Climate change is simple: David Roberts at TEDxTheEvergreenStateCollege
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 06. 2024
- David Roberts is staff writer at Grist.org. In "Climate Change is Simple" he describes the causes and effects of climate change in blunt, plain terms.
On April 16, 2012, speakers and attendees gathered at TEDxTheEvergreenStateCollege: Hello Climate Change to reflect on the ability -- and responsibility -- of formal and informal education to inspire and empower action in this era of climate change.
In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations) - Věda a technologie
Phew, glad we took that all on board and got it all sorted. Disaster averted!
😂
So… 🔥🌎🔥?
😭😭😭
11 years on and this 16:10 is going just splendidly.
That moment where he shows the IEA quote that says we have 10 years left to do this and then you check the release date of the video and its 10 years old..
I was wondering about the zombie apocalypse, must have missed that ...
@@michaelthom5864 We're in it. It's called the Sixth Mass Extinction.
Yup, we're beyond the point where we can turn this around before we hit "catastrophic" and possibly "existential." We've wasted so much time on delay caused by those denying reality that it's now too late - without some sort of miraculous immediate decline in emissions by all the big emitting countries in the world.
And the earth is 15% greener (mostly near deserts), temperature rise has paused, some ice sheets have grown, sea levels have barely risen, precipitation is increasing, significant weather events remain level and polar bear populations are up significantly. Hmmmm
it's important enough to restructure the global economy but not important enough to embrace nuclear power? then it can't be that important.
It's important enough to do both.
Important enough to shrink the global economy. Lower consumption, lower usage, lower emissions.
@@Rnankn shrink the global economy and the people at the bottom will die.
The information you seek is hidden in books and scientific papers, where you will never find them.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
Mark Twain
He's certainly certain. 20 degrees C increase in temperature? (snicker) this blogger has a good grasp of fear mongering.
.... OR WHAT YOU'RE SURE AIN'T SO.... but it is....
@@nealtauss1715 But what we see with raise in C02 is that plants grow bigger and faster. Greenhouse operations use C02 as an additive to grow bigger plants that produce bigger and more plentiful harvest's. We also see that in 2017 there was a huge spike in C02 combined with a hot summer that produced so much food that farmers, after supplying Food Banks with all they could take, had to dump their product into landfills to stabilize the prices. Plants can reproduce faster, grow bigger and grow faster given the C02 than we humans can pump C02 into the atmosphere.
Look at the temperatures in the 1930's, specifically 1934.
Likewise in Europe in the 1910's.
Come back to me if you think it's hot now.
Somebody missed the point.
Francois Choquette : u missed the point. The point is that we are all gonna die in 12 years due to the next ice age/global warming/climate change. I sure hope it comes quick because I am 55 and I do not want to die a miserable death in an old folks home some day.
Only nine (9) years since Roberts held this speech. There's still time.
We've been waiting for the old farts to die so the young can take over. Can't happen soon enough.
@@paulborneo7535 Covid-19 with its 75% of fatalities 65 yrs old + is a good model but needs scaling up.
No there isn’t. Humans are not mentally equipped to respond to distant existential threats proactively.
@@JohnDoe-zh6cpSad but true 😕
Watching this in January 2022... We are still on the same road we were on when this video was made. I'm shocked SHOCKED by how few likes this video has received!
Because it's just more fear mongering.
Our species just can't help itself. The irony is it will take catastrophe to bring out the best in us, or what's left of us anyway.
This guy ably put a simple strong case, but when you read the comments it doesn't matter what case is put and how much peril we have created those who don't want to listen won't listen. They have their hands over their ears because they don't like the prognosis. We shouldn't be angry with them, we should just understand that this denial is a normal human reaction to hard news.
Except the fact that is all nonsense
You mean like liberals reacting to Donald (president) Trump?
It's important that our leaders would do something about it and not what a regular moron think about it.
your all sheep! C02 is plant food and plants do better in warmer weather!!! we were already supposed to be underwater in 2015 according to Mr all gore! this is nonsense!!
@John Berbatis Do you realize that the primary driver of severe weather is the differential between the polar temps and the equatorial temps? Meteorology 101. If the globe is warming the warming would show at the poles first lowering the polar/equatorial difference. Which would be an indicator of less severe weather. Also the man in this video talks about more drought. A warmer planet is associated with a wetter planet.
What passes for science these days is frightening.
I'm so glad he did not jump on the 2 degree Celsius misleading bandwagon.
That shit is what's causing so many not to care right NOW. AND WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING NOW.
A great personal humane snapshot of our future prospects if we continue the "business as usual" approach of modern consumption for today, and forget tomorrows consequences.
