We were facing a climate emergency 15-20 years ago. Most scientists now think we've crossed the rubicon (passed 1.5 C and are well en route to passing 450 ppm by 2030) and are now facing a climate crisis. We can mitigate and delay the catastrophes we were warned about for decades, but it's unlikely we'll avoid them.
@mickoz9389 When you learn an iota of science, then perhaps people will be interested in what you have to say. Did you fry your brain on religion or crack?
This climate denier is armed with 3 talking points. He clearly just studied a few things and repeats them ad nauseam 🤢 I honestly cannot understand how much he had to be paid to say what he says and endanger humanity by making it acceptable to doubt scientific consensus. Shame on him. I think this channel needs to disclose the debaters net worth and source of employment/funding.
'' to doubt scientific consensus.''' Consensus has nothing - repeat nothing - to do with science. Only facts matter. Fact number one, AGW has never been observed or measured. Please look up the definition of fact in needed). Fact number two. There is no global trend in either drought, flooding, fires, hurricanes and probably not even even heat waves.
@@steve-r-collier Seems to me you are the muppet, by not understanding the (RF) of atmospheric GHGs, however, that would mean you would have to actually read peer Reviewed published scientific papers.
We are done folks! Earth's energy imbalance has doubled in less than 15 yrs adding 0.75W/m^2 largely due to shipping fuel changes. Newer cleaner fuel has less S therefore producing less cloud cover therefore albedo has decreased. Contributing to this state of affairs is loss of ice cover in the Arctic as Greenland's glaciers melt and sea ice recedes. Methane levels are now going exponential as 1/3 of the Arctic is now a source of C and no longer a sink- permafrost is melting like crazy. We could be in for a total disaster if large plumes of methane erupt from the shallow continental sea bed surface off the coast of Siberia. A 50Gtn plume of CH4 it is calculated would heat the earth's atm by 0.6C. We are toast y'all. Fried and roasted baby! It's over...the party is over. It was over when we all flew off the cliff two decades ago but hardly anyone noticed. Too late now! Billions are going to die in the next few decades from famine.
We have an emergency in poor debating skills. The denier says there has only been a small increase in CO2, which is a trace gas. The response should be that the trace gas is keeping planet Earth from being a frozen ball of ice, and that going from preindustrial 280 ppm to over 420 ppm today is an increase of over 50%, which is not a small increase. This format of debate is terrible.
Ozone is also a trace gaz: 0.00006% of the atmosphere, far less than carbone dioxide (666 times less). But without ozone we'd be all roasted. This is a counter argument I frequently use against deniers who put forward the supposedly ridiculous small number of 0.04% for the carbone dioxide trace gaz as an argument. Small is not always beautiful.
@@Sherkhan1962 Stupid argument. Co2 and ozone are have zero to do with each other. Arguing the effects of one gas to prove the effects of another is beyond ridiculous.
The problem with the way Lembit Opik argues is that not only does he use just about the smallest estimate of man-made carbon pollution, but also a large percentage of the carbon dioxide (CO2) added to the atmosphere by humanity every year (~40 bn tons or 5-20% of natural carbon dioxide sources, depending on estimates) stays in the atmosphere where it has been accumulating while much of the remainder has been absorbed by the oceans causing ocean acidification. This accumulation of atmospheric carbon dioxide has led to a CO2 increase by 50% (!) - from ~280 ppm to ~420 ppm since the first industrial revolution. Opik's argument with the so-called Medieval and Roman Warm Periods is also obsolete as a 2019 study confirmed that they were not globally synchronous events but rather regional climate variability (Neukom et al. 2019. Nature 571, 7766: 550-554).
Medieval warm period was cooler than today and on local to uk not the whole globe. 0.4 % every year adding up each year because it stays in atmosphere for up to 1,000 years. I am sick of deniers and would love to know whos paying his bills ??????
And if he's looking forward to vineyards in the north of England again he's out of luck. With the collapse of the AMOC Britain's local climate will cool not heat.
We used be able to snowmobile in deep excelent snow for 4 months every winter, but not for the last 15 years we're lucky to get 1 month of crappy riding. I'd like to see that mouthpiece on the snowmobile trail. Explain this!
8 billion humans , 1 billion domestic cattle , 750 million domestic pigs , dogs , cats , chickens, ect , all farting at the same time doesn't add any methane or cause any effect.
