If you, like me, had an absolute blast playing Quickfire Climate Denial (TM), then you might like to consider joining the extremely generous folks who support me on Patreon. Head over to www.patreon.com/Dr_Gilbz to sign up ✌
I'm on the West Coast of Australia. It was a glorious Spring day today, clear blue sky, no wind, 25C, (77F). The only problem is - It's supposed to be the middle of Winter - The only period we get any rain 🤔
That's unnerving, what temperatures did you used to have "down there" in the winter? Greetings from Norway, we've had some rather unusual weather ourself this summer.
You two rock! I'm so happy to see younger people who are professionals in the field talking about these things. I am infuriated at the overwhelming amount of denial of science on social media. Love you both 💚
Last Summer my parents insisted that the Rhine gets as low as it was in August '22 every year. This is patently and provably untrue, but I fear logic and evidence hold no sway over committed conspiracists. I have stopped replying. I just stare at a point in the distance until someone changes the topic and visit rarely.
They have to keep that cognitive dissonance going or else they have to admit they were deceived and fell for it, and probably were an incredibly wasteful bad person for years. A common trend with these nutjob deniers is that they're almost all narcissistic to a high degree and many have extreme main character syndrome and seem to think they're sticking it to the man by... falling right for their deception in reality. It works in reverse, too!! Every narcissistic person I know at the very least doesn't think humans are causing any changes, even if we can measure it, predict it, and show how our predictions match observations
Depends on your definition of 'always' I suppose. 600my whole planet had ice crust like Europa. After Permian-Triassic Extinction Event when climate settled into a Triassic property climate there was no lasting frozen water deposits for 250my A quarter billion years w no glaciers. 😮 34-16my Antarctica was freezing solid. Thawed for a million, forest recovered then we went steadily colder. 3ish mil years ago Arctic also began freezing regularly. Looks like they thawed deeper than thought few thousand years ago in Holocene Optimum
Open your eyes and you see massive climate change, I'm 60 years old, when I was a child, we had snow on the ground here in southern Bavaria from end of Nov until mid of Feb, now we have only occasional a closed snow cover. As a young adult I hiked on glacier in the European Alps which do not exist anymore. Climatologist have all of that predicted since a long time.
I'm 54. We're I live, rainfall has decreased 30% gradually over many decades. I remember we used to get lots of mist but it's rare now. I miss the mist! I must admit, the climate here is better for growing and winters less gloomy now but I wouldn't want that trend to continue because it's now just perfect. I live on the southernmost tip of Western Australia (Denmark). It is very green and lush. I want it to stay that way. Bush fires here can be catastrophic because of very tall and dense eucalypt forests.
@Ab3ndcgi that's an extreme climate! Here it never gets below zero. Summers are usually mid twenties to mid thirties but always cool at night, except maybe a day or two every year or two it'll get above 40 Celsius, but then it'll rain the next day. Not more than 43 Celsius so far. Fires are the thing that concern me. It's going to be more extreme onecway or another in most places on earth I guess. I have worked outback where it got to 53 Celsius (127.5 f). I thought my skin was going to burn off!
When I was a child it rained a little, almost every day in the summer. Now we get drought-deluge. We had snow that stayed on the ground, from December through February. Now we get sleet or snow that melts the next day. I took my granddaughter sledding at 10pm because that was the only opportunity all of last winter.
I don’t actually get the point you are trying to make? No one has denied that science has proven that the climate has changed from the beginning of the earth, the problem a lot of people have is the so called doomsayers espousing the end of the world is nigh, and if we don’t do something about it NOW! we are all doomed! And just destroy anyone who says otherwise, or even thinks otherwise, or tries to have a rational conversation about it. Take Co2, 99.9% of all living organisms on this earth needs it to survive. Science has proven that it has been well above 5000ppm, to as low as 180ppm, plants by the way, thrive at Co2 levels of between 300ppm, and 2000ppm, fact. That’s why commercial greenhouses increase the amount of Co2 to get better plant growth, and more, and better fruiting yields. And weren’t polar bears supposed to be dying off from climate change? When the opposite is actually happening. Polar bear numbers at around 1975 were at about 3-5,000, the Canadian government brokered a moratorium on trophy hunting polar bears with other countries bordering the Arctic circle. Since then, polar bear numbers have increased dramatically to where they are currently at 30-50,000 thousand, and growing. Most Geologists are saying that we are between glaciations, but are too afraid to say that because of the madness of doomsayers out to destroy all reasonable discussion. No Pacific Islands have disappeared, in fact, some are increasing in size, there is no climate change migration, from the Pacific area, at all, yet we were told that islands under threat should have gone under water well before now. Where I live, in the southern part of Australia, we have seen increasingly milder summers, with one or two days breaking 40c if we are lucky. I, like most sane people, look at both sides of this issue and weigh up the pros and cons of it, and make our own decisions on who is right or wrong. I’m not a climate change skeptic, I know it is changing, but I’m certainly not a doomsayer. Can we do more to clean up industry, and cities, of course we can, but right now, green energy is rather far from being actually green. And until the biggest emitters start to clean up their own acts, you are just paying lip service to the problem. Remember one thing, far more people die from cold weather, than from hot weather.
Back in the '70's, scientists from Exxon were able to accurately predict the amount of warming by 2020... ...and then Exxon did all it could to cover up those researches!!!
CO2 for plants could be compared to water for humans, at the right amount is good. Drowning and not having a soil to do anything else but drinking that water it's not gonna get us far
If plants could use the atmospheric carbon we humans emit: 1. Maybe then we should stop destroying forests, swamp/Peet lands and paving over grassland. 2. If the plants could use the atmospheric carbon we emit, then the global atmospheric carbon measures would not be going up very fast. The point that atmospheric carbon is increasing quickly proves than plants cannot use it as fast as we are emitting it.
@@5353Jumperyou are behind on the Science I am afraid. Trees often do more harm than good if goal is climate cooling influence Earth's albedo loses giant fraction if Sahara is green Plants are absorbing the co2 but takes time. Last time this happened were no humans in sense of bulldozers tractors satellites and only natural fires. Taking longer. One study of Cretaceous thinks plants could take it all and crash CO2 within little as 1000y 1ky being almost negligible to geology
I live in New Jersey on the east coast of the United States and we had lots of climate “deniers” here but after Hurricane Sandy devastated our coastline with its storm surge many people changed their tune and now every costal storm we get we flood, we have also had hot summers here recently; 2010, 2020, 2016, and 2022 were our hottest summers ever, this past winter was our second warmest and least snowiest ever, and we also have been getting flooding rains recently like this past summer with unusually strong thunderstorms and the remnants of Hurricane Ida flooded many communities and college towns. I feel like once people start feeling the impacts of Global Warming they will stop being skeptical and start to realize it’s an issue. Unfortunately those who feel the effects of climate change more are the less fortunate.