I have 1 question for you. Please don't go off the subject of my question because of your beliefs but stick to the question. When did the seas start rising ?
Barry Cee they rise n fall in different areas constantly. Plus higher temperatures expands the water. Plus tides. Plus MOST IMPORTANTLY ice on land will probably melt way too much for our liking in the near future, like Miami being underwater if Greenland goes or big chunks of the Antarctic melt off. By that time tho' humans will have likely been doing things differently, for better or worse, for around a hundred years by then.
mjimih Because ice is compressed water and when it decompresses it occupies more volume as it gains mass. You saw the beginning of Kevin Costner's WATERWORLD. This is Kevin Costner telling you this, man. It doesn't get any more scientific than that. The majority of all ice is not on land. That's why they use that expression "Tip of the Iceberg." If all the ice on earth melted, sea levels would drop, not rise. That's why during Ice Ages sea levels always go up. Ice occupies far more volume. But you have to choose between sanity and Kevin Costner. That's a tough one.
mjimih Answer the question then.............
Texas Arcane the ocean's SALT WATER EXPANDS when hotter. Water EXPANDS when frozen. most of the worlds ice is on land btw. Antarctica is NOT going to affect ocean levels too much in the next 100 years even if it really starts to lose some ice flows around the edges bc the vulnerable part of the ice flows are already floating. But if Greenland gets going, say bye bye to Miami.
mjimih Soo.............answer the question , " When did the oceans start rising ? "
Reading the discussion, I started out with respect for Freeman Dyson, for being an honest skeptic, accepting the science, and expressing his doubts about the predictions.
But at the end, after Steve Connor made a series of solid arguments against the statements of "climate skeptics", Dyson threw in the towel. I thought Connor clearly came out ahead.
This man isn't even a scientist! No-one can talk about 'climate change' without a thorough knowledge of the climate.
He is off on degrees but the gist is correct. 'Runaway feedback loops' causing over 10-15 Celsius is exactly what Dr. Hansen and colleagues describe in their recent peer reviewed paper. In part:
"warming of that magnitude would make most of the planet uninhabitable by humans. The human body generates about 100 W of metabolic heat that must be carried away to maintain a core body temperature near 37°C, which implies that sustained...temperatures above 35°C can result in lethal hyperthermia."
"The mere fact that you didn't follow those predictions shows your lack of interest in the issue."
You mean the fact that I don't misrepresent them like you do.
I wish I had seen this in 2012!
Did you ever hear about Dr.Varenholdt, a German scientist and GREEN PARTY politician? He became famous for his fight against chemical waste dumping. A very engaged environmentalist for over 20 years. He was asked by the IPCC to be an expert reviewer, because they expected him to give them an "All clear" based on his political affiliation. It turned out that he took his job very seriously and studied the document in great detail.
David Roberts is arguably the best climate writer in the English speaking world. More people don't know who he is because he is kind of subversive (i.e. he speaks the truth even when it is inconvenient).
Most of the mainstream media would rather do the typical, lazy reporting.
I highly recommend watching the series on climate change by a youtube user named potholer54. He's an investigative journalist who's essentially gone through the literature, and investigated the claims on all sides, and takes a very sober look at what the science says and why. An excellent series that should be required viewing.
This was in like 2012… so time is up? Does that series offer more hope?
@@marxxthespot Time's pretty much up. We're in "it'll take a miracle" territory now.
2100 is not that far away: 87 years from now. That IS what my children and grandchildren will be facing.
And the real problem is that a significant percentage of the population believes that it will be manageable in their remaining lifetime and faced with the choice of making real change and indulging in the convenience of their current lifestyle, will choose the later.
Amazing presentation. Thank you for precisely assembling and delivering this urgently relative information on the CLIMATE EMERGENCY. We must immediately change our lifestyles and habits in consuming, wasting, and disposing of unnecessary products (production). We can use our natural resources to feed ourselves rather than livestock and pets. My young grandson once said that we “should spay and neuter all the cattle”. I told him it was an easy and profitable investment in animal slavery and slaughter by big agribusinesses. we cannot make possible what is truly impossible; but we can change what is “likely”. Please keep sharing your skills and knowledge.
have no children! each new human produces 7,000 bls every year for rest of his or her life.
There is no emergency.
@@kayakMike1000 Michael, here is another site that I just now found and will now check all the references. So much to learn these days…..
"The planet is now freezing its balls off compared to how it was when life evolved" unfortunately for the present land-based species, life evolved in the oceans.
The multiple attribution studies are about as definitive as you get.
