We Got The TRUTH From The World's Leading Climate Expert | Ft. Prof Richard Betts MBE
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 09. 2022
- Adam interviews Prof Richard Betts MBE, Head of Climate Impacts at the MET office about the true consequences of man made climate change.
→ Prof. Richard Betts MBE: / richardabetts
→ COURSES - Become a MASTER of renewable heating: courses.heatgeek.com/
→ HEAT GEEK ASSURED HEAT PUMP INSTALLATIONS: www.heatgeek.com/heat-geek-as...
or
assured@heatgeek.com
→ More free content: www.heatgeek.com/
SOCIALS 🙋♂️
→ Twitter: / _heatgeek
→ Facebook: / heatgeek
→ Insta: / heat_geek
#climatechange #globalwarming #energy #heatpump #heating #renewableenergy - Věda a technologie
Not to be negative but IMO, we are already past several tipping points and as we can already see, there is still no action on the level that is needed to begin slowing down the emissions. We have disasters slamming every part of the planet, major rivers drying up while other areas are flooding and no action. Hurricanes that are almost all going through rapid intensification and causing loss of life and billions in damage and no action. I am in Los Angeles and we just had issues with rain and some wind due to a hurricane going nearby. That is not normal and has never happened before. If people were waking up due to these things, maybe. But they aren't. It looks very bad and I thought I would be dead before things get horrible but now I know, i may very well be here to see things that I never want to see.
That"s because you've been brainwashed into believing what idiots tell you instead of looking for the facts. Take a Xanax and calm down
That attitude of being okay with everything going to shit AFTER we’re dead is the reason we are here. Glad you are concerned since you’ll be around for it. You’re part of the solution now
"Not to be negative but . . .", not negative, just aware and seeing clearly.
We have trouble seeing long term as a species. From an evolutionary standpoint, our ancestors lived hand to mouth until agrarian societies began and started storing food. The effects of climate change are subtle and relatively slow, at least in developed areas of the world. Third world countries have been feeling it hard for decades, and those will bear the brutality that floods, drought and famine will continue to bring because of climate change. Those of us in prosperous nations will only be inconvenienced compared to third world nations so nothing significant will happen until it's pretty much too late. As a species, we tend to shine under pressure and our descendants will be forced to come up with ingenious ideas to deal with it. We're just a species of ape who got lucky because ice sheets melted thousands of years ago. Climate change got us here and it will get us out of this mess, though at a high cost of human life.
How bad does the weather have to get before it is "catastrophic" ? IMO there is nothing about the climate to be positive about.
A point that isn't mentioned enough is that many of our food plants, such as wheat, for instance, significantly reduce their productivity when the temperature rises above a set point. Some argue that the growing areas will just move closer to the poles which ignores the fact that there is far less nutritious soils in the Arctic zones.
*I am updating this comment (10 months after writing it) to quote from the OECD Report: Climate Tipping Points and their Cascading Effects, Section 2.3, Figure 2.5: which shows that at 2.5 degrees warming the global area suitable for growing wheat, and that for maize, would both more than halve, whilst there would be a tiny increase in land suitable for growing rice.
Let that sink in.
Carbon Dioxide significantly increases crop yields. Look at the greening of the Earth since in increase of Co2.
@@eddyk564 Crop yields of human's food crops have decreased, as has the nutrition in the crops (significantly), since the increases in CO2. You are repeating a falsehood. Not only that, but the ocean is expanding with the heat, fires, lethal heatwaves, floods and hurricanes are becoming much more severe, and frequent, the melting of Greenland is accelerating, and Antarctic ice is thinning, and melting from both the the top and the bottom of the ice sheet, and the sea level is rising, already inundating parts of Bangladesh and some Pacific islands. Consequently, insurance companies are increasing the price of premiums, refusing to insure some areas, or (already) declaring bankruptcy. The increase in CO2 is causing all these problems - it is nothing but bad news, not an advantage like some uneducated fools claim.
Oxygen is toxic for plants. If there is more Co2 in the atmosphere they have to open fewer stomata leading to better growth. Plants may have ideal growing temperatures, but a fraction of a degree will hardly make a difference. Generally higher temperatures are associated with higher crop yields relative to colder periods because the growing season is longer- look at the medieval warm period.
Mother nature's cycle's, cold incoming.
@@namieschowgurow4779 That will likely be the case in England, but not in many other parts of the world.
“Humanity today is like a waking dreamer, caught between the fantasies of sleep and the chaos of the real world. The mind seeks but cannot find the precise place and hour. We have created a Star Wars civilization, with Stone Age emotions, medieval institutions, and godlike technology. We thrash about. We are terribly confused by the mere fact of our existence, and a danger to ourselves and to the rest of life.”
- E.O. Wilson
Brilliant. Or, put another way, humanity is a bull in a china shop. A walking disaster.
After agonizing for years about how to fix the infinite number of problems we've created, I finally realized that humans *are* the problem. We're apes in suits - with nuclear weapons and diesel-powered bulldozers.
There is no solution. Evolution must simply run its course.
awesome quote. thanks. agree totally. Acknowledging this, I have wisely abandoned hope as if it had some magical quality of healing. Simultaneously, I pray to the Unknown God for mercy to help us go quickly and avoid all that Mad Max shit.
@@johntresemer5631 Beware the human cognitive bias toward certainty. While we can see where we have come from to this moment quite clearly if we're willing to, none of us can know for sure how the future will unfold. Despite all we know there are many, many things about this situation we do not know, and many things yet to come we cannot foresee. Faced with the totality of the human predicament, the mind seeks the comfort of certainty; either to dismiss it all as impossible false alarm or to give up hope because there seems no outcome but certain doom.
It is far more difficult and uncomfortable to sit with the uncertainty, to recognize the situation as it stands, the monumental challenges we face and not fall to one certain conclusion or the other.
To be able to mourn the world we are surely leaving behind yet not give up on making what lies ahead the best we can make it because of some misplaced certainty, that is the challenge.
I would add that one thing is always for certain: we CAN make it worse, no matter how much we might think it can't possibly get worse. Worse is not what we should choose.
@@kurtniznik8116 I knew you were a wise guy (not being facetious 🤓). I agree with you and thank you for that. There is no telling, really, especially with just the variables we are aware of. Nature, humanity, life, have always been full of surprises, “positive” and “negative”. I enjoyed the movie The Day After Tomorrow which is scientifically probably somewhat exaggerated but maybe not, and the North Pacific gyre or whatever is slowing down as the melting Greenland sheet and the Gulf Stream are mingling. I do not, however, have much faith in people who don’t have the self-preservation sense or decency to quit fooling with insane nukes, horrific wars, greedy predatory nature-killing capitalism, and tragic divisiveness. I do despair from our specie’s prolonged barbarism, which harms so many sensitive innocent creatures and makes me sadly wonder about Creation’s apparent indifference.
@@kurtniznik8116 “Hope is definitely not the same thing as optimism. It is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out. It is the ability to work for something because it is good, not because it stands a chance to succeed.” --Vaclav Havel, author, former dissident, and first president of the Czech Republic.
Your timelines seem a bit long to me but good enough video. Tipping points are tipping and 50% of all the Co2 has been emitted over the past 25 years. We started burning carbon at the start of the industrial revolution in 1750 which is over 272 years ago.
Last 25 years 50%. No one's slowing down anything... We are pedal to the metal.
I had a look at ourworldindata, US and EU have actually reduced output per year a little, but obviously that isn't enough because we keep buying more products from China. Even South-America has seen a reduction per capita. Especially energy production using fossil fuels has seen the maybe some stabilization even while consumption still has been on the rise. So I wouldn't say we aren't making some progress, but very very limited and far to little.
@@autohmae you hit a nail with your China observation. Many people say we're doing what we can and they lambast China but a big part of that is we have offshored much of our carbon especially to China. An accurate reflection would have to estimate how much of their emissions are acreditable to the US and UK.
The 3 comments so far all sensible. I'm just adding fact about the "We started burning ... 1750" because it's so negligible as to be irrelevant as you stated yourself in the same comment. The +CO2 & +CH4 1750 to 1875 work out to something less than 0.2 degrees by theory and average of many global proxies all over the place pin it around +0.13 degrees in practice (some such as Mann, Bradley, Hughes "hockey stick" show cooling from 1750 to 1875), not "0.3 degrees" that liars keep parroting. There's no global measurement before 1850 so 1850-1900 is the earliest accurate-enough base period. The reason why the tiny 1750 to 1850 heating effect is less than theory is "climate lag" which is that 40% of the temperature rise from the 1750 to 1850 heating effect doesn't happen until post 1850 so therefore it's included when the 1850-1900 base period is used.
@@grindupBaker there surely is significant collated data from pre 1850, all significant navies took and preserved detailed weather reports in ships logs
A serious carbon fee with a border adjustment fee (so that everyone is on the same pitch) would bring China in line faster than anything else.
I've just added this subscription to my slate of climate-concerned (I should say, "freaked-out") channels, including: Paul Beckwith, Beckisphere Climate Corner, Environmental Coffeehouse, Facing Future, Yale Climate Connections, Now This Earth, and many more. They all cannot be played enough or have enough subscriptions to counter the overwhelming "shop til you drop" comercial media. But, that's where we are. The billionaire techies and upper, upper- class are more interested in their bunkers and their money than they are in... LIFE itself.
czcams.com/video/LmmmgiPha_Y/video.html
Touch grass already
And climate emergency forum
And Climate Town with Rollie Williams. And our changing climate. And climate Adam.
Oh!!! I just saw who you are! Hi John!!
What's alarming, in our region, when you go to the riverside usually (for example, three years ago, 5, 10 20) there were mosquitos swarming over and around you behaving very aggressively. Even repellents didn't help fight them. They were everywhere: in your shoes, under your cap, in your car. But last year and this year I don't see them at all. If one flies by it is weak and sad.