Rockets and rocket fuel and other activity in the ozone is allowing water to evaporate into space. We are experiencing the first stages of space weather.
2025, and presenters are still saying "what is causing it; and do we have a crisis". This is what is called "fair reporting", and it's why humanity is doomed!
exactly. Shocking.. I thought that they were moving away from crackpot deniers. I am very angry over including that nut who clearly has read zero science articles.
Then would that first guest (that doesn't think humans are contributing to cc) drink a glass of water with, say 0.04% cyanide in it? Or take an injection of saline soln with 0.04 taipan venom in it? His arguments are so "yesterday" that it's embarrassing to listen to him
Hurricane Helene was no big deal. Not even cat 5 at landfall, and it didn't even impact a major city. Helene only killed a few hundred Americans due to heavy rainfall. No big deal at all. There are billions of people still living on this planet.
Whether climate change is anthropogenic or not - is irrelevant for several reasons. Our current economic framework is inadequate and insufficient to address it either through prevention or mitigation. If climate change is anthropogenic, it is due to our economic activity. Pollution from industry and production is an integrated cost & overhead in business. Attempting to cause prevention through this approach you run into barriers from consumer affordability & competitive nature of the markets and investments. We just can't simply stop using hydrocarbons without negatively affecting the standing economy. We rely on money & currency to reciprocate labor, production & consumption. this requires JOBS. economic systems are energy systems. if we attempt to change the hydrocarbon consumption we must have a feasible system to replace it that retains jobs throughout the reticulation of the money in circulation from the previous. It is not practical to implement engineering into production which makes the finished product unaffordable to address pollution that affects the ecology of carbon absorption. If climate change is NOT anthropogenic, then you will have to rely on "mitigation". Our transactional framework of currency in the economy cannot afford such a method of compensating the situation of businesses and citizens affected. losing these jobs and shelter will affect the regular transactions throughout the economy, affecting it negatively. Moreover, when climate change makes areas inhabitable such as the equator, you will begin to notice climate immigrantation. If a great economic power such as the United States cannot economically afford illegal immigration, how are they going to afford mass immigration due to the unlivability of the environment? Illegal immigration will be a tiny fraction in comparison to the entire nation's population attempting to migrate. Either case will decimate a standing economy, and it is out of the practicality of the economic limitation presented in the world economy through the administration of money. If you really are serious about having the ability to address climate issues, we will need to overhaul and evolve our current economic framework out of the use of currency and money. we will need to allow all production freely available to all people regardless of employment, place our automation and A.I. to work for us, and make employment voluntary and wageless. This will allow industry and production to operate indefinitely at an operational loss that is considered impractical by financial norms. this will allow expensive solutions and applications that would normally be considered unaffordable. We can lose jobs without job loss negatively affecting the people & economy which allows an economy to shift out of hydrocarbons or other solutions that would affect people's employment and economic feasibility. It will allow people to interface with production and resources without the limitation of currency getting in the way or the lack of action due to financial limitations or lack of. To do this, we need to start by experimenting with our technological networking to distribute production from free participation in labor for humanity to produce the things they want for free. The value system needs to change from "My labor is worth more than your labor" or "You must earn your keep to get anything from the economy" into utilizing our technology to do the labor for us and participate in what interests us. Otherwise, we will forever profit from the exploitation of humanity and its environment. Learn to share the resources of the globe to all nations to produce a costless abundant economy. Whether climate change is anthropogenic or not - is irrelevant, it is not affordable in either case and it is way outside the envelope of our current economic framework.
You know, you have to admit that during Roman times, there were harbors way up higher than the shoreline is now. We do have to ease into this more slowly than we are now. The way to do that is to address Climate Change the way we are attempting to do. It is going to get warmer, but we need to slow the process down as much as we can.
Phil, agreed! Problem is that we are increasing atmospheric carbon concentrations at record rates. We are up to about 44 billion tons in 2024. And, more in 2025. It’ll be interesting to see if we have record hot temperatures in 2025. I think we will be above 1.5 again.
@@freeheeler09 ''It’ll be interesting to see if we have record hot temperatures in 2025. I think we will be above 1.5 again.'' More nonsense. The 2024 anomaly has nothing to do with carbon dioxide. That is evidenced by the steepness of this over the time period. You people need to start thinking a bit more.
