The Many Errors of An Inconvenient Truth
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 06. 2023
- A story of science, media, and the gulf between. Get Nebula using my link for 40% off an annual subscription: go.nebula.tv/simonclark
Watch The Colorado Problem on Nebula: nebula.tv/videos/wendover-the...
An Inconvenient Truth is a documentary film from 2006 by Al Gore. The year after it was released it was hauled in front of the UK high court, and found to be riddled with errors. What are these errors, and what can they tell us about climate science?
Kat's guest video: • The ultimate fluid mec...
Thomas' guest video: • The fatal flaw in The ...
REFERENCES:
1. elaw.org/content/uk-stuart-di...
2. www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploa...
3. www.theguardian.com/environme...
4. www.sciencedirect.com/science...
5. interactive.carbonbrief.org/p...
6. www.nature.com/articles/natur...
7. agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.c...
8. www.geo.umass.edu/climate/tan..., note that Kilimanjaro is interesting: precipitation patterns have shifted, but this seems to be in response to natural climate change
9. www.nature.com/articles/s4159...
10. www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/do...
11. www.science.org/doi/10.1126/s...
You can support the channel by becoming a patron at / simonoxfphys
--------- II ---------
More about me www.simonoxfphys.com/
My second channel - / simonclarkerrata
Twitter - / simonoxfphys
Insta - / simonoxfphys
Twitch - / drsimonclark
--------- II ---------
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com
Some stock footage courtesy of Getty.
Edited by Luke Negus. Thanks to Matt Lazo for their work helping compile the literature for this project.
This video is about An Inconvenient Truth, the documentary film by Al Gore about climate change, global warming, carbon emissions and sea level rise. We talk through the Dimmock court case that led to a judge ruling An Inconvenient Truth was inaccurate in nine ways and changing its distribution to schools. Is An Inconvenient Truth propaganda? No, but Al Gore is making a political point in An Inconvenient Truth.
Huge thanks to my supporters on Patreon: Quinn Sinclair, Ebraheem Farag, Fipeczek, Mark Moore, Philipp Legner, Zoey O'Neill, Veronica Castello-Vooght, Heijde, Paul H and Linda L, Marcus Bosshard, Liat Khitman, Dan Sherman, Matthew Powell, Adrian Sand, Stormchaser007 , Daniël Sneep, Dan Nelson, The Cairene on Caffeine, Cody VanZandt, Igor Francetic, bitreign33 , Rafaela Corrêa Pereira, Thusto , Andy Hartley, Lachlan Woods, Andrea De Mezzo.
Christian Weckner, Frida Sørensen, Ned Funnell, Corné Vriends, Aleksa Stankovic, Indira Pranabudi, Chaotic Brain Person, Simon H., Julian Mendiola, Woufff, Ben Cooper, Mark Injerd, dryfrog, Justin Warren, Angela Flierman, Alipasha Sadri, Calum Storey, Riz, The Confusled, Conor Safbom, Simon Stelling, Gabriele Siino, Ieuan Williams, Tom Malcolm, Brady Johnston, Rapssack, Kevin O'Connor, Timo Kerremans, Thomas Rintoul, Lars Hubacher, Ashley Wilkins, Samuel Baumgartner, ST0RMW1NG 1, Morten Engsvang, Cio Cio San, Farsight101, Haris Karimjee, K.L, fourthdwarf, Sam Ryan, Felix Freiberger, Chris Field, ChemMentat, Kolbrandr, , Shane O'Brien, Alex, Fujia Li, Jesper Koed, Jonathan Craske, Albrecht Striffler, Jack Troup, Sven Ebel, Sean Richards, Kedar , Alastair Fortune, Mat Allen, Colin J. Brown, Mach_D, Keegan Amrine, Dan Hanvey, Simon Donkers, Kodzo , James Bridges, Liam , Wendover Productions, Kendra Johnson. - Věda a technologie
This is so interesting, and a great reminder that climate communication need not be sensationalised, as the objective truth is powerful in and of itself.
muuuuuuuuuh climate crisis
fucking npcs
@@Noqtis GFY, denialist.
But you get more grant money if you sensationalize things.
@@jeffw7382 Could you cite some cases of this? I've been involved in grant processes for over four decades, and found a great aversion for sensationalism. Further, by far the largest source of grant funding in the world, committees of the US Congress, have been controlled by Republicans and representatives from coal and oil states, showing clear regulatory capture by the fossil sector, and in no way attracted to sensation. James Hansen's well-known suppression by the US government, the funding of denialists like UAH's weather satellite team of Spencer and Christy whom have been found manipulating NASA data to hide the rise eleven times without professional repercussion, in addition to publicly vowing as part of the Cornwall Alliance to deny all evidence for climate change, and on and on tells us you're making a claim that is audaciously wrong.
@@jeffw7382 more if you muddy and/or deny it....
Perhaps you could do a video examining all of the predictions by climate scientists, and how accurate they have been?
That's what I was expecting based on the title.
I only think the sea level issues aren’t fully understood and might not be 100% right by the scientists, because we don’t understand the amount of groundwater.
Ben Santer did something like this years ago, an exhaustive survey of every prediction reported by the IPCC.
95% of projections of harm turned out to be too conservative; the actual changes and losses were larger than predicted, often by orders of magnitude, and faster, nineteen times in twenty.