The same situation is with birds. In previous years there were many birds flying and singing at the riverside. But this year, I see only few.
When I come to the place where we usually spend our summer. I feel something is not right. No insects, few birds. Although this summer (2023) in our region is not abnormally hot as it was in recent three consequent years (2020-2022).
The silence of nature is really really spooky.
Same here in Halifax, Nova Scotia! I've noticed like a 90% drop in mosquitos this summer, maybe more. It's scary to think how many species we are losing. It's like a game of Jenga but with every species we eliminate the closer we come to threatening human life. It's scary.
As a kid I remember the ground being covered with worms after it rained. Now they are completely gone. Same with insects on the windshields of cars.
It’s the same here in Scotland! Why isn’t this being covered more? 😳
That's exactly how it is in Minnesota. I don't hear birds singing anymore. Mosquitos are almost completely absent. The trees stand silent, their leaves still, because there is rarely any breeze. Bees and butterflies are rarely seen. Mother Earth and Father Sky are in hospice. It's only a matter of time (and not much time) before the earth dies.
They must all be here then...
Nobody talks about all the trees being cut down. Trees bring the rain. Trees get rid of carbondoxide.
33:45 its called Jevon's Paradox - written in 1865 talking about coal, but applicable to all energy systems - if any energy system is made more efficient in a bid to reduce energy use - the unit price of energy goes down, therefore more people can afford to use more of it, so the energy use goes up, not down.
"so the energy use goes up, not down". Which is terrific if the energy is not derived by burning carbon.
@@grindupBaker The perfect response.
@@BrentonSmythesfieldsaye
Is it? Somewhere in the process of “creating“ efficiency, the legacy methods continue to be utilized to support it. As Mr. Scott explained to Captain Kirk, “I can’t change the laws of physics, Captain…”
@@kgmail7364 Yes it is.
The rest of your response as far as I am concerned, means little to nothing.
At Approx 40 degrees C plants can not metabolise CO2 and so start expelling more of the gas than absorbing it. And something I noticed this year in the UK was the drying out of leaves. Mid August the ground was covered in dead leaves like it was autumn. And the foliage that managed to stay on the trees was crisp and dry. That is just one ( 1+ ) of the additional effects caused by overheating which exacerbates the challenges to the natural environment and allows CO2 atmospheric levels to continue rising. Very scary.
Yep
The global warming problem is very very bad, but average global surface temperatures of 40 C ain't a legitimate worry.
@@mathboy8188 During the Permian ME when the sun was actually 5%+ cooler the average temp stabilized at 50C. The poles were tropical and the oceans had died. Sulphur-breathing bacteria(fact check exact chemistry) began producing hydrogen sulphide turning the ocean a dirty orange and killing 90% of life on Earth. Now add that extra 5% warmth of the sun plus hundreds of nuclear reactors + tens of thousands of toxic human-made products, and an additional 120 feet in SLR and we are looking at a calamity far worse than the Permian. This is why it is so important that runaway global warming which will be exacerbated by the massive methane deposits accumulated over millions of years is avoided. Even if people bunkered down in large gov facilities they wouldn't be able to survive outside unprotected for thousands of years. Not forgetting of course the million other multicellular species that don't get a say in the matter. The oil comps know all this but don't care. Don't become as apathetic as them. Very few people will survive or be allowed in those facilities. Even family-sized bunkers wouldn't suffice as long-term protection. All those preppers think they have it sorted. Nope. So only those who have amassed the assets or hold positions of governmental power; assets and power gained through the selling of the toxic product which caused this issue, will avoid such a death. I'm the last person to instil panic or run conspiracies but this is what will happen if we don't mitigate fossil fuels. And those who will end up passing their stories on underground are unlikely to explain or admit their part in the calamity which I think is frelling shitty. The salt in the wound if only the wounded would survive.
@@mathboy8188 Yebbut he's talking local, regional, with the 40 degrees because he's talking plants. I can give you a Yep anyway because I'm Mister Amenable this evening and usually. Incidental, I don't have a clue about his plants thing and I've no intention of studying that.
The trees are drying out up here in the northwest woods.I have never seen it this dry.all of the emissions from large factory's and industrial complexes would have to be dealt with in some fashion turn green and maybe save the earth and save ourselves
Where I live in southern California plants have changed fires are much worse grass crunched under foot kinda sounded like it was frozen we had more very hot days n way less snow. I'm up in the mountains so not as hot as Bakersfield but these are things that are new to me and I'm 47 it may not be as obvious to people who work in an office with ac and are surrounded by lawns that get watered
New to you because it has taken that long for California to use most of the water from lake and rivers and their ground water resources for farming, households, golf courses, other states removing water from the Colorado River... etc. Change the land and you change the Climate.
California's problems are Man Made...like most if not all the problems around the world but nothing to do with Co2...ask the Maya civilization or other collapsed civilizations from the past... too much land for farming ( cutting down too many trees )... or the USA dust bowl in the 1930's...modifying the land too much brings an imbalance to the system.
Change the Land and you Change the Climate!!!
@@johnsheppard4143 hmm quite a rant there almost sounds like politics. I do not live in LA in fact i am north east at around 4500' my family property run 5-6k' the wild grasses and shrubs are dependant on a snow pack system no irrigation no river or diversions. The grass is dry from a lack of snow further up the mountain. No snow pack no run off. This sort of problem is happening in other ranges that feed rivers in multiple states. Hotter temps dont just mean less precipitation they also mean rain rather than snow ie no continuous melt water
See Dane Wigingtin on you-tube re geo-engineering watch...he's also in california watching his land destroyed...he is desperately trying to warn us about the ongoing climate geo-engineering...
@@kennethliew7828 take a hike
@@marilyncourteau8951
the IPCC scientists are reporting this. should we listen to the scientists or ask them to take hike?
We are still on RCP8.5 high emission pathway. It is business as normal and therefore business without any emission reductions. Before covid lockdowns emission rates were even somewhat over the "worst case scenario" RCP8.5... We are already back on RCP8.5 pathway after this single covid lockdown reduction year (newest studies).
We have not done enough to prevent climate warming that could be over 4C. If pledges are fully implemented and soon, then we end up to over 2,2C level. And even previous pledges are not achieved leading warming over 3,2C, likely over 4C.
UK is a single country that really has started to change their emissions on the pathway that is calculated. Almost no other country is on that pathway (EU is nearing the target). But on the other hand UK stated the industrial revolution and has been emitting since.
Is 2C even achievable? Combined ghg amount is over 508 ppm CO2e, while 2C limit is calculated to sustained 450 ppm CO2e level. Also heat ratings says: current 3,222W/M^2, while 2,5W/m^2 if sustained long periods is 2C limit. Also studies say 95% chance for going over 2C. And 2C is not reachable with nullifying CO2 emissions, other GHG's are enough to raise temperature over 2C, specially methane.
So what caused the oceans to rise 180 meters between 15 and 13,000 years ago, we did not even use bronze tools until 8,000 years later.
just curious what foundation paid the university.
I remember 50 years ago they said the oceans would rise a meter in 30 years and not to mention the crown of thorns on the barrier reef.
A number of people in the past have unwisely made year-specific or other "too exacting" predictions based on models that are imperfectly attempting to capture a complex dynamic system like the climate. That's a mistake, especially when the prediction is not attached to a probability or level of confidence.
Someone once said, "All models are wrong, but some are useful." It's my opinion that today's climate models can be used to determine broad trends with some reasonable confidence. One such obvious trend is rising average global temperature.
The trend is now verified by actual, real-life temperature measurements taken over several decades by both land- and satellite-based instruments. They show a decade-by-decade increase in average global temperature. Voila. The modeled prediction has come true.
Now apply simple physics to soil, air, water, and ice that is warming up on average. Everyone knows that warmer water evaporates faster. Everyone knows that ice melts faster in a warmer environment. The situation can be summarized as follows:
It’s pretty simple.
A warming planet causes WORSE WEATHER EXTREMES: …
Warmer air & water => (leading to) more humidity, heavier rain, and heavier floods.
Hotter air & topsoil => more heatwaves, more evaporation, more drought, and more wildfires.
Hotter Arctic => less ice, less albedo (reflectivity), much less ice.
That's the way it works. It is simple physics.
The evidence can be seen worldwide. Expect more of the same, only worse.
Are we actually seeing worse weather extremes begin to appear? Yes, absolutely. Six 1-in-1,000 year flash floods during the last two months in the US alone, one of which (in Orlando) was caused by the recent hurricane there. And many more examples, including drought, ice melt, coral reef destruction, and so on. Voila. The consequences are also coming true.
Come on, As a kid they had us scared shitless that we would freeze to death with the new ice age that was supposed to engulf the world in the 1990s , But all that changed by the 90's to all the ice caps will be gone by 2020....
Answer's simple mate, you don't pour all your trust into one prediction or narrative, you look at the trends and recurring data of many of them, the planet is warming and weather is getting more dangerous, it is going to keep getting so until wars are fought over water and states collapse into cannibalism, if you can't see the massive implications of that for your sheltered island then that's your problem not mine.
Why are billionaires buying mansions at sea level?🤔
More than 4,000 years ago in Mesopotamia - the area currently made up of Iraq, north-east Syria and south-east Turkey - the Akkadian empire ruled supreme. Until a 300-year-long drought quite literally turned all their plans to dust. It was part of a pattern of changing climate conditions in the Middle East around 2,200 BCE that was constantly disrupting life and up-ending emerging empires.
Excellent video. Here we are 10 months later. I wonder if the Professor still feels that "We have not reached some tipping point where things are out of control..we can still fix this." Considering the currently very large spike of ocean temperature, and record shattering heat waves around the world, maybe he has changed his mind.
It sure looks and feels like the worsening conditions have ramped up big time.
Like the man said 'we don't know what the future holds' meaning they don't know how bad things are going to get.