As for a downward trend:
1. What is significant about 12 years?
2. Why did you select Hadsst3 (a sea surface temperature only data set), and not a combined data set?
3. Analysis (such as Foster and Rahmstorf) that looks at the underlying trend shows a clear and significant upperward trend.
4. Roemmich, Gould, and Gilson (2012) shows continuing Ocean warming.
Looks like some hefty cherry-picking to me.
Hey there's this guy we've been waiting for more then 2,000 years to come back, he can fix it. Seriously this is not an option
With 4C higher temperatures, sea level rise would probably be MUCH greater than David mentioned in this 2012 talk. We are likely to have 3-6 feet by 2100 (and maybe 10), so 4C would probably bring 100 feet or even more.
+Neil Blanchard what timescale are we thinking in?
A politically minded Cooperation was hiring for a CEO of public relations and the last step was a interview where they asked 1 question "what is 500 + 500"
The first candidate who's specialty was mathematics said "1000" without a second thought
The second candidate who was a "climatologist" (Physics/Statistics degree) said "on average 1000, with 98% certainty
The 3rd and final candidate who was a Economist (Accounting/Political Sciences degrees) thought for a moment and then asked "What do you want it to be?"....and was hired on the spot
The grain of truth in the joke above is the world governments are the corporations knee deep in oil tax and related revenues and they pay Economists to say it be to expensive to switch to alternative power or cap emissions whether or not its true
Farmer Frank You're an idiot. that analogy makes no sense because mathematical proofs can not be debated if demonstrated.
Farmer Frank-Then of course there are the AGW scientists that believe 1+3=97%.
How many degrees temperature has the ocean water risen to? What temperature does the ocean water need to stay under?
Simple is a good description. Comedy shouldn't be this serious about itself.
well I looked at the upload date and now we have one year till we will be screwed over no matter what. yay...
J_laubster Time to get busy.
J_laubster and two more years on from your post......
Still here, lovely and sunny and warm out - and so is Florida, the Maldives, etc etc......
So many wrong predictions over the past decades that was warned by the climate alarmist already until they might got it it right.
"To stabilize temperature, global climate emissions must peak within 5-10years and decline rapidly every year thereafter."
This TED-talk was given 7 years ago in 2012. We now have 2019!
Claire Alien proving he’s clueless
Assumption isn’t evidence
So, do you have any references to physicists who believe that there is no significant greenhouse effect from CO2?
The other thing I point out to the people who say "This has happened before" is that back then, we did not have 7-8 billion people on the planet who would be affected by it! Our leaders are not stopping it and they are not making serious plans for what to do to survive it. Well, maybe they have a plan for themselves, but not for us.
+Gail Coleman 1/3 of man's influence on climate has occurred since about 1997...but the temperatures haven't risen since then (and are actually showing a cooling trend)!
Why did you cite an oil industry website? Climate Depot is run by the oil industry; feel free to check sourcewatch for verification of that face. I provided you with citations to the models directly, to scientific papers that compared model projections to rreal observations and showed tremendously high accuracy, and to the comparison of the most basic CO2 models being accurate after 40 years. No other field in earth science can boast such prodigious model successes as climatology can.
"1. No statistically significant warming."
Only in a cherry-picked short period.
. It is an interesting exercise to think about how climate changes could affect human life on the planet. Here are some thoughts:
Scenario #1: Releases for methane from the Arctic Ocean sediments.
Apparently the Arctic Ocean sediments have about 1.5 trillion tons of carbon in the form of methane locked up as methane-hydrate. The methane-hydrate is kept bottled up by an underwater permafrost layer. Just like oil, it has been there from millions of years. A reasonable question is that if it has been there for millions of years why should we think that it will be released now. The reason is that Arctic Ocean ice is melting and for the first time in human history this coming September (2015) there is expected to be zero ice covering the Arctic Ocean. In subsequent years the ice is expected to be melted earlier and earlier. In the summer the top of the earth is tilted toward the sun, thus instead of ice reflecting sunlight away from the planet, the dark water will absorb it warming the water column and then eventually the permafrost releasing the methane. Since methane is about 77 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than is CO-2, the 1.5 trillion tons is equivalent to 115 trillion tons of carbon as CO-2. The current excess of carbon in the atmosphere is about 0.5 trillion tons. If only 10% of the Arctic methane is released, that would be equivalent to increasing the excess CO-2 in the atmosphere by a factor of 23, or 2300%. This would be equivalent to a CO-2 concentration in the atmosphere of over 3000 ppm. The current excess atmospheric CO-2 is causing all kinds of problems such as more extensive forest fires, more severe hurricanes and tornadoes, increased acidification of the ocean, and melting of glaciers, snow cover and ocean ice. It is hard to imagine that terrestrial life could survive such an event. Also, it is so far beyond the human experience that accurate modeling is impossible. The unique thing about this scenario is that it could happen soon.