There have been many, and all have been wrong. Done! 😊
Just kidding. I'd like to see such a video too -- but the bottom line will be as I stated.
Perhaps they could do a video comparing climate scientists today and Exxon’s scientists from the 1950s that accurately predicted the global changes we’ve been experiencing. And then we could follow it with a slow roll of every congressional delegation from every fossil fuel state, one by one - so folks know who to vote against?
The big companies don't want you to hold them accountable. ever. for anything.
Polar bears swim very well, in fact. Inuit have observed over decades seeing them well out to sea swimming and hunting, since water in the summer is a fact of life for them. I would also note that there exists lots of data around sea levels, which have changed very little over a hundred or more years.
I am inclined to add that CO2 and temperature, seemingly in lock step is not proof of anything. If you plot ice-cream sales and shark attacks on the US Eastern seaboard you get excellent correlation but eating ice-cream does not cause shark attacks, clearly, it's just that more people eat ice-cream and get into the sea when the weather is good. In fact, the oceans store much more CO2 than the atmosphere and release it when they warm and take more in when they cool. Further in geological time frames CO2 and temperature spend more time moving in opposite directions, something never mentioned by climate alarmists. The IPCC was never and is not an independent scientific body, on the contrary they were hired to find anthropogenic climate change to help justify UN "Climate Change" policy. I think you are being far too kind to Al Gore in this video, my biggest critique of him offering ordinary folk advice on changing to energy efficient light bulbs etc (which of course people have done when they were economically viable) is that he runs multiple homes with huge electricity bills, jets around the world burning enormous amounts of CO2 while telling us to do the opposite.
Spot on, the pair of ya 😉😎👍
Thats the thing though, they are not in lock step. Sometimes CO2 goes up then temperature goes up and sometimes temp goes up then CO2 goes up. This is more suggestive of a common cause than a direct causative effect on their own. The entire premise of CO2 causing global warming is absurd at its core. It would be like doing their flawed hotbox experiments that were retracted, taking CO2 out of the air in the box and then breathing in it somewhere withing a square mile or so to add faint CO2 from your breath into the box. There is almost no CO2 released from humans on the grand scale of things. @@andylitespeed
several hundred years don't matter numbnuts.
@@seditt5146 You and ya mates (the echo chamber), the wilfully ignorant contrarians, continuing to make up hilariously mischievous narratives full of tired old silly themes, that don't explain a single thing about the situation, LOL.
Keep trying entertaining us. Thanks.
14:51 Way to bury the lede. Makes me wish you'd have STARTED with this statement:
"Al Gore's film is almost entirely accurate and the hypotheses of climate change as depicted in the film are very well supported by the evidence."
I'd argue the lede is more at 12:48 with the one thing that the judge couldn't have seen. But either one is fair.
I disagree. Polar bear population is growing... The ice cap is at its largest since the last 20 years...the coral reef is also growing again. There is no man made climate change look it up.. this film was just political propoganda... Ps it s called Greenland is because it was not ice ...
Great to see you back Dr Simon Clark, official real doctor of science things.
a German, I assume?
Great to see you back SaintPhoenixx, I see you haven’t watched the video
I'm new to this. Is SaintPhoeniix a troll that comments on Simon Clark videos, mocking Simon?
@@JohnSmith-cg3cvi was wondering the same!
He said nothing.
In 2022, the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) reported the highest levels of coral cover across two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in over 36 years. 😂
@Frum Corals all over the world have suffered numerous very stressful bleaching events as the world has warmed. Some have recovered, some have partly recovered but are weaker, many have died. Earth continues to warm faster & faster, so corals will become extinct unless they’re saved by massive emergency government action to stop using fossil fuels & chemical industrial agriculture. The lunatic far right wing needs to stop denying reality.
@Frum "Global climate change is now considered to be the biggest long-term threat to Australia’s coral reefs, with many under threat from increased temperatures and changes in ocean circulation patterns. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans is also causing increased ocean acidification.”
Know who said that? The Australian Institute of Marine Science. (AIMS, “Coral")
Science & scientists overwhelmingly agree that coral is threatened with extinction because of climate catastrophe & other human pollution.
@Frum "Above-average water temperatures led to a mass coral bleaching event over the austral summer of 2021/22, the fourth event since 2016 and the first recorded during a La Niña year.”
"Nearly half of the surveyed reefs (39 out of 87) had hard coral cover levels between 10% and 30%, while almost a third of the surveyed reefs (28 out of 87) had hard coral cover levels between 30% and 50%.”
“In periods free from intense acute disturbances, most GBR coral reefs demonstrate resilience through the ability to begin recovery. However, the reefs of the GBR continue to be exposed to cumulative stressors. The prognosis for the future disturbance regime suggests increasing and longer-lasting marine heatwaves, as well as the ongoing risk of outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish and tropical cyclones. Therefore, while the observed recovery offers good news for the overall state of the GBR, there is increasing concern for its ability to maintain this state.”
That’s scientist-speak for Holy shit! Time to panic! Sorry you didn’t recognize it.
"Long-Term Monitoring Program
Annual Summary Report of Coral Reef Condition"
The Australian Institute of Marine Science, 2021/22
But what about 2023, the hottest year in 125,000 years?