@@showme360 Yes, and I'd like to know what his thoughts are now, regarding this perfect storm.
Professor most likely knows for sure that we have passed dozens of tipping points and that the situation is completely out of control, but still has bills to pay so can't be saying this kind of stuff.
@@zolamadda5980 I suspect you are correct on that. I think, at least, that many scientists are pulling their punches when it comes to full disclosure.
Professor was very good...the hype is swallowing up the clowns with a BBC TV licence....it's all lies and nonsense.. taxes are the only goal
When China and India switch to Wind and Solar, we all should follow.... which will never happen precisely because wind and solar always come up short when supplying energy needs for an advanced industrial society.
The only way out of the Carbon footprint left behind by advanced civilizations by still providing enough Energy to meet industrial and consumer needs is to invest heavily in Nuclear power plants.
Your right but everyone is scared of reactors and big oil lobby’s to keep it restricted.
Thorium for the win!!
So it's a lie then that the UK could and did run the wole country on renewables for a day not that long ago?
Australia could easily run on solar wind and hydro. If the money was forthcoming it can be soon. As it stands we will be selling solar energy to Indonesia and Singapore before we run Aus.
@@chrisvanschalkwyk1455 Yes, if you choose a Sunny or Windy day, you can run a country on Solar or Wind on THAT day.
But how many cloudy days does Great Britain have during a 365 day year?
@@chrisvanschalkwyk1455 You are lying because a quick google search shows it was 60%. And like the other reply it was a windy sunny day which is far from normal in the UK. All those solar panels and wind turbines were made using fossil fuels. Its pretty complicated situation. Try thinking harder!
An analytics company did a calculation for the US: if you want to run it all on renewable, you would have to have 4 times the production capacity as the average demand. With limited storage. This would actually be the cheapest solution (assuming the cost of wind/solar keeps going down as the trends have done for years now).
Interesting conversation. I think where I feel there is a disconnect with this thinking is from the following: Every year we see CO2 emissions going up ---really that is the bottom line when measuring our we succeeding with CO2 reduction. We add more solar/wind/ev's but we really don't reduce fossil fuel consumption. China and India are building hundreds of coal fired power plants and don't plan to stop. Those 2 countries are close to 3 billion people and what they are doing dwarfs all the small changes we are making.
True. Europe exported highly polluting production to China and we advertising ourself as eco friendly💀 it's sick...
I hope instead spending money on tricking everybody, few coins could go to Information campaign -explaning people that we don't need all those fancy things!!! We can repair staff and buy less.
@@baassiia the EU is writing rules requiring things to be repairable & the UK's Green Party has similar rules ready to implement if we choose to vote them into power. Both are also encouraging a "circular economy" where everything is reused or recycled & there's very little fresh materials input.
True. That is the crux of the matter.
@@singingway what's "true"?
Watching what’s happening in Australia (and Florida USA) with floods is interesting in terms of preparation and mitigation… given the regional and local councils knew a flood would occur between 2019 and 2024… what will happen when Thwaites Glacier slides into the ocean?
, ? What if ! U just pay more taxes and nothing happens . People talk about climate but should talk about weather. The religion that co2 is the only product that would be responsible for climate Change , and the co2 made by man = the bad co2 and if you reduce that u are safe and on you’re way to paradise. Is as crazy as saying if you pay to the shortchanged you get in heaven.
First of all , look at the messurments , the temp is not going up the last 17 years. And please stop looking only at the politician report on EPCC . The co2 is not a thing you can use as a heating regulator for the world. The theme of planet earth is regulated by H2O , the oceans and water in all its forms. And co2 is de regulated for politicians to take away money from people.
Thwaites Glacier is already mostly floating on hundreds of feet of water so probably not much. Most of Western Antarctica is large islands. And most of the ice on water. It is melting from below with deep ocean underwater currents combined with under ice volcanic activity. Quite honestly has nothing to do with climate change. We could not stop it if such an event actually occurred. We aren't causing it and we can't stop it.
@@eric7076so, to summarise, you have never studied any science in your life, like all climate change deniers? And people still actually vote for Trump?😂😂😂 Americans are special aren't they? 😂 They are literally the enemies of the whole world.
The monsoon type of weather patterns have started to be the "new normal" even in Europe. First the dry season in the summer without almost any rain and then heavy rains, that leads to the flooding, starts the rainy season. This seems to be the case in many places.
You think it might have anything to do with the various governments involvement in the geoengineering thats been happening since after WWII. Claims of unnatural torrential down pours in Vietnam during the war was a testing ground. Should look up some of the old film reels of military geoengineering.
@@ManiacalManiac no nothing to do with geo engineering, solar cycles or earth's orbital procession. That's all far right fascist conspiracy nonsense. The white working class cause climate change so they must be depopulated. That's what Greta, who's great grand father discovered all this, really meant when she talked about entire ecosystems collapsing. We need to eliminate nation states, gender norms, nuclear family, increase eugenics and give UN and WEF, namely Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab full control of our lives to save the world that has existed for 4.6bn years but may be gone in 12 years.
@@ManiacalManiac there was a documentary about Nikalai Tesla that mentioned his (et al) inventions and innovations where being used for weather control - for better or worse. I think what I was pointing at too above relates. Just that there are lots of Effect producers and if we are going to try to solve the problems we face we pretty much got to put all the cards on the table. Trying to scapegoat any one group I'm sure won't work and will actually be bad for the environment too. That's what we do historically but it's catching up to bite us in the ass!
Records have shown that severe storms are approximately HALF of what they were in 1930's, this is SO MUCH BULLSHIT. You eat the crickets and live in a 6x6' cubicle if you wish, LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE!
@@patricksullivan1827 What I'd like to know is what geoengineering methods are capable of putting enormous amounts of moisture up into the atmosphere in sufficient quantity to produce multi-day torrential rains and historic flooding in dozens of places around the world during August and September. Six 1-in-1,000 year flash floods in the US alone.
I asked a renowned climate lecturer at UC Berkeley recently and I jokingly asked if we have five years left. He said, “Maybe, but def not 10”. Your guest does not seem to take into consideration the vast destruction of food crops in the US, Europe and Asia in the last three weeks. Last year, India’s entire wheat crop was destroyed in four days last summer. I have another acquaintance who was on the UN Climate panel and resigned because they so censored their findings so as not to offend their benefactors, ie. the US and Saudi Arabia, (who incidentally has final right of approval of the panel’s info releases. They prohibit mentioning fossil fuels as a causal factor in climate change”.
Most sea level rise from glaciers comes from ice berg calving events. You may see these huge ice bergs drifting to the sea where they melt away. Surface melt has less effect. (Pretty rare video footage...) Also melting happens mostly under the ice sheets, because warm ocean water reaches the lower layers of the ice shelves, while colder melt water sits on top. In Greenland there has been many surface lakes that has drained to the bottom of the ice sheet reducing friction and therefore allowing ice sheet to speed up toward ocean.
That's fine but it's not going to affect the sea level. The ocean is too big and there's not enough ice.
sea level rise. LOLOLOLOLOL. the sea and ocean is the same level it was 50 years ago
@@hamish1309 Glacial melting is not just raising the global sea level, it also effects the saltwater to freshwater ratio, the temperature, jet streams, the formation of hurricanes, tides, acidification, migration patterns of whales and dolphins, plankton and probably more things I'm not even aware of. Climate Change is much bigger and extensive than most can comprehend. Rising sea levels is just the "tip of the iceberg"...pun intended LOL. Not to mention that many glaciers hold permafrost which is essentially "ancient ice" that when released into the air, exude large amounts of CO2 and methane. It is essentially a domino effect that increases exponentially as tipping points are reached. Climate Change is no joke.
@@RobertMJohnson Glacial melting is not just raising the global sea level, it also effects the saltwater to freshwater ratio, the temperature, jet streams, the formation of hurricanes, tides, acidification, migration patterns of whales and dolphins, plankton and probably more things I'm not even aware of. Climate Change is much bigger and extensive than most can comprehend. Rising sea levels is just the "tip of the iceberg"...pun intended LOL. Not to mention that many glaciers hold permafrost which is essentially "ancient ice" that when released into the air, exude large amounts of CO2 and methane. It is essentially a domino effect that increases exponentially as tipping points are reached. Climate Change is no joke.
@@bgoodfella7413 sure bud. that must be why the global poverty rate is only declining and continues to do so, Earth's population has doubled in the past century and the weather isn't coming to murder me.
you're a cultist, a religious zealot, nothing more. you think you can foretell the future--have you stopped and thought about how insane that idea is?
Call me silly but conserving energy. Sounds like a good idea whether you believe in climate change or not. It’s always good to conserve your resources whether they be building materials or fuel or agricultural products.
Not when you’re the one selling them it isnt
That doesn’t mean climate change is an issue
Was looking for this type of comment. There are all kinds of good reasons to reduce energy consumption and switch to renewables. Climate change is not one of them, because nobody is affected by it in a way that swings individual preferences. You still need status symbols to get a wife, you still want to live in a big, comfy house because why else would you bust your ass working difficult jobs and long hours? All global warming adds to that is that you want AC where maybe you didn't think you needed it ten years ago, and your vacation preferences shift to other places.
Known fact the relationship between photons absorbed with concentration is logarithmic. Doubling the amount of a GHG might raise temperatures 1.2° C, but doubling again gets diminishing returns.
........and yet the average global temperature continues to rise on track with scientific research driven forecast and evidenced.
You haven't explained anything.
@@BrentonSmythesfieldsayeit hasnt really, we are still in our 2nd global warming pause since 1998, these days only strong el ninos manages to temporary heat earth for a year or two.
Good luck checking Richard's work, he's crazy smart. Found an error in the FORTRAN compiler. Lad .
my understanding about heat pumps: They give this 3 times ratio (3 times the heat for the same energy consumption) but if the outside temperature is very cold that ratio diminishes.