Scenario #2: Continued slow heating of the planet.
The heat balance of the planet is not in line with what it should be. Over the last several million years, including the time humans have been on the planet, the heat coming in has been equal to that leaving the planet, at least when averaged over an ice-age cycle, or over periods of several years within an ice-age cycle. While humans inhabited this planet we have had the benefit of a fairly consistent biosphere, or at least one that has been consistent enough for us to survive and adapt. If the planet had an atmosphere that had no greenhouse gases in it, the average annual temperature has been estimated to be about 0 degrees Fahrenheit. The CO-2 level in the atmosphere has oscillated between 180 and 280 parts per million, the lower number when the earth was in its coldest state of each ice age cycle and the higher number when it was in its warmest state. The CO-2 level did not drive the temperature but followed it. The temperature was driven by the precession of the earth’s orbit. At this point in the current ice-age cycle the concentration of CO-2 should be about 280 parts per million, but because of humans using fossil fuels it is about 400 parts per million. At 280 parts per million the average temperature has been measured to be about 57 degrees Fahrenheit. Now that the CO-2 concentration is 400 parts per million, heat from sunlight is building up in the planet and the world average temperature is closer to 60 degrees Fahrenheit. The excess heat mostly ends up in heating the oceans because water has a much larger heat capacity than does the atmosphere, so humans don’t notice it very much. In addition to heating up the oceans, some of the heat goes into melting ice and heating the land. Ice is important because it reflects sunlight back to space so helps to keep the planet cool. As the ice disappears the heat imbalance will get even worse. In addition, humans will continue adding CO-2 to the atmosphere, currently at a rate of 33 billion tons worldwide annually; thus, it is expected that heating will continue to rise until crops are affected, by drying out of the planet soils and by planet climate changes. It is likely that the northern hemisphere will be affected first as there is much more ice in the Antarctic than in Greenland. There will be significant food shortages and die-off of human populations. Whether or not countries in the northern hemisphere will continue to exist and for how long is impossible to predict. At some point oil use will be significantly reduced because of large-scale death of humans, and the snowballing effect will slow down to some extent, and maybe the planet heat balance will come back into equilibrium over time, but that could only happen if the temperature of the ocean and land surfaces are significantly hotter to radiate heat back out to space. Exactly how hot they have to be to bring the heat flow back into balance is unknown.
Scenario #3: Death of the oceans and the rain forests.
The Amazon rain forests and the oceans are essentially the lungs of the planet. They work to keep the balance between atmospheric CO-2 and O-2 constant. The Amazon rain forests may be lost because of changing rainfall patterns. Apparently they are currently under drought conditions. The oceans are becoming more acid because of increased CO-2 in them. CO-2 combines with a water molecule, H20 to produce H2CO3. The H2CO3 molecule disassociates to H+ and HCO3-, thus there are more H+ molecules, or an increase in acidity. Currently there are about 30% more H+ molecules in ocean waters than before humans started using fossil fuels. There are several species of animals in the ocean that have to calcify their shells which becomes more difficult with increasing acidity. If the oceans and/or the rain forests are seriously affected it is hard to imagine that the atmosphere will be stable enough for terrestrial life forms to continue to survive.
True. Personally, I take a risk-management point of view. In my lifetime I've seen dozens of sober scientific peak bodies freak out over climate change. While individual scientists often make bold claims, peak bodies rarely do, since even the most conservative members have to agree.
That's worrying enough to me that I act, just as enough smoke will make me run out of the house.
It's similar to the argument from authority, true, but I'm not making a truth claim, just a risk assessment.
Ron Swanson's liberal son
How do you know he is liberal?
"And an ice age is scheduled soon."
In 10,000 - 30,000 years soon. Let's keep that carbon in the ground in case people need it then.
or pump it out and stave off the next ice age, which as a resident of Canada i am all for
No, like "now" soon. Previous interglacials lasted 10-12,000 years. Ours is currently 11,500 years old.
They are not ignored by the peer-review process: there are journals which will happily print ANYTHING they recieve with the correct format. If they feel their analyses worthwhile there is no reason for it to not be published somewhere. If they claim a bias here they are simply lying.
You don't have to be a scientist: you just have to show some ability to analyse a source. Are they making their methods clear? Are they omitting graphical data? Are there any unusual criteria? Etc.
Just turn on the A/C! PROBLEM SOLVED!
