How 2023 Broke Our Climate Models with Neil deGrasse Tyson & Gavin Schmidt
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 05. 2024
- Why were climate models so wrong about 2023? Neil deGrasse Tyson learns about why 2023 was hotter than we expected it to be and what effects need to be factored into future climate modeling with climatologist at NASA Goddard Institute, Gavin Schmidt.
Get the NEW StarTalk book, 'To Infinity and Beyond: A Journey of Cosmic Discovery' on Amazon: amzn.to/3PL0NFn
Support us on Patreon: / startalkradio
FOLLOW or SUBSCRIBE to StarTalk:
Twitter: / startalkradio
Facebook: / startalk
Instagram: / startalk
About StarTalk:
Science meets pop culture on StarTalk! Astrophysicist & Hayden Planetarium director Neil deGrasse Tyson, his comic co-hosts, guest celebrities & scientists discuss astronomy, physics, and everything else about life in the universe. Keep Looking Up!
#StarTalk #neildegrassetyson
00:00 - Introduction: Climate Update
2:00 - 2023 Hottest Year on Record
6:55 - Why Our Predictions Were Wrong
8:49 - Factoring New Data & The Impact of Aerosols
11:52 - Could We Use Aerosols to Cool the Earth?
12:57 - We Have Agency
15:10 - What Happens to The Carbon in the Ocean? - Věda a technologie
What was your biggest takeaway from this Explainer?
The Sun People existsence confirmed ✅
The fact that no one is discussing a much bigger problem. Plastic pollution will be far more detrimental to human health than climate change.
That I know how to fix this and no one believes me. Maybe it's because in return for "stopping hurricanes," I still require 7 things in return. One of them being to change the stars. What I mean is, get the IAU to, OFFICIALLY, change the name to make a new constellation.
My idea for changing the stars includes Orion and Pleiades (Subaru). I figure it's time to put something up there that's relevant to us, don't you think? Take Orion's belt and Betelgeuse becomes the head with a baseball hat. The 3 stars of Orion's belt make up the 3 fat belt loops on a baseball uniform. Below the belt are two legs bending at the knee. Saiph is the back foot and Rigel is the front foot. The feet aligning perfectly under the bent knees. The spear pointing at "Subaru" is the bat being swung and "Pleiades" is the baseball flying away after being hit. Bellatrix is the hand that let go of the bat. Put it all together and you get, "THE ALL-STAR." In my case, I see a left-handed batter and I imagine a "7" on the jersey. Which makes him, "Mickey." (As it should be ;-) But you can put any number you want, making, "THE ALL-STAR," any player you want. It'd be wrong of me to not, at least, try. This is me, trying. Pass it on, please and thank you. Don't worry, where I come from, crazy is a compliment. ;-P
Hi Neil can you do these climate change news updates regularly? Maybe every year or half year?
That if NDT calls them "booeys", I wonder how he pronounces buoyancy
7:00 "When we don't understand something, there's science to be done." I love that statement
- of course the science is settled however - just let Armageddon roll on.
Just how long will the jury be out on this crime scene?
If the models don't accurately predict the observations, then the models are factually incorrect. Otherwise, the model results would correlate with these measurements.
@@rickmoore6527 or there is something wrong in the methodology of your evidence collection.
In the meantime let me ridicule your stance
The irony of it all is that the climate or the earth does not give a dime about us human beings. It is not about saving the planet, it is about saving us!
Exactly! Life on this planet has come close to extinction several times already. But still after hundreds millions of years life erupted all around on an extraordinary scale. We can raise the temperature until humanity becomes extinct. As a result, we will accelerate the return to balance in nature. Therefore, the faster and more effectively we produce CO2, the worse it is for us and nature here and now, but the better for the planet in the long run.
As animals we benefit from global warming. It makes more of the earth inhabitable and produces more food.
@@bartolovelo8976is it true that we currently (last 100 years) has had the lowest co2 in planetary history? Plants thrive at 1000 ppm and die under 100 ish?
Seemingly a small amount compared to the sun, but how much does energy loss from heat from combustion or battery make a difference. As we put more people in the planet and use more ac/heat, no matter the source isn’t 80% of energy transfer lost as heat?
Actually, I'd say the irony is that, despite being arguably the most greedy, selfish species on Earth, even when the goal is to save ourselves, we're still failing to achieve it...
The kidding around kept reminding me of the talk show in Don’t Look Up. That’s probably the most useful emotion we can express on CZcams though
I think "Don't look up" is a perfect description of what's going on with man-made climate change, only that it's moving a lot slower than that meteorite. But same behavior and probably same outcome...?
Dont look up (if I remember correctly) was a terrible movie lmao
@@simonjaz1279 I almost gave up on Don't Look Up in the first 20 minutes, but so many people were talking about it that I stuck with it. Now I really love it. The moment where the meatier hits earth gives me a sort of peace because the main characters are just sitting around having a completely mundane conversation after dinner, knowing they're all about to die. They just carry on talking about store-bought apple pie vs home-made apple pie, I think it is, until the house collapses on them.
@@MrStevemur one good scene still doesn't make a movie good. I thought it was terrible lmao big thumbs down
The video that Neil deGrasse Tyson & Gavin Schmidt ignore:
Climate Shipwreck- CDN
No mention of Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai eruption, which was predicted to have significant impact on warming of the Earth. Most eruptions cause cooling, but in this case, it erupted under the ocean throwing water vapor into the upper atmosphere causing a heating affect. The moisture in the stratosphere incresed 10%-15% and is expected to last for many years.
IT IS THE WATER IN THE MESOSPHERE INDEFINITELY THAT WILL FRY US TOTALLY 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
No mention here, but yes that's definitely a biggie. It was so powerful it ejected into space. (technically)
I am fortunate enough to live in the most isolated (state) capital city in the world and have a near pristine ocean view to the West. After the eruption in 2022 i started to notice around 15-30 minutes after sunset the Western sky had a greenish tinge, not the usual blue, gold or orange/red. This occurred throughout the following year into September/October and has now virtually disappeared.
I can only assume it was an effect of the moisture and or volcanic dust in our atmosphere from the eruption.
It's estimated to be in hundreths of a degree, so it maybe is not as significant as you think
@@benmcconaghy3313 Estimated but not necessarily calculated. Maybe you can tell us when was the last time the climate was not changing?
I'd like to point out that this was noticed in 2001. When air traffic was grounded for just a few days after the Sept-11 attack, the increase in warming was measured. As I recall, "pan evaporation rates" are daily measurements made in standard pans, as they are topped off each day. The effect of aerosols was dubbed "global dimming" and the irony that pollution was mitigating global warming was very much noted, too.