More importantly, if a thermal plant is producing this electricity, I need 3 BTU of heat at the plant to produce 1BTU of heat from an electric (resistive) heater (at the home) cancelling out the heat pump advantage. If the thermal plant uses gas or coal, the overall emissions will be higher than i.e. burning gas at your home for heat.
According to Peter Carter we are on track for IPCC RCP 8.5.
Absolutely.
But I recently saw that things in the renewable energy sector are moving faster than predicted. Prices going lower sooner, etc. So there is some hope?
WRT Air Con.... It just pumps heat from one place (inside the home) to another (outside the home). For Air Con to work, the home must be closed up.
The more air con used, the greater the urban heat island effect. which causes people to use more air con. and around we go. A positive feedback loop.
And quite a feedback loop it is!
The truth has been out there since the 70's we just have not been listerning! Its difficult when your faced with the most powerful industry in the world, and have just got even more powerful with the fuel crisis. But thanks for posting this import message!
Robert burkes 1989bbc doco "after the warming" was ignored.
Looking forward to the massive african starvation next year.
Ukraines crop blocked.
Frances crop lower.
Australias crop lower.
Americas crop drought.
Canadas crop burnt.
Difficult question, why might former ports such as Lewes in southern England now be 1 mile away from the coast, whereas in Roman Britain they were busy sea ports ?
Adults say what they want to say and don't try to trap someone into a discussion with a riddle.
So, what do you conclude about the fact you stated?
Ha! Are you implying the water level was so high that everything between the current coastline and Lewes was underwater? It was a port up a river, not a coastal town.
The UK is tilting over time as it is on a tectonic plate. West Coast of Wales has plenty of castles that were originally built on coast set more inland too.
and 15,000 years ago iceland was covered in ice. there was a time when greenland was green during the medieval warm period. the religion of gaia does not allow heresy. please keep any such observations to yourself. and please keep submitting your offerings to the new god.
Not knowing anything about Lewes, but assuming it's on the ocean coast there are three things that would distance it from a rising ocean:
1. Rapid uplift (perhaps from glacial compression rebound),
2. increased sedimentation, and/or
3. tectonic uplift such as a rapidly moving overlap fault.
Heat Geeks please interview Dr. Ye Tao regarding his Rowland Institute at Harvard funded MEER Project.
Very interesting discussion. 👌
I’m retired now, but my career was creating environmental/nature exhibits for science museums. We started putting information on climate change into exhibits in the late 1980s. As a SCUBA diver first certified in 1968, the biggest change I’ve seen is in the coral reefs of the Florida Keys that I first dove in the 1970s. Seeing the death of the 3rd largest reef system on earth has been soul crushing. I haven’t been since the 100 degree water temps there this summer. But I will force myself to do it. I was diving on Little Cayman Island in August (2023) and it was two weeks into a massive bleaching event when I got there. Grand Cayman had Stony Coral Tissue Loss Disease spreading along its coast, which originated in Miami. I spent my life trying to inform the public about environmental issues, and now I have to hand over that responsibility to the next generation. I feel like I tried and failed. But I do know that I tried. And that does matter. The planet is less alive than when I got here in 1950. It’s easily visible to me as I visit other places I knew in my youth, like the Florida Everglades. These changes in familiar places will become noticeable to you as well, if it hasn’t happened already. It seems to be speeding up. Take up the fight, it WILL be a comfort to you in your old age. I can’t imagine how I would feel if I’d done nothing.
On that CO2 equivalent chart, we are already at 500 ppm CO2 equivalent. Do the math. We have 320 ppb NO2 (~300x stronger than CO2), 1.92 ppm methane (~50x CO2 with estimate from 20x to >100x depending on weighting as it is strong but degrades relatives quickly compared to the others), and ~420 ppm CO2. When you ADD them as you should, we have exceeded 500 ppm *effective* CO2 levels which is what the chart represents. Not actuals. We are also now releasing methane in significant quantities from swamps, marshes, and "permafrost".
Hold on as we are in for a rough ride.
Seems like we’ll be taking this ride sooner, rather than later, too.
Seems to me that the population is going to go down drastically before the end of the century due to starvation and other issues. So as the population decreased emissions should go down.
Depopulation is apparently one of the goals of the World Economic Forum. Are the associated world leaders purposefully enacting policies that kill people? A possible example would be the covid pandemic. Was a deadly virus released on purpose? Were toxic vaccines knowingly produced? Each person needs to decide for themselves.
Don't worry, mother nature may of taken over emitting by then.
Cool death is always exciting in movies. Yes lets have more of that please.
@@catherinebutler1146 Well, The day After Tomorrow sucked a bit, but disasters of biblical proportions should be exciting. Everybody loved Mad Max 😀
Would be interesting to have a breakdown that distinguishes between natural and man- made factors - as well as thier interactions.
There are plenty just go and have a look., IPCC, met ofice, NASA etc etc. IF we look into natural factors we should be slipping into an ice ace in a few thousand years, instead of going towards a 3/ 6c warmer world by the end of the century. To give you an idea how big a change that is the last ice age was 6/9c cooler than pre-industrial.
You can estimate statistical probabilities, but in real terms they are indistinguishable. The weather is caused by the economy now.
@@Rnankn Not totally, since as one example measured rise in CO2 and its direct effects on temperature are well understood. And the normal fluctuations in CO2 in the atmosphere are known, and we have made that graph go more and more vertical.
In laymans terms..........
Premise 1 - Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
Premise 2 - The natural carbon cycle of the Earth is essentially a self balancing system. This slow natural process keeps carbon circulation, which includes CO2, roughly in balance. What is naturally emitted, is also naturally sequestered in roughly equal amounts and rates that keep things roughly in balance. This balance has resulted in a very stable global climate system over recent geological time span and allowed al living organisms to evolve and exist as we know them today.
Premise 3 - Fossil fuel based CO2 has been locked up deep in the Earth for millions of years and so not naturally part of the contemporary carbon cycle. (Note the word "contemporary")
Premise 4 - Over the last 200 or so years, humans have introduced long locked up CO2 from deep in the Earth into the atmosphere, adding it to the current carbon cycle.
Premise 5 - The natural carbon cycle cannot seguest the addition carbon dioxide that humans are unnaturally introducing into the atmosphere fast enough to compensate.
So....
Trees for example, are part of the current carbon cycle. Burning the wood of trees is not adding any CO2 to the current carbon cycle, since the tree is already part of the carbon cycle.
Compare this to extracting and freeing up fossil fuels based carbon that has been locked up deep inside the Earth, which is not naturally part of the current carbon cycle.
You should be able to work out the ramifications from there. In other words, the fossil fuel based CO2 that humans are introducing into the current carbon cycle is an unnaturally added and destabilizing contribution. We are currently unnaturally adding CO2 to the atmosphere, at a rate of around 36 gigatons annually (36,000,000,000 tons, it's a really big number!). Driving the planet towards an eventually higher equilibrium temperature, if and when we stop introducing additional CO2 into the atmosphere.
@@BrentonSmythesfieldsaye Thank you
I think it’s worth explaining in numbers why mitigating action on climate change is now so urgent. The remaining carbon budget which gives humanity a good chance of limiting global warming to +1.5 Celsius amounted to about 50 tonnes of CO2 per person in 2020 (there are almost 8 billion of us on the planet today). Here in the U.K. the average person produces around 10 tonnes of CO2 per year. So, as U.K. residents, our equitable share of this budget will be used up by 2025!
CO2 has never been as low as today, it's at 0.04% of the total atmosphere with nitrogen at 79% and water vapor . This is nothing but propaganda. What do you think global temps were in the Jurassic hum? Ever thought about that? Or during the Ice age. We are in an inter glacial period you be glad of it and burning fuels is helping green the earth. This guy is being juiced up by donations from rich people whose agenda is to kill off 2/3 rds of the pop. Cause they think you're stupid. And when i read all these comments man i gotta agree. you guys ARE stupid!
It's all about $cience versus Science and groupthink surrender to the WEF directives....
Can anyone explain how a halting of emissions would mean that the oceans suddenly stop warming up?
They don't stop warming up, since CO2 will continue to hinder the heat to get into the space.
First after decreased amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere one can expect that global warming will stop
I am afraid it will take more than this to persuade those who disagree. This amounts to, ‘We know what we are doing’. The problem is that self praise is no praise at all!
just about anyone who disagrees with climate change is probably willfully ignorant. the important thing is getting even a portion of the majority who do to take action and create change, because even the big corporations like Exxon know it’s happening, they have since before the general public, they just don’t care. this is why the people have to take action against the capitalist systems that want to burn the world for the money that they made up.
I love these guys. They ask all the questions laypersons want to know!
Maybe already commented but
After only 2 nights warmer than the days my vegetables stopped growing and producing and did not start again they didn’t die they just stopped growing….very terrifying. Plants need cooler nights than days.
No earthworms for two years in county and no fly larvae in trash cans all summer…I’m a horticulturist in NW GA
Most birds and bugs gone for decade.
We had a heatwave as well ( western canada ) and the night temp never went below 24 deg' celcius, for 2 weeks and all my plants suffered. ..they really need the cool at night. We still have lots of bugs.
@@WaningGibbous thank you for commenting. I had heard about the Zombie Forest in western Canada and assumed warm nights might be to blame. Search Plant DIF…old Hort technique to control growth of floral crops before hormones. We just decreased the day night temp difference. No one ever inverted them completely…turns out not so good
Oh and Merry Christmas
"Whew, It's hot outside"
"We're all gonna die"
"Brrrrr It's cold outside"
"We're all gonna die"
Hey, where did the fish go?
Great discussion and guest, very interesting. It's frustrating that we have the tools to make this happen, as a race we seem to be slow to react. Action happens once we are in a crisis rather than working towards to avoid it.
utter bullshit
As a race, I'd say we're astonishingly easy to mislead, and once mislead, won't admit our error and change course accordingly. "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." - Mark Twain.
