left in the water, your bodily burden increases and each year you need to take a greater daily dose of antidote. Even if the poison is removed from the drinking water supply, you have to continue taking the antidote for the rest of your life, because of the poison accumulated in your body-unless you undergo some therapy which actively removes the poison from your body, which would be analogous to sucking carbon dioxide out of the air." Raymond Pierrehumbert
Maybe they ran out of chem trails
I suggest that anyone doubting his argument read his book, Storms for my Grandchildren. The man is a solid creditable scientist and should be respected. Instead of arguing about this, we should all put our energy towards turning this phenomenon around so that we survive as a species.
😂😆😂 this aged well.
He is a genocidal nutcase
@@Brandon-lw1wx Not at all go watch Paul beckwith we genocide ourselves and now it's too late
@@lonewanderer9982 Is 99 your birthdate? They’ve been pulling that BS for more years than you’ve been alive.
@user-lz5ch4il8l 😆 🤣 sure buddy El ninonis going to blow the records a way this is la Nina supposed to be the cool period so
Eleven years later it's still business as usual.
11 years passed and we still only debate and little has been done.
Big Oil and corporations in general control the direction of science.
Bad faith actors debate - many are talk circuit hacks or paid lobbyists.
Incredible how he nailed it!
I have just watched 'The Campaign Against the Climate' and saw that Shell and ExxonMobil knew about the climate change around 10 years early of James Hansen climate change testemonial on Congress. They could agree with him, but they didn't.
Now, 2021, the IPCC report sets the red alarm and we still didn't do too much.
Watching this again at 417 ppm.
This guy is quite genius.
I became a climate change believer after i watched this. I had been unsure on whether humans were responsible or not. Thank you.
Great James Hansen. You put it very clear. Hope more people would listen.
He is a Stalinist
@@Brandon-lw1wxno he's just a liberal lol
@@i_dont_know_who_i_am69 Same thing
@@Brandon-lw1wx?? How? Stalinists (and just leftists in general) and liberals hate each other
Thank you, James Hansen, for this utterly important talk, I will share it!!
Still a great presentation, and a prescient one.
When people say it's already too late they seem to be talking as though once it get's bad enough, that our emissions will not significantly impact the future any further. Even if we pass a threshold at which certain things beyond our control will occur, the degree to which we further aggravate and speed up the changes is still of importance. The simplest way I can explain this is simple:
The slower it happens the better. Don't give up.
This has also aged well 😂 😆 we be doomed
@@lonewanderer9982 No, @dookiecheez is right. We should avoid both fatalism and complacency. At some point we will get to zero emissions, but it's a question of how much damage we lock in first.
@@Cedders001 you need to take feedback loops into account, even if we stopped our emissions today, the planet would be warming up for the next 20 years, which could trigger Blue Ocean Event, a feedback loop, or many other parts of the complex interconnected system, we just have no idea.
Chilling. What a dedicated man! Fantastic that he has given so much to this effort. And thanks also to TED.
Eleven years later and nothing has happened
I saw a great documentary on energy efficient, cost effective, environmentally friendly factories several years ago. They had plants growing on the outside of them that helped with reducing energy costs for air-conditioning as well as filtered any excess pollution caused by an enterprise. It was a neat idea that some companies were implementing, but for the life of me cannot seem to find any documentaries related to it. (I have forgotten the name of the documentary.) If anyone knows the name of it, drop me a line as it really does offer a great bit of evidence as to cost-effective and energy efficient clean alternates for corporations. (The show was on SBS about 5 years ago.)
Waste is Food or something like that.
On the filters that Martin (Blewitt) Lewitt worked on
AR-4
"The classic low-pass filters widely used have been the binomial set of coefficients that remove 2∆t fluctuations, where ∆t is the sampling interval.
However, combinations of binomial filters are usually more efficient, and those have been chosen for use here, for their simplicity and ease of use.
Mann (2004) discusses smoothing time series and especially how to treat the ends.
... this method will underestimate the anomalies at the end"
ALL EXTREME conditions anywhere, large number of hurricanes, low number of hurricanes, flooding, droughts, snow storms, all are caused by global warming/climate change in-fact any weather at all is caused by changing climates and their always changing.
it doesn't help when the governments are creating the weather, causing flooding where they want it and creating droughts where they want, our planet can heal if those assholes would leave a weather alone PERIOD
Get informed. ua-cam.com/video/itNmQIjSVgo/v-deo.html&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR3ktVUqL9p0iym_IJlzXd1xJgXntmCF6uqyBvZpWVSBtXVXv-6ajALRX5w
And all declining - bullshit hoax
This is yet another example of someone unwittingly citing the work of paleoclimate scientists to refute the work of paleoclimate scientists. If it weren't for paleoclimate scientists you would not know that climates changed in the past. Tip, read up on what paleoclimate scientists say about the role of CO2 in paleoclimates and what emitting 39 gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year means for the climate.