@ My understanding from reading what scientists project, is that 2025 likely will not set another record. 2023 and 2024 were El Nino years where large amounts of heat came out of the ocean and into the atomosphere. These cycles alternate though so it may be several years before a new record is set. But it will be. El Nino years are warmer than La Nina years, but the current "cool" La Nina years are now warmer than that "hot" El Nino years were a decade or two ago due to a rising baseline because of the increasing concentration of heat-trapping gasses, that, err, trap heat. Those that imagine the temperature rise is something, anything, but a greenhouse effect that is undergoing ongoing enhancment are fooling themselves or trying to fool others, like the politician in the video.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere makes no difference for the argument at 3:36, If 0.4 percent is what is keeping earth from freezing over, so be it. 125% added to insulation, is 125% added to insulation.
No, it needs to be a balance that keeps a stable temperature sound 250ppm. CO2 is opaque to reflected/radiated infrared h 20:25 heat. Imagine a glass of water maybe 100 teaspoons. Add half a teaspoon of instant coffee I.e. 0.05%. Can you see the bottom? Same with CO2. How much warmer is a cloudy night compared to clear? The heat that radiates gets trapped by the cloud. Think about it.
We know alot about climate history from Greenland ice cores. Unfortunately they only go back 130,000 years. That's because Greenland was largely clear of ice 130,000 years ago. Sea levels were about 10 m higher. Every animal alive today including humans, hippos, spotted owls, flamingos, bears, and even the Delta Smelt, etc had an ancestor that closely resembled them alive at the time that the Greenland ice sheet disappeared and they all lived through the melting of the ice sheet. They all survived. There were no mass extinctions when the ice sheet melted. Any questions
I dislike arguing about climate change, but I do find it imperative to discuss specific conditions that affect survival. I researched the variety of issues brought forward by the LA fires. Where that lead me is alarming. I found a global diminishing of water every where. I camped on the Mississippi river 5 years ago. I looked at pictures of the same places and it is shocking how different it is. Where it was 20 feet, it was now 1 foot. Every river is low, lower, gone. The earth has massive amounts of crevices some miles long from no available water. People are hoarding water. The government is taking away water rights. It is evaporating up through the atmosphere where the layers are very thin or not existent. Our water is leaving the planet. The earth surface is in beginning stages of space weather. High population areas are using far more than is being replaced. A rocket recently put a 500 mile hole in the ozone. It appears to go back to its original place but it doesn't. It begins to look like the drones over New Jersey. We are in trouble. I think our wars are water wars.
Of course human beings are causing climate change, but it has nothing to do with fossil fuel emissions or at least very little to do as your in articulate guest would suggest it does have to do with 10,000 years of agriculture and human mismanagement of ecosystems. Question is not why is there climate change the question is why was there a period in earth history during which we had the anomaly had there being a stable climate? The answer is the super organism of all life evolved to the point where Life itself evolved in number and in disparity such that carbon dioxide could be sequestered as life. Look at every city in the world and ask yourself what used to be there. The answer is a beautiful place on a river for fishing and where life is evolving look at the number of forest that we have burned down look at the number of grasslands that used to house, millions upon millions of herbivores that are now death zones where we spread pesticides and herbicides and petroleum base fertilizer as quickly as we can. We have declared war on life. We are acting like a cancer like a virus on this planet and have been for 10,000 or more years.just remember nature bats last
I guess the debate must be done at the level of a 4 year old who believes in santa and explained that no reindeer can't fly cause they don't have wings and there's no such thing as wishing makes it true.
The politician did his best. Ms. Sawas did well too. But this discussion really needed an actual working climate scientist that is articulate to nip Lembit's canned talking points in the bud. As just one of many examples, Lembit weasled worded an argument that was meant to lead to the erroneous conclusion that the rise in CO2 is not anthropogenic. A scientist would flay him with evidence about how that is incorrect, from the ongoing carbon isotope changes showing the rise is due to an increase in organic carbon (unearthed fossil fuels) vs inorganic (natural, volcanic), to mass calcuations, and more. Lembit should publish a paper and end the argument if this is so serious and science has had it wrong all these years - but he can't, won't try, because he's wrong. His bumper-sticker level of depth was perfect for his purpose here and he weilded it deftly: Most of what he said was a distortion of science done by people that have worked on this issue over many decades. At least Ms. Sawas noted that oil companies verified for themselves, using in-house experts, that the emerging synthesis of the 1970's was indeed correct. Anyone can now google Exxon's excellent work, obtained by foia and not publicised at the time, from the early 1980's. Their moedling from that time projected accurately the present global temperature based on the emissions path that actually occurred (and that they profitted greatly from). That would just be a starting point to undue Lembit's canards. OK, fine, don't say "emergency". Just use accurate descriptors for what is coming and stop using disingenuous arguments. I've loved my fossil fuels, but there is a huge turd in the punchbowl and we should not pretend there isn't.