At 280ppm (pre industrial) CO2 allowed a relative global general temp of 14C…Without CO2 -4C. Such is the thermal retention capability…it is far more complex with a multitude of interactions eg: water vapour etc. So now the heat retention is spread across a volume of + 400 ppm CO2 and rising very fast! This is just a fraction of our problems and there is little time to act. Think of Mother Earth as a living entity with a rising temperature. If you’re temp rose 2-3 degrees you would feel unwell then critical a degree more you’re unconscious. Take no action? The earth will be fine and won’t miss us at all😊👍
“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” ~Michael Crichton
So there's no consensus on the Theory of Relativity?
Oh, yeah, because some guy who wrote a book about dinosaur theme parks is *totally* qualified to talk about the inner workings of scientific thought and practice.
do you even know how they reached the consensus? They didn't get together at a bar after work and just kind of agree to it because they were drinking. Their independent research came to the same conclusions that other independent research came to. And lots of independent research reached the same conclusion independently. So they formed a consensus.
vic vinegar ii And you know this, how? And if you think you know how, then perhaps you can share it with the rest of us so we may be enlightened as well.
Equs Narnd I have a degree and I know how science works. I also worked with professors getting their research ready for the peer review process. When you have a college degree in the sciences then you understand the meaning of the term consensus. Consensus means other scientists have been able to repeat your testing and come to the same conclusion.
Most of humanity prefers global warming to global cooling. This is why the majority to human being prefer living in warmer environments. In Canada for example, most of the population lives within a 100 miles of the American border where it is the warmest. CO2 promotes plant growth and has greatly increase food productivity. This has allowed the poorest inhabitants on our planet the ability to buy food and survive. This has been a blessing to all of humanity. Now climate alarmist would like to push the clock back.
Food for thought.
You don't have to believe (or have it rammed in your face) that human beings are contributing so heavily via our co2 output, but one thing i'm sure you'll all agree on is how amazing technology is and thankfully we are building (thanks to heavy climate change influence no less) new and exciting ways to power our lives that don't require us to dig dirty great holes in the ground.
Plus many of the things we use daily are made from and rely on fossil fuels and carbon, and thanks to technology, we are determining new and wonderful way to power and build them.
Please refrain from buying into the fear mongering or following the herd but invest knowledge and resources and adapt to what is inevitable. move forwards not backwards.
Peace ☮
This is one of the best presentations I've seen yet on climate change.
Based on pure conjecture
Agree
Looking at the comments, it seems the bigger the question and the more complex the answers, the more we distrust the people whose lifelong work is trying to provide these answers. Not everybody has got a hidden agenda.
Thanks for the reference. Judith Curry was, indeed, quoted as saying that, but she has said,
"I have no idea where the ‘deeply flawed’ came from"
judithcurry. com/2012/10/14/pause-discussion-thread/
The person who quoted her was David Rose of the Daily Mail, whose quotes have repeatedly be questioned.
BTW, that video was extremely misleading.
What about negative feedback?
CO2 is GREAT for agriculture...GREAT for plants, trees...etc...etc... I have a question for the lecturer... What is the optimum average global temperature? When did the earth have that temp? Was it ever warmer prior to 2001?
1936
Co2 comes with heat, soil moisture deficits and lower food production. This is the reality
Non scientific writer giving a rudimentary explanation of the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide. Leaves out a multitude of other factors and data. Concludes with alarm and fear and presents no solutions. Presumably expecting people to clamor to their government for a solution. Governments rarely create efficient or effective solutions but are great at becoming freedom-stifling, larger bureaucracies.
There were "still" icecaps merely 5,000 years ago because there was NOT an excess of co2 (as proven by the ice cores from those ice caps). Therefore, the temp could be warmer to some degree. Sunlight gets converted to infrared by the Earth (and more so by darker objects). The more co2, the less warm it can be because it acts as a reflector of infrared.
So, why is it not ok to be concerned about upping the co2 content of the very atmosphere? (I ain't going for any carbon tax)
Yes, condensation actually cannot happen in the real atmosphere until supersaturation occurs (>100%) If a parcel of air has 95% of its total water capacity, it will just stay as saturated air. The only real exception is when it becomes so cold that all moisture instantly freezes (called diamond dust) This diamond dust phenomena is actually the major way ice gets deposited during very cold times (glacial periods) and the dominant source of firn deposition in Antarctica now.
I was taught at school in the early seventies that by 2010. there would be a new ice age, Iceland would be under Ice and the tundra would reach the north of Scotland.
2:25 "Climate has always changed" - but please consider for the past 10,000 years Earth's climate had reached a climate optimum during which human society was born and flourished and our burning of fossil fuels has radically changed one of the main regulators of our climate.