In climate modeling i never hear about weather the temperatures represent winds from the Desert or Winds from Alaska affecting the same territory.
Yep the average daily temp, right across the US was almost 1 degree higher.
@@jonovens7974 Its a fake average because wind direction determines temperature and these things are too Variable to come to any conclusions.
@@woodchipgardens9084 "Its a fake average because" yada yada yada.
Give us a break. If a compendium of the numerous and varying climate change contrarian opinions, claims and excuses was compiled, it would be larger than a single book volume of all three episodes of Lord Of The Rings. Mean while the actual scientific research, explanations, evidence and reality regarding AGW have remained consistent for over 100+years.
When are climate change contrarians ever going to stop making stuff up and pretending they know more than they actually do. If they keep this up there will be another episode to add to the compendium of nonsense claims.
The effect of aerosols in dimming insolation has been known for a long time; it was noted in university earth science courses in the late 1980s. Eliminating acid rain cleared the atmosphere and increased warming.
Interestingly spring plowing for crops was regarded as helping cool the planet because it put particulate matter into the atmosphere, but since then it's been learned that it actually releases massive amounts of CO2, so the net effect is a big contribution to warming.
More recently in an online seminar I learned that the trick for using particulate matter to cool the planet is picking the right size particles. That size happens to match the smaller of the sort of volcanic dust sent up by the Mount Saint Helens eruption that circled the globe several times before all falling out -- go just a bit smaller and it will take several years to all fall out. So aerosols are too tiny but volcanic ash dust is about right.
I remember the late Brian Kaye saying that the only thing we can reliably predict about non-linear systems is that our predictions will probably be wrong.
I agree and love this statement!
I have a poster on the wall in my kitchen which is a modern take on Murphy's Law, one of the statements in it is, "If you plan for A, B, C and D, E will likely happen."
My advisor loved quoting someone else and saying "all models are wrong, but they can be useful." Don't except a computational model with simplified physics equations to predict something down to the T, but if a model is getting 65% of its predictions right, you should still reference it and hope they improve it.
So when the heat rise. You got more greenhouse gases yes.
So the Milankovitch cycles tells us that it should be warm know. That the greenhousegasese should rise.
And that we are son heading for an ice age.
Why don you talk about the eccentricity of the earth?
Is it any reason for that?
Because it is, in this context, about as relevant as the price of fish in Hull.@@havardmika
Many years ago, there were one or two scientists pointing out the direct heating affect, from the energy released into the atmosphere, of the fossile fuels - basically the BTUs/calories in the fuel burned, which is millions of tons a year.
Thank you for bringing you. You should consider captioning it in other languages for broader audiences! Probably through some partnerships, but that is also above my pay grade.
There was an episode of the Drew Carey Show where Drew complained about how cold the Cleveland winter was, so he angrily sprayed aerosol from his front door into the sky in order to accelerate global warming. That scene has stuck with me for over 20 years and the irony of it coming full circle is terrifying
That episode was hilarious! But it was (and yes, I’m nit picking) his back door - where his pool table was in his backyard!!
The price is right
Well Drew totally mixed up causes & effects. The aerosol was destroying the ozone, not causing global warming. Global warming is from the rapid release of all the Earth stored carbon. There is no carbon in aerosol
Writer's have been predicting things forever, 'Doc Savage' was written in the late 30's and had a Jet Plane
remember the ozone layer scam? the problem is always over some place that cant be observed by people. the great plastic patch in the middle of pacific, or polar bears at the poles, AHH ICE IS MELTING IN ANT ACTICA!! WE ONLY HAVE 100 years, will people have the change of clothes by then required to survive teh completely unnoicible practically undetecable without advanced scientific equipment and calculaters of the 1 degree change when averaged world wide. we must spend trillions of dollars to avert the mild discomfort someone may experiance if we havent ended teh world through war by then. OH THE HUMANITY~
Living out here on an island in the middle of the Pacific with a volcano on it, we know that the particulates in our air change our climate and the other thing that he didn’t really talk about, but is a big factor is that giant volcano that blew up and sent water aerosol vapor into the stratosphere, which is a big big deal and that’s why we were a bit hotter in 2023 because of that volcano
Jan ‘22 Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haʻapai did indeed affect climate. Cubic kilometres of water thrown into the stratosphere or mesosphere. We had pumice rafts 10s of kilometres long, green sunsets for a year and of course the Tsunami was devastating for the western Pacific.
That volcano breaks assumptions by the IPCC.
The introduction of water vapour into the Mesosphere is a critical factor and is ignored by climate models. It doesn't fit the narrative that man is the ONLY player, and not Volcanoes, the Sun and release of subsea Methyl Hydrates by Earthquakes/ Tsunamis. QED.
Increased aerosols in the atmosphere cool the air by blocking sunlight, whether it is pollution or volcanoes.
@@matthewgraham2518 Yes aerosols cool the air by blocking the sun, the issue is that volcanos also eject tons of waters directly into the stratosphere where it does a lot of heating in a layer that is supposed to carry the heat of the lower atmosphere into the upper atmosphere where it cools down in large convective cells, heating this layer directly negates some of the cooling effect of the lower atmosphere, increasing the average temperature close to the ground.
Water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas. That was likely underestimated in the modeling.
Synopsis: Our model of the world average temperature disagreed with our model of what we thought the previous model would indicate.
Solution: make all the models agree and then find some useful work to do (plumbing, wiring, construction, etc.)
You could tell me tomorrow in your voice we all are going to die and I’d take comfort hearing it from you. And take the rest of my time accordingly.
Best climate graph ever I really liked the tornado. It really visualizes change.
it looks scary and that is the point, if they would use data for thausends years, that we have, that would not look as scary at all.
@@idontknowhowtoplaylol280 that would make it scarier. Temperatures hit this high before yes. But the change was never this abrupt.
These changes take hundreds of thousands of years to occur naturally, compared to that the changes we have caused are basically instant which would make for quite a discrepancy in the graph.
@@idontknowhowtoplaylol280 Always the same argument, cruelly lacking in perspective. The changes observed over the last two centuries should not have appeared and manifested themselves in this way over several millennia. We are +1.49 degrees compared with the pre-industrial era, and for the record, the difference between 1850 and the last deglaciation period 12,000 years ago is 2.5 degrees. At that time, Paris was under 4 metres of ice. You have no idea how far ahead of the initial cycle we are (but find out for yourselves).
A few things that stick out:
The early 1940s bulge, I would posit was due to the mechanization and increased manufacturing involved in WWII.