1 climate change is not a cult 2 it’s an emergency not for our generation, but for future generation 3 once you tip the tippling point it takes 1000s of years to reverse 4 human will not disappear but life as we know it will - misery for future generations 5 there are 2 kinds of people: the one who cares about themselves, and the one who cares about future generations as much ad themselves, who understand the purpose in life related to action, effort, sacrifices… it’s the 2nd kind of people that allows is to exist today - let’s return the favor to our descendants
The younger dryas was most likely from by a comet strike on the Greenland Ice sheet which initiated the rapid temperature change from large amounts of freshwater flowing into the North Atlantic that melted sfter the impact and shut down the AMOC. The climate system is very sensitive to CO2, but very slow to respond so in nature when a tipping point is reached the change still happens just as rapidly as today however it takes thousands of years to get there not 250. Lastly, we know the carbon dioxide that has been accumulating in the atmosphere, comes from the burning of ancient carbon. The isotopic signature of the carbon from fossil fuels is different than the carbon emitted from living plants.
The real, palpable issue is increasing global heat, which can be seen in the 1.2 trillion tons of heat absorbing global ice loss annually (3.3 B daily), the heating ocean temps generating ever stronger Low Pressure systems responsible for the megastorms we are seeing with our own eyes, as well as the extreme southern reach of arctic dry cold weather. Polymath Eliot Jacobson calculates that between increasing sequestered solar radiation due to GHGs and heat generation from burning fossil fuels, we are seeing the heat energy equivalent of 20+ Hiroshima yield nuclear bomb blasts PER SECOND (NOAA's figure is 13.3), where each one yields 63 trillion BTUs of heat energy into the atmosphere.
What crap is that, excuse me!? The nonsense of this grandchild of great intelligence could be answered very easily and quickly. but you need to invite someone able, god sakje!
What's 5% CO2 extra (if accurate) going to translate into temperatures above normal? If the damages that it causes, is less than the financial benefit of fossil fuels, averaged over , say, 100 years, then maybe fossil fuels make sense. Buuut, I don't think they make sense, in even the most basis analysis, if you consider the aggregate total of piping cost, often burdened in infrastructure, omitted in the cost of manufacturing fossil fuels in the first place. There's really ZERO logic to the endorsement of fossil fuels, given they straight-up cost more to produce in the first place.
The real scientist who looked at ice cores said this has happened many times before! I'm glad trump took the united states of America out of the Paris climate accord!
We were facing a climate emergency 15-20 years ago. Most scientists now think we've crossed the rubicon (passed 1.5 C and are well en route to passing 450 ppm by 2030) and are now facing a climate crisis. We can mitigate and delay the catastrophes we were warned about for decades, but it's unlikely we'll avoid them.
@@quarrellousquaker by 2030, we will pass 500 ppm. We are increasing by 10 ppm every 3 months!
''We were facing a climate emergency 15-20 years ago''
Not then and not now.
@mickoz9389 When you learn an iota of science, then perhaps people will be interested in what you have to say.
Did you fry your brain on religion or crack?
This climate denier is armed with 3 talking points. He clearly just studied a few things and repeats them ad nauseam 🤢 I honestly cannot understand how much he had to be paid to say what he says and endanger humanity by making it acceptable to doubt scientific consensus. Shame on him. I think this channel needs to disclose the debaters net worth and source of employment/funding.
thx :)
try getting off your high horse and do more research..history isnt just 150 yrs..you need to go back alot further to get a true picture...muppet!
'' to doubt scientific consensus.'''
Consensus has nothing - repeat nothing - to do with science. Only facts matter. Fact number one, AGW has never been observed or measured. Please look up the definition of fact in needed). Fact number two. There is no global trend in either drought, flooding, fires, hurricanes and probably not even even heat waves.
