This past summer I tried to predict the weather using a magic crystal ball, but is said "snow" every time. I realized my mistake... I was using a snow globe.
aLime404 Obama denied climate change so many times. And he still denies it today. Bush was a business man and oil seeker so I doubt he did either and climate change was even brought up to presidential candidates before Bush so... never?
Gavin Starks you are the first and only person to ever tell me that Obama was a climate change denier. "During the course of my presidency, I made climate change a top priority, because I believe that, for all the challenges that we face, this is the one that will define the contours of this century more dramatically perhaps than the others" - Barack Obama "And I do not believe that this planet is condemned to ever-rising temperatures. I believe these are problems that were caused by man, and they can be solved by man." - also Barack Obama But okay guy, he was a climate change denier. Have a great week
This kind of thing was what I said I wanted to see more of in the survey! Thank you! I wish I had also wrote more videos about communicating science. How do we effectively communicate the scientific method? Recent findings? Old findings? Misunderstandings? How do we engage people to "think like a scientist?"
I'm a human obviously, and I feel so guilty for global warming because I use a bunch of plastic, a car that my parents drive, the meat that I eat and more. Im so sorry
Almost all weather / climate / oceanic models utilise the Navier Stokes equations which are then programmed (using C / C++ / Python / FORTRAN) into a computer model. Differential equations can be applied to the Navier Stokes equations to make them easier to type in particular programming languages. Basically this boils down to understanding natural Earth science processes and applying physics and computer programming to get a model which can show a hindcast / nowcast / forecast.
The models are a work in progress and they aren't accurate enough for prediction. They can't model clouds. They also can't predict rainfall either. Not even a few months ahead. Total international scam on the World population. Agenda 21.
Hey Science people, want to get more of the general population into saving the planet? Link a climate model to google earth and let people look up their homes to see how climate change will affect them directly. When Jimmy from Florida realizes his house will be underwater in a decade and Cindy finds out her home in California will be uninhabitable maybe things will start to change.
But that requires that they believe the climate science is real and accurate, which many people refuse to do. The people who believe in it are likely already wanting to work toward solutions without having to see what will happen to their own home.
the problem is that the climate isn't, and won't change that fast. It's much harder to convince someone that what they do now will have that effect in a few hundred years to care. It's also a bit of a fallacy, if you and other people are allowed to scream global warming everytime you have a bad storm season or a warm winter where you live, how can you argue against those who call it global cooling every year it's a calm season or cold winter? No one person see's global warming in thier day to day life, you can see regional cycles and changes. The only way you can see global warming is to look at data that span's the globe.
Hey science people, want to get more of the general population into starving themselves & their children by nixing the very fuel that powers the grain-harvesting & transportation equipment that feeds them....
Wow! Great video! I always wondered how scientists predicted future climate, which methodologies and tools were used, and how accurate were the predictions. You made the explanation simple and clear enough for anyone to understand. I’ll share the video in my social media and hope that a few climate change denialists will watch it and change their minds.
I wish you luck, but I don’t see it happening. Ya know, I agree with you that the video was very clear and didactic, but for those who do not want to believe nothing will do. They’ll just continue to defend whatever conspiracy theories the believe in. But maybe I’m just being too pessimistic… Will you let me know if any denialists changed their minds after watching the video? Thank U.
So as Ice melts on land masses, the sea rises. But then at the same time those land masses become free to use. Who's up for moving to Antarctica or Greenland?
Honestly it's amazing that there isn't a movement of cylinder earthers, considering how much more plausible it is for earth to be a cylinder than a flat disc.
Yeah, I mean even our flat maps are made from cylinders earth. Cylinder earth is a good approximation of what earth looks like. Obviously it makes the poles look bigger and the equator smaller, but it's really nothing if you compare it to how nonsensical the flat earth is xD
Google it a lot of maps some even interactable and you can choose the year and it demonstrates results. Some day Florida will be under, parts of Louisiana and Texas. California , all border states will be different. It is a given, but like he said there us still work to do and predictions aren't always aaccurate. 50 to 100 years of course there will be changes. This is the frog in the boiling pot of water issue.
Should be titled: Have climate scientists ever even once made one accurate prediction of the future climate with regard to the supposed Anthropomorphic Climate Disruption?
@@scribblescrabble3185 Get off the drugs, they keep kicking the can down the road saying the world will end every 5 years and nothing happens. Its a scam period.
@@H0VA " the world will end every 5 years " Yeah, I hear that a lot, but until now noone could point me to the one who makes these claims. On the other hand turning earth into an asteroid field sounds really far off ... that's what you meant with end of the world, didn't you? Or were you referring to someone, who might in his or her overexcited anthropocentrism equated the human civilization with earth and you just willfully misunderstood? sry, I am a bit snarky here, but I had these discussion often enough to know that you can't really contribute to one, when you start with a strawman.
Most of what this guy is saying is not true. The computers we have are not powerful enough to simulate fluid flow over the entire Earth using physics. A lot of assumptions must be built into the models, those assumptions are not based on physics, but rather are based on statistical correlations. Statistics is not physics. Statistics based models are highly fallible, because statistics are interpreted by the individual implementing them into the model. The Proof that statistics based models lack the same kind of predictive power as physics based models can be seen in the number of different climate models. Each one saying something different, because each team that made them made different assumptions. Also these climate models are constantly changed. They hold the outcome "global warming caused by CO2" constant, and manipulate the rest of the model, and the data until the simulation again agrees with this basic assumption that man made CO2 causes global warming. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. One thing for sure is that models built under such bias constraints will never unravel the truth. We are probably at least 100 years away from having a computer that can simulate the entire Earth's climate using physics.
Actually chaos theory 1960's proved no computer models will ever be able to accurately predict any complex system. Edward Lorenz accidentally discovered this ironically by attempting to model weather. We will never be able to predict even a hinged pendulum with a quantum computer and we know why. ua-cam.com/video/JrJNBlS6Okc/v-deo.html
It seems our education systems aren't doing a good enough job. I know a few people who deny human activity is causing global warming and even some who deny it's even warming up!
I really appreciate the straight forward approach of this video, I usually ignore climate videos because they're so often just a giant "OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE" type thing. Thank you for not going that route. I still have some reservations about our models accuracy, simply due to the fact that we're still missing a lot of data and we just dont have the computing power yet, but I also know, living in a northern state, our winters are nothing like they used to be...things are indeed changing. I will say that I think the biggest risk of rising temps, would be that it triggers a cooling. Warmer temps would indeed cause some serious problems across the world, but we'd survive...an ice age would be absolutely devastating in comparison.
Sometimes l like to imagine a computer powered by (and of the size of) a dyson sphere. lmagine all of the unimaginable things that it could do... lmagine the Skyrim mods that one could run with that puppy.