"Chris Gloninger on Gobsmacking Ocean Heat”
This Is Not Cool, Feb/Mar. 2024
"Current Ocean surface temperatures at once-in-256,000 year level.
That sounds bad. Is that bad?"
As a transportation system planner, I question how global warming is supposedly addressed solely with "renewable" energy and "electrifying everything." Of the 3 basic EV drivetrains (BEV all-battery vs PHEV plug-in hybrid vs hydrogen fuel cell HFCEV), which of the 3 offers the most benefits, applications and potential to reduce fuel/energy consumption, emissions AND insane traffic? The correct answer is PHEV which could logically serve 65% future EV needs. BEV serves the remainder in lightweight and short-distance travel needs. Hydrogen fuel cell has no serviceable EV application because 'combustible' hydrogen in the ICEngine of a PHEV+H drivetrain stores at much lower pressure in smaller-safer tanks and can deliver at least twice the equivalent MPG possible in HFCEVs.
PHEV+H tech is especially applicable to long-haul freight trucks. The huge battery packs of BEV freight trucks (500+kwh) will deplete and must be replaced at 150k -200k miles. Distribute the same battery resource to 'FIVE' 100kwh PHEV packs (which also last 150k-200k miles) and they collectively deliver 750k to 1million miles plus cost less to replace.
The real problem is we drive too much, too far, for too many purposes. We truck and ship essential commodities too far, ship air freight, fly for recreation and otherwise play with motorized big boy toys entirely too much. There is no getting around these facts with "electrifying everything" business as usual.
The only thing that increased with our new
Al Gore Rhythms is Al Gore's bank accounts
and the amount of jet fuel he has expelled.
I have to comment on your statement that peoples of pacific islands are not evacuating due to sea level rises. We, in Australia are already making plans to take in residents of these islands due to sea level rise. Although these people are relocating to different areas within their nations at the moment due to constant inundations due to sea level rise, it won't be long before they can't do that any more and other countries have to take them in. Movement is happening, even if it can't really be called evacuations as such right now. There are negotiations happening and talks about how to deal with 'statelessness' happening every day.
A rising sea level isn't merely a problem of gradual change, as it seems many people may imagine it. The slow contamination of low-lying resources is certainly a problem, but the process of sporadic storm surges of higher and higher wave action is a bigger threat. The last storm tide reached a certain level, but the next one in a few years will not cause "gradual change," but could result in unprecedented catastrophic damage. Advance preparations are essential, so it is good to hear that Australian leaders are already at work.
@@misterlyle. Also, equipartition of sea level rise is a myth in another way. Evidence from iceberg raft debris found in core samples suggests that sea level rise mainly happens intermittently in sub-decadal surges of several meters at a time. Why? Well, the Lake Agassiz episode is a prime example: an ice dam breaks leading to inundation, with a positive feedback of a small amount of sea level rise breaking more ice dams globally. Currents shift, leading to even more sea level rise on one side of the ocean, causing more positive feedback.
@@bartroberts1514 Thanks for the response, Bart. I haven't heard of Lake Agassiz before now, but I have heard of a similar ancient glacial reservoir, Lake Missoula which helped creatively shape the geography of North America.
"Climate skeptics cherry-pick data and they take findings out of context in order to make statements that fly completely counter to the scientific consensus." Mr. Clark follows that up with a statement about the problem of exaggerated claims made by climate activists that are nevertheless still grounded in fact. *The first quote appears to suggest that no scientist should ever make statements that oppose the scientific consensus.* If that is what he means, it is a highly irresponsible statement for a science educator to make, especially one who recognizes the complexity and nuance associated with some areas of study.
"Is it a political film? Yes!"
An inconvenient truth was actually a science fiction movie...🤣
@j. Nope. Science fiction is an entire political party so deep in psychosis they deny reality, but the country is so mired in lies & nonsense spewed by that street gang it can’t even summon an opposition party that prefers reality.
An Inconvenient Truth was a delicate balancing act: make it seem scary enough to finally get conservatives to see the severity of the problem while not sensationalizing it so much that the film’s arguments can be dismissed as hyperbole.
Except conservatives like myself had been on board on the severity of the problem long before AIT. Since 1965's President's Science Advisory Committee report by Revelle et al, we knew this was a problem and that the solution was an end to extracting carbon from the ground. The problem was that some of us put themselves and their fossilphilia ahead of everything else, because of the influence of Epicurean miscreants (looking at you Ayn Rand) who found dressing up as RINOs gave them cover for their selfishness and leverage in elections.
Completely agree, it is the movie that changed mindsets among vast number of people! When a cup is exactly half full, both optimists and pessimists can argue their cases easily
Its hyperbole
And yet it is nothing BUT hyperbole.
@@peterschreiner9245 sure, dude. Free country - hell, millions of people believe there’s a sky daddy - doesn’t mean they’re right.
Good to see you back Simon. Hope things are going good.
Al's net worth also increased from $ 6 to $ 26m by 2012.