@@steve-r-collier
Seems to me you are the muppet, by not understanding the (RF) of atmospheric GHGs, however, that would mean you would have to actually read peer Reviewed published scientific papers.
We are done folks! Earth's energy imbalance has doubled in less than 15 yrs adding 0.75W/m^2 largely due to shipping fuel changes. Newer cleaner fuel has less S therefore producing less cloud cover therefore albedo has decreased. Contributing to this state of affairs is loss of ice cover in the Arctic as Greenland's glaciers melt and sea ice recedes. Methane levels are now going exponential as 1/3 of the Arctic is now a source of C and no longer a sink- permafrost is melting like crazy. We could be in for a total disaster if large plumes of methane erupt from the shallow continental sea bed surface off the coast of Siberia. A 50Gtn plume of CH4 it is calculated would heat the earth's atm by 0.6C. We are toast y'all. Fried and roasted baby! It's over...the party is over. It was over when we all flew off the cliff two decades ago but hardly anyone noticed. Too late now! Billions are going to die in the next few decades from famine.
Yep !
We have an emergency in poor debating skills. The denier says there has only been a small increase in CO2, which is a trace gas. The response should be that the trace gas is keeping planet Earth from being a frozen ball of ice, and that going from preindustrial 280 ppm to over 420 ppm today is an increase of over 50%, which is not a small increase. This format of debate is terrible.
Ozone is also a trace gaz: 0.00006% of the atmosphere, far less than carbone dioxide (666 times less). But without ozone we'd be all roasted. This is a counter argument I frequently use against deniers who put forward the supposedly ridiculous small number of 0.04% for the carbone dioxide trace gaz as an argument. Small is not always beautiful.
@@Sherkhan1962 Stupid argument. Co2 and ozone are have zero to do with each other. Arguing the effects of one gas to prove the effects of another is beyond ridiculous.
The problem with the way Lembit Opik argues is that not only does he use just about the smallest estimate of man-made carbon pollution, but also a large percentage of the carbon dioxide (CO2) added to the atmosphere by humanity every year (~40 bn tons or 5-20% of natural carbon dioxide sources, depending on estimates) stays in the atmosphere where it has been accumulating while much of the remainder has been absorbed by the oceans causing ocean acidification. This accumulation of atmospheric carbon dioxide has led to a CO2 increase by 50% (!) - from ~280 ppm to ~420 ppm since the first industrial revolution.
Opik's argument with the so-called Medieval and Roman Warm Periods is also obsolete as a 2019 study confirmed that they were not globally synchronous events but rather regional climate variability (Neukom et al. 2019. Nature 571, 7766: 550-554).
Wrong, all the way from the start to the very finish. Lol.
Medieval warm period was cooler than today and on local to uk not the whole globe.
0.4 % every year adding up each year because it stays in atmosphere for up to 1,000 years.
I am sick of deniers and would love to know whos paying his bills ??????
Medieval Warming was 1:not as high as today 2:was regional not world climate warming
And if he's looking forward to vineyards in the north of England again he's out of luck.
With the collapse of the AMOC Britain's local climate will cool not heat.
We used be able to snowmobile in deep excelent snow for 4 months every winter, but not for the last 15 years we're lucky to get 1 month of crappy riding. I'd like to see that mouthpiece on the snowmobile trail. Explain this!
8 billion humans , 1 billion domestic cattle , 750 million domestic pigs , dogs , cats , chickens, ect , all farting at the same time doesn't add any methane or cause any effect.
Fart-checking? 💨
Rockets and rocket fuel and other activity in the ozone is allowing water to evaporate into space. We are experiencing the first stages of space weather.
2025, and presenters are still saying "what is causing it; and do we have a crisis". This is what is called "fair reporting", and it's why humanity is doomed!
exactly. Shocking.. I thought that they were moving away from crackpot deniers. I am very angry over including that nut who clearly has read zero science articles.
Sorry, lost me with your first guest's lack of understanding.
This is a HIGHLY irresponsible program. STOP FEEDING THE DENIER QUACKS PLEASE!
So why are you opening the window on a hot day? The glass is only 0.001% of the room’s volume!
Then would that first guest (that doesn't think humans are contributing to cc) drink a glass of water with, say 0.04% cyanide in it? Or take an injection of saline soln with 0.04 taipan venom in it?