@@arcare001 Art Robinson? The guy who's been collecting pee for decades thinking he's going to cure cancer someday? If you want to get informed take a class from an accredited college or university anywhere on the planet, it doesn't matter where, because they all teach the same science, not the quackery that you subscribe to.
Very interesting talk!
Anyone who uses the term denier is not a scientist but a religious zealot. Talking with such certainty about a subject that is actually poorly understood is a dead give away for a kind of political pseudo-science. No scientist has been able to properly model the climate, meaning that we have gaps in our knowledge and simply insert CO2 in the missing variables.
@@SteveSmith-fh6br Believe what you want to believe. It's easier to do though when it's convenient.
Thank you PDR!
What ''portions of the SH'' were colder? please enlighten me.
Citizen's Dividend @ 14:23
If only more people understood Andrew Yang.
@@andrewholz1414 yang is an idiot socialist. Tell me, yang wants basic income for poor people...where is yang going to get the money?
Zama, thank you for introducing him; now I'm checking out his videos. Meanwhile, by going to the petition website I found the answer to your question
Professor Siems said as the Earth warmed, more vapour could be held in the air. It meant there was more moisture available to fall as rain when a storm developed.
The research, which was published in the journal Nature Climate Change, was said to take better account of the impact of aerosols on the water cycle than previous weather studies.
NASA's ERBE helps scientists better understand how clouds and aerosols, as well as some chemical compounds in the atmosphere affect Earth's climate.
Yes, I did post that .. you can see it where I posted it below.... Are you conceding my point?
James Hansen is one of the greatest and highest awarded hero's alive today.
In 2001, 7th Annual Heinz Award in the Environment, listed as one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in 2006. Also in 2006, the AAAS selected James Hansen to receive its Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility "for his courageous and steadfast advocacy in support of scientists' responsibilities to communicate their scientific opinions and findings openly and honestly on matters of public importance."
We just had the worst bushfires here in NSW, 6 days of hottest temperatures ever on record, and extreme prolongued drought. This man is dead right.
Did you find the articles with your google browser?
Much better, thanks. Very good indeed.
The adverse impact of rising CO2 concentrations on the protein levels in pollen may be playing a role in the global die-off of bee populations by undermining bee nutrition and reproductive success.
Samuel Myers, a senior research scientist at Harvard’s School of Public Health, has published groundbreaking studies on how rising CO2 levels lower the nutritional quality of foods that we eat, like rice, wheat, and maize, which lose significant amounts of zinc, iron, and protein when grown under higher concentrations of CO2. Plant composition depends on a balance between air, soil, and water. As CO2, the source of carbon for plant growth, proliferates quickly in the atmosphere, soil nutrients - such as nitrogen, iron, and magnesium - remain the same. As a result, plants produce more carbohydrates, but dilute other nutrients.
@Cinqmil. Hi! Thanks for sharing! Could you provide me with a link to that paper or the title? Thanks in advance.
Seems nonsense to me
Reading the comments are just depressing
With a few exceptions, yes.
I know. The worst part was when James Hansen started to push a political agenda. That was when he damaged/lost creditability. The only way to win this is to use Science not Politics. We're losing the argument because it's seen as political. Starting a whole new tax literally pulled out of the atmosphere, that is my attempt at humor, is how people are going to see it. We need a better way of sugar coating an unpopular but necessary means to restructure the worlds energy consumption.
16:25 "Don't Look Up" plotline from 2012
Am I doing something wrong or is this link not working? I had "Invalid parameters".
What caused global warming and CO2 rise when we weren't burning fossil fuel?
Burning fossil fuels is not the only source of CO2, nor is the only factor determining temperature.
Natural Ocean cycles. Driven by the sun
volcano eruptions, massive wildfires. among others
CO2 is even produced and exhaled by all species of air breathing animals, including us. Plants take in CO2 and produce oxygen in a cycle that’s been going on for hundreds of millions of years. A healthy greenhouse effect has also helped keep the Earth warm enough to support different kinds of life. When dinosaurs roamed the Earth hundreds of millions of years ago, Antarctica was actually covered in forest. But since humans are now producing more CO2 than ever before, as well as other greenhouse gases like methane, the cycle is becoming more and more out of balance, and global temperatures are rising far more quickly than anything typical of the Earth’s natural climate cycles, like the ice age for example. (The ice age ended over the course of many millennia, but global warming has only really been going on for several decades and is already having a noticeable impact that will get exponentially worse.) The environment cannot adapt fast enough, and not even humans are equipped to defend against all the damage.
Darth Bane If CO2 was instrumental in heating the planet, (which it's not), the heating wouldn't increase exponentially, as CO2's thermal characteristics are logarithmic, which is the complete opposite of exponential. To double temperature you have to keep doubling or tripling CO2 to get anywhere near the same result.
grow trees and green the earth ,China is greening their north east desert and other counties
I wonder where you got the Hat? I really like that!
ed geiger 1 made by petroleum powered factories
I presume the "0.25 w/m**-2" at **8:34** is
Yes. Does it depend how you measure the smoothed peaks and troughs? 1.6 W/m² range is quite generous. As you say divide by 4 because of 4πr², and I see 102 W/m² reflected of 342, so your calculation seems about right to me.