"Tesla['s electric] car battery production releases as much CO2 as 8 years of gasoline driving" wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/20/tesla-car-battery-production-releases-as-much-co2-as-8-years-of-gasoline-driving/ www.nyteknik.se/fordon/stora-utslapp-fran-elbilarnas-batterier-6851761
Alejandro Quesada didn't look at what satan just posted, but www.google.com/amp/www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/news/amp27039/tesla-battery-emissions-study-fake-news/ Quickly debunks the study, a it is flawed. Study assumes that the car "being driven for 8 yrs" are very fuel efficient and not driven far/often. It also only accounts for CO2 released from the engine burning the fuel itself, not the CO2 released extracting and transporting the fuel
Satan the article you linked is an obvious diversion piece. It points put that producing electric cars also releases CO2, the point is that over an extended period of time less CO2 will be released. It quotes Richard Pike who is a joke to any real climate scientist. He held a Bachelors degree in engineering and some kind of PhD. He never held a degree in climatology or a related science. He also worked for the oil industry for 25 yrs before making claims to discredit global warming and man's hand in it.
Here in Campbell River, the City is using model projections that sea levels will rise 1 meter by 2100. NOAA tide gauge data for Campbell River shows the relative sea level trend is actually -1.64 mm per year for the entire life of the gauge since mid 1960s. Isostatic rebound means the land is rising faster than the 1.5 mm per year observed in global long period reliable tide gauge data. Models are absurdly wrong.
What kind of effect has worldwide nuclear weapons testing had on global climate change? I find it hard to imagine that thousands of nukes being tested since the 1940s hasn't left an impact on our environment.
Nukes by themselves aren't the best thing for the environment, but the world is massive and their infrequent use dispersed over time and area makes little difference. The constant chugging of fossil fuels by most humans is much worse. Also, nuclear testing hasn't been going on since the 1940's; they stopped a long time ago after the cold war.
I think that by stopping the use of coal for energy we would reduce pollution a lot. Moving over to fully electric cars would help as well. But that takes a lot of work and having enough people that believe in the change.
The fact that some people don't believe in this blows my mind. The fact that the leader of my country, one of the two biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, doesn't believe in this terrifies me.
How can you believe pineapple on pizza is bad? Are you working for Them, enslaving the masses and denying us pineapple on pizza? Next you're going to be saying that pies are square!
I would like to hear from the best model, you chose it, name it, locate it, say who programmed it, who maintains it, who financed it (and say what is the sea level and global temperature (however they define it) in year 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040, and so on until year 3000. I want to see the data. All the inputs, and outputs listed every 5 years. Variables with dimensional units and concept definitions. So if you say "solar activity" you have to define it clearly in a non ambiguous way.
Do some work, look up ice core reports, earth has been changing since the first dinosaur farted.. The biggest climate factor find an angle,become a millionare. Watch greta go
Rahul The cabana boy Please do some work yourself and read this: www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change
Good, simple outline of the origins of climate models. States probable effects on the planet without being excessively alarmist nor ridiculously dismissive. Useful video.
Just think about this for a moment - as the video clearly says and you can see on charts, the heating and cooling cycles of the earth are many and rise and fall in 300,000, 50,000, and 15,000 year increments. We're near the end of a 15,000 year warming cycle right now; the ocean has risen about 400 feet (before industrialization) in our current cycle. This is all well documented and you can easily look it up. But, to say our models only go back to 1850 and there is clearly a warming trend, is true, but is not indicative of the equations necessary to create the multiple tri-heating/cooling periods the earth has experienced. With or without mankind the earth would be warming since 1850. The only way to know if the tiny fraction of C02 that humans create will affect a 300,000, 50,000, or 15,000 year cycle would be to have a model that explains the last 1.2 million years (or more, at least 4 major cycles) and then has enough detail to try and predict tiny changes of 50 to 100 years. Just think about the oceans being 400 feet lower and how that affected glaciers, ocean currents, let alone where was all this water stored and how did that affect weather patterns, plant growth, erosion, etc. No one will know for sure if industrialization has had an effect for another 1000 to 2000 years, and that just based on the tiny 15,000 year cycle.
static.skepticalscience.com/pics/meehle_2004.jpg oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/climate-reconstructions-1-million-years.gif What 300 000 year cycle are you thinking of? ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle/images/150kyrs_petit150.jpg Or even 50 000 and 15 000 year cycles? You specifically talked about temperature "cycles" didn't you? Additionally, these changes are miniscule in 150-200 year period. Even if they weren't, they can be modelled in with data from that time period. Why do you need 300 000 years, I don't have the faintest clue. What makes you think the minor changes in Earth's position relative to the Sun aren't inserted into models?
The particles emitted by the plants and volcanoes have a cooling effect. They reflect sunlight back high up in the atmosphere. Much like cloud-cover and polar ice. The CO2 however has the opposite effect.
@@kimmry9406 So far, the record with prediction accuracy is poor. Only the Ryssien model of the 32 global climate Models have proven some accuracy. The problem with these Models is, they are parametrized based on assumptions, not data or estimations. And the worst thing is that the Models makers do not even accept to change those faulty parameters even thought they fail to predict climate changes year after year. Crap Models...
@@debrathornquist2465 And actually I have worked with statistical models (econometrics) for my whole worklife, 30+ years, so it is fairly easy for me to understand, what these guys are doing. I do not havet to read any talking points from anyone, I just study and look, how these models have been built. So, as their models are not based on estimates of real date, but they are parametrized, the predictions they make are nothing more than beliefs based on their assumptions. This kind of modeling in economics is often refered as simulations of a hypotethical world on economics and people automatically understand the shortcomings of the "prodictions" presented. Usually these simulations are used to study sensitivities of the model, not to make actual predictions. However climate science is so young a sicience they still do things like economists did some 30- 40 years ago. Sad. But most climate scientist are starting to understand the shortcomings of their models. Few dare to tell it to the public. The Russian model happens to be the best as their research team is not tied to the "political climate change" narrative like their western counterparts. The Russians have corrected their parameters in their climate model to better predict both the past and hopefully the future. Their prediction record is the best. You shoud study a masters degree on statistics and statistical models, so you could understand what crap models most climate scientists use.... And sorry for my english, it is not my native language. And I am not russian, I'm from Finland.
Decent video, but significant error at the 3:20 mark. You have a graphic showing 'predicted heating' with increased CO2 in the atmosphere being between 1.5 to 4.5 Celsius. This is correct. However, just underneath that range you show the corresponding range for Fahrenheit to be 2.7 to 8 degrees. Wrong. Fahrenheit = Celsius x 1.8 + 32. Only pointing this out because people hear these ranges that are use to hearing temps in Fahrenheit and think they will just need to turn to A/C up....wrong. Earth as we know it is D-O-N-E and all the denial in the world will not change this...
Seen a lot of comments on here well before someone could have reasonably watched the video. Seems like people don’t want to learn. They just want to shout their misinformed view. At least take in the information, first. Geez.
“We may only see stronger hurricanes [and tropical storms], not more of them”. Yea if 2020 is any indication about the future of oceanic storms, the hurricane season seems like it will be longer, with more powerful storms and more of them in general
1) Start a business that relies on fossil fuels 2) Fund politicians to prevent action from being taken 3) Run a PR campaign by buying scientists and funding blogs like WUWT 4) Go to 2)
1.) Pretend science is about questioning stuff. 2.) Petition government to force the hardworking taxpayer into subsidizing said "questioning." 3.) Pretend any apostate who dares question you in return is on the take from "big oil." 4.) Go back to #2.