His arguments are so "yesterday" that it's embarrassing to listen to him
While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.
Hurricane Helene was no big deal. Not even cat 5 at landfall, and it didn't even impact a major city. Helene only killed a few hundred Americans due to heavy rainfall. No big deal at all. There are billions of people still living on this planet.
Not for long. The Ozone layers are disintegrating. Water is evaporating up through the holes. Our weather is going into space weather mode.
@@chrisallen5257 Along with Elon Musk's brain.
Whether climate change is anthropogenic or not - is irrelevant for several reasons. Our current economic framework is inadequate and insufficient to address it either through prevention or mitigation.
If climate change is anthropogenic, it is due to our economic activity. Pollution from industry and production is an integrated cost & overhead in business. Attempting to cause prevention through this approach you run into barriers from consumer affordability & competitive nature of the markets and investments. We just can't simply stop using hydrocarbons without negatively affecting the standing economy. We rely on money & currency to reciprocate labor, production & consumption. this requires JOBS. economic systems are energy systems. if we attempt to change the hydrocarbon consumption we must have a feasible system to replace it that retains jobs throughout the reticulation of the money in circulation from the previous. It is not practical to implement engineering into production which makes the finished product unaffordable to address pollution that affects the ecology of carbon absorption.
If climate change is NOT anthropogenic, then you will have to rely on "mitigation". Our transactional framework of currency in the economy cannot afford such a method of compensating the situation of businesses and citizens affected. losing these jobs and shelter will affect the regular transactions throughout the economy, affecting it negatively. Moreover, when climate change makes areas inhabitable such as the equator, you will begin to notice climate immigrantation. If a great economic power such as the United States cannot economically afford illegal immigration, how are they going to afford mass immigration due to the unlivability of the environment? Illegal immigration will be a tiny fraction in comparison to the entire nation's population attempting to migrate.
Either case will decimate a standing economy, and it is out of the practicality of the economic limitation presented in the world economy through the administration of money.
If you really are serious about having the ability to address climate issues, we will need to overhaul and evolve our current economic framework out of the use of currency and money. we will need to allow all production freely available to all people regardless of employment, place our automation and A.I. to work for us, and make employment voluntary and wageless.
This will allow industry and production to operate indefinitely at an operational loss that is considered impractical by financial norms. this will allow expensive solutions and applications that would normally be considered unaffordable. We can lose jobs without job loss negatively affecting the people & economy which allows an economy to shift out of hydrocarbons or other solutions that would affect people's employment and economic feasibility. It will allow people to interface with production and resources without the limitation of currency getting in the way or the lack of action due to financial limitations or lack of.
To do this, we need to start by experimenting with our technological networking to distribute production from free participation in labor for humanity to produce the things they want for free. The value system needs to change from "My labor is worth more than your labor" or "You must earn your keep to get anything from the economy" into utilizing our technology to do the labor for us and participate in what interests us. Otherwise, we will forever profit from the exploitation of humanity and its environment. Learn to share the resources of the globe to all nations to produce a costless abundant economy.
Whether climate change is anthropogenic or not - is irrelevant, it is not affordable in either case and it is way outside the envelope of our current economic framework.
You know, you have to admit that during Roman times, there were harbors way up higher than the shoreline is now. We do have to ease into this more slowly than we are now. The way to do that is to address Climate Change the way we are attempting to do. It is going to get warmer, but we need to slow the process down as much as we can.
Phil, agreed! Problem is that we are increasing atmospheric carbon concentrations at record rates. We are up to about 44 billion tons in 2024. And, more in 2025.
It’ll be interesting to see if we have record hot temperatures in 2025. I think we will be above 1.5 again.
Nonsense. You have no idea it's going to get warmer. AGW has never been proven. Like it or not.
@@freeheeler09 ''It’ll be interesting to see if we have record hot temperatures in 2025. I think we will be above 1.5 again.''
More nonsense. The 2024 anomaly has nothing to do with carbon dioxide. That is evidenced by the steepness of this over the time period. You people need to start thinking a bit more.