If huge amounts of CO2 are a good thing because it is plant food, then a tsunami must be great for humans because it gives us s lot of water, which is essential for us.
If plants could use the atmospheric carbon we humans emit: 1. Maybe then we should stop destroying forests, swamp/peet lands and paving over grassland. 2. If the plants could use the atmospheric carbon we emit, then the global atmospheric carbon measures would not be going up very fast. The point that atmospheric carbon is increasing quickly proves than plants cannot use it as fast as we are emitting it.
@@derelictor When I hear "CO2 is plant food" I ask what their definition of "food" is. Plants do no use co2 as food they use it to make food. Plant food is carbohydrates.
you scientists with your facts and data trying to get in the way of my feelings! haha great video as always, especially since i always see one or three deniers in every single one of your comment sections
One problem is that people have memory like a goldfish, they adjust to the new normal so fast that they have trouble seeing how much things have changed. I'm 40, when I was a child the plow edges on the way to our mountain cabin used to be 2 meters tall. We had to dig dig snow stairs in the sides to get on top, I remember it well because my dad used to throw me up there first, which was very funny. Once on top we could put on our skis and proceeds inwards to the cabin, but year by year the walls have become shorter... and the last few years I could literally put on my skis on the parking lot and just walk straight into the forest. I won't be needing skis at all in a few years if this continues.
I also hate how they will strawman you. I want to replace our fossil fuels with comparable green energy-not ban fossil fuels as people are still relying on them to meet their energy needs.
Great video, thanks! It's so frustrating when people just completely diregard all science and just come up with really wild theories. Must be even more frustrating for scientists like you!
Have you seen the report titled “Deny, Deceive, Delay”? It’s all about how misinformation around climate change has been evolving recently due to social media. I did my own video on the 4 points that I found most interesting but I’d love to hear your guys’ opinion on the new types of misinformation. Maybe it would make good content for a followup video one day!
The most dangerous bit is the silly idea that we can or will transition away from fossil fuels without a total collapse of global industrial civilization.
@@BookhermitI'd say the most dangerous bit is that bit right there. It's gonna be hard to do, but by no means impossible. And besides, if something is unsustainable, it's unsustainable. And that's what fossil fuels are. On one hand, there are two reasons why fossil fuels are 100% certain to be phased out no matter what anyone wants. A) They're gonna be too hard to extract at current quantities, within 50 or a hundred years. B) They're causing warming at rates that will become catastrophic within about that same time frame. So they're going away, one way or the other. On the other hand, once we get through the transition, there are huge upsides to a fossil free economy. For one thing, once it's established, the amount of resources devoted to maintaining the energy infrastructure will be WAY, WAY lower. And the associated concentrations of wealth and power will also be lower, allowing legislatures to operate without the fossil fuel veto looming over every single decision they make. Then there's all the health benefits and savings. Then there's the option of true, monopoly-free energy independence for homeowners. The list goes on. Altogether, it's a future worth fighting for.
I could invite a climate denier to my yard. After 40 years, plants that thrived are barely hanging on, while others that used to barely survive winter are thriving. Philadelphia area
Well done. One thing you could say about more CO2 in the air and plants is that some research indicates that too much of a good thing (CO2) can be directly bad for plants, as at some point their photosynthesis is degraded by excessive CO2. But, I think you covered it well by saying the other effects of CO2-driven global warming (like lack of water in drought areas) would be bad for plants.
The other thing is, when we've experimented with plants we've put them in an environment with 100 times more CO2 than normal, and the plants have grown larger, quicker. But they are not 100 times bigger, 100 times faster. We've nearly doubled the CO2 in the current global atmosphere. Plants are not growing twice as big, twice as fast. There is still an enormous energy imbalance.
If plants could use the atmospheric carbon we humans emit: 1. Maybe then we should stop destroying forests, swamp/Peet lands and paving over grassland. 2. If the plants could use the atmospheric carbon we emit, then the global atmospheric carbon measures would not be going up very fast. The point that atmospheric carbon is increasing quickly proves than plants cannot use it as fast as we are emitting it.
@@5353Jumper The problem with relying on plants to utilize the CO2 we're emitting and turn it into oxygen is that there are not enough of them. As you point out, we need to stop destroying their habitat. We also need to plant more. The problem I was referring to is research that has concluded that when temperature and humidity reach a certain high level, plants and trees reduce their CO2 intake, so they are of no use to reduce CO2 at that point. This is why places like the Amazon rain forest are turning into carbon sources rather than the important sinks they formerly were.
@@johncoviello8570I've heard that about Amazon but not investigated. Not heard of at all the stopping taking of co2. Has been non carbon based forcing it seems at times so complicates the picture. Still...Triassic Jurassic Boundary Event saw turnover of vegetal species at perhaps 2500ppm but not desertification. If nothing first happens sadly might be when ocean goes anoxic. Sheets of bacteria algae etc from top layer of sunny warm oxygenated water falls to Still bottom with no currents. Becomes fossil fuels in some millions of years
@@DrGilbz That' for sure. I just want to let you know that you were really about to make create an Instagram account to contact you and compliment you. I find you really inspiring and I am sure that conversation , if ever, would be really rich. So yeah, I will hold my position and never create an account, and I'll tell you here: Keep studying and grow your scientist self, it has a great value, no doubt!
Hello, I'm taking advantage of the video to ask a question about the seasonality of sea ice. In the Arctic, sea ice retreats at a slower rate than the ice recovers in autumn. In Antarctica, it's the period of ice growth that's slower, seasonal melting occurring at a faster rate. In other words, graphs are asymetrical. Why is this?
Hmm, I don't actually know. Possibly it could be related to the fact that Arctic sea ice is constrained by continents, Antarctic sea ice is not? May also be related to seasonality in ocean conditions..?
It is because winter heat radiation into space over open water is FAR greater than from an insulating ice sheet. Once incoming solar energy is gone for the season, open-water regions in perpetual night cool fast.
Of course everyone who is capable of reducing CO2 emissions is one the right track. But it is crucial to strategliy think about the "How to". Germany is leading the negative way to get greener and low on CO2 emissions, because they publicly announce to go all-in in renewable energy BUT yet they have turned on new coal plants immediately after turning off all nuclear plants.
Yeah, for ideological reasons Germany decided to shift from a regional threat (unikely even if possible nuclear accident) to a diluted threat (for Germany), CO2 and global warming. Well......