The fact that the world is warming isn’t really a surprise as it’s been warming itself out of an ice age for tens of thousands of years. The worry is that it’s happening too fast. It’s a common misconception that changes a lot.
www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_all/public/marcott2-13_11k-graph-610.gif?itok=HrOTBQaE So no, it hasn't been warming for 10 000 years.
You're right, sorry. Still, it's natural for the Earth to warm up due to it's inhabitants from time to time. The difference is that it's at an extreme rate and that we're the first creatures to actually be conscious of it.
I did say that, and that is true. We are always still part of Earth's ecosystem after all, forgetting that is almost the problem to begin with. A bird's nest is natural as well. We're children of the Earth, and forgetting what that means is very troubling. But then I added, "The difference is that it's at an extreme rate and that we're the first creatures to actually be conscious of it.", which you seemingly overlooked completely. I absolutely didn't say, "So that means we shouldn't change anything, amiright!". I'm asking this honestly, but did you want to find a reason to vilify me? Is there any point to listening to you, or did I read your comment in the wrong intonation somehow?
Everything from space, the sun, the earths atmosphere, cloud cover, jet streams, ocean currents, moving land masses, bodies of water, uncontrollable events and many more things have an effect on our climate over millions of years. Scientists want to tell the world that data they were able to collect in the last 100 years is enough to accurately predict the climate to come. I think not, especially when the predictions they already laid out fail to transpire.
We have climate data for millions of years and reliable data to run simulations on for at least three million. And our newest simulations can accurately reproduce the ice ages and warming for the last three million years now. We have a very good understanding of the physics and our computers are now fast enough to even make local predictions for continents and sub continents.
River Easterling Uneducated people think these commen sense platitueds are an argument against a hundred years of climate science? Grow a brain dumbass.
@@pcuimac climate change is not an issue that humans can conteract and even if we did conteract it there would still be problems. The problems caused by climate change will eventaully happen anyways. Without fossil fuels are quality of life would be much worse and there would be reduced transportation. Plastic is created from global warming agents. Without plastic most modern eletronics would be a lot more expensive. Quality of life would be far less modern than today but your probably thinking oh he is wrong because hes thinks fossil fuels are good. Solar energy is unreialble and costs more to make. Wind is still unreailble and costs a lot to make. Damn power is great but its not avaible every where. Nuclear energy is the best but people fear nuclear failure even thought its rare. Finally geo energy could be amazing but it has not been developed enough. If ypu think my opinion is bad than show me some evidence, you don't have to be a snowflake.Btw china and india is the main cause pf globe warming so most of your attempts would be a giant wadte anyways.
I truly see no point in debating climate change. Even if you doubt it I see no reason to not take preemptive action just in case since the possible cost of doing nothing is extreme. I for one do not believe in humanity and we will not change. We will not take preemptive action and we will meet a horrible end. I hope the doubters are right (although I do not believe so) because if they are wrong (and they are) we will all suffer for it.
I absolutely disagree with this; it's identical to Pascal's Wager. Aside from that, there _is_ a cost in trying to prevent global warming, and of course if you aren't convinced it's going to seem like a terrible waste of resources.
You disagree with this, that's fine. Me, I realize my own limited knowledge of the subject is not sufficient and therefore rely on mankind's most brilliant minds to tell me what stance to take on the subject. Even if there's only a 10% chance of environmental collapse the expenditure is worth it.
dumliz the problem is, there is a 10% chance a lot of disasters will happen, so we have to prioritize anti-astroid satellites, supervolcano countermeasures, and global warming prevention. Similarly, if we are too quick to invest in "green" tech, we may find that a little research would show that the tech is too wasteful, or the fabrication process produces really bad pollution, or that it is a fraudulent company that is just taking advantage of the politics of the situation. Frankly, we need to do more research, and develop actually viable technologies before hobbling our economy and inviting corruption.
Hobbling the economy and inviting corruption. This has been disproven by Denmark already using 100% renewable energy. Sweden actually handles waste so proficiently other countries pay for their waste management services. I guess the smart people will earn money from this and the idiots who won't change will go bankrupt. It's just like Nokia when the iPhone arrived.
Correction, humans are *contributing* to climate change, not making it happen. Saying "humans are making it happen" implies 2 things. That climate change can't happen without humans and that there is a direction humans are attempting to push climate change.
1. Yes, climate changes on it's own but NEVER to the degree seen just after the industrial revolution to now. Climate change can't happen this this extreme without humans. 2. No, humans never intended to CAUSE climate change, but we're doing it anyway via CO2, N2O, SO2, and CH4 being produced en masse.
What Charlie Spurr said. Over the decades of climate science research, there have been a few events that should have had a cooling effect (volcanic eruptions), but the climate has continued to warm in spite of these factors. Humans are causing the current warming trend. There are no natural phenomena that explain the warming we are seeing.
Incorrect. While the Milankovitch cycles put us at (or near the top of) the current interglacial period. Even without CO2 we are still several thousands of years away from starting the next decent into glaciation. The good news here, is that the CO2 will probably delay or even slow the decent into the next ice age.
@@trywallin4405 You should stop listening to wherever you get you information. Climate models have been very accurate. I will give you some links so you can see for yourself once I'm back at my pc.
@@Tibovl I get my info from the scientists. Here's a link; clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Science-behind-the-World-Climate-Declaration.pdf. Look at page 10. There are several variations (with different details) but it shows the same result wherever you look. No climate alarmist has ever disputed that graph. The only discussion there has been over the graph is why the climate models have been so wrong (with lots of excuses). But there is actually only one reason for why the predictions have been so bad. I look forward to your link, but pls, restrict it to just one web page where there is a graph of the results from climate model predictions.
@@trywallin4405 Clintel is not a scientific organisation. As much as clintel would like to say so. They are a political propaganda machine. www.resilience.org/stories/2019-09-16/climate-science-deniers-planning-european-misinformation-campaign-leaked-documents-reveal/ (not the best source, but Clintel is a relatively new organisation, that not many people have picked up on.) Although it doesn't take a genius to figure these guys alterior motives out. Your link doesn't even have a source list in it. I have no idea where the information came from, so I cannot check if it is correct. All science is based upon peer reviewed research. Without links to peer reviewed research, the analysis is worthless. Because what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It uses graphs taken out of context without a source. If you believe that is a reliable source I am truly sorry for you.
I highly recommend looking up Restoration Agriculture by Mark Shepard (not the actor). There's a video here on youtube for those who don't have time to read the book. The book is a fascinating read though. He's really just talking about changing farming, but it's also a far more sustainable model than what we use now.
Sure, but perhaps not in this way and (far more importantly) not nearly as quickly. Large perturbations in climate will change environments faster than evolution can keep up, and that's how mass extinctions happen. Humans might be fine as a species for a while, but it'll kill the rest of the planet. The rest of the planet being dead might start causing us some inconveniences.