As a species, we are vastly more efficient at destruction than we are at creation. This is nothing compared to how dismally inefficient we are at restoration of any kind. We were ALWAYS going to lose this game. We're just not built for it.
With sharp focus and reference to the fossil fuel industry, their adherents and ideological supporters, I refer you to a quote from Upton Sinclair........
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
This is why action has been inadequate. The continuous mischievous, clever and energetic misinfoprmation & disinformation campaigns orchestrated by the fossil fuel industry, have caused unfounded public confusion, obfiscation, uncertainty and conspiracy theories. That is where the problem has been, in conjuction with peoples gullibility to accept such campaigns on face value without a shred of evidence to support said mischievous campaigns.
All the old fuddy duddy oil men will be dead and gone by the time the really nasty stuff arrives. Their mischief in support of their own personal life time interest, at the expense of future generations, shows just how ethically and morally bankrupt humans can be when they put their mind to it.
In come the Oil Comapnies, who have SO much money to spend why not waste some of falling the worlds population on, all is OK don't worry.
My question to professor Betts is how is carbon dioxide able to cause cooling in the 1970s and also cause warming in our time? I need an explanation.
Aerosols caused the cooling in the 70s. We reduced the aerosols but not the GHGs.
I found a real climate scientist on CZcams talking about climate change! Amazing!
In the sixty odd years I've been around in haven't noticed the climate changing' sea level haven't risen at all around the UK' but I must admit it was pretty warm for two days this summer. Australian's have just said the great barrier reef is the healthiest it's been since records began.
Perhaps read the whole article and not just a headline: About half of the reefs were surveyed BEFORE the most recent coral bleaching event in February and March. Emslie said researchers won’t know the full extent of the coral cover lost from that event until next year.
From Australia - LOL
Thanks for stating the obvious. When their doomsday scenarios become untenable based on real life observation the alarmists will always resort to other tools in their toolbox including new models.
Just recently it was spawning and reports were that it is healthy and there is a new one growing not far from it. It was in some of the news here but not in those channels that are 'woke" channels and lean to the left.
I agree. At best, they're massively exaggerating. I think this story is being told in order to put terrible restrictions on people's lives and to depopulate. If it were true, the billionairnes wouldn't all be buying beach front properties.
FANTASTIC CONVERSATION GUYS!!
Unfortunately I had to wash the dishes and didn’t hear every word but I look forward to scaring the crapp out of everybody I can pin down and rant at for twenty minutes with all this cogent corroboration of my extant understanding of the situation, including professional sounding citations!!
Posted by not-Mardon acct user day 25, 2023
In 2021, The National Snow and Ice Data Center wrote on the current media propaganda: “The Greenland Ice Sheet had two extensive melt events in the second half of July. The second melt event had the sixth-largest melt area and fourth-highest runoff in the satellite record, which began in 1978". However the National Snow and Ice Data Center countered with: snow cover from earlier snowfall in early summer blunted the potential impact of the melting by limiting the exposure of bare ice and reducing runoff. The two events resulted in the 2021 season flipping from a net gain of ice to near-average net change. A full-context examination of the data shows only a tiny fraction of Greenland’s ice sheet is melting, and with very little impact-the exact opposite of what many climate activists claim.
So much land clearing going on around Houston, clearing land to build storage units, apartment blocks and housing estates.
The humanses gotta live somewhere. I'm a humanses meself as it happens and I know I do so I'm probably typical. I think I just hit on the issue right there, humanses.
Very good interview.Lots of information there.Thanks👏
Apart from the urban heat island effect, another important reason for reducing energy-use in homes is that it helps to reduce peak demand on renewable energy infrastructure, which will be a key part of the strategy for moving towards zero carbon.
Then you're lowering the standard of living.
@@Robert-cu9bm The standard of living needs to be lowered...Drastically.
@@driftlesshermit9731
Yeah let's do that and have poor people die.
You lower your standard of living and let the rest of us enjoy life.
@@Robert-cu9bm Not at all. Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I’m not talking about setting your thermostat to 16 degrees to use less energy. I’m talking about reducing energy demand by retrofitting energy saving measures that make homes easier to keep warm and improve indoor air quality. What I’m suggesting improves quality of life, physical health and mental health. It makes a renewable energy system plausible/robust, and it reduces the burden on the NHS. It’s an affordable thing for the government to subsidise and it would create a whole new sector, creating jobs and boosting the economy. But instead Lizard Truss wants to spend the money on fracking. The kindest thing I can say about her energy strategy is it’s a short-sighted.
@@driftlesshermit9731 depends on your definition of standard of living. In the context of renewable heating and energy I don’t really agree. See my response to Robert. In almost all other aspects of life, yes, we need to urgently cut back on consuming our planet’s resources.
Why was the climate around 3000 years ago really, really, higher than today ?
omg - are we still answering the questions like, " isn't CO2 plant food , So what's the problem?" this must make this guy's head explode ... we known this for 30 years ...
At 21:20 you can go very far (like I have 10 years) without "Go to University, study....." because it turns out that due to Internet thingy that just started 2-3 decades ago it's possible to advance considerably by looking for information there. I have GISP2 ice core O proxy measurements with date stamps on my computer going back 126,000 years that I downloaded 10 years ago. The measured temperature data sets are available for download (but I don't because it needs a software package to unpack). Incidentally, a list of the items studied from a (presumably typical) ice core briefly mentioned in video is at czcams.com/video/FqJLwJwndLI/video.html at 10:26
May the Anthroprocene epoch make the Permian-Triassic extinction event seem like a minor footnote in the pages of Earth's history. Here's to making scenario SSP5-8.5 of the IPCC assessment a reality.
Understated comment
That would mean the current 6th mass extinction will be the last because all life is likely to go extinct
Arctic news blog. We are over 2C now and with the El Nino and increased sun spots will most likely push us just over 3C. This doesn't include the added water vapor in the atmosphere by the Tonga volcano.
Your right😊
I live in a 19th century stone house in the country. I have oil central heating. A heat pump will be no good to me. Do you people suggest that people line myself freeze to death? There is no reason to completely eliminate oil.
Has anyone got a link for an accurate climate model that factors solar forces and has made accurate predictions based on past data?
To "answer" your puerile worn-out old point cunningly phrased in the form of a question (really had me fooled) to imply that you have some interest and are keen to be educated Mister Troll, all climate models factor in solar forcings of course. If your question really is "Do any climate models assume that an 80-year Grand Solar Minimum will start next Tuesday for no reason at all ?" the answer is a definite "No" because there's no reason to concoct such a stupid baseless prediction. If it happens it happens, it's unpredictable. There's no such thing as your pig-ignorant "solar forces" for Earth so obviously scientists don't "factor" it. GMST rise from models has been 5% above what's actually happened, not bad.
No but they have made many many false predictions. Like when they said that new york would be under water by 2020...
Accurate? Dream on
Start with the IPCC assessments that include the best info on all factors including solar data.
My question is how much will water vapour in the atmosphere and in storms/ extreme rain events increase as a result of the increased temperatures globally? To what extent is it impacting/ going to impact global sea level increases in the future? The reason I ask this is as I am unfamiliar with the progression of equatorial island reduction over the last few years? Finally, I personally have noticed (not a quantitative measure) cyclones and hurricanes being able to track further outside the traditional tropical boundaries as sea temperatures increase (main factor influencing their formation being a sea temperature above 27 degrees). In my unprofessional opinion if this is a true assertion these would be more destructive for population centers as the majority of people live in temperate zones. Please someone let me know as I have not heard anyone talk about the increase in water vapour either generally or specifically with regard to sea levels. The reason I ask this is due to the recent discovery of ocean acidification. Thanks in advance.
oh, and kudos for the introduction. It is good to see professionals being used as intended and as a resource to educate. So many opinions without any actual context in the professional sense is making it hard for people to make rational decisions regarding this issue.
Rod Christoffersen Water vapour (a transparent gas) in the atmosphere increases by 7% per degree so S.B. 7-8% now vis a vis 1875ish. The global rainfall has increased by 4% per degree but I don't yet know whether that's permanently +4% for every +7% water vapour transparent gas or whether it's that the global rainfall needs time to catch up with global water vapour. Global water vapour totals ~13 trillion tonnes and global water droplets & ice crystals in air ("clouds") I think is about 10% of that, so 90% is the transparent H2O "greenhouse gas" that's in the air between your eye balls and the screen you're reading this on (unless you're reading inside a Blast Furnace, in which case, get out quick !). I might be a bit off with the 10%:90% and I'll not plough through dozens of scientist talks I've seen-heard this summer to find the plot again. I don't know how much water in storms/ extreme rain events have or will increase as a result of the increased temperatures globally because that's a massive topic I can't calculate (the extremes of events) but I can inform there's ZERO water vapour in storms/ extreme rain events (your actual question) because water vapour is an invisible gas that's only 55% as dense as nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2) (average) so water vapour doesn't fall to Earth at all. What happens is that water vapour evaporates especially off the tropical ocean in the ITCZ (where most water vapour originates because ocean is always so warm all year) and rains and snows back down but a considerable portion simply rains back down onto the tropical ocean that it evaporated from. So the 13 trillion tonnes of global water vapour & water droplets & ice crystals is a layer of water 36 mm deep on the ocean so a 7.7% increase since ~1875 CE is an attempt to lower sea level by global average of 2.8 mm since ~1875 CE but of course that's totally overwhelmed by the ice loss & water expansion that added 3.6 mm / year for a few decade and then increased to 4.1 mm / year for 2012 to 2022. There's a global colour-coded pictorial animation of only the ice-loss portion of sea level rise (SLR) or fall from 2002-04 to 2014-04 (so it excludes the extra rise because of warming expansion) at czcams.com/video/nObqORopRNw/video.html at 14:45 to 16:35. It depends on what you mean by "recent" in "recent discovery of ocean acidification". The CO2 amount from surface to sea bed has been along the WOCE and GO-SHIP lines since 1990 of course. Those ships are floating laboratories.