Saw you on Sky news yesterday. So polished, and delivered really clear info. Congrats. Just curious about what you think of the much reduced antarctic sea ice for winter there now, in terms of upcoming summer, warming, and impacts on the western part. Best wishes
Thanks Denis! Am currently writing an article on the Antarctic sea ice issue (out in the Conversation on Monday). Until then, my thoughts haven't changed qualitatively since this... ua-cam.com/video/zTF5kudGtAQ/v-deo.html
The argument that CO2 is plant food makes as much sense as stating that, since the only thing we actually burn in our organs is glucose, a sugar, the more sugar we eat, the better it is for us.
If plants could use all the atmospheric carbon we humans emit: 1. Maybe then we should stop destroying forests, swamp/Peet lands and paving over grassland. 2. If the plants could use the atmospheric carbon we emit, then the global atmospheric carbon measures would not be going up very fast. The point that atmospheric carbon is increasing quickly proves than plants cannot use it as fast as we are emitting it.
With increased CO2 and the same farming methods, crop yields have increased 15% since 2000. However, by research the "goldielocks" zone for CO2 is between 800 and 1200 ppm for C3 and C4 plants.
@@starleyshelton2245 Unfortunately, 800-1200 ppm is probably incompatible with human life, and most definitely with human civilisation. Works fine in a greenhouse..
Loved your collaboration with ClimateAdam on sea ice. I think it really adds depth to have two qualified scientists cutting through both denialist, but also alarmist, crap. This is the sort of stuff I would like to see the public getting on TV and hearing on the radio rather than the often, one way or the other, biased programmes one gets when reporters spin their narratives.
Thank you! It was really fun to make that one and this. Yeah with TV sometimes I think it's genuine misunderstanding / lack of a complete understanding from journos (and it's certainly complex) but there's definitely also a wilful misrepresentation of the evidence in some outlets to spin to fit their own agenda (I'm thinking the Fox News / TalkTV / GB News ilk). Lots of outlets have really interested and knowledgeable climate/environment correspondents these days, and they're always a pleasure to work with.
My my biggest concern is loss of albedo. Snow and ice only exist below zero degree. Its like black and white. The difference is huge, refletive surface of snow and ice vs. absorbing ground or wather. make a "tipping point" that propell global warming beyond any predictions. Thanks for taking climate myths seriously with this fun and entertaining debunk video! 👍
Just remember that the NEGATIVE feedback of ocean ice cover also exists, and is very powerful. In polar winter, albedo is fairly meaningless, since there is little solar energy present to absorb or reflect. The big drivers are evaporation and surface radiation, both of which are far, far greater from open water than from an insulating ice sheet, thus allowing far more of Earth's heat to escape to space.
We evolved into modern humans during the Pleistocene. It's our civilization that evolved during the stable Holocene. Of course our own evolution continues, but the effects are subtle over such a short period as the Holocene.
I'd be more concerned with the probably rapid degradation of the human genome caused by modern medicine saving billions of lives that would otherwise have been weeded out in the natural selection process.....
Unfortunately however your logic is not in tact. More CO2 does indeed benefit plants in amazing ways making them healthy, stronger and altogether better. My point with your comparison is that it is illogical. Plants do the opposite to humans - they use aerobic respiration and not photosynthesis. Humans don't generally drink water until they drown. Plants can take at least 100 times more CO2 than current levels.
@@truthblitz7 1) Higher temps from CO2 means faster soil drying. Plants need water. 2) Plants need a stable climate, we are destabilising it. 3) Globally, crop production is slowning down as climate impacts negate any positives from temporary CO2 fertilisation.
Greenland ice cores prove that plant life flourishes with over a 100 times more CO2 than current levels. The whole climate agenda is a politically motivated drive and is not based on sound science. The sun is the main driver for changes in global warming. Man contributes almost nothing to variations.
We are not plants. What you say is illogical. Plants have a totally different biology to mammals! Your comparison to water and drowning is unscientific. Plants produce oxygen they don't need it to survive....hence the drowning analogy fails.
I watch all your videos Dr. Gilbz. Regarding your video on an ice free Arctic Ocean with Adam; Please bear in mind 2 facts: First: Oceanographer Jim Massa (on YT) gave a simple rule of thumb that it takes 20X the energy to melt a kg of ice than to raise the temp of 1 kg liquid water by 1 degree C (latent heat). To me this says when there is no ice (or reduced ice in an area) liquid water will heat by 20 degrees C locally. This latent heat effect is totally independent of the albedo affect. Second: An ice free Arctic Ocean is defined as less than 1 million sq km of ice at its nadir (now we have on average 4 million sq km at its nadir).
If that ice were gone by June, that would indeed be that case (but only for a thin surface layer, you aren't accounting for depth). But by the time that ice has actually melted, in September, there is very little incoming solar radiation remaining to heat anything up. Instead, evaporative and radiative effects into space take over, in which far more energy is radiated from open water than from an insulating ice sheet - quickly removing the excess surface heat.
@@Bookhermit First, I am not accounting for the thickness of the ice because the definition of an ice free Arctic does not account for thickness, it only states "less than 1 million square km of ice". Second, I said " at its nadir" that means the ice amount in the Arctic Ocean at its lowest point if you want to say that is in September that's fine. I said "at its nadir". Third, You said in September "evaporative and radiative effects into space take over, in which far more energy is radiated from open water than from an insulating ice sheet - quickly removing the excess surface heat." I have no scientific evidence to subscribe to what you say. I am a Chemist and I subscribe to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that a high energy state will dissipate to a low energy state i.e. latent heat. That said, thank you for your comment and your interest in the topic. I think I recognize your name from the Environmental Coffeehouse YT channel.
Latent heat of ice/water transition is actually 80 times the specific heat of liquid water according to my memory of schoolboy Physics. That is why the unfreezing of ice masses all over the world is so concerning. The 20 degree warming idea is possibly a guess about the global consequences of ice melting all over the globe; but only an estimate since there are a lot of other factors in play.
@@tonykelpie Thank you for your reply. Wow, the transition from ice to water could require 80X times the energy than to raise the temp of water by one degree C (the specific heat of water). That would mean when ice is scarce that significant energy will be absorbed by the oceans aside from the albedo affect. I am also learning about outgassing which is that as ocean surface temps rise more CO2 is outgassing from the oceans to the atmosphere. I don't have any numbers on that.
And the weather is supposedly fixed for a part, by geo-engineering, chemtrails or cloud-seeding. Or removing dams in Spain. A reason that ordinary people ought to believe that severe weather is increasiing. The same people who believe these arguments do come up with 'what happened to acid rain''. A reason to tax people for no reason. They have not read in about the subject, but react on emotion...