That´s true about how fast it evolves,it is fast,butt my question is: How fast did it changed in the Past,resulting in mass extintions, i.e. ,Evolution not beeing able to keepm up? (Oh!, and please do not think I'm one of those that doesen't give a F*** about Climate change...I do,a lot.)
As far as we can tell from tens of thousands of years that have been evaluated by thousands of ice core samples (which reliably capture and take a snapshot of the atmosphere for every given year), CO2 hasn't *ever increased at the rate that it has over the past 100 years* . During mass extinction events, it's possible that CO2 levels rapidly increased (and/or other factors) -- but I don't think we as a species want to look towards mass extinction events on earth as "OK situations from the past". Those are precisely the sorts of conditions we want to avoid -- especially if WE (humans) are the cause.
What gets me is that no one will display their model to the general public. We just have to 'believe them'. When asked, most climate modelers will cave and say they don't compute oceanic currents or associative temperatures in their current GCM's. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_meridional_overturning_circulation and not one model can tell us with Hindcasting how the Last Glacial Maximum occurred or even show that we have still been in that warming trend for 20,000+ years.
I fear SciShow maybe haven't used their platform quite effectively enough in this video for this topic. Can recommend Kevin Anderson (and his very well referenced website) to really convey how much pressure we (as citizens and science enthusiasts) need to be putting on government for hard legislation. kevinanderson.info/blog/category/articles/
Devin Ward I think you mean: " *maybe you should* be wary of people who speak in certainties and absolutes." Or are you absolutely certain that you're right?
tortiecat the San Andreas fault. It’s a fault line that is hugeee and it is the reason why bad earthquakes happen in California and it’s overdue for a hugeeeeeee earthquake that’s gonna be off the charts and people say it’s gonna be so bad the world could end or a gaping hole will form. It’s fr scary
Sean Peery not the movie lol. I’m talking about scientist talking about predictions of the San Andreas fault and what will happen to the earth after it shifts and causes a bad earthquake and if there is any changes that might lead up to it
No they don't. The vast majority of seismologists did not even accept that earthquake prediction is possible at this time. They may do something called earthquake forecasting, but that is less about figuring out when an earthquake will occur, and more to do with identifying frequency and location patterns of past earthquakes to determine risk and prepare for any future earthquakes. They may also use those frequency patterns to warn about possible future earthquakes, but that's all it is: a probabilistic warning. It is not a prediction.
This past summer I tried to predict the weather using a magic crystal ball, but is said "snow" every time.
I realized my mistake... I was using a snow globe.
Love this comment hardest I laughed all day. Thank you sir. Keep up the good work.
Should have used a snow cylinder
+
well, a warmer climate does cause increased snowfall in certain climates.
ua-cam.com/video/dSVkSCN_hLQ/v-deo.html
Gotta hate it when your computer goes super saiyan and wants to defeat your Freezer.
You mean defeat your Frieza
Is the world going to end
ikr? hate it when that happens..
I seriously look forward to coming home and watching a new SciShow video every day!
I can tell by the title of this video, that I don’t want to look at the comments.
Why, are you afraid that you'll find the truth about earth being actually a cylinder?!
YOU CAN'T HIDE FROM THE TRUTH!
I am afraid to...which TOTALLY makes me want to...
someone made a funny comment about snowglobes. did you predict that?
I'm trying to find a singular Flat Earther in these comments
There's always at least one
Oni Mauricio Zamora I’m actually afraid of people who don’t believe the earth is cylindrical. The round-earthers are annoying to deal with
The last time I was this early, our president believed in climate change.
Leo Aguilar so never?
Gavin Starks they were so early the president was Obama
aLime404 Obama denied climate change so many times. And he still denies it today. Bush was a business man and oil seeker so I doubt he did either and climate change was even brought up to presidential candidates before Bush so... never?
Gavin Starks you are the first and only person to ever tell me that Obama was a climate change denier.
"During the course of my presidency, I made climate change a top priority, because I believe that, for all the challenges that we face, this is the one that will define the contours of this century more dramatically perhaps than the others" - Barack Obama
"And I do not believe that this planet is condemned to ever-rising temperatures. I believe these are problems that were caused by man, and they can be solved by man." - also Barack Obama
But okay guy, he was a climate change denier. Have a great week
I think he somehow in hell have mistaken Trump to be Obama.
This kind of thing was what I said I wanted to see more of in the survey! Thank you! I wish I had also wrote more videos about communicating science. How do we effectively communicate the scientific method? Recent findings? Old findings? Misunderstandings? How do we engage people to "think like a scientist?"
How climate scientist predict future weather is listening to the media!
I'm a human obviously, and I feel so guilty for global warming because I use a bunch of plastic, a car that my parents drive, the meat that I eat and more. Im so sorry
whats a human? I am alien from the milky way!
Omg "cylinder-earthers" I'm dying! 😂
Short answer: Math.
Longer answer: Differential Equations and Statistics along with natural science.
Actual answer: Computers
Almost all weather / climate / oceanic models utilise the Navier Stokes equations which are then programmed (using C / C++ / Python / FORTRAN) into a computer model. Differential equations can be applied to the Navier Stokes equations to make them easier to type in particular programming languages. Basically this boils down to understanding natural Earth science processes and applying physics and computer programming to get a model which can show a hindcast / nowcast / forecast.
David Lowery i love the waffling. Haha nearly just as bad as the video😁
Better answer #Physics
The models are a work in progress and they aren't accurate enough for prediction.
They can't model clouds.
They also can't predict rainfall either. Not even a few months ahead.
Total international scam on the World population. Agenda 21.
"Computers are awesome now"
Proceeds to show low-powered laptop.
Good to see a Sci show that uses sci measuring units. thanks.
Hey Science people, want to get more of the general population into saving the planet? Link a climate model to google earth and let people look up their homes to see how climate change will affect them directly. When Jimmy from Florida realizes his house will be underwater in a decade and Cindy finds out her home in California will be uninhabitable maybe things will start to change.
But that requires that they believe the climate science is real and accurate, which many people refuse to do. The people who believe in it are likely already wanting to work toward solutions without having to see what will happen to their own home.
TheGreatMoonFrog not a bad idea
the problem is that the climate isn't, and won't change that fast. It's much harder to convince someone that what they do now will have that effect in a few hundred years to care.
It's also a bit of a fallacy, if you and other people are allowed to scream global warming everytime you have a bad storm season or a warm winter where you live, how can you argue against those who call it global cooling every year it's a calm season or cold winter?
No one person see's global warming in thier day to day life, you can see regional cycles and changes. The only way you can see global warming is to look at data that span's the globe.
Hey science people, want to get more of the general population into starving themselves & their children by nixing the very fuel that powers the grain-harvesting & transportation equipment that feeds them....
You'll notice the change in food production long before you'll see any significant sea-level rise.
I now identify as a Cylinder Earther.
finally, someone cares about Maldives 😊
This is such a great explanation. Thank you!
You guys do amazing and important work. Now if only we could get this video to reach every person who doubts climate change.
NOBODY doubt climate change. Climate is changing since there is a climate. Our problem now is cooling.
Thank you for this video, it's needed
Good objectivity. Great video overall, thanks.