Estimate in IPCC AR6 WG1 'in the pipeline' imbalance has risen to '0.79 [0.52 to 1.06] W m -2 for the period 2006-2018' ; of course this is sustained rather than on a 11-year cycle.
May all of us pledge to do whatever we can to prevent damaging climate change and to transition rapidly to a sustainable world economy.
Andreas Bimba you can start by getting rid of your smart phone. No more you tube for you
"There has been statistically significant ice loss each decade and it has accelerated in recent decades."
How about the 40's through the 70's?
How about not cherry picking data? How about taking into consider the entire body of global academia and peer reviewed research?
Jim Kelleher This isn’t cherry picked. It shows the bigger picture. notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Arctic-Surface-Temps-Since-1920-copy.jpg
Jim Kelleher Did you know that heat waves were much more prevalent in the 1930’s on the US? realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-13193710_shadow.jpg
@@jimkelleher5312 How about if your entire hypothesis is based on a flimsy correlation, if that correlation breaks for decades you need to reconsider your position and falsify your hypothesis.
@@jimkelleher5312 if cherry picking the data isn't allowed, then the climate alarmist's entire platform falls apart. Careful what you wish for, you'll destroy your own side asking for what you have.
Government should stop deficit spending thus reducing carbon output.
Wait, about the melting Ice sheets thing. I know that on the NASA website there is an article about the Antarctic ice actually increasing, but in the same article it said that Greenland ice sheets were melting dramatically. I don't understand your graphs of the Antarctic ice decreasing if it is actually increasing.
heheheh, it ages well, ..heheheheh
Well Dr Jimmy YOU were right i guess.
James E. Hansen officially announces were now at 1.5 C global average - and yet there's NO mass media corporate-state news coverage!! Science really doesn't matter much after all. Hilarious.
I can tell you the climate recently warmed up: all snow went. But fortunatelly climate changes and there will be a cooling soon, 6 month or so and it will even get so cold the snow is going to fall. Then we can ski and look forward to the next time climate changes and we can again heat the swimming pool.
If I had read two climate-related jokes today,
this would have been the second funniest.
Would you mind including the journal, and the publication year next time. If I didn't know the science I would have no idea what paper you are referring to.
So lets take a look at Kobashi et al. 2011, from GRL:
para. 6 l 1-3 "The past 1000 years of Greenland’s snow surface
temperature were reconstructed with high temporal resolution
(∼10 years)"
para. 16,l 12-15 "our site is not necessarily representative of the whole Arctic, and may respond in opposite ways to annular mode fluctuations."
The temperature chart is based on information acquired from NASA heat sensing satellites. It covers a 30 year period from January 1979 to November 2010The red curve indicates the average temperature throughout the entire Earth.
The top of the curves are warmer years caused by El Niño; giving out heat thus warming the Earth. The bottoms are usually La Niña years which cool the Earth. Volcanic eruptions, like Mount Pinatubo in 1991 will also cool the Earth over short timeframes of 1-2 years.
What´s the optimum co2 level for plants?
I think it's somewhere between 1000-2000 ppm. different plants have different sweet spots.but for a plant to make use of the high co2 they need more water and more nutrients. so this only works on a small scale like in a greenhouse.
Martin Hearn actually plants need less water when there are Higher concentrations of Co2
Jason Crockford - Plants eat co2 and produce o2 which becomes water vapor which creates the greenhouse effect. This is why it’s so important for us all to become vegetarians.
@@smallbluemachine During the day plants in bright light use photosynthesis to take in carbon dioxide and give off o2 and water vapour During dim light periods respiration and photosynthesis are relatively equal and no amount of gases are given off. The processes are equal. At night time respiration occurs when o2 is taken in and co2 is released.
But the gases released by vegetative and/or organic decomposition are co2, methane, nitrogen and hydrogen sulphide. So the decomposition of organic matter contributes to greenhouse effect in areas where denuding of forests or fields once farmed are not replaced with more vegetation.
Dumb irrelevant question. Here's a better one, what rate of change of increase of atmospheric CO2 can the biosphere adapt to without catastrophic impact. Our current rate of change in terms of the paleoclimate record best approximates the asteroid strike that wiped out the dinosaurs.
Good topic but I dislike reading the paper.
13:00- Where “extreme weather event” is defined as- a weather event that is three standard deviations above normal and covers an area of the earth’s surface, that area covered has gone up by a factor 25-50. Or to simplify: The area covered by extreme weather events (exceeding 3 standard deviations) has gone up by a factor of 25-50.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Third Assessment Report (2001( Section 14.2.2.2. page 774
In Climate Research and Modelling
We should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non linear chaotic system
And therefore that long term prediction future climate states is not possible.