Problems obey the law of perspective, they look bigger the closer they are, and in Western Europe we have what may become a very 'adjacent' problem when we look at the refugee issue. At the moment the flow of or frightened humans is from the overheating south toward the north, however, should a major reduction in the AMOC occur Northern Europe could end up with a similar climate to northern Canada. There are good reasons not many people live in northern Canada. As I understand it something similar may have been involved in the Bronze Age collapse (about 3,000 years ago), a major albeit temporary climate shift that disrupted farming from Spain to the Levant and beyond causing widespread famine. The Egyptians blamed it all of the 'sea peoples' but all the evidence suggests famine was the main disruptor. However, it is possible (as I understand it) that those sea peoples were actually north western Europeans displaced by the possibly associated climate change in that region. That change was rather abrupt but from what I am hearing the reduction (if not the collapse) of the AMOC could be similarly swift and if that happens it will be interesting to see how the countries bordering the Mediterranean sea cope with the influx of climate refugees from Europe.
Nowadays climate is part of several issues, according many sceptics, we have to think the same about. This is a conspirational approach linked to the assumed 2030 Agenda for example.
I just "discovered" you, DrGilbz, from the Beckisphere vlog. I already subscribe to ClimateAdam so I don't know how I missed this video ... OK, I do, I guess - busy life Call me shallow, if you wish, but I **LOVE** your head in this vid! (decoration, of course - not the contents of said head, though that is also spectacular###0
If government were the only ones using huge amounts of fossil fuels than conservatives would scream "they are killing us" and defend greenhouse theory. I have an intelligent friend who laughs climate change away and hearing him out it's clearly because his joy in life is riding with a group motorbikes in the weekend. He thinks an electric motorbike is so boring. But in the end, almost everybody would prefer business as usual.
1.5 degrees C looks like a much bigger number until it is considered in terms of degrees K. If looked at that way, on can realize that small changes in absolute temperature, or the concentration of CO2, can have consequential effects, especially when that change makes the difference between ice and water, and causes a geometric increase in the amount of water vapor the air can hold.
Yes … but why are these “consequential effects” always dressed in APOCALYPTIC language ? How many people died from wars the past 120 years ? Why aren’t we ever talking about ending those ? 😂 These people are shills
Actually the climate has not been stable for the last 10,000 years. There have been major shifts in temperature. For example, southern England was a wine producing area and the vikings settled in southern Greenland. Then the climate changed and became cooler. We also had a very warm spell in the U.S. in the 1930s. And we have had a series of cold spells to the extent that scientists in the early 1970s were predicting another ice age. You folks also glossed over the question about 0.04 percent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The analogy with arsenic cuts both ways. Humans can become accustomed to arsenic if taken in small quantities. The same with a warming planet, although it is unlikely to continue this way. Humans live well right now in the tropics. Extrapolation is a major scientific error, particularly by the kinder who have not seen much of history..
"southern England was a wine producing area " Oh it was? But now it's not? England has 3,855ha under vine, while 70.3ha of Wales and 1.9ha of Scotland are dedicated to viticulture. The industry produced 12.2 million bottles in 2022. So what's the logic here? Are you people able to think for yourselves? How does the production of wine in england in the medieval period proves the climate was warmer than today if today we also produce wine in england today? You people are devoid of critical thinking
@@nunofoo8620 Wine grape production started in England and Wales during the Roman warm period. It was never really significant until recently, and England was a big importer of European wines through much of history. Recently there has been an expansion of English and Welsh wins, although in rocky and wet Scotland not so much. Climate wise you can grow grapes in upstate New York, too, but the bulk of U.S. production is in warmer areas. The point is that the climate was warmer in Roman times as evidenced by wine production and settlements in areas where settlers later were frozen out, like Greenland. Climate is cyclical, so if you falsely extrapolate from a string of warmer years you will predict doom and overheating. That's why they warned of a new ice age in the 1970s.
@@jaybrodell1959 Well i think you are a silly person because you think it was warmer in the MWP because england produced wine when today england produces wine. This only makes sense to a conspiracy theorist, any rational person would see the flaw in this argument. A 5 year old could understand the flaw in that argument. "Climate is cyclical" I don't think you are competent enough to understand the earth's past and earth's past climate as well as me, or the people at NASA or at NOAA. I don't think you understand that we take past climate changes into account but way more competently than you or your buddies at the conspiracy theory channels and websites where you get you "information" (more like misinformation) "That's why they warned of a new ice age in the 1970s." The majority of papers published in the 70s already predicted an increase in temps. Trying to pass the minority that at that point were talking about another glacial phase (because we're already in an ice age. We've been in an ice age for more than 2 million years) as "the scientists" as if implying that all or a majority thought this was the case is extremely dishonest.
Anyone that deny climate change, basically reminds me of my black folks on the slave plantation, doesn't care about what happens to other, only to them and will deny anything even if its bad. Im sorry that the usa lost its values and im sorry we voted for trump and have people like taylor greene who deny climate. Yeah where not so much freedom and don't pull ourselves by our boot straps and scared of change. Yeah that oil really really really helped us during the great depression.
If you, like me, had an absolute blast playing Quickfire Climate Denial (TM), then you might like to consider joining the extremely generous folks who support me on Patreon.
Head over to www.patreon.com/Dr_Gilbz to sign up ✌
I'm on the West Coast of Australia. It was a glorious Spring day today, clear blue sky, no wind, 25C, (77F).
The only problem is - It's supposed to be the middle of Winter - The only period we get any rain 🤔
That's unnerving, what temperatures did you used to have "down there" in the winter?
Greetings from Norway, we've had some rather unusual weather ourself this summer.
@@TheSaltyAdmiralunusual how? Upper South of Eastern seaboard USA. Colder than average til fall when until days ago warmer.
Cold broke drought
You two rock!
I'm so happy to see younger people who are professionals in the field talking about these things. I am infuriated at the overwhelming amount of denial of science on social media. Love you both 💚
:)
ahah thank you so much!
this is beside the point, but i am always delighted when brits say 'stuck in.'
😂😂😂 always here to help Miriam!
loool is that a Britishism?!?
Last Summer my parents insisted that the Rhine gets as low as it was in August '22 every year. This is patently and provably untrue, but I fear logic and evidence hold no sway over committed conspiracists. I have stopped replying. I just stare at a point in the distance until someone changes the topic and visit rarely.
Wahh, I'm sorry to hear you're having to have such difficult conversations. That sounds rough,.
Ja, heal your family is easier than the Rhein
Oh man...that resonates...
They have to keep that cognitive dissonance going or else they have to admit they were deceived and fell for it, and probably were an incredibly wasteful bad person for years. A common trend with these nutjob deniers is that they're almost all narcissistic to a high degree and many have extreme main character syndrome and seem to think they're sticking it to the man by... falling right for their deception in reality.