Wow! Great video! I always wondered how scientists predicted future climate, which methodologies and tools were used, and how accurate were the predictions. You made the explanation simple and clear enough for anyone to understand. I’ll share the video in my social media and hope that a few climate change denialists will watch it and change their minds.
I wish you luck, but I don’t see it happening. Ya know, I agree with you that the video was very clear and didactic, but for those who do not want to believe nothing will do. They’ll just continue to defend whatever conspiracy theories the believe in. But maybe I’m just being too pessimistic… Will you let me know if any denialists changed their minds after watching the video? Thank U.
Sounds like an impressive AlGoreIthm
Perfect-well done!
The earth is flat (hits blunt) ... space is fake (hits meth)
And I walk upside down in Australia!
Hahaha, Error code 406... Perfect shirt for this video.
Why did you use a Mercato projection
Can't wait to read all these comments from scientists
SantaCruzBay I wish there were more...
So as Ice melts on land masses, the sea rises. But then at the same time those land masses become free to use. Who's up for moving to Antarctica or Greenland?
Honestly it's amazing that there isn't a movement of cylinder earthers, considering how much more plausible it is for earth to be a cylinder than a flat disc.
Yeah, I mean even our flat maps are made from cylinders earth. Cylinder earth is a good approximation of what earth looks like. Obviously it makes the poles look bigger and the equator smaller, but it's really nothing if you compare it to how nonsensical the flat earth is xD
Is there an updated map for the sea level rise?
Google it a lot of maps some even interactable and you can choose the year and it demonstrates results. Some day Florida will be under, parts of Louisiana and Texas. California , all border states will be different. It is a given, but like he said there us still work to do and predictions aren't always aaccurate. 50 to 100 years of course there will be changes. This is the frog in the boiling pot of water issue.
Is global warming happening because we ended the Cold War?
Nice Dragon Ball Super reference you did there. “Perfect Final Form”
Too bad the climate models (and the data that's fed into them) are not Open Source, so they could be reproduced, verified and peer-reviewed.
Should be titled: Have climate scientists ever even once made one accurate prediction of the future climate with regard to the supposed Anthropomorphic Climate Disruption?
plenty, actually
@@scribblescrabble3185 I'll wait.
@@AudioGardenSlave123 we already do so for 40 years now, just waiting and watching, doing nothing, while we observe the models overtaken by reality.
@@scribblescrabble3185 Get off the drugs, they keep kicking the can down the road saying the world will end every 5 years and nothing happens. Its a scam period.
@@H0VA " the world will end every 5 years "
Yeah, I hear that a lot, but until now noone could point me to the one who makes these claims. On the other hand turning earth into an asteroid field sounds really far off ... that's what you meant with end of the world, didn't you? Or were you referring to someone, who might in his or her overexcited anthropocentrism equated the human civilization with earth and you just willfully misunderstood?
sry, I am a bit snarky here, but I had these discussion often enough to know that you can't really contribute to one, when you start with a strawman.
Great video! Exactly what I was looking for. Keep spreading the awareness!
'hindcasting': determining coordinates of posterior evacuation portal by means of inserting cranium into aforementioned orifice.
Most of what this guy is saying is not true. The computers we have are not powerful enough to simulate fluid flow over the entire Earth using physics. A lot of assumptions must be built into the models, those assumptions are not based on physics, but rather are based on statistical correlations. Statistics is not physics.
Statistics based models are highly fallible, because statistics are interpreted by the individual implementing them into the model.
The Proof that statistics based models lack the same kind of predictive power as physics based models can be seen in the number of different climate models. Each one saying something different, because each team that made them made different assumptions. Also these climate models are constantly changed. They hold the outcome "global warming caused by CO2" constant, and manipulate the rest of the model, and the data until the simulation again agrees with this basic assumption that man made CO2 causes global warming.
Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. One thing for sure is that models built under such bias constraints will never unravel the truth.
We are probably at least 100 years away from having a computer that can simulate the entire Earth's climate using physics.
So just don't worry about it?
Actually chaos theory 1960's proved no computer models will ever be able to accurately predict any complex system.
Edward Lorenz accidentally discovered this ironically by attempting to model weather.
We will never be able to predict even a hinged pendulum with a quantum computer and we know why. ua-cam.com/video/JrJNBlS6Okc/v-deo.html
HECK YES STEFAN I LOVE YOU!
I don't want sea level rise 😭😭😭
Then don't cry. You just fill the ocean with water. 😭😭😭😭
🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊
If you fudge numbers the computer will give you the Politically Correct answer.
Interesting and actual subject. Keep it up!
It seems our education systems aren't doing a good enough job. I know a few people who deny human activity is causing global warming and even some who deny it's even warming up!
I really appreciate the straight forward approach of this video, I usually ignore climate videos because they're so often just a giant "OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE" type thing. Thank you for not going that route. I still have some reservations about our models accuracy, simply due to the fact that we're still missing a lot of data and we just dont have the computing power yet, but I also know, living in a northern state, our winters are nothing like they used to be...things are indeed changing.
I will say that I think the biggest risk of rising temps, would be that it triggers a cooling. Warmer temps would indeed cause some serious problems across the world, but we'd survive...an ice age would be absolutely devastating in comparison.
Sometimes l like to imagine a computer powered by (and of the size of) a dyson sphere. lmagine all of the unimaginable things that it could do... lmagine the Skyrim mods that one could run with that puppy.
Satan What evidence is there of electric cars being a worse pollutant than conventional ones
"Tesla['s electric] car battery production releases as much CO2 as 8 years of gasoline driving"
wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/20/tesla-car-battery-production-releases-as-much-co2-as-8-years-of-gasoline-driving/ www.nyteknik.se/fordon/stora-utslapp-fran-elbilarnas-batterier-6851761
Alejandro Quesada didn't look at what satan just posted, but www.google.com/amp/www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/news/amp27039/tesla-battery-emissions-study-fake-news/
Quickly debunks the study, a it is flawed. Study assumes that the car "being driven for 8 yrs" are very fuel efficient and not driven far/often. It also only accounts for CO2 released from the engine burning the fuel itself, not the CO2 released extracting and transporting the fuel
Satan the article you linked is an obvious diversion piece. It points put that producing electric cars also releases CO2, the point is that over an extended period of time less CO2 will be released. It quotes Richard Pike who is a joke to any real climate scientist. He held a Bachelors degree in engineering and some kind of PhD. He never held a degree in climatology or a related science. He also worked for the oil industry for 25 yrs before making claims to discredit global warming and man's hand in it.
So why do the models show that CO2 rise actually follows temperature rise and not vice versa?
They don't. CO2 and temperature have a positive feedback effect on one another. Meaning both can make the other go up.
Here in Campbell River, the City is using model projections that sea levels will rise 1 meter by 2100. NOAA tide gauge data for Campbell River shows the relative sea level trend is actually -1.64 mm per year for the entire life of the gauge since mid 1960s. Isostatic rebound means the land is rising faster than the 1.5 mm per year observed in global long period reliable tide gauge data. Models are absurdly wrong.
You should read Chaos Theory, especially the chapter that covers weather and climate.