We do know that we are putting 14,000 X of CO2 the amount nature puts into the atmosphere and we do know that industrial carbon molecules have not been in the atmosphere long enough for us to know the full extent of how they will act. We do know that methane is somewhere between 16 and 32 X the potency of CO2 in trapping heat. www.energycentral.com/c/ec/humans-boosting-co2-14000-times-faster-nature-overwhelming-slow-negative
@@alanblanes2876 That is a bazar link but is does show you that C02 is not a strong Greenhouse gas, take it from most proxy graphs that when the Milankovitch cycle starts to cool the Earth, C02 keeps rising for 1000 years to its peak PPM and the suns strength is waning but the earth keeps cooling, this shows that C02 influence on greenhouse gases is very weak . The reason for the C02 to still rise is that it is being released from the still warm oceans and when the warm oceans start to cool the C02 PPM starts to fall.
If you have any scientific evidence of C02 Greenhouse warming please share it with me.
And no adjusted data PLEASE only empirical data if you want to point something out, and do not bother posting any more Bazar links.
The only two relevant questions are: can the theory be falsified and was it falsified? And yes, AGW gives the wrong answers ua-cam.com/video/I8hdE3eZ6vs/v-deo.html
Alan Blanes Hi Alan. There is some new research out by two scientists. It’s a long video but please watch to the end. Many thanks. Jason ua-cam.com/video/XfRBr7PEawY/v-deo.html
Over 100 years the number of people has tripled.
No similar growth has been achieved in carbon dioxide.
The industrial revolution is highly correlated to the growth in CO2, not the amount of people.
The Earth doesn't care if the carbon dioxide level has been tripled or increased by 40%(which it has). If we add more co2, the temperature will increase. Simple.
@@Stwinge44 not by very much at all
@@cidsapient7154 Global temperatures have increased one degree. That is a lot.
climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
@@Stwinge44 Over 90% of warming in Nasa graphs is produced by "corrections", aka Nasa modifying historical temperature records. You don't even have to look further than Nasa and other man-made climate churches, graphs on reports show different temperatures for the same years, continually cooling the past.
Yes, however great care must be taken to ensure that the resolution differences are either removed (by using aggregate data at the proper resolution) or are mathematically accounted for (via various cross-scaling methods).
You might see glaring potential issues, but scientists saw them over a century ago and developed the methods to eliminate them from analyses.
It has everything to do with why the ice melts on the northern poles. It's going to keep melting every time the axis makes the ice get to close to the sun. Everything else is a guess. The facts are that this happens every 25,000 years.
James Hansen is a true hero. He spoke out about this when no one else would
He certainly is a hero, with his own special label; corrupt hero. I was so proud of him when he split up the hockey stick graph into part tree rings and part adjusted observed data; and the sucker skeptics almost fell for it but climategate came along. Has probably put real science back at least 50 years, yes a true hero to the ' sucker believers'. All hail the prophet of the climate change church, he can have the North Pole after the new world order takes over and he can wait there until it gets hotter like he tells it will.
He is a hero, I have read everything he has ever published.
Your a big sucker.
You're....foolish. Arctic temps have soared.....
You don't have to pretend. We have live satellite remote sensing systems now. Your game is over Chicken Little. The hockey schtick was busted years ago. earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-82.61,68.44,271/loc=-39.125,72.218
I like this ted talk because I come from a background of farmers and having to be worried about the drought, climate changes and other environmental impacts. The green house effect on earth is harming us more than we realize and we as humans are the ones to blame. I believe that it is unethical to not be cautious about the daily damages we are causes to our earth. I believe that if one is wealthy enough and owns their own home they must have some solar panels installed on their property. Many do not speak about green house effects because we do not want to know. We need to do everything in our power to help clean the earth. I know I slack on it too from time to time on not keeping the earth is the best shape possible. However, if we have young people like myself learn about this sooner and inform them on what we can do each day we can better ourselves and the earth.
Becca Panarra There is an excellent solution. Not solar panels, I'm afraid. Nor "wind turbines". Electric energy cannot be stacked like cordwood or coal. The environmental resources needed to store it as hydro power can be computed as so many cubic metres at whatever 'head' - the difference in height between to upper pnd and the lower exit -- is available. Their aren't enough mountains and valleys that we can spare.
Nuclear power is the answer, ignore the lies of Amory Lovins, Helen Caldicott, and Mark Z. Jacobson.
Three weeks before the disgraceful Chernobyl meltdown, the only civilian one that killed anybody, the second Experimental Breeder Reactor of the IFR project was deliberately and successfully tested for its idiot-proof immunity to meltdown, and it had already proven that it could consume uranium 238, which is the long-lived 95% of so-called "nuclear waste", and the plutonium and other trans-uranics.
The USA has a total of less than 80 *_thousand_* tons of not-really-spent nuclear fuel, and less than 4% of that is fission products, which are decaying at rates of which the slowest takes 30 years for half the isotope to decay.
"Electric energy cannot be stacked like cordwood or coal"
Your correct, it cannot. But don't underestimate how much less energy is needed if each house has solar panels, even in a country that spans the arctic circle like I live in you get a lot of electricity, in particular during the time when you got your AC running.