It's not a lie it's testimony of my personal experience.
Citations please; preferably those which also document the temperature and sea level at those times.
The World was supposed to end so many times in the past and people always loved to be scared....
Chilling. I find it almost unbearable to think that my lifestyle will have been partly responsible for so much devastation to the biological miracle that has been nurtured by planet Earth.
Yes. The lifestyle of 8 Billion of people, with their consumption, production and so on. Never before....
Hey there friend. There are a lot of ways to lower your footprint and feel less guilty about your role in this. And if you REALLY want to do better, consider joining a climate advocacy organization like Citizens' Climate Lobby (CCL). On your own, your emissions will always be on the positive side of the X axis, but in a cause for change, your net effect might be negative, if you cause the lives of many other people to be less environmentally damaging. You may still help save the planet.
CCL is currently backing the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act which is projected to get USA to meet Paris agreement, and it's in Congress right now as HR 2307! I encourage you to check it all out.
I'm not cherry-picking the data sets or the start times. I'm suggest we look at all of the data. Taken together they show continuing warming.
(cont)
Appropriate border adjustments prevent import/export businesses from being hurt.
They also encourage our trading partners to set up Carbon Fee and Dividend, because we only do border adjustments with countries without a similar fee on carbon. I.e., if China exports steel to the U.S., we put an import fee on it only if China did not put a carbon fee on it themselves. They then have an incentive to do so.
So like me, he isn't a scientist either. Why believe either of us?
Thats true.
@@josephpaul0484 Bro, they are hijacking this to make money and much worse.
@@markpasse9691 Neither they are just kinda misinformed nor confused and thinks they are wise about it.
This guy knows nothing.
We haven’t had any worming in 20 years
this man believes simulations are more true than factual observation
And here we are still adding !
I'm not surprised that instead of comments involving, say, things we can do besides 'business as usual', we have self-proclaimed scientists arguing about clouds and such. This is not an attack, so the follow up 'you dont know shit' comment won't be necessary. I just want to encourage more constructive comments, especially considering the fact that those who have watched this are likely to have an interest in making some positive changes, no?
David Roberts is a nice guy and well informed, but this presentation is now WAY out of date. We have already triggered many of these self-reinforcing feedback loops. Unless someone comes up with a carbon capture technology -- and FAST -- our tenure on this planet will not be very much longer.
They're called plants genius, but yes by all means let's try to outdo nature and spend insane amounts of taxpayer money that could've been used to plant greens and clean up the actual pollution
Chad Church taxes don’t fund federal spending
Meanwhile
obama buys $15,000,000 beachfront home.
LoL.
In other news, the latest ice cap measurements show that the extent of the Arctic ice is now GREATER than it has been in any year since 1979, since satellite measurements started!
Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder CO
The temperature changes by 20 degrees going from just day to night......but co2 lags by decades??? PLEASE EXPLAIN GENIUS
That's not global average temperature change. There is a difference between local weather and global climate.
And did anyone notice, that he never does what he says he's going to do, and that is explain the science of "climate change"... all he does is toss out talking points and "factoids". He even get's the villian wrong. He talks about putting carbon into the atmosphere. It's not carbon. It's carbon dioxide. Two atoms oxygen, one atom carbon.
I can't believe someone handed him a microphone.
I like the part at about the 1:10 mark where he acknowledges most alarmists find the effort of actually becoming educated on the topic to be "too dreary". Then he proceeds to give a presentation without any factual backing, just making claims... like someone who find the effort to actually learn details about the science "too dreary". He could have talked about the predictive capability of the climate models (or lack of), or the fact that CO2's warming potential falls off rapidly as more is added to the atmosphere since it only absorb a narrow band of the IR radiation wave spectrum and by about 200ppm has absorbed about all it can absorb, or the fact that the models completely ignore the impact of clouds and areosols. He didn't mention the 0.8C of warming began as the earth was coming out of a period of natural cooling (the Little Ice Age), and the definition of "coming out of a cooling period" would imply warming... and that that warming began naturally before any consumption of fossil fuels. He could have mentioned that between 12000 and 7000 years ago sea levels rose 400 feet which all happened naturally... but over the lat 200 years sea levels have only risen about 13.5 inches (2mm per year which is about 1/12 of an inch). So 400 feet by nature, but that extreme and catastrophic 13.6 inches is man made... yea that makes sense. How about the fact that the glaciers in Glacier National Park began forming about 7000 years ago during a time when there were maybe 5 million humans and significantly lower levels of CO2... today we have year-round ice at Glacier National Park along with 6.5 billion people, 1 billion cars and significantly higher levels of CO2. It was warmer 7000 years ago with much less CO2 than today with much more CO2. What else is there to say really... clearly something other than CO2 is driving climate and the "climate change alarmists" don't understand what it is.