I'm still struggling here. Given evaporation from the oceans due to heat increases CO2 in the atmosphere, do we know CO2 is at the root of climate change, or is it merely a CONSEQUENCE of climate change and we need to look elsewhere? We're using models that think you can have negative cloud cover and don't know fresh water freezes as 0 C. Instead of fixing the physics, they've added fudges to stop these errors, and that tells me the models aren't accurate. Before we impoverish the western world by switching off all fossil fuels (which, btw, would also remove clothing, computers, phones, windfarms and solar panels, shoe soles, eye glasses, medicines, medical equipment, food deliveries to northern climes in winter, and just about everything else that has ensured the flourishing of humans on Earth since they are ALL based on on oil derivatives), wouldn't it be a good thing to be absolutely CERTAIN increased CO2 is CAUSING increased temps and not the other way around? Wouldn't it be a good idea to make the models accurate to actual physics instead of using ad-hoc fudges to conform to a political agenda? Shouldn't we be paying more attention to the satellite temperature data (which says the temperature hasn't gone up that much) rather than weather stations that are being surrounded by urban sprawl or are next airports? Might it be an idea to move the CO2 sensors off the Hawaiian islands (known for volcanic activity) and base them somewhere there is NO volcanic activity? Also, if CO2 (plant food, remember, which was at 1,000 ppm when primates first evolved -- the optimum level for plant life and the level we pump it into greehouses) IS the driving force, and neither China nor India have ANY intention to stop their use, what difference will it make to starve and impoverish the advanced countries which have the equipment and money to find solutions?
Nice to see you back, and what a good video to release with, I also watched this film just out of interest during my Ocean Science undergraduate degree, but critically looking at it raised some eyebrows from me, especially the oceanic componants...
Please look at the situation in the Maldieves... people have been evacuated from there and several other pacific islands then resettled in the USA because of seal level rise; and Norfolk VA USA is loosing a navy base to sea level rise. All movies are political.
Last I checked, the Polar Bear population is healthy. Must we assume that Polar Bears never drowned in the past?
Didn't you know that everything on earth was idyllic prior to around 1950? All death and suffering of any kind are fully attributable to Climate Change. From earth's inception until around 75 years ago, climate did not change and was perfect.
I read the judge's decision. You missed the mark on what he said about the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature. He stated that, though there is correlation between the two, close examination revealed that CO2 increases lagged temperature increases. Thus, the graph more likely indicated that increased temperatures caused increased CO2 levels, not that increased CO2 caused increased temperatures. There might be other evidence that CO2 increases cause increased temperatures, but this graph does not qualify.
I disagree with your comment about our response to climate change having been weakened because of An Inconvenient Truth. I think it has contributed significantly to the public awareness of climate change. I think we would be in a worse position nowadays if An Inconvenient Truth had never been made.
You are right.
18:45 "content is served to us algorithmically" made me chuckle, the video has conditioned my brain to expect that last word to have something to do with Al Gore
Al Gore Rhythmically!
The earths climate is ever changing and has always changed. I’m older than you and I remember when in the 70s we were told climate change would include a resurgence of and ice age by now. Also heard was that most costal areas would be flooded out by now in the 80s and there would be no more polar bears. Al gore also was an owner and profited from many climate scare related industries like solar. He also purchased a lot of bit coin before it was available for public purchase. Money was his main driver. I detest the amount of garbage polluting our world and I think that is a much bigger cause for concern. I also question “science” since “experts” forced a covid vaccine on all when it wasn’t really necessary. Data supports my previous statement. Solar is a good idea, but the world cannot be run by solar that only is here on earth.
Regarding the link between CO2 and temperature: The historical record, including that promulgated by the IPCC has temperature peaks BEFORE peaks in CO2, not AFTER. This would imply the causal trigger is rises in global temperature and the effect is rises in CO2. This has to exclude the populist theory that rises in CO2 trigger temperature rises, where the argument is twisted to be the wrong way around.
The scientific reason for the link is that global temperature rises trigger warming of the oceans and hence a release of dissolved CO2. The flip side when Earth cools CO2 is captured by the oceans and CO2 levels in the atmosphere decline. If you look at a chart of the Palaeolithic Time Period you can see peaks in temperature occurring roughly 100,000 years apart each followed by a peak of CO2 approximately 800 years later. It’s a simple chicken vs the egg problem. In each case the chicken {Temperature rise} occurs first and the egg {peak in CO2} comes second. This is not the model for global warming in action as the alarmists would have you believe.
Source: IPCC report for scientists circa 2006, Patric Moore, one time Chairman of Greenpeace and currently independent Scientist / Commentator.
Indeed. I'm surprised he didn't pick up on that one.
Thank you.
Well that's what's commonly known as a feedback loop, CO2 (or other factors such as Milankovich-cycles) causes a rise in global temperatures which in turn leads to rising CO2-levels, which then again lead to rising temperatures and so on.
This is, btw, exactly what so many climate scientists keep warning us about. 😉
@pet Nope. Pythonic arguments over a dead parrot. In the past, orbital cycles over 20,000, 40,000, & 100,000 years have triggered warming, which caused a release of some CO2, which then became the driver of every warming. Feedbacks like ice melt, water vapor, etc. heighten it, but CO2 has been the driver in every one.
Now, human-emitted CO2 that had been locked in deposits since the Carboniferous age 300 million years ago (plus other greenhouse gases emitted by chemical-industrial agriculture, deforestation, degrasslandization, demangrovization, & industrialization are driving the warming. CO2 is still the driver, as it has always been. But this time it’s human-caused CO2.
"CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?”