My point is just, don't dissuade from solar panels, talk about how to improve the effect of them. Btw, we have nuclear power here too, combined with lots of river power, wind and solar. Not a coal or petrol power plant to be seen. Our government is trying to get more and more incentives out so the population can, and wants, to install solar cells on roofs.
Diversifying the electricity profile is important to avoid sudden power outages.
"Their[sic] aren't enough mountains and valleys that we can spare"
Converting water into hydrogen to store electricity is a sane approach on some scales, houses and cars for instance. Proven safer than petrol (at least by the companies that are pioneering the cars and gas containers).
As a side benefit, releasing extra oxygen into the atmosphere would (at a drop of water in the ocean level) slightly reduce the green house effect by diluting the CO2 concentration.
Becca Panarra good for you idiot
Do not conflate environmentalism, which I strongly support, with this doomsday cult. CO2 is a trace gas that is essential to all life on the planet. All this attention diverted to it detracts from true environmentalism and does nothing to help the planet. The reason that they came up with the hypothesis in the first place was that man made CO2 is closely tied to human progress and they detest that.
It has always been climate change. Global warming is the type of climate change we are currently experiencing. It is the same as inviting your neighbours to a barbecue dinner (climate change) or inviting them to a pork barbecue dinner (Global warming). Both terms are accurate, one simply is more explicit in the type of event than the other.
Most people prefer to use climate change because although the globe is warming by far; it is not spatially heterogeneous.
There was a major meeting of scientists hosted by the National Research Council in the 1970's held at WHOI/MIT. The goal was to discuss climate change, specifically that observed due to CO2 warming. NO WHERE in the entire report was there a mention of global cooling, and this is even from a group report including one of the few actually qualified AGW deniers, Dick Lindzen. If global cooling was even remotely an issue, why didn't it appear once in the largest report on CC in the 70's?
AMAZING VIDEO SHARE THIS
A hero of mine. Also he looks like Dr. Grant from Jurassic Park.
Yes. I noticed that too. Did you notice how Lindzen started saying something, stopped himself after 2 words and said "doesn't uniquely say anything" instead. He's a fairly careful bod, insinuation expert, Fox News would fire him in 2 minutes - boring.
" And in the last ten days there's been a break up in Beaufort that's well over a month early."
Could you direct me to where you got that gem of science? I'll check SkS.
I googled extensively, and I found no scientific articles that make the claim that Arctic sea ice would disappear by 2013.
What does that have to do with this talk? I just watched it and that's not what he said.
Six years later: Nothing much is being done to combat climate change. We are still in full falling mode and have a US gov't in place which denies climate change. This talk is still very relevant today in 2018 as it was in 2012, only more dire.
Well, maybe because there is no "climate change" since 1998?
@berndderdrummer
Apart from whether climate change is real or not, we currently we live in a world with world-wide deforestation (the lungs of the earth), soil salinity, over population, chem-trails, collapsing eco-systems, biodiversity damage, ice caps melting, the methane problem, the Fukushima disaster, air pollution, bees, butterflies, insect are dwindling due to the use of pesticides & herbicides, 67% of animal species in terminal decline. Over fishing, the poisoning and massive amounts of chemical waste & pollutants of our creeks, rivers & waterways. Countless major oil spills in our oceans, the serious ''micro plastics'' in our oceans and waterways which is finding it's way into the food chain. Corrupt world-wide politicians, rising world crime rates, the mass immigration problem, GMO crops, Also cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars, pharmaceutical poisoning, oh, and i forgot to mention ''corparate greed'' ( they have too much to loose MONEY.!!) all these problems are ARE REAL and factual.!!! The list just goes on, personally i don't no what the answer is to these major problems, or what the solutions. If this is not addressed ''big time'' we will all be in dire straits eventually, it's only a matter of time...........
*robert sumners*
"Chem-trails" are pseudoscience fiction. They are the product of water in the jet exhaust products and the supersaturation of water dissolved in the atmosphere and the public ignorance of science in general. They are as false as anti-vaccine claims and as stupid as ingesting silver.
Your list is otherwise accurate, and demonstrates how difficult it is for Man to overpopulate the Earth well before he understands the consequences of so doing. Every child will have to leave school far more scientifically-aware if he or she expects to not have his or her grandchildren die before them later in life.
*bernderdrummer*
"no "climate change" since 1998?" - Come out of your cave, Rip Van Winkle. Your drink only gets hot when the ice melts. Go talk to a farmer.
You can also see the cutting edge PAGES work in Nature Geoscience, 2013... which I have cited and Nauseum, and you have yet to read. Additionally you could see the Holocene reconstruction aggregation work by Marcott, Shakun, Clark, and Mix in Science (2013)
Thankyou and huge respect to you from me James Hansen.
Cloud cover affects insolation. The sun is the driver, not CO2.
it does, however richard lindzen, author of this theory, predicted far lower temperatures than observed thus his theory is inaccurate. both the sun AND CO2 are important. since the sun is stable over certain time periods currently it is our CO2 that is the main driver not insolation of cloud cover.
ua-cam.com/video/ugwqXKHLrGk/v-deo.html
@@sudazima I'd say CO2 and all the industrial variations of carbon molecules that have been developed in the industrial age and that we do not have a full study on how they react in the atmosphere, over the long term.