I think your presentation is much more scientifically sound!
-10C is the equilibrium temperature for ice sheet building. This is the temperature of optimal precipitation accumulation to ablation ratio on Ice sheets. as it gets colder the amount of precipitation drops. As temperatures drop, not only does the rate of accumulation from precip drop, so does sea level. After a certain point it is not so much seas being deposited on top of ice sheets, but frozen seas becoming land ice as oceans fall from beneath them.
When you talk about recorded History, how long is that? The fact is, sense 2002 it's been cooling slightly, and it was hotter 800 years ago, it was also hotter in the medieval period. There was a major freeze, they call it the little ice age and we are coming out of that, that's why you see this temperature spike, but if you look over 1000s of years, this is not the hottest period, it's a quite stable period infact.
Sorry but, he lost me at "The Medieval Ice Age". His ignorance of basic climate science is shocking.
1. Climate has not been "stable for the past 10,000 years". Not unless you want to completely ignore things like the Holocene Climatic Optimum, the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm period and the intervening cooling periods like the Little Ice Age.
2. While he is correct that temperatures have been warming since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, human emissions of CO2 didn't become globally significant until the middle of the 20th century. Thus, to blame all of the warming since the end of the LIA on anthropogenic CO2 is absurd.
3. 2C of warming is hardly dangerous. During the Holocene Climatic Optimum, temperatures were about 2C warmer than they are today and living things not only survived but thrived. In fact, from 18,000BCE to about 4,400BCE, average global temperatures increased by nearly 6C.
4. 2C is not "off the table". According to actual science (as opposed to career politicians like James Hansen), the sensitivity of the global climate system to a doubling of CO2 is, at best, 1C. It is probably less, but let's stick with a nice, round number.
In other words, in order to raise global temperatures by 1C, you would have to double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The effect of CO2 on temperature is logarithmic. So, once you double CO2 levels, you have to double them again to get another 1C of warming. To get 2C of warming, we would have to quadruple CO2 levels. Nobody seriously thinks that going to happen.
5. 6C is ludicrous. There isn't enough coal or oil on the planet to raise CO2 that high... I'm done with this guy.
"climate skeptics" lol. the single most important value of a scientist is to be skeptical.
climate change is not a science but a dogma.
Climate science is based on science. Climate deniars choose to not believe the science. To believe (or not believe) is dogma!
do you even know what a dogma and science are?
yes
He, the person who produced the series, has also got a video series on evolution and creationism which you might find interesting. Please just have a look before commenting.
Do you know when the Argos stations were set up? Good ol Wikipedia has a number of references which tend to show a pretty positive upward trend in global temperatures.
I just typed in google "ocean temperature record".
then David Roberts should stop driving cars, flying, using electricity, heating his home...
Would like to see his opinion now in 2019. He should apologize and admit he is wrong.
Rick Wieclawek apologize for what?
That's what was observed by NASA - the energy radiated off into space was fairly constant, i.e. energy is not retained for very long. The AGW authors knew that very well, hence they had to speculate that the CO2 energy emission would trigger other effects that would lead to a positive feedback loop. This never materialized. As Prof.Lindzen proved conclusively, feedback is actually negative. Hence the CO2 warming effect accounts for at most 2% of the earth's climate-relevant energy.
Not by magic, by initially high levels of precipitation, and then once it becomes prohibitively cold by the diamond dust phenomena and sheer freezing. If you have the chance to witness diamond dust in person (e.g. dead of winter in Yellowstone, or a trip to Antarctica) it is really quite beautiful. During most periods there is still warm enough air to allow for some precipitation, but in a full snowball earth, there wasn't.
The sky is falling, any day now lol
The Church of Climatology at it again...
Joe Hallam It beats having to work at a day job.
Better church than yours
Climate change is scary. I hope we get out crap together and admit the problem and do something about it.
Since the ARGOS monitoring stations were set up in our oceans, we have measured exactly 0.0C warming in our oceans globally
no warming of any kind
The latest scientific studies are showing that the earth is slowly cooling. This "global cooling" phenomenon is what we really need to be concerned about. The threat of "global warming" was nothing compared to global cooling. We're all going to die of "coolness" not "hotness". It's really complicated, so I'll simplify it...We're stuck between the impossible and the unthinkable, so it's your job to make the unthinkable a reality.
False. EVERY YEAR since 2000 has been warmer than every year 1880-1997.