Yep 1960's Edward Lorenz.
The climate on scishow is amazing!!! 😉
During the 70s and 80s they were predicting an ice age.
No.
It's actually a bit of shame Cylinder Earths didn't come out of closet when they had a chance
What does the 406 stand for on your shirt?
Well, they aren't doing a good job are they?
kamran102 They are doing a good Job.
Krljavi Dzo which doomsday predictions
Even the founder of green peace, patrick moore is sceptical of climate change
Glorified versions of Sim City 2000
What kind of effect has worldwide nuclear weapons testing had on global climate change? I find it hard to imagine that thousands of nukes being tested since the 1940s hasn't left an impact on our environment.
Nukes by themselves aren't the best thing for the environment, but the world is massive and their infrequent use dispersed over time and area makes little difference. The constant chugging of fossil fuels by most humans is much worse. Also, nuclear testing hasn't been going on since the 1940's; they stopped a long time ago after the cold war.
Why scientists cant predict my future?
BeFoRe - Cinematic CS:GO - Trailer Online goddamn, thats just mean
BeFoRe - Cinematic CS:GO - Trailer Online lol
way to many variables
You just aren't important or interesting enough on your own for us to get the grants. You're future will just have to be more mysterious.
You just got rekted :D
I think that by stopping the use of coal for energy we would reduce pollution a lot. Moving over to fully electric cars would help as well. But that takes a lot of work and having enough people that believe in the change.
Actually, coal isn't that efficient and has many other problems as well, like air pollution.
How many times were the models predictions even close to being accurate?
The fact that some people don't believe in this blows my mind. The fact that the leader of my country, one of the two biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, doesn't believe in this terrifies me.
*insert something aggressive toward a group with differing beliefs to for the sole purpose to create an argument here*
*insert something aggressive towards the opposite group with different beliefs for no better reason*
Relatible
Oh please, we all know what you're referencing here. Pineapple on pizza is just bad y'all, stop trying to insist otherwise.
I'm not saying I'm a denier, I just created a denier response, "for no better reason."
How can you believe pineapple on pizza is bad? Are you working for Them, enslaving the masses and denying us pineapple on pizza? Next you're going to be saying that pies are square!
I would like to hear from the best model, you chose it, name it, locate it, say who programmed it, who maintains it, who financed it (and say what is the sea level and global temperature
(however they define it) in year 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040, and so on until year 3000. I want to see the data. All the inputs, and outputs listed every 5 years.
Variables with dimensional units and concept definitions. So if you say "solar activity" you have to define it clearly in a non ambiguous way.
Do some work, look up ice core reports, earth has been changing since the first dinosaur farted..
The biggest climate factor find an angle,become a millionare. Watch greta go
Rahul The cabana boy Please do some work yourself and read this:
www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change
@@mephisto2872 They would probably tell you that the Earth is flat if they could make some money on it. Epstein didn't kill himself-
Good, simple outline of the origins of climate models. States probable effects on the planet without being excessively alarmist nor ridiculously dismissive. Useful video.
Just think about this for a moment - as the video clearly says and you can see on charts, the heating and cooling cycles of the earth are many and rise and fall in 300,000, 50,000, and 15,000 year increments. We're near the end of a 15,000 year warming cycle right now; the ocean has risen about 400 feet (before industrialization) in our current cycle. This is all well documented and you can easily look it up. But, to say our models only go back to 1850 and there is clearly a warming trend, is true, but is not indicative of the equations necessary to create the multiple tri-heating/cooling periods the earth has experienced. With or without mankind the earth would be warming since 1850. The only way to know if the tiny fraction of C02 that humans create will affect a 300,000, 50,000, or 15,000 year cycle would be to have a model that explains the last 1.2 million years (or more, at least 4 major cycles) and then has enough detail to try and predict tiny changes of 50 to 100 years.
Just think about the oceans being 400 feet lower and how that affected glaciers, ocean currents, let alone where was all this water stored and how did that affect weather patterns, plant growth, erosion, etc. No one will know for sure if industrialization has had an effect for another 1000 to 2000 years, and that just based on the tiny 15,000 year cycle.
static.skepticalscience.com/pics/meehle_2004.jpg
oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/climate-reconstructions-1-million-years.gif What 300 000 year cycle are you thinking of? ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle/images/150kyrs_petit150.jpg Or even 50 000 and 15 000 year cycles? You specifically talked about temperature "cycles" didn't you?
Additionally, these changes are miniscule in 150-200 year period. Even if they weren't, they can be modelled in with data from that time period. Why do you need 300 000 years, I don't have the faintest clue. What makes you think the minor changes in Earth's position relative to the Sun aren't inserted into models?
Coal burning power plants have a cooling effect? I'm confused...
The particles emitted by the plants and volcanoes have a cooling effect. They reflect sunlight back high up in the atmosphere. Much like cloud-cover and polar ice. The CO2 however has the opposite effect.
Crap Models, that cannot predict anything.
AA Nomad honestly
@@kimmry9406 So far, the record with prediction accuracy is poor. Only the Ryssien model of the 32 global climate Models have proven some accuracy. The problem with these Models is, they are parametrized based on assumptions, not data or estimations. And the worst thing is that the Models makers do not even accept to change those faulty parameters even thought they fail to predict climate changes year after year. Crap Models...
@@aanomad you study them all? Nope you read this somewhere and went with it because you chose your beliefs.
@@debrathornquist2465 Yes, talk about beliefs and cult behaviour. You are the expert...
@@debrathornquist2465 And actually I have worked with statistical models (econometrics) for my whole worklife, 30+ years, so it is fairly easy for me to understand, what these guys are doing. I do not havet to read any talking points from anyone, I just study and look, how these models have been built. So, as their models are not based on estimates of real date, but they are parametrized, the predictions they make are nothing more than beliefs based on their assumptions. This kind of modeling in economics is often refered as simulations of a hypotethical world on economics and people automatically understand the shortcomings of the "prodictions" presented. Usually these simulations are used to study sensitivities of the model, not to make actual predictions. However climate science is so young a sicience they still do things like economists did some 30- 40 years ago. Sad. But most climate scientist are starting to understand the shortcomings of their models. Few dare to tell it to the public. The Russian model happens to be the best as their research team is not tied to the "political climate change" narrative like their western counterparts. The Russians have corrected their parameters in their climate model to better predict both the past and hopefully the future. Their prediction record is the best. You shoud study a masters degree on statistics and statistical models, so you could understand what crap models most climate scientists use.... And sorry for my english, it is not my native language. And I am not russian, I'm from Finland.
Decent video, but significant error at the 3:20 mark. You have a graphic showing 'predicted heating' with increased CO2 in the atmosphere being between 1.5 to 4.5 Celsius. This is correct. However, just underneath that range you show the corresponding range for Fahrenheit to be 2.7 to 8 degrees. Wrong. Fahrenheit = Celsius x 1.8 + 32. Only pointing this out because people hear these ranges that are use to hearing temps in Fahrenheit and think they will just need to turn to A/C up....wrong. Earth as we know it is D-O-N-E and all the denial in the world will not change this...