Hmmm- ice melts, sea level rises, land under ice relieved of weight also rises, no ice left on Antarctica- now we have an entirely new continent and an ice free northwest passage and the entire surface of Greenland to cultivate. New York and Los Angeles washed away- oh the joy!
All utter tosh... damned hoax and this fool is a disgrace
16:26 - "Don´t look Up" plot!!!
Please learn about Resource Based Economy :)
Venus is hot ! Could the proximity to the 🌞 sun have an effect .
Nah, it's the atmosphere of Venus that has that big effect. Mercury is much, much closer to the Sun. It's average temp is 354 degrees F.
It will probably surprise you to hear that the earth is closer to the sun during winter (at least in the Northern hemisphere) than it is during summer.
It's gotten so much worse since this TED talk was recorded.
How so? Landfalling hurricanes perhaps?
The ipcc report shows a cooling trend for the last 15years. I know that's not what the media is saying but that's what the report showed.
At minimum, the Global Climate models are comprised of equations derived from Navier-Stokes(fluid dynamics in atmosphere and ocean), Newtonian motion laws, Steffan-Boltzman (radiation from the sun and earth, clouds/ aerosols, albedo, etc), The conservation laws (momentum, energy, mass, etc), biogeochemical cycling equations (for GHG dynamics, and surface changes).
Most recent models are coupleed with other models of chemical cycling and biological processes to improve projections even more
When did TED let their standards drop?
When did you let your brain cells drop?
Another Al Gore
The prophet Al Gore,the borr
Well put, I believed him until I read this. Spread the word dude!
Another ignorant troll
What about reducing Fossil Fuel Subsidies?
I need my AC, so that is not negotiable.
Of course, see you can answer all your own questions with out my help, with just a bit of logic, real skepticism, and science :)
are they deniers or realists, we all know that our planet is on an elliptical orbit, and that it wobbles on its axis,
when the ice melts in the north it grows in the south, and visa versa,
tides haven't risen in my 54 years, it has remained the same.
where its said the sea has risen, its the lad that has either eroded, or is made of sand which is moved by water,
the magnetic poles on our planet moves, hence moving the weather patterns with it, co2 is a natural by product of life,
as with most animals on this planet we adapt and evolve with it , or we go the way of the dodo, bird,
regards owen
"we all know that our planet is on an elliptical orbit, and that it wobbles on its axis,"
Correct.
" ice melts in the north it grows in the south, and visa versa"
Must be baffling that both the Artic and Antarctic are melting now then.
"tides haven't risen in my 54 years, it has remained the same."
Incorrect. climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
"co2 is a natural by product of life"
It's also a greenhouse gas. Dumping trillions of tonnes of it into the atmosphere warms the Earth.
@@jimkelleher5312 yes Jim, I do know where Miami is, when you look at the typography, the make up of the land, when you drain swamps to build on , the land dries out and shrinks, and building on sand is and was never a good idea, the areas around the world where sea level is rising is due to land erosion, tides come in and o out twice a day, every time they go out, the water takes certain amounts of the land with it, hence the reason why people who build on sand and near beach will always see the local govt re-sanding beaches, every where else in the world not effected by this the sea level remains the same, and has done every one of my 54 years of going to beaches,
if you like living by the sea , erosion or a tsunami will eventually arrive,
regards
@@accessaryman You are so completely misinformed. Read this, it sums it up quite well, it was put together by the Army Corp of Engineers, City of Miami, USGS, South Florida Water District and a host of others because the grownups know that they have to plan for future sea level rise. We've seen 9 inches of SLR in the past 100 years for Miami Dade mostly from thermal expansion of the ocean, there is localized subsidence in some areas, but that is LOCAL, the bedrock in the area is porous limestone, not sand, not swamp. Greenland is collapsing as is West Antarctic, with a combined sea level rise already baked in of at least 30' over the next few hundreds of years, you can watch Eric Rignots presentation to the National Acadamies of Science earlier this year for the details. Don't even pretend that you know something that all of these scientists and agencies don't know just because you went to the beach as a kid. www.miamidade.gov/green/library/sea-level-rise-flooding-saltwater-intrusion.pdf
@@jimkelleher5312 when you take every thing into consideration, tectonic plate movement, porous substrates, etc,
and you go ahead and build cities on flood prone land, you cant blame any one or any thing for stupidity, we cant go through life with blinder on, research the whole picture, its plain to see,
every country has the same problems, yes our climate changes it has done for many many years, you'd think we would learn, control the things we can, accept the things we cant, and adapt to them as they come, regards
@@accessaryman you're reverting to pseudo science that you just made up based on your wildly incomplete understanding of geology and climate. There are courses on this stuff that would inform you, you should take one, there is no excuse for ignorance on this topic in this day and age. www.coursera.org/learn/global-warming
Well James, I went back to my home in Australia last month. Nothing much had changed. I went for a long walk along the ocean foreshore, and it looked much the same as it did when I first walked along it in 1974. It was a lovely cool summers afternoon.