The cone at the top seems to start around 1980
I'd love to see historical data going back a few thousand years presented this way, but I suspect the accuracy that data would be suspect.
As they said, there's science to do.
@@Broockle You have zero idea about how quickly or slowly climate has changed in the past. We use proxies to estimate, the margin of error is greater than the change in temperature.
Niel made a mistake there : a millionth of a meter is not 1/1000 cm, but rather 1/1000 mm (or 1/10000 cm)
Yes, a micrometer is 1000th of a millimeter, but PM10s are 10 micrometers, so it is the particles that are around 1000th of a cm.
Most of the time
I came here to say this too.
@@ahaveland Except they were talking about PM2.5 particles, so, 1/4 of a 1,000th of a cm.
Not very accurate either way he meant it.
@@blakewalker84120 It's easy to be petty and hypercritical from your comfy chair when you aren't the one in a hot spot on a livestream.
i like how they manage to keep a straight face when they talk about how warm it was
Science is always a fascinating mystery. Glad we still have passionate people involved in study.
Gavin Schmidt took a lot of shots in this lol, he handled it well
Looks like Neil threw back more than a few shots
Paul, show some respect. Your barbed comments to Mr. Schmidt did not go unnoticed.
We, Wee, Wee, all the way home
Fun vid ought to have Dire Straits in the background ;-). Politically obtuse IMO. Sabine Hossenfelder punditry on this news item much better for public perception and expectation.
Paul was extremely rude.
What I like about your output is that you follow the Dragnet TV show, “Just the facts…”
You let the facts speak for themselves.
“Truth” are facts as interpreted by someone.
Bob and Charlie do a cross country race.
Bob comes in first , Charlie 2 days later.
Bob reports, “I came in first.”
Charlie reports, “I came in second and Bob came in next to last.”
Without the full context one can’t interpret the statements correctly.
Both statements are true but only with all the facts can you interpret them accurately.
Glad you are a fact chaser, a scientist.
Scientists test theories. Doing that with global effects is spectacularly expensive and spectacularly hard.
@@flagmichael *RE "Scientists test theories. Doing that with global effects is spectacularly expensive and spectacularly hard."*
So is creating the entire universe out of nothing, thankfully we now have God and Scientists to tell us how they did it.
I feel like the discussion of this is invaluable. I would like to see what a ley person can do to help push us in the right direction. As consumers we don't know our own impact of using amazon for shipping, or buying fruits out of season. The carbon footprint we leave behind is masked and really hard to decipher. Is there a way to track or mitigate these?
Well you can have Amazon deliver for you or you can get in your car and make 5 stops to buy things when Amazon makes one trip. Either way product has to get from point A to point B.
@@Cancelthis1541This is the seeming paradox with lifestyle choices. "Oh, so I'll not order it, and do it myself" does *not* automatically make your choice ecologically friendly. Because economy of scale is a thing, it might very well be more ecological to always use centralized delivery services rather than individual transportation. So ordering at Amazon might actually be more ecologically friendly than getting something yourself. (Buuuut it would also be even more ecologically friendly not to purchase that something if it's i.e. an electronic device meant to replace your broken other device, and instead have manufacturers ensure that the other device would have lasted another few years.)
Goddard guy, Gavin, sounds very positive.
I think if we stop polluting, it takes a while to slow down and eventually stop.
His job is to scare us.
But he's scaring us into action, not into inaction.
So, good man.
"we is not an effective we" hit the nail on the head.
Scientists sound alarms, Politicians fart in their sleep.
Problem is "We" change our minds every 10 years or so ... Coming Ice age... Acid Rain ... Global Warming ... Climate change ...
@@merodobson we need to stop feeding the politicians, they are nowhere as useful as cows but fart just as much.
@@merodobson Not like oil companies have admitted this issue within the last 20 years and not like we were all warned of this issue 40 years ago. 🤷♂
And thank god for that.
Cycles grow more and more variable(to and fro) until they either break or restabilize. And repeat until they break. This is present in every single ecosystem
Surely some had negative feedback loops in other words a stabilising effect.
Regards from a Tom :)
@tomdavies6443 yes in that case they eventually break and restabilize
Please sing your song freely anywhere tonight.@@TangentFuture41
I don't think this is necessarily true, at least from a systems/process control perspective. If your inputs are truly cyclical (e.g. sinusoidal) then your response CAN overshoot and cause de-stabilization (whether increasing or decreasing uncontrollably), but it depends on the dynamics of the system you're analyzing.
The "inputs" here are highly non-linear (take the sunspot cycle for example), so it's not an easy task to build a model and use it predict such global phenomena.
I just love that people admit the models dont represent reality, then make an opinion based off models
I would like that Neil and company speak to the effects of the end of an Ice-Age event. and how that could possibly explain an accelerated heating of the Earth. There is very little information about this currently.
And isn't that strange!
We are in an interglacial period. Which is a warm period seperating glaciation events within an ice age. But those kind of events last for several thousands years and change earth climate extremely slowly. They are an entirely different topic than the warming that occur over a few decades or even up to a couple of centuries.
@@zagorim7469 Yes but normally they change earth climate extremely slowly, but what happens to that kind of event if there is an acceleration factor such as humans, would changes occur at a much greater coefficient? I understand that it's not something like oh the interglacial period is to blame. I want to know more about the interglacial period and is there some metrics that can be used to verify if we are accelerating the interglacial period? Essentially making it shorter and is there a risk that we create an other ice age prematurely?
@@farminginthehighlands1205 Most of the interglacials over the past million years have lasted only ~ 10-20 thousand years, though an exceptionally long one 400000 years ago was about 1.5-2x as long. Current changes in the orbital cycles of Earth suggest we should be in a cooling trend for about 20000 more years, followed by a warming up to 50000 years in the future, and a large decline after that. Without humans, we would likely be slumping back into glacial conditions, but not fully so until past 50000 years from now. Humanity is warming the planet beyond what it would be in most of the past interglacials, with us surpassing event the warmest spikes over the past 2-3 million years within the next decades. As the Earth warms, ice melts and actually makes the Earth less sensitive to orbital cycles - as such, it is expected we are actually acting like a 'geological agent' of sorts, pushing the planet OUT of the current glacial cycle altogether and back into the warmer states it was in 10s of millions of years ago, when the planet was totally or mostly ice free and orbital cycles had only modest impacts on climate (changes in sunlight/precip at the poles and subtropics, affecting the monsoons). So it isn't really an acceleration at all, but breaking of the cycles which wouldn't resume until our CO2 is drawn down by weathering/erosion over the next 100000-200000 years.