The planet needs not to be saved.
*We humans* are *on the top of the list of endangered species.*
I will watch anything Stefan hosts, it doesn't even need to be science related.
I wonder if there are any detailed analyses of how a 6° C temperature rise would affect things like global agriculture. Anyone know of any?
A higher CO2 level in the atmosphere is ideal for plants. The earth regulates itself...
And rain fall rate don’t change at all
I have no hope that humanity is going to overcome climate change.
Case and point: Donald Trump. QED
Meanwhile...the "climate scientist", sitting there peering into his CO2 filled crystal ball, looking for doom and gloom.
Seen a lot of comments on here well before someone could have reasonably watched the video.
Seems like people don’t want to learn. They just want to shout their misinformed view.
At least take in the information, first. Geez.
Welcome to the internet.
As my genetics professor once said "Your google searches aren't the same as my doctorate"
Are you talking about people who do or don't believe in climate change?
^ Are you trying to figure out whether or not to argue?
Most of those comments are meant to trigger people. Trolls of the internet have become very predictable and basic.
America is officially the only country not to sign the Paris agreement and decide it was more important to take care of oil company over the planet
Ever think of How the future predicts the climate of scientists ? Huh, Huh?
joey moose
Yeah...
This is deep.
joey moose whoa...
I love your shirt “Unacceptable”.
So, when are we going to be under water, again?
He kept on saying predictions are more accurate, when are they happening?
They don't know. The endless parade of failed predictions speaks volumes about the "science" upon which they are based.
2050 to 2100 maybe frog in boiling pot of water. Major earthquakes could speed this up. A lot of unknown factors.
Pathetic science deniers you are
Kim B stay triggered, science denier.
Kim B lol keep projecting science denier.
“We may only see stronger hurricanes [and tropical storms], not more of them”.
Yea if 2020 is any indication about the future of oceanic storms, the hurricane season seems like it will be longer, with more powerful storms and more of them in general
1) create model of what will happen
2) panic over what model predicts
3) adjust model to what actually happened
4) go to 2)
1) Start a business that relies on fossil fuels
2) Fund politicians to prevent action from being taken
3) Run a PR campaign by buying scientists and funding blogs like WUWT
4) Go to 2)
@Jerry VanNuys
*hear
You're thmart
1.) Pretend science is about questioning stuff.
2.) Petition government to force the hardworking taxpayer into subsidizing said "questioning."
3.) Pretend any apostate who dares question you in return is on the take from "big oil."
4.) Go back to #2.
You guys have a real vendetta against cats on the internet
Damp cylinder... even when knowing the context, that still sounds funny
The fact that the world is warming isn’t really a surprise as it’s been warming itself out of an ice age for tens of thousands of years. The worry is that it’s happening too fast. It’s a common misconception that changes a lot.
www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_all/public/marcott2-13_11k-graph-610.gif?itok=HrOTBQaE
So no, it hasn't been warming for 10 000 years.
You're right, sorry.
Still, it's natural for the Earth to warm up due to it's inhabitants from time to time. The difference is that it's at an extreme rate and that we're the first creatures to actually be conscious of it.
That's like saying that we creating this temperature rise due to our industry is completly natural. Afterall, you did say, it's inhabitants.
I did say that, and that is true. We are always still part of Earth's ecosystem after all, forgetting that is almost the problem to begin with. A bird's nest is natural as well. We're children of the Earth, and forgetting what that means is very troubling.
But then I added, "The difference is that it's at an extreme rate and that we're the first creatures to actually be conscious of it.", which you seemingly overlooked completely. I absolutely didn't say, "So that means we shouldn't change anything, amiright!".
I'm asking this honestly, but did you want to find a reason to vilify me? Is there any point to listening to you, or did I read your comment in the wrong intonation somehow?
Everything from space, the sun, the earths atmosphere, cloud cover, jet streams, ocean currents, moving land masses, bodies of water, uncontrollable events and many more things have an effect on our climate over millions of years. Scientists want to tell the world that data they were able to collect in the last 100 years is enough to accurately predict the climate to come. I think not, especially when the predictions they already laid out fail to transpire.
Global climate change has always been a thing it has been much warmer before humans existed and has been colder as well.
We have climate data for millions of years and reliable data to run simulations on for at least three million. And our newest simulations can accurately reproduce the ice ages and warming for the last three million years now.
We have a very good understanding of the physics and our computers are now fast enough to even make local predictions for continents and sub continents.
River Easterling Uneducated people think these commen sense platitueds are an argument against a hundred years of climate science? Grow a brain dumbass.
@@pcuimac climate change is not an issue that humans can conteract and even if we did conteract it there would still be problems. The problems caused by climate change will eventaully happen anyways. Without fossil fuels are quality of life would be much worse and there would be reduced transportation. Plastic is created from global warming agents. Without plastic most modern eletronics would be a lot more expensive. Quality of life would be far less modern than today but your probably thinking oh he is wrong because hes thinks fossil fuels are good. Solar energy is unreialble and costs more to make. Wind is still unreailble and costs a lot to make. Damn power is great but its not avaible every where. Nuclear energy is the best but people fear nuclear failure even thought its rare. Finally geo energy could be amazing but it has not been developed enough. If ypu think my opinion is bad than show me some evidence, you don't have to be a snowflake.Btw china and india is the main cause pf globe warming so most of your attempts would be a giant wadte anyways.
Climate model: This isn’t even my final form!
I truly see no point in debating climate change. Even if you doubt it I see no reason to not take preemptive action just in case since the possible cost of doing nothing is extreme. I for one do not believe in humanity and we will not change. We will not take preemptive action and we will meet a horrible end. I hope the doubters are right (although I do not believe so) because if they are wrong (and they are) we will all suffer for it.
I absolutely disagree with this; it's identical to Pascal's Wager. Aside from that, there _is_ a cost in trying to prevent global warming, and of course if you aren't convinced it's going to seem like a terrible waste of resources.
the cost to trying to prevent it is far less than the cost to humanity and peoples lives
You disagree with this, that's fine. Me, I realize my own limited knowledge of the subject is not sufficient and therefore rely on mankind's most brilliant minds to tell me what stance to take on the subject. Even if there's only a 10% chance of environmental collapse the expenditure is worth it.
dumliz the problem is, there is a 10% chance a lot of disasters will happen, so we have to prioritize anti-astroid satellites, supervolcano countermeasures, and global warming prevention.
Similarly, if we are too quick to invest in "green" tech, we may find that a little research would show that the tech is too wasteful, or the fabrication process produces really bad pollution, or that it is a fraudulent company that is just taking advantage of the politics of the situation.
Frankly, we need to do more research, and develop actually viable technologies before hobbling our economy and inviting corruption.
Hobbling the economy and inviting corruption. This has been disproven by Denmark already using 100% renewable energy. Sweden actually handles waste so proficiently other countries pay for their waste management services. I guess the smart people will earn money from this and the idiots who won't change will go bankrupt. It's just like Nokia when the iPhone arrived.
Scientists: things could be a bit bad
The Planet: throws more extreme events and sea level rise than predicted
Businessmen: still not convinced
Correction, humans are *contributing* to climate change, not making it happen.