+timobrienwells Really, because the last month has been fucking hot as balls here i dont know many people that enjoy spending a day at the beach when its 33+ every day of the week
+J B Sorry about your unpleasant day . But do you believe that paying higher fuel and electricity prices will make your days a lot cooler?
+Thomas Scoville Yes, that's right. The peak Oil pundits were wrong. The point is we will have to pay an extra tax for no reason what so ever.
@timobrienwells : Great outlook you got there. I agree by the way, and I have an anecdote to back it up.
This winter, in January, I was out and about doing my regular activities in Sweden. And then suddenly, it started snowing. It snowed more and more, until a whole layer of snow had covered the ground.
So there you have it. The scientists try to alarm us about this and that, but I know what I saw that January day - it was most certainly real, cold snow. I rest my case.
A 1 day observation may be interesting, but does it serve the purpose of demonstrating a long term trend?
''Based on analyses of subfossil wood samples from the Khibiny mountains on the Kola Peninsula of Russia, Hiller et al. (2001) were able to reconstruct a 1500-year history of alpine tree-line elevation. This record indicates that between AD 1000 and 1300, the tree-line there was located at least 100 to 140 meters above its current location. The researchers state that this fact implies a mean summer temperature that was "at least 0.8°C higher than today."
I see that 1 year ago in response to some "johndaddyo4441" entity I made a trivial miscalculation or mistype and stated that 350 GtC fossil fuel carbon consumption would be 73 ppmv (because the "johndaddyo4441" said some very low +34 ppmv) but of course 350 GtC fossil fuel carbon is 163 ppmv, not 73 ppmv, and ~118 ppmv of that has stayed in the atmosphere, the other 45 ppmv has been taken up, mostly by the oceans. I think the 350 GtC might be bit light but not a huge amount. Anyway, this plus the land use changes amounts to ~118 ppmv added to the atmosphere and that's the bottom line.
Interesting that you didn't cite that quote. 1) that's called plagiarism and is dishonest 2) no such quote exists as you claim it in the recent past. for quite a few decades we have measured the suns intensity directly (1. usa. gov/p9IRhi) (1. usa. gov/1Pgub). For the last 50+ years we have detailed records of both natural and GHGs, TOA insolation, and albedo changes. Many, MANY papers have used a variety of observations as well as proxy data to compare forcings. and solar ain't it boy.
Talks like a politician
No data is "dumbed down" I gave you two great citations of papers that combine multi-resolution data as examples. When comparing the instrumental record to paleorecords, sometimes resolutions are matched thrugh aggregation.
e.g. 1000 year coral climate records have a monthly resolution, so monthly averaged instrument data is used for comparison (e.g. He 2002 in SIC)
Alternatively cross-scale statistics/ mathematics are sometimes used to compare data (e.g. Lau and Weng, 1995 in BAMS)
Well, the passage didn't open, so he is wrong.
Not only did it not open, but a group of activist that wanted to prove man made global warming went into the antic to prove it and got stuck in the ice.
...cont
''With such data, scientists have a good approximation of the 11 year cycle, but no real insight into more subtle changes that may occur over many decades and centuries'' ~ so NASA admit that it is pretty much a guessing game but the lunatic fringe alarmists panic ~ how cute.
We have not enough time to think, only to act now. It's a pascals wager situation. We will benefit from renewable energy, less animal products, circular economy regardless of climate change really existing. So, if we do something and climate change doesn't exist, we still benefit. If we do something and anthropogenic climate change does exist, we don't go extinct. If we do nothing and it doesn't exist, then we might not die out, but we would still have the other problems that would have been solved otherwise. If we do nothing and it exists, then we fucking go extinct.
Alexander Schilcher so, so called renewable energy schemes have been a total bust and are doing more damage to our environment than they are preventing. Wind farms are killing insects, solar panels are doing the same. Preventing light from reaching the soil. The destruction of this eco-system and others by alarmist solutions, will cause all living organism to become extinct long before global warming does. Please explain what renewable energy means to u and how it will benefit ANY ECONOMY, YOU are dreaming..But the solution is already at hand,(to increased cow levels). As technologies for carbon capture and sequestration have advanced to the point where it can be done and ALSO turn a profit for those doing it. The fact that the global warming community has not embraced and celebrated thisachievement, proves their disingenuous motives ,
Is this the fellow who predicted in c 1985 that Manhattan would by now be underwater?
John Clayden reminds me of the patient who told his doctor "if you can't tell me what day lung cancer is going to kill me then I'll just keep smoking "
He never said that.
@@Elite7555 How can increasing CO2 and temperature cause famines . Both are factors that increase crop yields. At best there will be a change in agricultural areas.
"Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought.
"In the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases - in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country."
- - James Hansen - 1999
263 need education and stop beleive in bullshit of oil company as cigaret company in 1970....
Drill Baby Drill!!!
That is 1 million 300mw power stations.