@ My understanding from reading what scientists project, is that 2025 likely will not set another record. 2023 and 2024 were El Nino years where large amounts of heat came out of the ocean and into the atomosphere. These cycles alternate though so it may be several years before a new record is set. But it will be. El Nino years are warmer than La Nina years, but the current "cool" La Nina years are now warmer than that "hot" El Nino years were a decade or two ago due to a rising baseline because of the increasing concentration of heat-trapping gasses, that, err, trap heat. Those that imagine the temperature rise is something, anything, but a greenhouse effect that is undergoing ongoing enhancment are fooling themselves or trying to fool others, like the politician in the video.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere makes no difference for the argument at 3:36, If 0.4 percent is what is keeping earth from freezing over, so be it.
125% added to insulation, is 125% added to insulation.
No, it needs to be a balance that keeps a stable temperature sound 250ppm.
CO2 is opaque to reflected/radiated infrared h 20:25 heat.
Imagine a glass of water maybe 100 teaspoons. Add half a teaspoon of instant coffee I.e. 0.05%.
Can you see the bottom? Same with CO2.
How much warmer is a cloudy night compared to clear? The heat that radiates gets trapped by the cloud.
Think about it.
@@pwollerman Are you disagreeing with me or adding more explanation?
@ Sorry, it sounded as if you disagreed. My mistake : )
We know alot about climate history from Greenland ice cores. Unfortunately they only go back 130,000 years. That's because Greenland was largely clear of ice 130,000 years ago. Sea levels were about 10 m higher. Every animal alive today including humans, hippos, spotted owls, flamingos, bears, and even the Delta Smelt, etc had an ancestor that closely resembled them alive at the time that the Greenland ice sheet disappeared and they all lived through the melting of the ice sheet. They all survived. There were no mass extinctions when the ice sheet melted. Any questions
I dislike arguing about climate change, but I do find it imperative to discuss specific conditions that affect survival. I researched the variety of issues brought forward by the LA fires. Where that lead me is alarming. I found a global diminishing of water every where. I camped on the Mississippi river 5 years ago. I looked at pictures of the same places and it is shocking how different it is. Where it was 20 feet, it was now 1 foot. Every river is low, lower, gone. The earth has massive amounts of crevices some miles long from no available water. People are hoarding water. The government is taking away water rights. It is evaporating up through the atmosphere where the layers are very thin or not existent. Our water is leaving the planet. The earth surface is in beginning stages of space weather. High population areas are using far more than is being replaced. A rocket recently put a 500 mile hole in the ozone. It appears to go back to its original place but it doesn't. It begins to look like the drones over New Jersey. We are in trouble. I think our wars are water wars.
Thwaites is breaking up, this week.
Global temperatures still rising, that just great.
If the oceans were iced over our ships would be stuck for good.
Degrowth to economy relocalization fueled by regenerative agriculture is the only way to reduce our pollution.
So painful to watch this
Wow, so you solicit the opinion of an idiot, and then you expect us to keey paying attention.
Regardless of the debate about global warming, I have technology to make life more wonderful and it's being suppressed... .
Presently the Arctic sea ice concentration is at a record low for this month. Records go back to 1979.
Of course human beings are causing climate change, but it has nothing to do with fossil fuel emissions or at least very little to do as your in articulate guest would suggest it does have to do with 10,000 years of agriculture and human mismanagement of ecosystems. Question is not why is there climate change the question is why was there a period in earth history during which we had the anomaly had there being a stable climate? The answer is the super organism of all life evolved to the point where Life itself evolved in number and in disparity such that carbon dioxide could be sequestered as life. Look at every city in the world and ask yourself what used to be there. The answer is a beautiful place on a river for fishing and where life is evolving look at the number of forest that we have burned down look at the number of grasslands that used to house, millions upon millions of herbivores that are now death zones where we spread pesticides and herbicides and petroleum base fertilizer as quickly as we can. We have declared war on life. We are acting like a cancer like a virus on this planet and have been for 10,000 or more years.just remember nature bats last
True!
I guess the debate must be done at the level of a 4 year old who believes in santa and explained that no reindeer can't fly cause they don't have wings and there's no such thing as wishing makes it true.