Saying "humans are making it happen" implies 2 things. That climate change can't happen without humans and that there is a direction humans are attempting to push climate change.
1. Yes, climate changes on it's own but NEVER to the degree seen just after the industrial revolution to now. Climate change can't happen this this extreme without humans.
2. No, humans never intended to CAUSE climate change, but we're doing it anyway via CO2, N2O, SO2, and CH4 being produced en masse.
That is incorrect. The phrase does in no way imply that there cant be other causes for CC or that it is intentional
Satan No, without our interference we would have (very slowly) been heading for an ice age, so we ARE causing the warming.
What Charlie Spurr said. Over the decades of climate science research, there have been a few events that should have had a cooling effect (volcanic eruptions), but the climate has continued to warm in spite of these factors. Humans are causing the current warming trend. There are no natural phenomena that explain the warming we are seeing.
Incorrect. While the Milankovitch cycles put us at (or near the top of) the current interglacial period. Even without CO2 we are still several thousands of years away from starting the next decent into glaciation. The good news here, is that the CO2 will probably delay or even slow the decent into the next ice age.
So basically the UN is running a special version of the sims.
What's up everyone
mR. StRAnGe Your name says strange but your picture is Manhattan. I'm so confused.
HTTP Error 406 means ""Not acceptable" for anyone wondering.
This video is pure propaganda. So much rubbish is said that easily can be proven wrong.
You can try. You won't succeed though.
@@Tibovl I can even do it in only one short sentence; All of the climate models (apart from the Russian) has failed miserably in their predictions.
@@trywallin4405 You should stop listening to wherever you get you information. Climate models have been very accurate. I will give you some links so you can see for yourself once I'm back at my pc.
@@Tibovl I get my info from the scientists. Here's a link; clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Science-behind-the-World-Climate-Declaration.pdf. Look at page 10. There are several variations (with different details) but it shows the same result wherever you look. No climate alarmist has ever disputed that graph. The only discussion there has been over the graph is why the climate models have been so wrong (with lots of excuses). But there is actually only one reason for why the predictions have been so bad.
I look forward to your link, but pls, restrict it to just one web page where there is a graph of the results from climate model predictions.
@@trywallin4405 Clintel is not a scientific organisation. As much as clintel would like to say so. They are a political propaganda machine.
www.resilience.org/stories/2019-09-16/climate-science-deniers-planning-european-misinformation-campaign-leaked-documents-reveal/
(not the best source, but Clintel is a relatively new organisation, that not many people have picked up on.) Although it doesn't take a genius to figure these guys alterior motives out.
Your link doesn't even have a source list in it. I have no idea where the information came from, so I cannot check if it is correct.
All science is based upon peer reviewed research. Without links to peer reviewed research, the analysis is worthless. Because what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
It uses graphs taken out of context without a source. If you believe that is a reliable source I am truly sorry for you.
I highly recommend looking up Restoration Agriculture by Mark Shepard (not the actor). There's a video here on youtube for those who don't have time to read the book. The book is a fascinating read though. He's really just talking about changing farming, but it's also a far more sustainable model than what we use now.
That shirt is not acceptable!
Philip Johansson either that, or he's representing Montana.
Yay! I'm not the only one who got that.
ua-cam.com/video/oMmZF8gB7Gs/v-deo.html
Is that a 406 Montana Area code shirt or an 406 error shirt?
Hello
SCIENCE LOVERS😘
I bet you watch rick and morty
what does [406] stand for?
With or without Humans,cluimate will allways change. Not a joke...
And it hasn't ended well for life when it goes through the climate alterations we're experiencing.
Sure, but perhaps not in this way and (far more importantly) not nearly as quickly. Large perturbations in climate will change environments faster than evolution can keep up, and that's how mass extinctions happen. Humans might be fine as a species for a while, but it'll kill the rest of the planet. The rest of the planet being dead might start causing us some inconveniences.
12ze34: no.. If we let things go on.. A horrific future is in sight
That´s true about how fast it evolves,it is fast,butt my question is: How fast did it changed in the Past,resulting in mass extintions, i.e. ,Evolution not beeing able to keepm up? (Oh!, and please do not think I'm one of those that doesen't give a F*** about Climate change...I do,a lot.)
As far as we can tell from tens of thousands of years that have been evaluated by thousands of ice core samples (which reliably capture and take a snapshot of the atmosphere for every given year), CO2 hasn't *ever increased at the rate that it has over the past 100 years* . During mass extinction events, it's possible that CO2 levels rapidly increased (and/or other factors) -- but I don't think we as a species want to look towards mass extinction events on earth as "OK situations from the past". Those are precisely the sorts of conditions we want to avoid -- especially if WE (humans) are the cause.
What gets me is that no one will display their model to the general public. We just have to 'believe them'. When asked, most climate modelers will cave and say they don't compute oceanic currents or associative temperatures in their current GCM's. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_meridional_overturning_circulation and not one model can tell us with Hindcasting how the Last Glacial Maximum occurred or even show that we have still been in that warming trend for 20,000+ years.
I fear SciShow maybe haven't used their platform quite effectively enough in this video for this topic. Can recommend Kevin Anderson (and his very well referenced website) to really convey how much pressure we (as citizens and science enthusiasts) need to be putting on government for hard legislation. kevinanderson.info/blog/category/articles/
Yes! People who disagree with my worldview need to be imprisoned or shot by the government!
I don’t know about anyone else.. but temperatures are getting cooler here in Canada 🇨🇦...
Feisty yea that’s why climate change is a more accurate title than global warming. In short....it’s bad.
Yea it triggers more intense weather in general
That's because of atlantic ocean currents, besides canada is only about 2% (maybe 3%) of the earths surface.
This video seems like a lot of maybes and what ifs
Raging Pluto That's a sign they're honest. Be wary of people who speak in certainties and absolutes.
Devin Ward
I think you mean: " *maybe you should* be wary of people who speak in certainties and absolutes." Or are you absolutely certain that you're right?
If ifs and buts were candies and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas - and you northeners better enjoy those while you still can
Scientist talk about the San Andreas fault predictions and expectations!!!
Are you talking about scientists, or movies?
tortiecat the San Andreas fault. It’s a fault line that is hugeee and it is the reason why bad earthquakes happen in California and it’s overdue for a hugeeeeeee earthquake that’s gonna be off the charts and people say it’s gonna be so bad the world could end or a gaping hole will form. It’s fr scary
Sean Peery not the movie lol. I’m talking about scientist talking about predictions of the San Andreas fault and what will happen to the earth after it shifts and causes a bad earthquake and if there is any changes that might lead up to it
No they don't. The vast majority of seismologists did not even accept that earthquake prediction is possible at this time. They may do something called earthquake forecasting, but that is less about figuring out when an earthquake will occur, and more to do with identifying frequency and location patterns of past earthquakes to determine risk and prepare for any future earthquakes. They may also use those frequency patterns to warn about possible future earthquakes, but that's all it is: a probabilistic warning. It is not a prediction.
seismic shifts have nothing to do with climate change.