As far as global warming pushing us into an ice age, that is a misrepresentation of past events and current concerns over the Atlantic branch of the thermohaline circulation, which is slowing due to freshwater injection from melting ice and precipitation but which would have more regional/seasonal effects if it shut down, not plunge us into a new glacial period.
The pacific ocean temp fluctations are reflected in the SOI the indian ocean temp fluctuations are measured by the IOD and the antarctic ocean temp fluctuations are measured by the SAM.
these indicators are used by farmers in Oz to determine if our very variable seasons are going to be drought or flood
Neil deGrasse
We need more climate change episodes like this.
Maybe an advertised before hand live stream so others can ask questions?
If you join their patron you can probably get a question or 2 if it's a great one.
They are extremely dishonest about this subject... unfortunately
I love this idea
They hate questions.
Ask whats in the( strataspheric aerosol injections) that we breath!!
As someone who spends most of their life building PowerPoint Decks, the chart at 4:08 expanding and flipping was pretty sweet (The reason it is expanding, not so sweet of course 😅)
The chart is not someone who spends most of their life building PowerPoint Decks, but the depiction of the global warming trend was clever until it reached the present and tilted up to show the vertical timeline - that was very cool.
Anyone know where to find that model shown @1:07 (and again @4:08) by chance?
11:05 this moment killed me 😂 he said we have hair and you dont lol when he clearly has hair starting midway of his head to the back its just hiding 😂
A major issue with hindering the arrival of sun energy by geoengineering instead of allowing it to leave easier again is that that energy that arrives and leaves easily helps with agricultural crops, while not allowing the energy to arrive would reduce photosynthesis and harvests. That would make the world cooler, but also hungrier.
Possibly less CO2 uptake as well when photosynthesis rates decline
Most plants aren't limited by sunlight but by nutrients, temperature, daylength and water. In fact planets that live in full sun have pigments to protect them from the extra light.
When I heard..."we're all Fucked"...I spit coffee all over my keyboard...smiles. Thanks.
its important to remind people before and after this climate costastrophe has occured. since 1 degree is less the temperature change between lunch and noon, most people will not have the scientific equipment and mesurements to know that the world has ended due to climate change. good thing we have 100 years to prepare for this disaster, were goign to need trillions of dollars to avert this. RING THE ALARMS THE END IS NEAR!
?
@@aaronjennings838512:58
Shocking.
*RE: "When I heard..."we're all Fucked"...I spit coffee all over my keyboard...smiles."*
He was talking about getting more taxpayer funded grants for telling scary stories no one but fools and prepubescent little girls from Sweden would believe at this point.
Messaging felt incomplete here. Yes removing aerosols can result in increased warming, but no one mentioned that in most cases it is a major health issue (such as the sulfur dioxide ban on heavy oil used in cargo ships).
Also, important to contextualize that although decreasing atmospheric pollution can sometimes simultaneously lower greenhouse gases as well as aerosols, aerosols typically have a short term impact while greenhouse gases have a long term impact. So in most cases, it is a net decrease in climate change effects.
Really appreciate Gavin's tempering the geo engineering suggestions. It is more risky and complicated than most realize.
So here's a question: how much is this trend to paint houses gray and black absorbing heat and the radiating it back out at ground level, vs painting houses lighter colors that can reflect heat at a wavelength that can pass through the atmosphere altering the models?
The thing that worries me most about last year was the rise in ocean temperatures. When you think just how much heat capacity that amount of water has, it's terrifying.
It's like we all know it means but it's fun to imagine it's only happening in the laboratory
Ocean warming has a lag of 800 years as they are HUGE and take a very long time to hear or cool. As such oceans warming has a cause that happened hundreds of years ago.
i mean if a nearly undetectable trace amount of co2 can determine the climate, imagine what simply painting your roof black will do. it is going to detrail entire ecosystems and melt the polar ice caps. what i am worrying about is after the end of the world has happened. most people wont have the scientific equipment to detect that the average temperature has increased by 1 degree, how are they going to know that the world has ended? where i live were to far away from the icce caps to notice any change what so ever. the other day my back porch rose 5 degrees between 8am and 10am, should i be terrified? thats 5x greater than 1 degree, not in 50 years in 2 hours! global warming is reaking havok! AHH! WE NEED TO BE WORRIED
@@nationalsniper5413 We're talking about SST, Sea Surface Temperatures. It doesn't take 800 years to warm the top 2m of the ocean. Swing and a miss.
@@nationalsniper5413a lag can’t happen that quickly and in such a high magnitude. The energy has to come from somewhere and that kind of jump don’t happen even when you nuke the ocean.
Hello from Maldon, Essex, England. I'm the manager of a Heritage Centre, which focuses on the Battle of Maldon in 991, but ponder about older stuff, like the cosmos.
Would you mind explaining how lagrange points work in the bars of barred spiral galaxies? And, if it's not too much to ask, how does a galaxy's barycenter without a black hole differ from one with? I think it has to do with the velocity gradient of stars in the central bulge, but, I hope my favourite astrophysicist will help, as 'there are times, when all the world's asleep, the questions seem too deep for such a simple (wo)man'.
What would you say if I'd be you a radical 👍 love it now I can't get the song out of my head
And by the way hello from Kentucky
What would you say if I'd be calling you a radical voice text can drive you bonkers sometimes 🤪
Great content! My question is regarding the affects of space weather on the surrounding planets, moons, and asteroids within the solar system as predicters of the affects of space weather on the earth. While solar storms may be the largest predicter to date of space weather, I am also curious about other systems such as magnetic storms that happen in the solar system which can also influence the geomagnetic storms on earth.
I have a question to the last part about CO2 coming out of the water when we remove a certain amount out of the air, does that mean that the oceans are now a saturated solution according CO2 and won't be after removing enough CO2 out of the atmosphere?
That little "Keep looking up" just launched my brain 20 years into the past to watching Stargazer on TV.
Ya mean Jack Horcheimer (sp?) The Star Hustler?
@@markhoffart622 I'm not old enough to remember when it was Star Hustler, but yes.
It just made think of that movie that supposed to project climate future and media / politics reaction to it in "Don't look up"
The Star gazer devotee was for the episode "@@reuireuiop0 I forget. Maybe Lovely flower.
@@markhoffart622 Yes, Jack Horkheimer: Star Hustler.
In a far future, aliens coming to visit will conclude that we went extinct trying to print the most little green papers possible for a thousand paper hoarders. This will be an intergalactic joke
I really recommand you Jean Marc Jancovici videos to understand climate change and how fun the future will be
jancovici is excellent !