It works in reverse, too!! Every narcissistic person I know at the very least doesn't think humans are causing any changes, even if we can measure it, predict it, and show how our predictions match observations
"There have always been heat waves"
"Yes, and there have always been glaciers"
"Wait what"
Depends on your definition of 'always' I suppose. 600my whole planet had ice crust like Europa.
After Permian-Triassic Extinction Event when climate settled into a Triassic property climate there was no lasting frozen water deposits for 250my
A quarter billion years w no glaciers. 😮
34-16my Antarctica was freezing solid. Thawed for a million, forest recovered then we went steadily colder.
3ish mil years ago Arctic also began freezing regularly.
Looks like they thawed deeper than thought few thousand years ago in Holocene Optimum
Open your eyes and you see massive climate change, I'm 60 years old, when I was a child, we had snow on the ground here in southern Bavaria from end of Nov until mid of Feb, now we have only occasional a closed snow cover. As a young adult I hiked on glacier in the European Alps which do not exist anymore. Climatologist have all of that predicted since a long time.
I'm 54. We're I live, rainfall has decreased 30% gradually over many decades. I remember we used to get lots of mist but it's rare now. I miss the mist! I must admit, the climate here is better for growing and winters less gloomy now but I wouldn't want that trend to continue because it's now just perfect. I live on the southernmost tip of Western Australia (Denmark). It is very green and lush. I want it to stay that way. Bush fires here can be catastrophic because of very tall and dense eucalypt forests.
@Ab3ndcgi that's an extreme climate! Here it never gets below zero. Summers are usually mid twenties to mid thirties but always cool at night, except maybe a day or two every year or two it'll get above 40 Celsius, but then it'll rain the next day. Not more than 43 Celsius so far. Fires are the thing that concern me. It's going to be more extreme onecway or another in most places on earth I guess. I have worked outback where it got to 53 Celsius (127.5 f). I thought my skin was going to burn off!
When I was a child it rained a little, almost every day in the summer. Now we get drought-deluge. We had snow that stayed on the ground, from December through February. Now we get sleet or snow that melts the next day. I took my granddaughter sledding at 10pm because that was the only opportunity all of last winter.
@@singingwayI like it warm
If someone says the climate has always changed, say "How do you know?" Pretty much any answer they give is a confirmation of science.
I don’t actually get the point you are trying to make?
No one has denied that science has proven that the climate has changed from the beginning of the earth, the problem a lot of people have is the so called doomsayers espousing the end of the world is nigh, and if we don’t do something about it NOW! we are all doomed! And just destroy anyone who says otherwise, or even thinks otherwise, or tries to have a rational conversation about it.
Take Co2, 99.9% of all living organisms on this earth needs it to survive.
Science has proven that it has been well above 5000ppm, to as low as 180ppm, plants by the way, thrive at Co2 levels of between 300ppm, and 2000ppm, fact.
That’s why commercial greenhouses increase the amount of Co2 to get better plant growth, and more, and better fruiting yields.
And weren’t polar bears supposed to be dying off from climate change? When the opposite is actually happening.
Polar bear numbers at around 1975 were at about 3-5,000, the Canadian government brokered a moratorium on trophy hunting polar bears with other countries bordering the Arctic circle.
Since then, polar bear numbers have increased dramatically to where they are currently at 30-50,000 thousand, and growing.
Most Geologists are saying that we are between glaciations, but are too afraid to say that because of the madness of doomsayers out to destroy all reasonable discussion.
No Pacific Islands have disappeared, in fact, some are increasing in size, there is no climate change migration, from the Pacific area, at all, yet we were told that islands under threat should have gone under water well before now.
Where I live, in the southern part of Australia, we have seen increasingly milder summers, with one or two days breaking 40c if we are lucky.
I, like most sane people, look at both sides of this issue and weigh up the pros and cons of it, and make our own decisions on who is right or wrong.
I’m not a climate change skeptic, I know it is changing, but I’m certainly not a doomsayer.
Can we do more to clean up industry, and cities, of course we can, but right now, green energy is rather far from being actually green.
And until the biggest emitters start to clean up their own acts, you are just paying lip service to the problem.
Remember one thing, far more people die from cold weather, than from hot weather.
Just the ol' Socratic method in action
I like this and I’d like to borrow it from you.
Jack Bushong
Meteorologist
US NOAA National Weather Service (Retired)
@@JackRowsey Take it, it's yours.
I have done this. It's great fun the hear the stammering response, if any.
Back in the '70's, scientists from Exxon were able to accurately predict the amount of warming by 2020...
...and then Exxon did all it could to cover up those researches!!!
Apparently Shell also had its scientists look into the question, and knew by the late seventies climate change from CO2 emissions was gonna be big.
so wrong
7:50 people currently in those regions, "This? This is LESS affected?!"
Also, insert obligatory Cree proverb about not being able to eat money
CO2 for plants could be compared to water for humans, at the right amount is good. Drowning and not having a soil to do anything else but drinking that water it's not gonna get us far
If plants could use the atmospheric carbon we humans emit:
1. Maybe then we should stop destroying forests, swamp/Peet lands and paving over grassland.
2. If the plants could use the atmospheric carbon we emit, then the global atmospheric carbon measures would not be going up very fast. The point that atmospheric carbon is increasing quickly proves than plants cannot use it as fast as we are emitting it.
@@5353Jumperyou are behind on the Science I am afraid. Trees often do more harm than good if goal is climate cooling influence
Earth's albedo loses giant fraction if Sahara is green
Plants are absorbing the co2 but takes time. Last time this happened were no humans in sense of bulldozers tractors satellites and only natural fires. Taking longer.
One study of Cretaceous thinks plants could take it all and crash CO2 within little as 1000y
1ky being almost negligible to geology
I live in New Jersey on the east coast of the United States and we had lots of climate “deniers” here but after Hurricane Sandy devastated our coastline with its storm surge many people changed their tune and now every costal storm we get we flood, we have also had hot summers here recently; 2010, 2020, 2016, and 2022 were our hottest summers ever, this past winter was our second warmest and least snowiest ever, and we also have been getting flooding rains recently like this past summer with unusually strong thunderstorms and the remnants of Hurricane Ida flooded many communities and college towns.
I feel like once people start feeling the impacts of Global Warming they will stop being skeptical and start to realize it’s an issue. Unfortunately those who feel the effects of climate change more are the less fortunate.
Absolutely, sadly it's often only when it starts affecting our own lives that it starts to feel important enough to take notice.
If huge amounts of CO2 are a good thing because it is plant food, then a tsunami must be great for humans because it gives us s lot of water, which is essential for us.
right
we need fire to cook so lets burn the house down
I actually used precisely this analogy in a previous vid!