The politician did his best. Ms. Sawas did well too. But this discussion really needed an actual working climate scientist that is articulate to nip Lembit's canned talking points in the bud. As just one of many examples, Lembit weasled worded an argument that was meant to lead to the erroneous conclusion that the rise in CO2 is not anthropogenic. A scientist would flay him with evidence about how that is incorrect, from the ongoing carbon isotope changes showing the rise is due to an increase in organic carbon (unearthed fossil fuels) vs inorganic (natural, volcanic), to mass calcuations, and more. Lembit should publish a paper and end the argument if this is so serious and science has had it wrong all these years - but he can't, won't try, because he's wrong. His bumper-sticker level of depth was perfect for his purpose here and he weilded it deftly: Most of what he said was a distortion of science done by people that have worked on this issue over many decades. At least Ms. Sawas noted that oil companies verified for themselves, using in-house experts, that the emerging synthesis of the 1970's was indeed correct. Anyone can now google Exxon's excellent work, obtained by foia and not publicised at the time, from the early 1980's. Their moedling from that time projected accurately the present global temperature based on the emissions path that actually occurred (and that they profitted greatly from). That would just be a starting point to undue Lembit's canards. OK, fine, don't say "emergency". Just use accurate descriptors for what is coming and stop using disingenuous arguments. I've loved my fossil fuels, but there is a huge turd in the punchbowl and we should not pretend there isn't.
1 climate change is not a cult
2 it’s an emergency not for our generation, but for future generation
3 once you tip the tippling point it takes 1000s of years to reverse
4 human will not disappear but life as we know it will - misery for future generations
5 there are 2 kinds of people: the one who cares about themselves, and the one who cares about future generations as much ad themselves, who understand the purpose in life related to action, effort, sacrifices… it’s the 2nd kind of people that allows is to exist today - let’s return the favor to our descendants
The younger dryas was most likely from by a comet strike on the Greenland Ice sheet which initiated the rapid temperature change from large amounts of freshwater flowing into the North Atlantic that melted sfter the impact and shut down the AMOC.
The climate system is very sensitive to CO2, but very slow to respond so in nature when a tipping point is reached the change still happens just as rapidly as today however it takes thousands of years to get there not 250.
Lastly, we know the carbon dioxide that has been accumulating in the atmosphere, comes from the burning of ancient carbon. The isotopic signature of the carbon from fossil fuels is different than the carbon emitted from living plants.
The real, palpable issue is increasing global heat, which can be seen in the 1.2 trillion tons of heat absorbing global ice loss annually (3.3 B daily), the heating ocean temps generating ever stronger Low Pressure systems responsible for the megastorms we are seeing with our own eyes, as well as the extreme southern reach of arctic dry cold weather. Polymath Eliot Jacobson calculates that between increasing sequestered solar radiation due to GHGs and heat generation from burning fossil fuels, we are seeing the heat energy equivalent of 20+ Hiroshima yield nuclear bomb blasts PER SECOND (NOAA's figure is 13.3), where each one yields 63 trillion BTUs of heat energy into the atmosphere.
What crap is that, excuse me!? The nonsense of this grandchild of great intelligence could be answered very easily and quickly. but you need to invite someone able, god sakje!
Do you mean we need to raise the bar? Lets get together so we can talk about it again
What's 5% CO2 extra (if accurate) going to translate into temperatures above normal? If the damages that it causes, is less than the financial benefit of fossil fuels, averaged over , say, 100 years, then maybe fossil fuels make sense. Buuut, I don't think they make sense, in even the most basis analysis, if you consider the aggregate total of piping cost, often burdened in infrastructure, omitted in the cost of manufacturing fossil fuels in the first place. There's really ZERO logic to the endorsement of fossil fuels, given they straight-up cost more to produce in the first place.
Btw, my internal rocket thruster machine is cheap and easy to make....
pretty sure they didn't have thermometers in the roman times.....
Will my claim be ignored here, too?....😢❤
You are not hosting a discussion. You are giving a platform to a paid sociopath who is killing human beings absent remorse. You are complicit.
Poor defense by the scientists
I lasted until the 3:30 in this stupid click bait. It is life moments wasted and lost; over 3 minutes I will never get back.
Good
Can't respect a roundtable that has one denier versus a legitimate scientist. No objectivism here.
Blocking your channel.Thanks!
Trump shouting.. Drill baby Drill
You’re asking now? Wow. Ummm I’ve got some really really really bad news for you. Known since the 1950’s.
Not true.
Food forest must
Gaslighting by the gas control freaks! Ironic! 🤣😂👍😁✌️🎯😎
The real scientist who looked at ice cores said this has happened many times before! I'm glad trump took the united states of America out of the Paris climate accord!