I recommend you stop believing all this horseshit.
Im actually impress Niel asked about solar cycles but I have yet to hear anyone discuss the weakening of the Magnetosphere and its effect on their climate models.
When I’m feeling down as in watching to much cable news and the general health of the country I turn to Neil to be uplifted. Neil is funny and a genius and I wish he was running for president. Neil deGrasse Tyson you rock sir.
Cable news is just as bad for your health as cigarettes
No Sir, a micron is a thousandth of a mm
They dont want smart presidents, presidents exsist so there is someone to blame for "their" decisions
*too much
WHY? Why, I ask, would you wish such a misery upon such a good man?
2023 was the warmest on record
and 2024 has already had at least 6 record warm days in my area. Usually cold and snowy in January and February but most days have been above zero
I understand that one problem with the climate models is the Climate Sensitivity factor( the Plank constant of climate modeling) which was a constant for 150K years, but now is a larger number and can dramatically affect predictions. Also, my understanding is that particulates in the atmosphere are not just reflectors of light, but also act a points of coalition for ice particles and water and that produces a complex condition to model.
Neil, thank you! Paul is very funny and Gavin is a very impressive scientist! I’m glad someone of his caliber is heading that organization and it sounds like some good science is being done.
This was an eye opener. The insight of how climate works was really great .
Gavin Shmidt and Michael Mann (hockey stick guy) are two of the world's top climatologists, they run a brilliant web site called 'realclimate'. Anyone who is anyone in the climate science community hangs out there.
Which is ironic considering how Neil is barely able to keep his eyes open in this video
Did you miss the part where they said it was a higher solar maximum, which they missed the model. Also look into the Tonga volcano that exploded a few years ago.
Its may more complicated than that.
Not that complicated, just to many humans consuming to much stuff…🔥🪦🌎🪦🔥
I don't think there is a right or wrong direction of prediction failures. The most important take-away from all this is that the previous models can't properly predict the temperature based on current science. I think it is extremely honest by Gavin Schmidt to admit this. Back to the drawing board.
*RE: " I think it is extremely honest by Gavin Schmidt to admit this. Back to the drawing board."*
If at first you don't succeed, fail fail again as long as someone else is footing the bills.
Every time I hear him say this is StarTalk, I always imagine Neil saying, this is Sparta lol.
Great book on the topic of geoengineering is Under a White Sky by Elizabeth Kolbert it is a very cautionary tale on how science can make a larger mess of the environment based on reactionary theories without considering the consequences to the environment. I would recommend reading that book when considering climate solutions.
China wil just go ahead and do geoengineering whenever they like, when it gets too hot for comfort - and for reliable crop harvests. They've already done their Geo engineering bit by having showers rain out before hitting the Beijing Olympics.
In Chinese eyes, the only civilization worth thinking about is theirs, the rest are irrelevant barbarians, not necessary to listen to. The West to them are decadents, who've been at it only for some centuries, while Chinese culture goes back millennia. Arguments we the West think are relevant, don't count when saving Chinese lives and culture.
They'll tell us "you've brought most carbon in the atmosphere, now _you_ go and pay the hefty price ($80-120 a ton co2 at leastest, the going price today) for removal of the greenhouse causing emissions". If rep party succeeds in making US irrelevant as a world power
(what's that muttering about the Mexican border when you got two be wars going on that could both end the west's tenure as the world dominating power .. they think America can go it alone ? Good luck with that
It's not a problem with science, but with politics. Turning science into politics with no time to reconsider things always will fail.
Just look at the movie Geostorm, which would most likely be more real than you could believe.
@@hansolo2797 I think they both play equal parts in the propaganda.
Hi,
Well said.
Thusly, I hope to get all my research into your hands.
All I can say is - or, so it seems - my OCD found us a - very workable - path...?
I promise - as a former Marine - this is incredibly good stuff...
... While, not being my creation.
... I only found parts and pieces, we can refit, into a 21st century context.
I hope to hear back.
This is incredibly important.
I struggle, to get the right folks, to listen...
... To hear me out, and take and apply it.
... Through,a neutral / objective logistics / liaison matrix NGO.
Structured, something like ARC, with Chapters, everywhere.
It needs champions.
Semper Fidelis...
I don't think I've ever seen a graph like the one used for temperature over the years before now. Very neat and communicates the data well!
sure but let's put it into context. Greenland was a temperate rainforest 11 to 19 C warmer on average than today, only 2 million years ago.
@@QuitworkBehappy 2 million....
perfectly normal for the planet@@danguee1
@@QuitworkBehappyand the world’s coastlines looked drastically different.
The fact that worse ultra slow motion floods have happened in the past doesn’t mean that it won’t cost society dearly
well, that's alright then, we can all relax@@QuitworkBehappy
What about the impact of the Tonga volcano? Why did you not talk about the fact that it injected massive amounts of water into the atmosphere? It is a key change that happened before 2023.
Some people think the sooner we act, the better. I take the opposite view, because almost anything we do has unintended consequences. Better to continue to study and learn and improve technology, so that future solutions are not as burdensome, more likely to succeed, and have fewer unforeseen consequences.
Well, there is only one problem.....when it's too late that even studies can't save you😅Also improvements are not guaranteed, it's not like a progress bar in a loading screen, you can discover a thing, or you can't, the problem with this is that it's too randomic and casual😅
So we should stop burning fossil fuels straight away.
I'd argue we'd all do better to not Act soon, but Change soon.
The problems would be magnitudes easier to fix if everyone took it just a little easier on the planet, myself included.
If you're asking the world to dramatically reduce its standard of living dramatically you need to have very hard science to back up that those dramatic changes are going to have a meaningful impact on the problem.
You are already deep into the realm of unintended consequences.
11:11 Gavin’s face when Paul says, “We have hair, and you don’t.” He was not amused.
I think that was mainly due to him completely misusing the term 'aerosols' and potentially confusing the audience.
And then he goes "see, I know words" 😅
😢
Well, we had such a bleh summer in the UK, most of my tomatoes didn't even ripen.
@laurisafine7932 You might also explain why homeless folks here in the USA get less and less D3 in their bodies while spending most of the day outside. I have a feeling that aerosols may be wrecking our absorption of it. Back in the time of the dim sun, in Europe, around AD500, the farmers had a tough time getting plants to grow.
StarTalk - do you curate the comments yourself or do you employ people or bots to do so. I ask this as what I believe are reasonable conversations have been regularly scrubbed almost as quickly as I submit them. It seems as if someone or something is overly zealous.