Were it fresh water instead of brine, there might be a lot of positive aftereffects....
If plants could use the atmospheric carbon we humans emit:
1. Maybe then we should stop destroying forests, swamp/peet lands and paving over grassland.
2. If the plants could use the atmospheric carbon we emit, then the global atmospheric carbon measures would not be going up very fast. The point that atmospheric carbon is increasing quickly proves than plants cannot use it as fast as we are emitting it.
@@derelictor
When I hear "CO2 is plant food" I ask what their definition of "food" is.
Plants do no use co2 as food they use it to make food.
Plant food is carbohydrates.
Great video! Maybe worth stressing that we have just 3000m of breathable air, with just the exact concentration of oxygen to survive.
you scientists with your facts and data trying to get in the way of my feelings! haha great video as always, especially since i always see one or three deniers in every single one of your comment sections
sooooorry!
One problem is that people have memory like a goldfish, they adjust to the new normal so fast that they have trouble seeing how much things have changed.
I'm 40, when I was a child the plow edges on the way to our mountain cabin used to be 2 meters tall. We had to dig dig snow stairs in the sides to get on top, I remember it well because my dad used to throw me up there first, which was very funny. Once on top we could put on our skis and proceeds inwards to the cabin, but year by year the walls have become shorter... and the last few years I could literally put on my skis on the parking lot and just walk straight into the forest. I won't be needing skis at all in a few years if this continues.
i just do the climate drinking game, makes the answers more fun
I also hate how they will strawman you. I want to replace our fossil fuels with comparable green energy-not ban fossil fuels as people are still relying on them to meet their energy needs.
Great video, thanks!
It's so frustrating when people just completely diregard all science and just come up with really wild theories. Must be even more frustrating for scientists like you!
Have you seen the report titled “Deny, Deceive, Delay”? It’s all about how misinformation around climate change has been evolving recently due to social media.
I did my own video on the 4 points that I found most interesting but I’d love to hear your guys’ opinion on the new types of misinformation.
Maybe it would make good content for a followup video one day!
These days the most dangerous bits of denialism are about the economics of the transition away from fossil fuels.
The most dangerous bit is the silly idea that we can or will transition away from fossil fuels without a total collapse of global industrial civilization.
@@BookhermitI'd say the most dangerous bit is that bit right there.
It's gonna be hard to do, but by no means impossible. And besides, if something is unsustainable, it's unsustainable. And that's what fossil fuels are.
On one hand, there are two reasons why fossil fuels are 100% certain to be phased out no matter what anyone wants. A) They're gonna be too hard to extract at current quantities, within 50 or a hundred years. B) They're causing warming at rates that will become catastrophic within about that same time frame. So they're going away, one way or the other.
On the other hand, once we get through the transition, there are huge upsides to a fossil free economy.
For one thing, once it's established, the amount of resources devoted to maintaining the energy infrastructure will be WAY, WAY lower. And the associated concentrations of wealth and power will also be lower, allowing legislatures to operate without the fossil fuel veto looming over every single decision they make.
Then there's all the health benefits and savings. Then there's the option of true, monopoly-free energy independence for homeowners. The list goes on. Altogether, it's a future worth fighting for.
@@Bookhermit Well not with that attitude mister
I could invite a climate denier to my yard. After 40 years, plants that thrived are barely hanging on, while others that used to barely survive winter are thriving. Philadelphia area
Well done. One thing you could say about more CO2 in the air and plants is that some research indicates that too much of a good thing (CO2) can be directly bad for plants, as at some point their photosynthesis is degraded by excessive CO2. But, I think you covered it well by saying the other effects of CO2-driven global warming (like lack of water in drought areas) would be bad for plants.
The other thing is, when we've experimented with plants we've put them in an environment with 100 times more CO2 than normal, and the plants have grown larger, quicker. But they are not 100 times bigger, 100 times faster. We've nearly doubled the CO2 in the current global atmosphere. Plants are not growing twice as big, twice as fast. There is still an enormous energy imbalance.
If plants could use the atmospheric carbon we humans emit:
1. Maybe then we should stop destroying forests, swamp/Peet lands and paving over grassland.
2. If the plants could use the atmospheric carbon we emit, then the global atmospheric carbon measures would not be going up very fast. The point that atmospheric carbon is increasing quickly proves than plants cannot use it as fast as we are emitting it.
@@5353Jumper The problem with relying on plants to utilize the CO2 we're emitting and turn it into oxygen is that there are not enough of them. As you point out, we need to stop destroying their habitat. We also need to plant more.
The problem I was referring to is research that has concluded that when temperature and humidity reach a certain high level, plants and trees reduce their CO2 intake, so they are of no use to reduce CO2 at that point. This is why places like the Amazon rain forest are turning into carbon sources rather than the important sinks they formerly were.
@@johncoviello8570I've heard that about Amazon but not investigated.
Not heard of at all the stopping taking of co2.
Has been non carbon based forcing it seems at times so complicates the picture.
Still...Triassic Jurassic Boundary Event saw turnover of vegetal species at perhaps 2500ppm but not desertification.
If nothing first happens sadly might be when ocean goes anoxic. Sheets of bacteria algae etc from top layer of sunny warm oxygenated water falls to Still bottom with no currents. Becomes fossil fuels in some millions of years
Dead ocean can be very productive on the top layer
I forgot how excellent you are, thank you!
It's a dynamical duo for sure 🌟
@@DrGilbz That' for sure.
I just want to let you know that you were really about to make create an Instagram account to contact you and compliment you.
I find you really inspiring and I am sure that conversation , if ever, would be really rich.
So yeah, I will hold my position and never create an account, and I'll tell you here:
Keep studying and grow your scientist self, it has a great value, no doubt!
thanks very much, I appreciate the compliment!
Hello, I'm taking advantage of the video to ask a question about the seasonality of sea ice. In the Arctic, sea ice retreats at a slower rate than the ice recovers in autumn. In Antarctica, it's the period of ice growth that's slower, seasonal melting occurring at a faster rate. In other words, graphs are asymetrical. Why is this?
Hmm, I don't actually know. Possibly it could be related to the fact that Arctic sea ice is constrained by continents, Antarctic sea ice is not? May also be related to seasonality in ocean conditions..?
It is because winter heat radiation into space over open water is FAR greater than from an insulating ice sheet. Once incoming solar energy is gone for the season, open-water regions in perpetual night cool fast.
Of course everyone who is capable of reducing CO2 emissions is one the right track. But it is crucial to strategliy think about the "How to".