Skeptical Science
The consensus has grown with the evidence:
“More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change”
Krishna Ramanujan, Cornell Chronicle, Cornell U. October 19, 2021
“Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature”
Mark Lynas, Benjamin Z Houlton, and Simon Perry
19 October 2021 IOP Publishing Ltd
“10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change”
Skeptical Science, 30 July 2010
Look at the Patrick Moore page on Desmog.
“Response to Patrick Moore's "What They Haven't Told You about Climate Change””
Potholer54 video
“Lobbyist Claims Monsanto's Roundup Is Safe To Drink, Freaks Out When Offered A Glass”
"Climate Science Denier Patrick Moore Paid by Coal Lobbyists EURACOAL To Speak To EU Officials and Members of Parliament
Kyla Mandelon, Desmog, Mar. 14, 2016
"What President Trump, Fox and Breitbart Are Not Saying About Climate Science Denier Patrick Moore"
Graham Readfearn, Desmog, Mar. 12, 2019
"WUWT has a poll published today to guess what the minimum arctic sea ice extent is going to be for this year.
So far approximately one third of the responders have submitted an answer that has already been exceeded.
That’s basically about as dumb as calling a coin flip wrong after watching it land.
erased comment on: Thinkprogress 8/31/2011 “The Murdoch media empire has cost humanity perhaps one or two decades of time in the battle against climate change“
Moore was NEVER chairman of Greenpeace.
IOW, he lied about that, too. Calling him anything but a lying shill for fossil & fissile fuels, pesticides, tobacco, & other destructive industries is lying, too. As far as I can tell your “source” is nothing but what Moore himself, a scorned & excoriated liar-for-hire, said. He misrepresents science, consensus, his own history, & everything else. In front of Congress, no less, for which he could & should be prosecuted.
@@mightymike2192 Why would he? He has an agenda.
On the UC DAVIS website, there have been web pages up for many years about nitrogen and boreal forests. You have to read their long explanations for at least a couple pages to understand what they are talking about! If you do so you will learn they are talking about nitrogen in the mountain ⛰️ waters of boreal forests feeding the forest trees 🌲 and causing HUGE growth blooms of those forests when there are excess levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. They say this needs to be more studied because the trees are obviously using the nitrogen directly from the mountain waters without mycorrhiza in those soils to make the nitrogen available to the trees 🌲. AND IN THE PAST, MANY TIMES THESE FOREST BLOOMS HAVE REVERSED RAPID RISES IN CO2 IN THE EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE, ABSORBING MASIVE AMOUNTS OF CO2! If you really have some understanding how nature works, like I do, you would KNOW that once in history nature has corrected some adversity in the Earth’s biome, it will happen again and again from then on rapidly and automatically. Therefore, your global warming is a LIE that should NOT be feared and ALL OF YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, AT ALL! 😅
So - to maybe give some balance to the 'urgency' objection - while the events described may not happen for decades to centuries, the time to act to mitigate the future damage is closing _quickly_, so the need to act is urgent, even if the effect may be remote in time.
Attribution - as I recall, the argument was that events like Katrina, the loss of glaciers, the drying up of lakes were all _more_ _likely_ to occur from climate change, and that we should expect to see more events like these, not that any one is specifically caused by climate change. It has been close to 20 years since I watched "An Inconvenient Truth", but certainly these 'errors' were not so great that they have overwhelmed what I have picked up in the meantime.
Sadly, it appears that the more pessimistic projections seem to be the way we are heading.
Simon, I am very surprised that you did not mention the most serious error of the film: the climate temperature "hockey stick". Completely omitting the Medival Warm Period (900 - 1300 AD, when Greenland was actually green) and the Mini Ice Age (1300 - 1850). It is also interesting to note that climate alarmists like Obama, Gore and Keery all own beachfront property that would be flooded if Sea Rise was a serious issue. It is a known fact that climate activists are always making wild, shrill predictions of climate catastrophe because they want people to take action.
I would recommend that you review Dr Rich Lindzen's video, "Climate Change: What do Scientists Say?". It shows a graph of Global Warming starting around 1850, long before human activity was a significant factor.
"Completely omitting the Medival Warm Period" The MWP was not globally coherent, the average global temperature was actually lower then than now.
"Obama, Gore and Keery all own beachfront property" This is, by a wide margin, the stupidest argument denialists make. It's shockingly dumb, for so many reasons it's hard to know where to start. But here's the short form: Rich people want to live by the beach, and they don't care if it'll flood in 100 years.
Al's only objective was to make enough money to buy a beachfront mansion, despite his stated fears about rising sea levels, which he did. The Arctic ice sheet is not reducing at all. The climate is doing nothing unusual. His pictures of Mount Fuji, showed its snow cover in winter and in summer, job done.
5:04 Simon states that sea ice melting contributes to sea level rise. This is inaccurate, because floating ice displaces its own weight once it melts, which means that it won't affect sea level. This can easily be demonstrated by filling a glass of water to the brim, with ice floating in it. Once the ice melts, the water level does not spill over the top of the glass, rather it stays at the same level. Land-based ice melting, and running into the oceans, however, will raise sea level. BTW: Ice and water can be at the same temperature.
If the floating ice is massive enough then gravitational attraction between it and the sea will raise the local sea level significantly. Consequently you cannot use Archimedes principle to argue that the ice melting won't result in a sea level rise somewhere.