Couple of questions - do those buoys measure salinity of the water also; and, do you include the matter coming out of volcanoes, for example - is it going up with increased activity, or is it, remaining steady or average?Actually with increased CO2, it increases the acidity of the oceans affecting all life from the bottom of the food chain up. It's clearly affecting shellfish now as they aren't able to build as quickly the shells that protect their survival.
Did they forget that between September and October 2022 record amount of methane was dumped into the atmosphere from the Nord2 pipeline that was sabotaged (220,000 + tonnes)? Incidentally methane is roughly 20 times the green house than carbon.
the annual atmospheric CH4 flux is roughly 420 teragrams or 420 000 000 metric tonnes so an increase of that magnitude, while being a huge single emission, still wouldn't make that big of a difference in global temperatures.
According to United Nations Env. programme (UNEP) the emissions from Nord2 were at most 230 kilotonnes which is 0.23 teragrams
Don't think the effect of that event would be felt in the world's climate only months later.
Every little bit hurts!
Recently, cows have been blamed for CH4 emissions. Science has found that these cow farts actually breakdown in the atmosphere to CO2. So cattle operations which maintain constant long term herd numbers have been shown to be carbon neutral. CH4 has leaked from natural sources for thousands of years. The stability of CH4 over the long haul needs to be evaluated.
Nopppppe
You look tired sir, have a nap and blame it on me giving you permission
Just a hunch, but he may be on a Pharma cocktail. Although he does work extremely hard and has time to write a book a year!
@@jannichi6431 I could imagine his schedule is always booked as he's super popular and he's trying to contribute as much as he can to society. Either way he should pencil in a few breathers 🤟
Neil, you have my permission as well!
Neil, your impact is inmense. Rest a bit
lol
In 2023 there were a lot of temp. anomalies in my country. That was the coldest spring and summer I remember. Many crops suffered because of it. Also, snow came much earlier and stayed for longer than in the past few decades too. I'm talking my local observations though...
🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
There is an ongoing trend in agriculture/gardening to go no-till, which could effectively turn their soil into a carbon sink. With the growing concern of soil degradation and erosion, more and more farmers are cover cropping and using more direct seeding equipment to not disturb the soil’s ecosystem. The goal is to put more organic matter into the soil, as well as natural fertilization. It will be interesting to see how that trend continues and how big of an impact it will make on predictions.
It's like the guy I heard around 10 + years ago said, scientist are downplaying the positive feedback loops in their models. It was a safe bet that unknown positive feedback loops would pop up from out of nowhere, not sure if they could add unknowns into a model.
Unknowns are included in the error bars. Betting on unknown positives is a very risky play.
As is betting on unknown negatives.
@@mattleathen445
Unknown positives and negatives are hard to track.
From what I remember from middle school they basically said 2 billion people will die very quickly. And I've always believed it. Just waiting for it to fully kick into high gear.
Those unknowns are what make the model results probabilities instead of certainties, the model makers may talk about probabilities in their professional papers but it never makes it to the headline or the policy debate.
Anyone who studied statistics in college, like me, is absolutely terrified by the temperature data that we are collecting. It is obvious from recent readings that the planet is not only warming, it's out of control (statistically speaking). Why worry about this? We have no idea what might happen in the future. We can no longer assume linearity or any other constraint on what might happen, particularly with extremes.
Relative to the age of the earth, we’ve been collecting data for a submicroscopic amount of time. It makes it meaningless. Also, the sun is expanding so of course it’s going to heat up.
I am terrified of the data we are no longer collecting and using model proxy data in its replacement within the global mean calculations
One thousand years ago, generations of Norsemen were harvesting wheat and barley - IN GREENLAND. This is the Medieval warming period - much warmer than today, and with no noticeable rise in CO2. You can't farm grain crops in Greenland today, it's too cold.
@@Krusty-kl5ej well, the good news is that they are going to be able to do it again in a few years. The bad news is that when the ice cover melts to allow this, the oceans will rise another 7 meters, flooding the homes and farms of about two billion people, give or take. That's why we might want to do something now.
@@Krusty-kl5ej I've seen quite a few graphs showing that CO2 follows temperature rise, not the other way round. So much of the discussion of climate change involves cherry picking information to suit. Gavin Schmidt ( what a name for an Englishman!!) introduced a whole load of variables that I've never heard of before, and neither had Neil Grasse, it seems.
GREAT DISCUSSION! Here's an experiment I did. I transferred all my human waste (some people may disagree I'm human...LOL!) in holes in a hot dusty desert. I ate a plant-based diet, too, for optimal results (low scent, fewer flies, etc.). The areas with the holes became plush with green wild plants that created oxygen, reduced dust, and cooled the immediate surrounding temperature. No watering was needed. And now I will be placing edible plants between the green areas I created. Over the years, we'll see what we get. NOTE: juniper trees are great plants in the desert. They even survive brush fires! I am using them as wind barriers to help plants grow better.
"we as a societý" mean three thing
-law and enforcement of it
-architecture and logistic of it
-awareness of self and of te world
so individually (not exhaustive)
-vote : for the closest to sustainable your politic are
-manifest locally for building change (like more bike lane, and/or better parks) and écological farming practices (no till, no soil supplement, no pesticide)
-learn what a "biais" is, understand the difference between "convinced" and "persuaded" (one is based on logic and you current understanding of fact, the other on vibe)
I loved the British reaction to saying that he doesn’t have hair and "we are all fffed.
Sir, you are doing a great service to the world. People need simple. You obviously get it. Keep it simple, and keep it coming. Great job!
You guys are surprised that the models didn't predict this? The IPCC, Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report declared: “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible.”
Nice video, guys! Just one thing: NOAA stands for “National Organization for the Advancement of Acronyms.”
Nice interview. I really would've liked to hear Gavin's take on climate aspects that cannot easily be reversed, such as snow albedo in the polar/mountain regions. Also the permafrost melt going on in the north, which is releasing buried methane and CO2 into the atmosphere. Even if we ended carbon emissions tomorrow, those processes would still continue, would they not?
All depends on whether the feedback loop is past the point of returning. Hope for the best, fear for the worst
Yup
I would love to hear Gavin talk about what all the inputs and variables are that he uses for his model.
Me too! Also explanations about temp. measurements. The city can be warmer by 10C than a nearby forest. If weather station 60 years ago was still in the forest, but now the city surrounded it - how do they adjust? In that case temperature change has nothing to do with increased CO2 levels, but more tarmac and concrete around the station.