Yeh ive been noticing our area is much warmer than usual in the mornings. I just hung my arse out of my sheets, blew a big fart out and the room was all cosy and warm again😊😊 then went back to sleep
You stated that going to e vehicles may be a solution without mentioning catastrophic outcomes of going to e cars and batteries
Great Britain has, as of yet, not been severely impacted by climate developments. I've know that, as stated, during this year there have been concerning effects and a couple years ago wildfire getting into peat. However, it will be quite a while before persistent fatal wet bulb temperatures are experienced. Actually, as the AMOC slows down or even arrests the region will enjoy the resulting tempering affects. Perhaps this explains the unperturbed manner of the guest emoting that we are still navigating a realm of conventionality.
From my research and following the news, it appears more and more to me that we are already involved with crisis situations that are having global impacts, both climatic and societal. Due to significant amplification at the poles, which is an expected occurrence as identified during the mid Miocene warming event analog, the northern hemisphere polar jet stream derangements are resulting in very challenging local amplifications. Subsequently, we are experiencing increasing feedbacks beyond the very high levels of societal emissions. These feedbacks are not only coming out of natural reservoirs, but also from necessary societal adaptations, responses and mitigations to various major impacts. Also, we are on very thin ice in regard to society's continuing capacity to respond sufficiently as norms deteriorate. Climate stress is a factor in increasing global tensions, including the threat of nuclear exchange. As well, ongoing warfare, such as in Ukraine and Yemen, along with other militaristic impositions, don't help.
Beyond the effects mention above, I don't think the models adequately address compounding developments, such as more frequent and far reaching delivery of heat to higher latitudes by atmospheric rivers; the already measurable beginnings of stratoaccumulus cloud decks migration away from customarily very beneficial positioning over equatorial waters, as dew points occur higher in both altitude and latitude; the high risk of abrupt and large releases of methane from both natural gas plays and destabilized methane hydrates residing under rather thin and deteriorating subsea permafrost, as predicted for the vast and shallow, 50 m deep, East Siberian Arctic Ocean Shelf.
Peter Wadhams in his recent expedition observed that water temperatures and methane releases to the atmosphere have increased significantly. He contends that there is already enough benthic heat to overcome the endothermic reticence to destabilization. Additionally, I've read that there is a threshold temperature at which massive destabilization can occur. I think it was Peter Wadhams that observed Arctic sea ice too thin to even walk on safely during his recent expedition there. As ice cover declines, enhanced albedo that it provides is in very rapid decline. Apart from Peter Wadhams, there are others who have repeatedly conducted observations there over many years and are very concerned that critical temperatures may soon be reached in concert with the shelf permafrost becoming riddled by taliks.
Or as occurred during the last interglacial, the Eemian, when the AMOC arrested as the result of rapid Arctic ice melting from warmer temperatures along the coast of Africa likely caused the significant release of methane from hydrates that were there destabilized as described in this linked article: www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/08/24/methane-hydrates-ocean-global-warming/
Do the models include decline of sinks, such as mature forests, or oceanic floor sediment carbonate sequestration? Do they factor in that the CO2 equivalent value for methane when it's residence in the atmosphere keeps increasing should be an instantaneous value between 150 to 200 times that of CO2 rather than the 20 year average value of 84?
So many big words that you don't even understand. Too much to unpack here. Let's start with polar amplification. Of what? Sound? Light? And feedback? Sounds like you've been to a few too many concerts.
The ice in the Arctic is too thin to walk on now? You've obviously never lived where it snows in winter.
@@woodspirit98 Amplification of warming effects of the upper atmosphere. Jetstream s changing direction and having higher latitude reach by extending the wave it forms as it goes around the earth between the equator and the arctic. When it slips down low in winter it allows arctic air further down like what creates severe cold fronts over the USA. We had a couple of those lately, last year or 2020 was a strong arctic dump - I think? In summer the jetstream allows warm tropic air to go closer to the arctic in the waves it forms - melting Greenland/Iceland and Arctic ice quicker and more extensively - and the Russian arctic tundra as well. Feedback comes from the effect of warm air and loss of ice over the sea allowing more heat from the sun to penetrate to the surface and be absorbed by open sea and land. Also the release of methane adds to the effect of CO2 already in the atmosphere.
I am no teacher, anyway, so educate yourself by doing some reading, and you will get hold of the bigger words quickly. Plenty of websites, books and research papers coming out by reputable Unis and educators. Plenty of evidence for the skeptic crowd to try and dismiss or try and argue against. But these days just looking out the window can convince most people that the concensus of relevant scientist and Unis are spot on.
Oh, and the crust of ice covering the Tundra melts and get thin so animals like reindeer etc can't migrate normally - and humans neither. When the surface softens, you break through to the peat and moss underneath - sticky gooey stuff, which hamper walking unless you have the right gear...
I follow Peter Wadhams, love him! Also I would have thought the UK can close to wet bulb effects during the heatwave this summer, plus there were increased fatalities around this time...
My worry is also that things are moving faster than the research papers, let's all remember: research papers take some 2 years before they are written and peer reviewed.
@@chrisvanschalkwyk1455 There are so many oblivious people with their heads constantly bowed to the cell phone it's hard to know where to begin. The effects are manifestly obvious if only one cares to look.
In Australia heating is not the concern, cooling is!
How cool are your wildfires? Just asking because they looked pretty hot and horrific. Think your wildlife may disagree with you
@@missseeingthesights
Very Australia doesn't have wildfires, bushfires on the other hand.
But let's not forget these are human causing them not the climate.
Yes you keep telling yourself that... everything's gonna be just fine
@@missseeingthesights Everything IS just fine! Yes we have floods and fires and cyclones, and if one chooses to reside in such regions one should know the rest. Meanwhile I picked my spot next door to the cemetery. So I can do my morning walk at sunrise and yell out “ Rise and shine”!
Hmm... 20k years ago sea levels were 360ft below where they are today, hunter gatherers roamed the Sahara 5k-7k years ago, the Norse were farming Greenland 1000 years ago and we've had interglacials with warmer temperatures than what we have today. So, 2c of extra warming will be curtains?
Very good analysis and explanations
Hi! Great content! Would you be able to share the data source for the graph that plots the RCP scenarios with our current trajectory?
The trajectory would be in the stratosphere and the data is gobbledygook as you probably know,
My biggest issue is that after I have objectively researched past climate change, there really doesn't seem to be anything we can do about it. Just one super volcano or meteor can make all our hard work moot. I am personally a skeptic, not that it's happening, just that our usual hubris as a species to think we can not only affect climate negatively but affect it at ALL is our usual MO and should be taken as such... Maybe getting multiple opinions and trying to prevent the damage through protective infrastructure is a better option? As we saw with the pipeline sabotage, stupid things like that can add 20 years of methane (from cars produced in the USA as a comparison) into the atmosphere in just a few days... Volcanoes are the same. The earth literally has its own system that we can not change. Are you going to cool down the core of the earth? Are you going to harness the sun and reign in its activity? Gonna stop the magnetic polar shift from happening that we are in the middle of right now!? What can WE actually do that isn't almost a joke after taking big earth changes into account? Plus, the new Panorama episode on renewable energy being a sham and catching them burning ancient forests for renewables, should tell you the heart of these "activists"... They are all in it for the money. Watch "Planet of The Humans" by Michael Moore... See what's up with that. It's all BS.
"Gonna stop the magnetic polar shift from happening that we are in the middle of right now!?" did it not happen a while back already? Looked at an analogue compass.
@@imwhiskerzthecat it’s only 20% shifted. The main shift will happen very fast (as prior data shows). It starts slowly and picks up speed as it gets closer to the flip, then straight up flips. Right now it’s kind of shifting and moving around. This isn’t talked about much, but don’t you think it’s strange that we barely find any civilizations older than 11k years BP? I mean, we know that they had to have existed because we find stray artifacts that have serious technology involved, but are dating 40-200k years BP! What happened to them? Why are large mammals found flash frozen in place? By the thousand and in large groups as though grazing and ended up frozen where they stood! Many of us see the different data pockets and pull them together with our ancestors writings and see something catastrophic happens. We theorize that when the poles shift, it opens us up to the suns plasma and causes major major cataclysm (major part of this is climate change that we see happening now, and slowly for now but it shows in the ice core data to happen very fast at times, as short as 5 years many times throughout world history). Wiping EVERYTHING out. Look into it. Seriously.
@@ElectroCouture If it is something of this magnitude - can humanity really affect that? I think not, if that's the case. I'd say humans need to realize that you all are brothers and help those of you, who are the worst affected. Live modestly and reject excesses and luxury. Most of you are like this already, apart from the greediest few, who are also the most arrogant.
Electro Couture Presents: Our House Your "to think we can .... affect it at ALL is our usual MO and should be taken as such" is imbecilic worthless ignorant babbling. Your statement that you've ZERO interest in the science and will never be studying is at all is NOT a worthwhile scientific opinion from you. It's just the usual useless thing, what's correctly called "wilful ignorance" and "argument from incredulity". A person who puts that forward as a counter argument is a total idiot yet that's what the entity starting this thread did.
I would like to know is how a balance can be created between the emissions inevitable from the industrial production of energy saving products, and an increased use of these products by the public? I do feel that to really curb global warming, we would have to drastically change the whole way we live, not just by adapting more appropriately to the inevitable global warming already under way, but also by reducing industrial output of energy consuming products. I don't think there are any easy answers. I think that very few people would really want to return to a more primitive lifestyle
The recent Volcanic eruption in the Pacific has been a major contributor to cold and floods in Australia. No one speaks of the recent grand solar minimum either. Many so called wild fires are deliberately lit folks. The ones in Australia were part due to lightening strikes, others were deliberately lit and GREEN policies prevented the removal of undergrowth in the off season. In the east and south east of Australia we are experiencing a very cold Spring with rain, thunder storms etc. 12 years ago Prof Tim Flannery stated that dams in Australia would dried out by the 2020s...nothing could be further from the truth. The world will not end and as long as China and India build more coal fired power station this whole campaign is a bloody farce!