10:23 there is the fact that co2 lags the global temperature rise by about 800 years during the glacial-interglacial transition during an overall ice age, although that was caused by milankovitch cycles rising temperatures first by changing the amount sunlight hitting the polar ice caps in summer which melts the ice, reduces the albedo, and causes the planet to warm up, than co2 is degassed from the oceans (because co2 is less soluble in warmer water, it’s one reason why you store carbonated drinks like Soda cold), than that causes most of the warming after which is why we enter an interglacial period. So while the initial warming is caused by milankovitch cycles during a glacial-interglacial transition, most of the warming comes after co2 is degassed from the oceans which amplifies the warming. The forcing from milankovitch cycles alone isn’t enough to actually stop or start glacial cycles.
Just thought I’d mention it because it is a misleading claim many climate “skeptics” make “because if co2 lags temps than it can cause it to rise”.
The lag of 800 years isn’t a definitive fact. More recent studies have found that the time difference is smaller or even that they happened so close that the order of what happened first is indistinguishable. It also has the problem that this idea is based on ice core data. Ice core data can only be collected in certain places and won’t tell what the global temperature is doing.
@@YraxZovaldo what study? Because co2 is not what initially ended glacial cycles and the glacial interglacial transitions line up perfectly with the milankovitch cycles. And co2 couldn’t rise if the oceans didn’t get warmer, something had to initially start it off. But most of the warming (I think like 90%, I need to check) following the initial warming is caused by more co2
@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI This paper for example: Marcott, S. A., Bauska, T. K., Buizert, C., Steig, E. J., Rosen, J. L., Cuffey, K. M., ... & Brook, E. J. (2014). Centennial-scale changes in the global carbon cycle during the last deglaciation. Nature, 514(7524), 616-619.
I'm not saying that CO2 is the initial cause of warming. However, the idea that the 800 year lag is a fact, is wrong.
CO2 is now absolutely the only factor capable of warming the atmosphere. Nothing else has changed like GHGs, mainly CO2.
Also, the last ice age ended because of a massive burp of CO2 from the Southern Ocean.
"Boron isotope evidence for oceanic carbon dioxide leakage during the last deglaciation" - Marino, et al 2015
@@YraxZovaldo Yep, the 800 year lag thing is a common myth pushed by right wing denialist blogs.
But it has now been found that the Antartic ice has grown by over 5000km since 2009 as evidenced and peer reviewd by European Geosciences Union.
Check it out their paper is called change in antartic ice shelf area 2009 to 2019
Sorry, no. That's only ice shelves on the coastal areas where increases in precipitation have been possible due to warming.
No: Greenland is not melting (right now), nor are islands disappearing, nor are ice bears drowning: ice bears live in the water, where they hunt for food.
@er Actually, overwhelming science says those are all happening.
And they’re called polar bears, Ursus maritimus.
@J4Zonian yeah, because people named them. They were not named by some ethereal mandate.
The way this film was presented was a deliberate intention to propagandize children because they have no way to critically deal with these assertions whether they are true or not.
Criticizing An Inconvenient Truth? You're one of them! *grabs pitchfork. Seriously though, I always appreciate it when 'my side' is corrected. That means there's more knowledge to soak up. Thank you for this video.
You're the only one.
@@privateer0561 Only one what? It's got 14 likes.
i was there.
it was either this film or no film.
humans were really stupid back then.
they still are.
It also made Gore millions while he flew around the world warning us about the climate.
Sea levels are not rising at the rates claimed in Gore’s film. Despite that we need to support technologies and practices that effectively reduce negative enviromental impacts.
I must say I love the comments being full of right wing conspiracy nutters who didn't watch the video.
It's like Sideshow Bob walking into the rakes over and over again.
@@specialkonacid6574 ..or Cobalt mines are full of dying children!!!
That's such a perfect metaphor I'm surprised I don't see it in internet discourse more often.
Wow, you guys are stuck on broken.
Anthropomorphic climate change is nonsense. No, I'm not right wing.
It's just convenient for you to label any who disagree with you as such, it's childish and lazy.
Thanks for making this. It’s important to acknowledge errors, particularly on our own ‘side’. Bad faith actors will use errors against us, which makes it tempting to deny them, but doing so just plays into their hands.
I've sadly found that these days an increasing number of people online are perfectly happy just to be on the "right side" rather than be arguing with actual facts and knowledge. If you point out logical errors or mistakes of fact in their arguments, they will often just accuse you of being opposed to what they are saying or worse, conservative.
@@Tinil0 Increasing? I've been on the internet since it was just IRC and document exchange. It's been this way always, just like face to face. And actual facts and knowledge require something deeper than mere trading of quips.
@@bartroberts1514 sure, but you haven’t considered [quip]
So really [unrelated argumentative point]
@@MAORIguy25 Far Side?
@@Tinil0 funny.....I've found the exact opposite to be true. The "left" considers the science to be "settled", no matter how many scientific arguments are shown that totally dispute the effects of man-made climate change. And to be clear, I do believe that man does have a measurable effect on our climate, but it's barely measurable and the Earth can handle that effect quite easily.
Temperature rises, then CO2 goes up. You guys keep getting that part backwards
Am I the only one who noticed the incorrect animation at 4:43? (the ice in the glass--the ice below the waterline would DROP the water level...and only THEN would the ice above the water level begin to fill. Since the volume of the ice above the water level is less than or equal to the space in the glass above the water level, then it is not possible for the water to overflow the glass....