@@hotbit7327 I don't remember where I saw it originally, but there was a clip out there describing the process as first breaking Earth's surface into a large number of grids (imagine longitude and latitude lines, but finer resolution / smaller scale). Temperatures are measured within those grids and we take the average to get an idea of the temperature. This is done worldwide, constantly. So your inner-city high temperatures would likely get averaged out by the lower forest temperatures, to yield some value in between them.
Not sure how altitude comes into play, but we've also got weather balloons and other depth/height-sensitive equipment for things like that
The heat Island effect is a well known problem & controlled for, like solar cycles .. kinda basic stuff, but deniers think they are smart enough to think of this & professional climate scientists are not!
I would also like to know what assumptions - and how many assumptions - are used in climate modeling.
I do like Neil and his guests. At last I've come across you, Neil, with your guests talking about The problem ... fossil fueled climate change. Great to see Gavin telling like it is. And thank you, Neil. I am a fan.
By the way this is not an accusation. I'm not saying "About Time!". Who knows what internet algorithms have shielded (from my view) other climate topic efforts you've been making.
You guys missed one possible explanation of the exceptional warmth of 2023: 2022 Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haʻapai volcanic eruption that lofted huge amounts of water vapor into the stratosphere which is there to stay for several years. My opinion is that climate scientists have seriously underestimated water vapor's warming, particularly when it is high up in the atmosphere. What is clear to me is that a majority of the infrared photons that escape into space do not escape from the earth's surface, but from cooler levels higher up in the atmosphere. It stands to reason that water vapor in the normally very dry stratosphere stands the highest chance of intercepting and absorbing the IR photons that are otherwise headed out into space. Water vapor near the surface - where most of the weather happens isn't as important as the IR photons that cool the earth mainly originate from higher altitudes. That may be the ticket to what is confounding your current models.
If the Tonga eruption does push the global mean temp up globally temporarily; still insignificant in regard to long-term climate trend, but not for the stratosphere, as it has created a wide range of potential long-lasting repercussions for its global composition and dynamics. A much bigger concern is how its chemistry affects ozone variations causing an impact on sea ice and sea surface temperature.
Yes. Discussion in Australia about this causing higher heat and humidity. 😮
@@rps1689 By pushing the global temperature up temporarily it may be affecting their estimate of climate sensitivity to CO2.
@@andrewfong4216 Time will tell.
It takes fifty years for a climate trend to stand out from weather noise and ocean oscillations, and thirty years to stand out from weather noise alone.
It will take an eruption more powerful than Tonga’s to affect a climate trend, a volcanic eruption bigger than any in human history. Basically an event like Tonga in the long run will work out to zero as a climate forcing over the long-term.
@@lrvogt1257 Not after the water vapor reaches the Stratosphere where it is normally very dry and there is little mixing between the stratosphere and the troposphere. Scientific papers predict the water vapor in the stratosphere could remain elevated for up to 10 years!
I love that you see this situation with humour cause yes, we'll need a lot of it! :'D
Also, it now makes a tons of sense that the time around COVID also had us see warmer and warmer years. We reduced pollution significantly around this time. Also with all the weather and stuff going nuts ... I guess we also saw population decrease - I'd assume? Which again likely affected pollution, no?
I'm over seventy and have a graduate degree in sciences. I watched the great Sagan and now watch you and several others. I just wanted to say thank you for all the knowledge and insights you've imparted. Your teaching style is excellent.
If you're over seventy, you should remember the coming ice age we had to prepare for, how are those preparations coming along?
I’d like to know something more about how we take out CO2.
What does it take to physically remove it?
The clean air act brought about a huge change in the atmosphere, due to a massive drop in particulate matter as a result of switching from coal to natural gas for central heating worldwide.
Check out the time around Krakatoa blowing apart in 1883, huge increase in pollution helped reducing Earth temperatures due to a thick cloud of pollution encircling the Earth for around 4 years. The drop in temperature over the period was about 1.2 Celsius.
Thank you again Neil, Paul, Gavin and everyone that makes this channel happen
I’m curious to hear what your viewpoint is concerning solar/earth magnetic pole shift and weakening of the magnetosphere factor into these models. As well as galactic dust playing into these models? Is there any likelyhood these factors could play into climate models?
All of that is taken into account.
Those magnetic forces, which are far less than changes in solar irradiation and the Milankovitch cycles (both of which are in cooling phases) and the long-term carbon cycle as reflected in changes in the greenhouse composition of the atmosphere. In addition, those magnetic forces are relatively constant, so while they might impact the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere, it would only be in terms of short-term fluctuations working out to zero over the long-term.
Solar forcing is important, but on time scales relevant to human history solar irradiance is practically constant. Even near solar minimum, when galactic comic rays have easier access to Earth, and during the solar maximum, their spectrum remains relatively constant in energy and composition, varying only slowly with time. Just as the solar cycle follows a roughly elven year cycle, so does galactic cosmic rays with its maximum.
No mechanism has been discovered for variations in the solar wind or magnetic field to affect Earth's climate significantly. It's a red herring when folk claim these forcing do; popular on "climate skeptic" pseudoscience blogs, but we know once a talking point gains inertia in the "skeptic" echo chamber, it never dies. The steady decline in energy output, the 11 year cycle in sunspots, and the variations in the solar wind shows no correlation with climate on annual, decadal, nor century scales.
I sure hope somebody makes a movie of all this and puts it in a time capsule for some future scientists to find , maybe it'll help them. Mark it " a Walt Disney production" just for fun . 🌎🌲🙏
Question: would it be more efficient to remove the CO2 from the ocean than from the air?
Well, one thing i noticed is that volcanic particular matter both air born and in our oceans were not a factor in cause and effect. I believe both particular matter and gases from volcanic matter should be explored in climate change.
They do consider the effect of volcanos, it’s just not something they can predict in advance. So they can look at the effect after it happens, and can extrapolate what will happen over the long term in the future. It might only be helpful for checking if the models change when they include it as a factor, vs don’t include it. Climate change happens over a longer timescale, so effects from volcanos are less important than if they’re looking at weather predictions for the month following the eruption for example.
As far as I’m aware, there’s nothing to suggest volcano eruptions are happening more or less than what otherwise would be naturally, and most of the effect is short term (a few months to years). So for example, if they’re releasing a yearly prediction for 2024 and a big volcano erupted in 2023, then they could include that in the prediction. But if a volcano erupts in 2024 then the effect won’t be in the original prediction because they can’t know about it in advance.
Always wondered how volcanos under the ocean affect the water temperature where these buoys are taking readings
A communication thing. Aerosols in this context refer to particulate matter. Particulate matter is a mixture of small solid particles and liquid droplets in the air. Do not confuse with aerosols from pressurized cans. Not the same thing.