I love optimists The ice class at Greta's site explains the truth were toast well before 2030. Pity the head of the Met can't do math.
I don't know what you are referring to, but I agree that predictions are always conservative and have turned out to be wrong.
Concervative? From the 1995 IPCC report we should have had 1 deg C of warming by 2020 yet it was only 0.1deg C.
People have made up their minds. Facts don't matter and a combination of overwhelming tasks, inherent laziness and fun distractions prevent effective action. Some "smart" person said warming has only been a tenth of a degree, yet the 1750 baseline originally used show its nearlg 2 degrees. Clearly we measure "smart" differently depending on who you voted for in the last election, and not actual history or data. All life will be extinct in well under a decade and "smart" people would spend at least 3 seconds/day doing something effective to prevent that and won't, which sums up human intelligence perfectly.
@@nigelliam153 I think 0.1 degree C of warming in 2020 reflects a radical moving of the yardstick.
Doesn’t matter how many letters after the name, I don’t trust anyone whose career and funding is dependent on him staying close to the narrative.
Right, like your an expert. You listen to those who,s pay check depend on the fossil fuel industry. This guy would get paid no matter if it happens or not. Plz educate yourself
@@nobody687 Look into "solar forcing" "solar cycles" and historic levels of C02. Also, look into dropping sea levels at the polls. Then, pick up a Bible, 'cause Jesus is coming!
@@sporqfoon5989 it was a 122 degrees in Canada. OH I have tp. Superstition is the last thing I need. See a psychiatrist . And your not a climate scientist. Don't play one
@@nobody687 Arrogance and ignorance are a terrible combination.
@@sporqfoon5989 I agree, read a book. A science book. Nothing more ignorant and dangerous than superstitious ambition. And stop huffing leaded gasoline
"If we were to stop all CO2 emissions today, temperatures would stop rising" but millions would die of cold (lack of heating) and starvation (lack of fertilisers and pesticides, and no trucks to transport food to us ), sickness (no energy to run our hospitals), etc, etc. .
How typical of human beings that we think we're smart enough to identify a problem correctly and then come up with a solution that wont cause more harm, given that the people at the top are more interested in expanding wealth and power?
I am naturally sceptical but my mind is not closed. I am happy to be persuaded by evidence. So I have many questions about the warming climate. Here are a few of them.
“Its making the earth too hot now”. ‘Too hot’ is a value judgement. Too hot for what?
Do you ever discuss the idea of saturation of CO2 effect? This seems to me to be a very reasonable subject for debate. Will the next 5% of CO2 increase have the same degree of warming as the previous 5%, or is there a degree of saturation of its warming effect?
According to some sites, satellite data, shows that there has been a pause in the heating of the earth for the past 7, almost 8 years. Am I correct in thinking this?
Too hot and or humid to stay alive.
*I'm not an expert*
"Too hot for what?"
Look up wet bulb temperature.
Maybe you can say where that satellite data is coming from?
Data from all official sources including earth based weather stations show a continued escalation. It's even obvious to the untrained eye that shit is really hitting the fan.
Its reasonable to be sceptical when none of the many dire predictions over the years have come to pass. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that there is no warming , e.g. the exponential growth of CO2 does not correspond with even the climate alarmists interpretation of warming (if you accept hat). Why do they measure temperature in airports (hottest day was measured at Heathrow and Gatwick), and ignore increases from temperature from increasing urban areas? Some of the monitoring stations have been surrounded by urbanisation, some next to air con units, there does not seen to be any adjustment for these. I could go on.
@@BelugaMike can you tell me which "dire predictions" had a global scientific consensus and didn't come true?
For instance we stopped using CFC's in many products after the scientific consensus decided that CFC's were destroying the protective ozone layer, and skin cancer would become prevalent, it is now almost repaired.
Clearly not made up by Big Sunoil Corp.
@@jamesgrover2005 the ice age scare in the seventies. More recently they changed it from global warming to climate change to account for variations in temperature. There really are loads, people should look for themselves because this false alarmism is costing dearly.
The only thing anyone wants to hear from climate change deniers from this moment forward is "I was wrong about climate change, and I apologize."
If they don't say that, then they should just, pardon my rudeness, SHUT UP ALREADY!
Can we get an apology from the climate alarmists saying that the Seychelles would be underwater by now and all the other catastrophic things they've predicted with stratospheric inaccuracy?
I gived both arguing a thumbuppy because the coal/oil shill Trolls like the random KennethTheGreekGod thing here and also the Doomer lazt stupid arse holes are ALL sickening (BOTH social-wealth-only-interest teams).
We need apologies from doomers and deniers for arguing inaction
30:54 "we are not past some tipping point...." Do you foresee any scenario in which the Arctic Ocean will refreeze? And the permafrost?
@28:38 "home heating systems ...biggest challenge we have" I would say the biggest challenge (energy wise) that we face is replacing the baseload electrical generation capacity we are taking off-line. So far all we have done is close coal fired plants and replaced them with natural gas fired plants, just one fossil fuel to another.
But those gas powered plants make it easier to use renewables since they are more quickly available and can fill in renewable through more readily.
This has been a very worthwhile video to watch. Having a bona fide expert on to speak directly to the problem, its causes, and steps that we can take to relieve the problem gives me confidence that I'm getting factual information. It is a hopeful message too! "We are not past some tipping point which ... is going to get out of control. We can still solve this."
yes but we're right on the edge, if governments worldwide don't get their act together _immediately_ we _will_ be over the edge.
We have to vote for better governments.
Russia has 45 ice breakers, Canada has 23 , usa has a few , china even has 2 I think. Anyway that's a lot of big tankers breaking up ice up in the artic. I haven't notice any conversations on that. And that I think makes sense that it's a big deal.
Also I think a big deal is our ability to have conversations and not lump everybody into these general labels. For example anyone who questions certain solutions often get lumped into climate change deniers or whatever.
I think the solutions are there in aggregates but out leaders and decision makers seem to only want solutions that make money and keep everyone in a control state. An example is energy efficient appliances - an old fridge can be made energy star by metric with a capacitor - a new machine would likely have added mechanical efficiencies to be fair , however electrically only a capacitor is needed for quite significant savings. However people get incentives to throw out an old fridge and replace with a new one - like really? This is how we do science... It's a facade. Our social system is facades and scapegoating. Sexy solutions that are not accountable.
To me technological inclusivity is the only way to save us. All of our tools and resources come from nature - so why can't we access it? We won't be able to evolve our public discourse with facades and scapegoating. We will have to listen to people without getting triggered and throwing fits if they don't speak out language. I think the average person is capable of doing things and making decisions if we can actually include them in our solutions. If we can make some presentations and also allow for questions and differences. There are few universals and climate solutions are very context based. We need everyone on board - tondo that we need techno inclusivity by functionally transparent presentations. That's my soft propaganda from love not for love! Cheers :)
The ice closes back up behind ice breakers , refreezes too. And they can't break multi year ice. And can't do much in the winter. The fact that big oil has lied paid off politicians, bought and shelved new technologies that would have helped. Unfortunately the real temperature rise is currently at 1.6 c. The ocean has already passed its tipping point. The artic is at its now . Antarctic is at its . Once the methane bomb goes off. We're done. Which could happen any time now. Check out ocean heat content and thermal inertia.
@@nobody687 why would they continue to do this then? Are they meant to just go ahead of big ships? I guess my main point is a holistic presentation. Which is a problem with everything - we need functional transparency and inclusivity. debates are great but without positioning and common ground we get we get what we have now : total relativism and by our decision makers at that. disinformation is a problem and out leaders are as guilty as anyone else. And Trump as a scapegoat or hero is soo distracting. Haha. Neo-liberal capitalist value systems or whatever social organization we have is not accountable and do not show there work - that is authoritarianism. And claiming to have one truth is totalitarianism. But public discourse and even discourse on the streets , we can't seem to talk about love or curruption. Everyone gets triggered all the time. I think we need info maps that is the way to be inclusive and to not be deterred. Ex: I was al uppity about ice breakers - a legitimate concern, however I don't know all the details, there could be a space for that - a map and we could add points to that and where there is disagreements. We can use common ground and we can use different versions of indexes to point to where people might have legit concerns that perhaps could be easy enough to show. So then I might be like : oh ok, I see it perhaps isn't as big of a deal as I thought. Not a massive amount of resources to solve that problem . But then we spend trillions on muddying up the truth and pointing to other peoples flaws whilst removing self out of equation... I don't know how anyone can win if it's the best of me vs. the worst of you all the time. Facade n scapegoating is a trillion dollar industry. Not listening and lack of inclusion in socio-cultural technology and resource procurement is another trillion dollar industry in tandem.... Ya I'm still worked up because we have solutions in aggregate but basically refuse to share and show work. I do appreciate your reply I will add - so thank you for that. And PS I am working on solutions. Actually the above example is part of a workbook I'm working on - how to collaborate and find common ground with process maps and common grounding. Basically attuning 3d space , with time space (4d) and mental space (5d). Hopefully soon we will have space to put our first foot forward and be able to operate in vulnerable space hey! Because all of our problems necessarily will involve everyone to some extent. We're not all idiots - it just takes some time to attune to languages, rituals, technological contexts , etc. Anyways peas!
Well the ships themselves, like all ships, are a problem but is their designation as ice breakers really relevant to anything in this context?
All they do is a temporary increase in the surface area of the ice, assuming the temperature is low enough it will simply re-form. They are ice breakers not ice melters.