You nailed it. That's a perfect example of the Climate deception game that has many 100-millionaires in it's wake including Gore.
Yep. Melting sea ice is a problem in its own way, but the only way it contributes to rising sea levels is when the sea ice was a dam stopping the land ice siding down into the ocean. The actual sea level rise is always from that land ice.
What you're really saying: Give the fossil fuel industry a millimeter of discrepancy in your scientific rigour and they'll bog down climate negotiations for a century until its 4 degrees of warming not 1.5 and too late for any of us.
I was wrong... it was 50 years and we're going to get 4 degrees of warming anyway -_-
The editing, guest scientists are all amazing. Framing the video around the 9 problems that the UK investigation had + 1 more was really compelling and inspired. Look forward to seeing more!
A politician is the last person anyone should be listening to when it comes to climate, and the weather systems around the planet. Politicians such as Gore will say anything to look like a hero so they will get elected into office. They crave power, money, and status. Hypocrisy is their method of operation. Scare tactics are a huge part of getting this power. They hope if they use this tactic, they will get followers, thus inflating their enormus egos. The sad part is that many people just nod their heads and follow these guys.
The looming problem with the AMOC has been much in the news lately. That particular point of attack is looking rather wobbly for you.
Sea level rise is predicted to be between 1.3 to 1.6 meters by 2100, but the IPCC has consistently underestimated sea level rise in their projections, so the idea this is a lowball is plausible.
Arctic Ocean is predicted to be sea ice free by between 2035 and 2040, known as the blue ocean event, is the acceleration turning point where global warming is out of humanity's hands.
Solomon Islands are five Pacific islands which have already been submerged due to sea level rise, and a sixth, Tuvalu, home to 12,000 people, is likely to join them in the next few decades.
Regarding Kilimanjaro, I have to ask how it's possible that mountains melting isn't attributed to global warming. There are so many locations where mountain glaciers are rapidly retreating.
see the note in the description - it seems the glaciers are retreating due to changes in precipitation, but that likely took place in the late 19th century and so likely due to natural climate change
@@SimonClark Industrial Revolution started in the 1700's. Which may well have driven those precipitation changes in the late 19th century (as in almost certainly did).
Natural climate change hasn't happened at any point since human influences on land use and atmospheric content grew to push positive feedback loops past tipping points, likely for six thousand years or more, to some degree.
Also, Greenland's ice sheet is only about 10% the size of the Antarctic ice sheet, and about equal to all the other ice sheets in the world combined, so that 7 meters of sea level rise from Greenland's melt over hundreds of years is only one eleventh of the total, and thermal expansion is more than half of sea level rise during that timeframe, so 7 meters over 1,000 years would be 7 meters over 1000/22 overall. There you go: as much as 7 meters in 50 years, on assumptions of equipartition.
Last I heard China was making the most of Solomons as strategic port base and they had not sunk.
@@chrisruss9861 Relevance?
@@chrisruss9861 There's numerous islands in the Solomons, five of which have sunk under the rising tide, six more are on the brink of going under in the coming years. Fortunately, none of them are heavily inhabited. There are other Pacific island nations which are in deep trouble, starting with Tuvalu.
What China is doing is adding a lot more dirt and sand to existing atolls and rising them up. They're doing it for strategic military reasons, to claim control over the majority of the South China Sea, and in doing so are aggravating their neighbors and putting themselves at odds with US foreign policy.
You'd think all this is a separate discussion from what global warming is doing to the oceans though.
Another error of AIT: focus on sea level rise, when what's critical to coastal infrastructure and communities is storm surge rise, which is happening faster and more severely by far.
Yes, storm surges are exponentially increased by sea level rise.
And maybe we could speak about what a pointless exercise recycling plastic is when only 5% of it gets reused, and the rest goes in the landfill or into the ocean. That’s a far more important question than global warming.
While CZcams may not encourage this, thank you for your thoughtful, careful, nuanced content! 😊
*Why are rising sea levels a problem? They would cover all the corrupt major cities of the world. Clearly a positive outcome.*
Those are not Errors, they are lies.
@@seanLee-sk2mi Yup, all commie lies.
@@seanLee-sk2mi Nope. Obviously not.
I'm sure your father is proud of what you have done. condolences.
in my lab, the local german television came to record a documentary. They wanted catchy videos, so the professor just outright made up interpretations on a blank sample because they redid it 50 times :')
Nope: sea levels are not rising. Not right now. There is erosion of land, which is something different.
@er NOAA, NASA, IPCC, CSIO, other organizations, 99.9% of scientists & peer-reviewed papers disagree. But you know better.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Good one.
To claim what you're claiming, you also have to claim that all climate scientists & most other scientists for 1 1/2 centuries have either been unbelievably stupid or completely corrupt, & so terrifying that unlike the Mafia, Stasi, KGB, Savak, US military, Masons, Skull and Bones, and professional magicians, not one word has ever leaked about this vast conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of trained scientists.
Tool.
The winner of the “inventor of dynamite” prize.
I have to applaud your strength of will in not calling this video "An inconvenient truth about An Inconvenient Truth." That aside, thank you Dr Clark for giving a detailed and nuanced exploration of the topic; while it's good to get people engaged with the problem of climate change, proper solutions require accurate information.