BTW, do you know the story about the aluminium pen that saved the mission?
Light head. I was wondering . Somewhat hippie from sixties? One of they who was get power.
Amazing how many among the trolls on here think that they understand science better than James Hansen.
Well Isabel, you apparently think only James Hansen understands science. He seems to know nothing about the influence of the grand solar minimum. Other scientists do. And not everybody with a different opinion is a troll.
@@TheGandorX Hansen mentioned the disparity between sun activity and the continued effect of heat-trapping on warming. If all the scientific institutes in the western world and the Communist states China and Cuba all come to the same conclusion, is that not significant enough?
Alan Blanes There are many scientists who disagree and have done intensive research. This video is long but has an interesting result. Please watch it, it is very interesting. ua-cam.com/video/XfRBr7PEawY/v-deo.html
Only those capable of critical thinking feel that they understand his stupidity. At 7:55, he quotes the equivalent of 40,000 Hiroshima size nuclear bombs a day. Don't eat that Elmer, that's horseshit. 40,000 nukes a day would turn the planet into a ball of molten rock within a year or less. I don't know who's paying this guy, but they need to tell him to be a little more subtle with his BS.
@@alanblanes2876 He claimed that weather would become more extreme. This is a pretty anti-scientific claim given a myriad of recent studies showing the opposite is true, including one done in China. Extreme weather events become more rare as the climate warms and becomes more stable.
Not sure if I agree with his solution, but the rest is brilliantly stated.
Why not? Do you have a more efficient suggestion?
Sure. Much better at this stage in our technological advancement to increase carbon in our agricultural soils, (something we must do anyway) than eliminate fossil fuels (which will also need to be done, but needs some improvements in the renewables technology). Not to mention the fact that completely eliminating fossil fuel emissions to zero tomorrow will still result in decades to centuries of AGW anyway. It can't solve the problem alone. We still need to sequester the extra already in the atmosphere. But by far there is plenty of room in our highly degraded agricultural soils to hold every bit of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere and restore the balance.
So yeah, much more efficient to use well known technologies in agriculture that are even profitable, than to spend insanely vast amounts of money to eliminate cheap energy.
@Red Baron Farm - His solution is revenue neutral (making it viable in Congress) and market-based (making it efficient).
Fossil fuels are only cheap because of the $500 billion/year subsidy the world pays outside of the price of the fuels from the pollution, national security, health effects, accidents, ocean acidification and climate change they cause.
Putting a fee on the fuels simply accounts for those negative costs to society, and makes fossil fuels compete on a more equal footing with other energy options. Returning all the money collected (minus administration costs of a few percent a year) protects our purchasing power, and the economy.
The Citizens' Climate Lobby proposal is to do this with a steadily increasing fee rather than all at once, so the market can do what you say and provide the solutions over time. But the market needs the direction to do so, and something like the clear market signal that making Carbon Fee and Dividend a law is necessary to get us out of the current mess we're in.
In the 1940's to 1970's Co2 was significantly lower, there were more aerosols causing cooling and several large volcanic eruptions also causing cooling due to the aerosols. Since the 1970's the best explanation for the majority of warming and ice loss has been AGW.
My only criticism is just how wrong he is, they all are. Its not going to be century from now, its now now now. No one seems to be talking about the very obvious reshaping of the poles due to the release of the weight of the ice, the consequences are going to be dramatic, earth has been deformed by about 19km, thats some earthquake and tidal surge and heat generation due to friction, don't you think.
We're living in an ice age, ffs!
Yeah, but we gotta make sure that it stays like this. Hotter environments are very bad for humans and many other lifeforms. Every other time in history temperature went up so quickly there was a freaking mass extinction
@@alexsch2514 Actually if the climate needs to move in either direction, humans far prefer it warmer than colder. Humans don't survive well in the cold. If the planet were to experience another ice age, there is no way we support 8+ billion people.
@@SteveSmith-fh6br but record speed heating also isn't good
@@alexsch2514 I don't think we are setting any records though. Scientists believe the climate may have changed by +0.8C over the last 150 years, with a margin of error of +/-0.98C. So it is possible it hasn't changed at all or even cooled.
@@SteveSmith-fh6br we've heated roughly 2C since 1750 aka start of industrial revolution... and if you think even 0.8C isn't significqant then you better check your knowledge of ecology
at around 8:00, Jim is a Phd and he should know this, but the "deniers" (what a disrespectful term for his peers that just dont have his same opinions) have found that it is NOT the solar energy that is different in the time period in the mid 2000s, but solar effects of sun spots and solar releases. this blows off cosmic rays and reduces cloud formations (see Svenmark's peer reviewed study). this kept the clouds , which have a negative feedback from forming and allowed for greater heating of the earth slightly. however, have you noticed that from 2016 to 2019, next month, temperatures have been falling, globally?
So the peak temperature indicated by the EPICA ice cores were wrong then? are you going to rectify their mistake and whilst you're at it perhaps you can explain why they are wrong and why my using them as a reference point is so ''false'' ?
bullocks
That's not the scientific process at all.