Everybody making predictions about what part of the earth will become uninhabitable, while Richard Alley told me that it is called climate chaos for a reason. An unpredictable jet stream and atmospheric rivers, and "hot dry winds that can come down like a blow dryer out of the sky and create a desert anywhere "
Does anyone seriously think that banks and building societies would still be offering 40year or lifetime mortgages if they thought we were going to be under water by then. They dont seem to think there is much of a crisis. Remember the old Roman adage "Follow the money". By the way if there ever was a "Tipping point" it would have happened long ago and we woulndn't be here now.
Let me absorb your logic, you’re suggesting that banks are the leading indicator for the socio-economic future? Remember 1929?
True story, there are current heat waves on Jupiter from recent solar activity. Makes you think about how much energy the solar wind impacts on our atmosphere.
This guy is amazing. You are not basing your "science" on data... You are basing it on flawed "models"
What do you think models are based on?
@@elephantintheroom5678 a special interest narrative of very rich people to impose rulership over the entire population of poor hungry and freezing population.
@@petneb How dreary.
@@elephantintheroom5678 bull-shit
I seen the sun burn things in my yard and next door, all summer. Horrific.
Good video, no crazy predictions just good logical facts, but no solutions. We still can't discuss the fact that (currently) nuclear power is the world's best chance to mitigate AGW. The United States of course is screwed but the rest of the world can, and hopefully will continue to develop more nuclear base load generation.
For the sake of the argument, let's say that all plants would grow better and produce more usable product with a higher atmospheric concentration of Carbon dioxide (apparently not true but let's go with it for now). The other thing that global warming does (which is a result of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide) is to disrupt the distribution of rainfall and it's intensity along with the intensity and duration of droughts. The ideal climate has gentle rainfall events drifting around the world, interspersed with sunny periods. This boom and bust that we are already seeing with either rainfall events or droughts getting stalled over a given area does nothing for production even if, under former climatic conditions, extra Carbon dioxide would have been a good thing.
For the northern hemisphere, yes.
Great video Adam - whilst policies will raise awareness to joe public about the carbon issues what typically matters to individuals is the £ cost which is usually focused on the capital. Acknowledged there are grants to subsidise this but uncertainty over consumption costs makes the carbon benefits difficult for joe public to buy into - appreciate the answers to this is political but is frustrating the excellent work you guys do! Keep it up bro and let’s hope for progress!
Joe public needs to wise up and ask why the atmosphere is not warming faster (and hotter) than surface temperatures. Obvioulsy thermodynamic heat flow is only from hot to cold so the heat buildup must be greater first in teh atmosphere for the theory to be correct.
The "CO2" problem is that it stays in the upper atmosphere for decades and decades and decades (half a century and more), so it accumulates, and continues to make things worse. It's insidious.
The other part is that the temperature change effect is very slow, so it's only those who are in their later years that remember the climate in the 60's, 70's, 80's and how much the weather has changed since (e.g. remembering Frostbite when building the M62 over the Pennines).
Then there are the naysayers with their YT videos - You can't simulate the pertinent CO2 effects in an hour, in a plastic bottle!
The true cause is ice-sheet albedo.
Read paper: ‘Modulation of Ice Ages by Dust and Albedo’.
And this dust feedback works as well in the modern era (dust from China), as it did during the ice ages.
Ralph.
If a scientist ignores the aerosol masking effect, I won't waste my time listening to them.
So you want lots more pollution to block the sun while filling the ocean with carbonic acid? 😂
Agreed, but not all scientists know everything, they are often just experts in what they study, just like you wouldn't get a cancer medic to perform brain surgery
@@speculawyer speculawyer, without those aerosols being emitted by burning hydrocarbons, the planet would get much warmer within a few weeks. So, we are damned if we stop burning fossil fuels and we are damned if we don't - just a bit later.
You mentioned WAR. Can you give an accurate breakdown of how much CO2 is released for every shell, bullet, missile, bomb, etc. I suppose gas powered pop guns are out?
Don't ask those sort of questions! If anyone still believes the narratives the media pushes after the covid travesty, they're beyond help.
He mentioned war because of the distraction it creates for a government and it's people to not work on reducing climate change. And possibly because the military isn't very efficient. Actually, something nobody talks about: the US military is the single organization with the biggest emission of CO2 in the whole world.
Two centuries of nuclear winter will solve all our problems. Here's hoping for a spectacular nuclear WWIII.
The problem with the current nasty little shooting match in eastern Europe is that it is a distraction from fixing the larger problems facing life on this planet. At a stroke we have reversed all the emissions reduction gains from the last decade. Not only that the (somewhat limited) resources Russia was putting into controlling the vast wild fires in Siberia have been re-tasked elsewhere. The great northern forest is potentially a more significant resource in terms of CO2 absorption and oxygen production than the Amazon and losing country-sized chunks of it year on year is only going to accelerate climate change.
@@fletches4084 it also has sped up transition to new forms of energy production, so maybe bad short term and good long term ?
On the 'CO2 in ice cores' discussion, Betts fail to mention that ice core studies show that paleo temperature rises PRECEDED rises in CO2 concentration by around 600 years! Al Gore also failed to mention this in his film when he just said "the relationship between CO2 and temperature is complicated". It was his way of omitting the Inconvenient Truth.
The lack of patterns is the new weather patterns.
The thing that always gets me is we've been "five years away from total ecological collapse" for at least 50 years.
Hi Adam, thanks for the great discussion! I agree with you on everything but one point! You say that if you don’t believe CO2 emissions are contributing to the greenhouse effect that there would be no point electrifying and improving efficiency and sustainability. I strongly disagree on this one. I believe that the financial incentive and opportunity for future economic growth makes it worth electrification, even without considering CO2 emissions. Being able to get a machine to do work or transport a human or heat/cool a building more efficiently and sustainably WILL lead to greater business opportunity for greater profits and lower prices. It’s a win win un my eyes, I don’t believe the nihilistic view on decarbonisation - I see massive opportunity and it gives me hope for our future!
That said, I believe that CO2 emissions must add a level of urgency above and beyond what would have happened if the market was left to its own devices.
@@yscol1313 As you think that CO2 is the demon
STOP BREATHING and do yourself a favour
You exhale 40.000 ppm = 4% with every breath
No CO2 = No life
I wonder what is SO BAD about living in a world without noisy, polluting internal combustion engines, where one can hear the birds sing and smell the flowers....and live in insulated houses that are neither too warm in summer nor too cold in winter. Sounds terrible to me.....no wonder some people don't want change!!
People forget biggest carbon footprint is manufacturing, what’s carbon footprint of removing perfectly good condensing boiler associated pipe work and materials to install ashp with associated pipe work etc .
@@Sean006 what is wrong is these lunatics who love to manipulate and lie and these townie idiots believe them
No mention of near term habitat collapse leading to catastrophic crop failures.
Hard when someone suggests they are talking to a leading climate expert that doesn't know how to ask the right questions,, ,it's like listening to someone scratching a chalk board with their nails....we are doomed if people that that are totally clueless...
Yes extremely for me. But it depends on target audience. Most target audience will have ~zero science & mathematics education & brain functioning (like 1% of a scientist's-worth) so to sort-of-educate (more like inculcate with good-enough catch phrases) that huge target audience needs a Host who's pretending to be thick or is actually thick. So in that case it's far better to have a Host who says like (I'm making this up, it's not this video) "So, if things are heated their temperature rises right ? Or is that backwards ?)" or something equally moronic mimicking the target audience so's the scientist can give a quick, simple, basic explanation. Rather than listening to Kerry Emanuel lecturing to a group of other climate scientists, with well-known experienced ones filling the front row of the audience, and then schooling another climate scientist at the end who claimed he was wrong about something (it was beyond me to follow) by "answering the question posed" in the Q&A portion at the end (the sort of technical lecture-talks I've studied with for 9.5 years). A Climate Adam (a bloke I find hyperactive childishly annoying) and also some other bloke I've forgotten even do video tricks where he splits himself into 2 images and one image asks stupid questions or classic "Denier" Troll points (Devils Advocate) and then the "scientist" image of the same bloke answers itself. Thick Host questioning & Knowledgeable Scientist answering actually being one and the same bloke.
It's amazing to speak about sea level rise, while NEXT YEAR agriculture is far from straight forward. Please focus on what is killing people now. Water and food. Drought, flood, forest fires, conditions that forbid agriculture in bread baskets, etc. one degree (we passed that) is enough to commit to 7 meters of sea level rise but this takes a long times (probably 800 years) I worry about food next year. FOOD NEXT YEAR : Pakistan flood, drought in India, drought in China, drought in California, France agriculture output down 17%, Ukraine and Russia war, FOOD NEXT YEAR !!
It is interesting to hear a renowned meteorologist use the words forecast and prediction as if they are interchangeable.
At which time-slot precisely? And why do you think this is a "gotcha": it seems a semantic matter to me?
To anticipate a possible answer: one might conceive of three different manners of "telling in advance" the measurement outcome of a certain physical quantity X in an experiment. 1) Predicting the outcome by giving a single number for what X is going to be. 2) Predicting the outcome by giving a number interval wherein X should end up. 3) Giving a probability distribution for what X is going to be. This probability distribution has unbounded support but small probability for 'extreme' outcomes.
I'm afraid to break it to you that science has to settle with option 3 virtually always. So I don't see any substantial scientific/metaphysical basis for distinguishing between "predicting" and "forecasting".
@@5th_decile The 'gotcha moment' is yours. I am merely pointing out that even those who are at pains to tell you that a weather forecast is not a prediction slip into confusing the two.
Really showing your true colours here Roger
None of these man made climate change claims and predictions have been proven, not one !
I really just hope for nature to be better after we are gone, we have been a cruel virus to this beatyful planet, and we have hurt everything around us, I can find peace in knowing that we be gone.
Well done. Thank you.