See for yourself: climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#globalTemp
*****
I see your mind is closed to actual evidence.
when you have a glass of water with a few ice cubes in it, and a thermometer measuring the water temperature, and a flame underneath it, the temp of the water stays mostly steady till the ice cubes melt, then the water no longer has that heat sink and it warms up faster. kinda like our oceans and, say, the arctic ice cap (which is 75% missing by the end of summers nowadays compared with 35 years ago). And on my way to Eagle Scout, I have put a heavy sleeping bag on a sleeping friend at summer camp, to make them so hot that they woke up, well, the first minute of having that blanket on made no noticeable difference. It took a few minutes. Our earth now has a heavy blanket thrown atop it by us, and it is only the first minutes so far, so we don't really notice much, (only the largest hurricanes and typhoons and droughts on record, that's all). But soon we will notice very strong differences !. Any questions?
jeffraemilia
Your test neglects that the Poles have super cooled waters from facing deep space....Antarctic Waters are -22 degrees in winter and -16 degrees in Summer while Artic waters are -4 degrees in Winter and 0 degrees in Summer
The Ice at the Poles don't "regulate temperature" they are a result of the Ocean conveyor created from the warm Tropical waters exchanging with polar cool waters churning the super cooled water with Ice created as dense salty cold water if forced down into the undersea currents for its trip back to the tropics. The Speed of the currents is faster in Summer driving Polar Ice back and slower in winter causing Ice to reform
Whole time Antarctic conditions out of the water is still below 0 Freezing and Arctic might reach a "balmy 45f" in the Summer
Lu Rezart The only answer is to burn the property of all the Progressive Pukes on the planet for heat and then aim them all toward space with their mouths open to heat the biosphere. Sort of like the Matrix only instead of as batteries we can use them as warmers and instead of being hidden they'll have to be out in the open.
No doubt the planet is heating up, but not a direct relation to carbon in the air. That is obvious in all the correlation charts I have seen. Funny thing this guy admits to being only a blogger and not a scientist, yet many are taking his speech as gospel. I must repeat that I do believe the planet is warming up, but I question if it is from carbon in the air.
420jdank It's not from carbon. The warming started about 20.000 years ago. Please check Sea Level Rise to see why.
Barry Cee Did you read my comment? I made it pretty clear that I believe that carbon in the atmosphere IS NOT the cause of the planet warming up. Thanks anyway
its from carbon in the air.
how much money are companies making by selling software and monitoring tools to other companies to monitor there carbon output?
This was 9 years ago!!! It still has not happened
This guy has been sent out to help lay the foundation stone of your new nuclear power plant.
gegeo1g,
Please tell me why all the physicists disagree with you on the greenhouse effect.
You're right, the longer we wait to fix it, the more money we have to shell out (pun intended) when we finally get our act together. Maybe we can bail out the petroleum industry once we get there too. After all an industry with a higher net value that some entire economic sectors probably isn't the one interested in keeping it's pollution problem running as long as it can at any cost.
Last time I checked, "down" was not "up" regarding global temps. Run a graph from when GCMs went live 2001 to present Hadsst3 in Wood for Trees tool. (no links allowed here) The global SST trend is down over a 12 yr period, not up. Certainly not up in a statistically significant way. F&R 2011 has error bars as wide as the Pacific ocean. Hardly definitive attribution. Lets all stick to measurable science and observation, not speculation.
If AGW has been "proven", WHY IS IT GETTING COLDER?
And WHY does the climate do the exact opposite of what the AGW apostles (unscientifically) announced 5, 10 and 20 years ago?
Prof.Lovelock, one of the early warmists, had the intellectual honesty to admit that he had been wrong, last year: "We do not understand the climate. It is clearly not doing what we expected in the 1980s. But that will be very hard to admit for those whose income depends on defending AGW".
With respect guys, we should quit arguing with the deniers. They're either sincere but confused or ideologically motivated, and won't be convinced. We're better off organising amongst the people who already understand it's a problem but who don't know what to do. Let's do that and build outwards. So far the most useful thing I've seen is the Go Fossil Free campaign started by 350 dot org. That's where I'm putting my energy for the time being.
To compare things a little further, the 4C mark is along the lines of the Dinosaur extinction event and 6C likely triggers a Permian Extinction event. The Permian extinction event (nicknames "The Great Dying") was caused by a 5C increase followed by a positive feedback loop release of methane causing another 5C increase. If you believe man is not causing the warming, then you would have to conclude man will become extinct. If we are the cause, then we have a chance to do something about it.
It was, several times: Deccan traps; Siberian traps; Toba; etc.
Just search for the effects of flood basalts on ecosystems and you'll see exactly how atmospheric composition can affect life.