Germany is leading the negative way to get greener and low on CO2 emissions, because they publicly announce to go all-in in renewable energy BUT yet they have turned on new coal plants immediately after turning off all nuclear plants.
Yeah, for ideological reasons Germany decided to shift from a regional threat (unikely even if possible nuclear accident) to a diluted threat (for Germany), CO2 and global warming. Well......
Saw you on Sky news yesterday. So polished, and delivered really clear info. Congrats.
Just curious about what you think of the much reduced antarctic sea ice for winter there now, in terms of upcoming summer, warming, and impacts on the western part.
Best wishes
Thanks Denis! Am currently writing an article on the Antarctic sea ice issue (out in the Conversation on Monday). Until then, my thoughts haven't changed qualitatively since this... ua-cam.com/video/zTF5kudGtAQ/v-deo.html
Come back to this video on a specific date - 9:37-9:40
The argument that CO2 is plant food makes as much sense as stating that, since the only thing we actually burn in our organs is glucose, a sugar, the more sugar we eat, the better it is for us.
If plants could use all the atmospheric carbon we humans emit:
1. Maybe then we should stop destroying forests, swamp/Peet lands and paving over grassland.
2. If the plants could use the atmospheric carbon we emit, then the global atmospheric carbon measures would not be going up very fast. The point that atmospheric carbon is increasing quickly proves than plants cannot use it as fast as we are emitting it.
With increased CO2 and the same farming methods, crop yields have increased 15% since 2000. However, by research the "goldielocks" zone for CO2 is between 800 and 1200 ppm for C3 and C4 plants.
@@starleyshelton2245 Unfortunately, 800-1200 ppm is probably incompatible with human life, and most definitely with human civilisation. Works fine in a greenhouse..
Great video guys. Will share this.
Loved your collaboration with ClimateAdam on sea ice. I think it really adds depth to have two qualified scientists cutting through both denialist, but also alarmist, crap. This is the sort of stuff I would like to see the public getting on TV and hearing on the radio rather than the often, one way or the other, biased programmes one gets when reporters spin their narratives.
Thank you! It was really fun to make that one and this. Yeah with TV sometimes I think it's genuine misunderstanding / lack of a complete understanding from journos (and it's certainly complex) but there's definitely also a wilful misrepresentation of the evidence in some outlets to spin to fit their own agenda (I'm thinking the Fox News / TalkTV / GB News ilk). Lots of outlets have really interested and knowledgeable climate/environment correspondents these days, and they're always a pleasure to work with.
My my biggest concern is loss of albedo. Snow and ice only exist below zero degree. Its like black and white. The difference is huge, refletive surface of snow and ice vs. absorbing ground or wather. make a "tipping point" that propell global warming beyond any predictions. Thanks for taking climate myths seriously with this fun and entertaining debunk video! 👍
Just remember that the NEGATIVE feedback of ocean ice cover also exists, and is very powerful. In polar winter, albedo is fairly meaningless, since there is little solar energy present to absorb or reflect. The big drivers are evaporation and surface radiation, both of which are far, far greater from open water than from an insulating ice sheet, thus allowing far more of Earth's heat to escape to space.
We evolved into modern humans during the Pleistocene. It's our civilization that evolved during the stable Holocene. Of course our own evolution continues, but the effects are subtle over such a short period as the Holocene.
I'd be more concerned with the probably rapid degradation of the human genome caused by modern medicine saving billions of lives that would otherwise have been weeded out in the natural selection process.....
A good reply to "CO2 is plant food, so more is good" is by that logic, we need water so drowning is good?!
Unfortunately however your logic is not in tact. More CO2 does indeed benefit plants in amazing ways making them healthy, stronger and altogether better. My point with your comparison is that it is illogical. Plants do the opposite to humans - they use aerobic respiration and not photosynthesis. Humans don't generally drink water until they drown. Plants can take at least 100 times more CO2 than current levels.
@@truthblitz7 1) Higher temps from CO2 means faster soil drying. Plants need water. 2) Plants need a stable climate, we are destabilising it. 3) Globally, crop production is slowning down as climate impacts negate any positives from temporary CO2 fertilisation.
Greenland ice cores prove that plant life flourishes with over a 100 times more CO2 than current levels. The whole climate agenda is a politically motivated drive and is not based on sound science. The sun is the main driver for changes in global warming. Man contributes almost nothing to variations.
We are not plants. What you say is illogical. Plants have a totally different biology to mammals! Your comparison to water and drowning is unscientific. Plants produce oxygen they don't need it to survive....hence the drowning analogy fails.
@@truthblitz7 Plants do both respiration AND photosynthesis actually Excess heat causes stomata to close and damaging photorespiration takes place.
Climate adam looks cute when he is not acting and smiles.
He's far more credible when he doesn't act.
That's not an argument it's just contradiction.
No, it isn't.
I watch all your videos Dr. Gilbz. Regarding your video on an ice free Arctic Ocean with Adam; Please bear in mind 2 facts: First: Oceanographer Jim Massa (on YT) gave a simple rule of thumb that it takes 20X the energy to melt a kg of ice than to raise the temp of 1 kg liquid water by 1 degree C (latent heat). To me this says when there is no ice (or reduced ice in an area) liquid water will heat by 20 degrees C locally. This latent heat effect is totally independent of the albedo affect. Second: An ice free Arctic Ocean is defined as less than 1 million sq km of ice at its nadir (now we have on average 4 million sq km at its nadir).
If that ice were gone by June, that would indeed be that case (but only for a thin surface layer, you aren't accounting for depth). But by the time that ice has actually melted, in September, there is very little incoming solar radiation remaining to heat anything up. Instead, evaporative and radiative effects into space take over, in which far more energy is radiated from open water than from an insulating ice sheet - quickly removing the excess surface heat.
@@Bookhermit First, I am not accounting for the thickness of the ice because the definition of an ice free Arctic does not account for thickness, it only states "less than 1 million square km of ice". Second, I said " at its nadir" that means the ice amount in the Arctic Ocean at its lowest point if you want to say that is in September that's fine. I said "at its nadir". Third, You said in September "evaporative and radiative effects into space take over, in which far more energy is radiated from open water than from an insulating ice sheet - quickly removing the excess surface heat." I have no scientific evidence to subscribe to what you say. I am a Chemist and I subscribe to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that a high energy state will dissipate to a low energy state i.e. latent heat. That said, thank you for your comment and your interest in the topic. I think I recognize your name from the Environmental Coffeehouse YT channel.
Latent heat of ice/water transition is actually 80 times the specific heat of liquid water according to my memory of schoolboy Physics. That is why the unfreezing of ice masses all over the world is so concerning. The 20 degree warming idea is possibly a guess about the global consequences of ice melting all over the globe; but only an estimate since there are a lot of other factors in play.