Wait...what?
@@singingway Particle pollution - also called particulate matter (PM) - is made up of particles (tiny pieces) of solids or liquids that are in the air. These particles may include:
Dust
Dirt
Soot
Smoke
Drops of liquid
Some particles are big enough (or appear dark enough) to see - for example, you can often see smoke in the air. Others are so small that you can’t see them in the air.
Could you explain what you mean here? I don't see how particulate matter and aerosols are any different in this context. Pressurized gas cans vaporize their contents as they flow out of the nozzle, thus creating microcontaminants (say, Febreze or something similar). Smoke particulates would effectively be the same thing, less any difference in their overall size, no?
@@Strategies2010 - Pariticluate matter (smoke, dust, ash, etc.) blocks the sun and is a cool forcing.
Aerosol can propellants like butane and isobutane, are greenhouse gases and are a warm forcing.
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is geoengineering the weather.
Always good to hear from Gavin Schmidt
First time I've seen this channel, instant subscriber. Thanks!
"We can't win"
Now you're getting it.
There is no win, there is endure and survive to the best of our ability. ADAPT OR DIE.
We have won... It's still the best planet to be cruising the universe on.
In fact we have a Kobayashi Maru situation where there is a no win scenario, when it comes to without pollution the earth heats up, and when we stop the pollution the earth still heats
No it's not like that. The impact of reducing air pollution has caused a short-term, small uptick in heat input, but it's only offseting other measures. Longterm it is still far better to reduce air pollution. GHG emissions are a slightly different topic, and it's always better to reduce GHG emissions. It's not a Kobayashi Maru, there is a win condition for climate survival - and it's to reduce our GHG emissions.
@@Yvaelle Not really. There was a win condition had we reduced GHG emissions starting in 1990 and come to 0 emissions by 2010. Instead, Ronnie and Margaret made sure we tripled emissions by 2023 instead. NOW it is Kobyashi Maru, as evidenced by our top billionaires trying to escape the planet and immigrate to the nearest friendly colony of psychotic brethren!
We need aircraft in the stratosphere dispersing reflective aerosols throughout the world. The issue isn't whether you stop using aerosols, but when do we skip to clean energy so we don't need aerosols.
Neil, I think another interesting Star Talk would be if you had Sir Brian May, guitarist of the legendary band Queen on as a guest. Most people don't know that he has a PhD in Astro Physics as well and collaborates with NASA in his "spare time".
9:17 This brings to mind the lecture of Guy McPherson on the Global Dimming Effect... from a decade ago.
I realise this is new information, so there may not be an answer to my questions, but: Does this call into question the impact of human activity with relation to warming the planet? Was the cooling caused by our air pollution greater than the warming caused by our carbon emissions? Does it follow that by reducing carbon emissions we may actually be warming the planet more than if we did not reduce those carbon emissions?
Very interesting segment.
No, the warming impact of CO2 is basic physics. We may have counterbalanced it somewhat with parallel particulate pollution, but man’s role is undeniable.
The problem here is the time 7:17 scale... it's just too small to give a picture of actual global change.. we need to compare prehistoric conditions and try to align the data we have to get a better picture of this effect. There must be some correlations between this small time frame and our planetary history. Is this cyclic or not...
I just wish they could find a way to make scandinavia warmer lol
Putting particulates back in the air doesn’t fix Ocean (and estuarine) aragonite saturation quotient acidification. Which is pushing the oceans (and estuaries) over their tipping points.
Maybe Co2 is not the problem? Maybe the problem is the billions of gallons of chemical runoff?
This is an excellent overview of global warming. It's reassuring to hear Gavin's take on trying to engineer a solution. That approach has consistently proved to be counter productive in the past with other similar issues. The associated concern with this is that climate change is currently profitable for the associated businesses like construction, suppliers, etc.
I don't see the problem with improving building codes and standards if we want to move forward as a civilization? I also liked Neil's suggestion in an episode way back when, about using the sun against itself to cool us if we have to deal with a long term heat age. Solar to help power cooling solutions. But solar powerplants still need to become more efficient and get better at collecting and production power to help with that on a large scale. Enough sunlight hits the earth surface in one day, to power the globe for a year or more? If only it could be harnessed.
@@silvercloud1641 The issue these days is storing all that excess energy when it's not sunny for cheap. There's multiple battery solutions coming out for this. For example, there's a "box with rocks" solution that's essentially as it sounds: filling up a box with rocks that can heat up from the excess solar energy, and then it's there for peak demand times when the sun isn't shining.
@@CrimsonA1
And there are thousands more electric cars every month, people often ignore the fact that wind is generating in the night
My takeaway from this is that, we have the data, and the means to understand it, but not quite the capability or idea on how to control the warming cooling effect yet. Let alone predict exactly what will happen x amount of years down the line. We lowered PM emissions enough to clean the air, but now we have to combat the natural warming from less air pollution and solar cycles. What a complex subject to dive into!
May you guys help me understand that? From what I gather, us producing more CO2 created "a barrier" that blocks the additional heat and because we started fighting it, the barrier reduced and the heat that was in the atmosphere started getting through and increasing Earth's temperature. How is making this barrier 0 (continuing getting rid of CO2) going to help with the issue?
Co2 didn't create a cooling barrier, particulate matter did (air pollutants). They're different. Hope that helps.
Great vid, thanks. Small note: a micron is 1000th of a millimetre folks, not a 1000th of a centimetre.
It just shows the level and reliability of their "predictions" and "conclusions".
@@ika5666 No, it's just easy to misremember something that is commonplace, so much so, that it becomes redundant. You ever hear of a 'redundancy' before?
@@CynicalBastard I odn't agree. They just don't care and, therefore, their opinions are barely competent and worthy of respect.
@@ika5666 You just described yourself.
@@CynicalBastard You just have shown that you like lies, both your own and those of fake climate change maniacs.
Great pod cast Neil... love the bit about aerosols and the oceans.... and also the modeling at the start great visual reference. I hope we can bring down our c02 in the immediate future. Thanks again for the insights.
Co2 is not a pollutant in anyway. Co2 is not s driver of warming the earth, cloud cover is, you know H2O.
be careful though bring it down to much the plants will start to die. co2 is plant food. the most abundance of life on earth was when co2 levels were much much higher.
Great morning update. Loved the galactic magnetic field rotation graphic.
When I did my Environmental Studies A level, which was only about 10 years ago, it was still accepted that the CO2 levels had a 20 year lag time, in other words if we stop all emissions now we would see the levels stop rising in 2044 - has the science moved on now?