@@tonykelpie Thank you for your reply. Wow, the transition from ice to water could require 80X times the energy than to raise the temp of water by one degree C (the specific heat of water). That would mean when ice is scarce that significant energy will be absorbed by the oceans aside from the albedo affect. I am also learning about outgassing which is that as ocean surface temps rise more CO2 is outgassing from the oceans to the atmosphere. I don't have any numbers on that.
Great work kids...thank you...pengie...
Good video! One great improvement would be to link a video to every denier statement.
ahh, but that would feed the algorithm!
Thanks for another excellent video.
And the weather is supposedly fixed for a part, by geo-engineering, chemtrails or cloud-seeding. Or removing dams in Spain. A reason that ordinary people ought to believe that severe weather is increasiing. The same people who believe these arguments do come up with 'what happened to acid rain''. A reason to tax people for no reason. They have not read in about the subject, but react on emotion...
Problems obey the law of perspective, they look bigger the closer they are, and in Western Europe we have what may become a very 'adjacent' problem when we look at the refugee issue. At the moment the flow of or frightened humans is from the overheating south toward the north, however, should a major reduction in the AMOC occur Northern Europe could end up with a similar climate to northern Canada. There are good reasons not many people live in northern Canada.
As I understand it something similar may have been involved in the Bronze Age collapse (about 3,000 years ago), a major albeit temporary climate shift that disrupted farming from Spain to the Levant and beyond causing widespread famine. The Egyptians blamed it all of the 'sea peoples' but all the evidence suggests famine was the main disruptor. However, it is possible (as I understand it) that those sea peoples were actually north western Europeans displaced by the possibly associated climate change in that region.
That change was rather abrupt but from what I am hearing the reduction (if not the collapse) of the AMOC could be similarly swift and if that happens it will be interesting to see how the countries bordering the Mediterranean sea cope with the influx of climate refugees from Europe.
Nowadays climate is part of several issues, according many sceptics, we have to think the same about. This is a conspirational approach linked to the assumed 2030 Agenda for example.
I just "discovered" you, DrGilbz, from the Beckisphere vlog. I already subscribe to ClimateAdam so I don't know how I missed this video ... OK, I do, I guess - busy life
Call me shallow, if you wish, but I **LOVE** your head in this vid! (decoration, of course - not the contents of said head, though that is also spectacular###0
Thanks, leopard-based compliments are always welcome ofc
If government were the only ones using huge amounts of fossil fuels than conservatives would scream "they are killing us" and defend greenhouse theory.
I have an intelligent friend who laughs climate change away and hearing him out it's clearly because his joy in life is riding with a group motorbikes in the weekend. He thinks an electric motorbike is so boring. But in the end, almost everybody would prefer business as usual.
2:00 The legal limit for many chemicals in drinking water is lower. The legal limit in the USA for fluoride is 4 parts per million.
Two stooges - there s an Nobel Prize guy who wants to talk to you both
1.5 degrees C looks like a much bigger number until it is considered in terms of degrees K. If looked at that way, on can realize that small changes in absolute temperature, or the concentration of CO2, can have consequential effects, especially when that change makes the difference between ice and water, and causes a geometric increase in the amount of water vapor the air can hold.
Yes … but why are these “consequential effects” always dressed in APOCALYPTIC language ?
How many people died from wars the past 120 years ?
Why aren’t we ever talking about ending those ? 😂
These people are shills
Do you have a mastodon account?
Thanks for adding some sanity to this.
🍿🍿🍿
Actually the climate has not been stable for the last 10,000 years. There have been major shifts in temperature. For example, southern England was a wine producing area and the vikings settled in southern Greenland. Then the climate changed and became cooler. We also had a very warm spell in the U.S. in the 1930s. And we have had a series of cold spells to the extent that scientists in the early 1970s were predicting another ice age. You folks also glossed over the question about 0.04 percent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The analogy with arsenic cuts both ways. Humans can become accustomed to arsenic if taken in small quantities. The same with a warming planet, although it is unlikely to continue this way. Humans live well right now in the tropics. Extrapolation is a major scientific error, particularly by the kinder who have not seen much of history..
"southern England was a wine producing area "
Oh it was? But now it's not?
England has 3,855ha under vine, while 70.3ha of Wales and 1.9ha of Scotland are dedicated to viticulture. The industry produced 12.2 million bottles in 2022.
So what's the logic here? Are you people able to think for yourselves? How does the production of wine in england in the medieval period proves the climate was warmer than today if today we also produce wine in england today?
You people are devoid of critical thinking
@@nunofoo8620 Wine grape production started in England and Wales during the Roman warm period. It was never really significant until recently, and England was a big importer of European wines through much of history. Recently there has been an expansion of English and Welsh wins, although in rocky and wet Scotland not so much. Climate wise you can grow grapes in upstate New York, too, but the bulk of U.S. production is in warmer areas. The point is that the climate was warmer in Roman times as evidenced by wine production and settlements in areas where settlers later were frozen out, like Greenland. Climate is cyclical, so if you falsely extrapolate from a string of warmer years you will predict doom and overheating. That's why they warned of a new ice age in the 1970s.
@@jaybrodell1959 Well i think you are a silly person because you think it was warmer in the MWP because england produced wine when today england produces wine. This only makes sense to a conspiracy theorist, any rational person would see the flaw in this argument. A 5 year old could understand the flaw in that argument.
"Climate is cyclical"
I don't think you are competent enough to understand the earth's past and earth's past climate as well as me, or the people at NASA or at NOAA. I don't think you understand that we take past climate changes into account but way more competently than you or your buddies at the conspiracy theory channels and websites where you get you "information" (more like misinformation)
"That's why they warned of a new ice age in the 1970s."
The majority of papers published in the 70s already predicted an increase in temps. Trying to pass the minority that at that point were talking about another glacial phase (because we're already in an ice age. We've been in an ice age for more than 2 million years) as "the scientists" as if implying that all or a majority thought this was the case is extremely dishonest.
@@nunofoo8620 ua-cam.com/video/WE0zHZPQJzA/v-deo.html
Climate Change deniers when they live near the coast or a body of water: IT WONT STOP FLOODING 😱
Anyone that deny climate change, basically reminds me of my black folks on the slave plantation, doesn't care about what happens to other, only to them and will deny anything even if its bad. Im sorry that the usa lost its values and im sorry we voted for trump and have people like taylor greene who deny climate. Yeah where not so much freedom and don't pull ourselves by our boot straps and scared of change. Yeah that oil really really really helped us during the great depression.
The sexual tensiion in this vid is unbelievable!
Ah, the driver of overpopulation - the root cause of the entire problem....