@sathreyn9699 We have more accurate information now two decades later. You certainly don't think knowing faierly accurately about a problem means you have to have the solution 20 years in advance do you?
It's not a problem, it's a global scam.
@@vernonfrance2974 Facts prove it's all lies.
@@Rick-yk5qb It is incredible to believe that the human population with it's ingenuity having created a technology that uses so much energy would not have an accelerating impact on the Earth.
@@vernonfrance2974 Science isn't about what you believe, it's about what you can prove. I can prove CO2 doesn't control the temperature of Earth and that's all I need to falsify the hypothesis. Would you like to see the proof? Search : "Global temperature and atmospheric CO2 over geologic time/graph/images." Do you see atm. CO2 and temperatures going in opposite directions? Yes, therefore CO2 doesn't control the temperature of Earth and the hypothesis is false. That's how science works.
This film had many, many flaws. But what it was great at was getting people to focus on climate change and the impending issues that're plaguing the planet. So, I give VP Gore credit for making this issue known to the public, despite it's many flaws. It's just like how _Super Size Me_ changed the landscape of Fast Food culture, despite all of that documentary's issues.
🤡🤡🤡
I think it was unfortunately preaching to the converted but maybe my memory is faulty.
Super size me was an unscientific stunt. Everyone already know the health risks of that kind of diet many c years before then.
The political impact of media can be really interesting because you can never know what's going to be the effect. Like, surely the general public would have cared about climate change at some point, but it just so happens that An Inconvenient Truth, a work by a politician, is what generated awareness. It's like how The Jungle, a _novel,_ was raised awareness about the meatpacking industry, even though it was intended to be a socialist story.
Exactomundo. There was no other Academy Award documentary describing global warming to the public. Al Gore really helped the Climate Change movement. Simon should NEVER have implied Gore might have actually diminished it
Climate warming/change has been one of the biggest scam in modern history 🤢🤢🤮 Neptune climate is changing too. 😒 HOW DARE YOU😡
This is why politicians should leave the science to scientists. Gore accidentally caused a whole wave of anti science and climate change denial over the world because of that presentation and catering to special interests.
5:00 you made a small error - arctic sea ice melt does not significantly contribute to sea level rise because of displacement.
If it is ice trapped on land it is a contributing factor becouse the mass is not part ov the ocean
@@definitlynotbenlente7671 I don't think there's and land at the Arctic...
..any land...
@@bnielsen56 yes, there is, the greenland ice sheet. the greenland ice is continental ice, its not floating on the sea, meaning if it melts it will contribute with sea level rise.
@@danilooliveira6580 The Greenland Ice Sheet extends from approximately 60° N to 80° N and thus is not in the polar zone, so don't say it's part of the Arctic. This is just more of the same misinformation that surrounds the issue - don't add to it. Also look up when was the last time it melted. Even in prior inter-glacial periods that were much warmer than today (>5egC), the ice never melted at the poles.
Revisiting older documentaries is really helpful for context. Are there any similar videos for the Michael Moore renewables film that a lot of greens I know found misrepresentative?
Wouldn't it be great, though, if Dr. Clark revisited the errors in "The Great Global Warming Swindle" by UK Communist Party co-founder Martin Durkin? Or the errors in the statements of the UK taxpayer funded coal-industry driven GWPF? The errors in the Idsos' "CO2 Science" websites? The errors in WUWT? The errors in Climate Audit? The errors in Warwick Hughes' claims that sparked what became Climategate?
I mean, Ayn Rand was wrong and Einstein right. Why belabor the wrong views of the Ayn Rands of the world?
@davyhotch That is a great question. I believe that the Michael Moore film has a very pessimistic outlook.
I'd like to investigate to learn if there have been substantial improvements in solar, wind, batteries, geothermal, hydrogen and hydroelectric technology since then?
I would also like to see the information about biomass's destructivity made well known and this exposed as just as harmful as using filthy fossil fuels.
I do think that the Moore film is beneficial in that it brings up the elephant in the room which is the human population currently being beyond the carrying capacity of ecosystems on Earth - especially with regard to the extra energy required for all of the technology we now demand to have at our fingerprints.
I believe each woman should have only one child whereby each generation will be halved. However, I am not optimistic that any great headway will be achieved in instituting such a policy.
I believe Moore's film shows that although it is going to exact heavy costs, installing individual passive and active energy methodology, more large scale housing, and more underground residency are preferable to huge corporations continuing to supply the brunt of our energy and so much of our arable land being plastered with postage stamp individual housing units. Techniques to save more of our bath and dishwater and capture runoff for agricultural applications are also needed.
What do you think?
I have data based on antarctic ice cores that says that the higher CO2 levels follow rising temperatures not the other way around. The last Ice Age ended about 10 to 12 thousand years ago. This means that we may be less than halfway through an inter-glacial period, hence, I would expect global avg temperatures to continue rising for a few more centuries or perhaps millennia with or without human contributions of CO2
Thank you for this. Very interesting and informative.
I can set your mind at ease somewhat having been privy to things being said in finance near to the halls of power.
Few takes very seriously the notion of ever stopping to burn hydrocarbons and many think wind and solar replacing electricity generation is window dressing to play to the environmental lobby.
I have to admit, considering how inefficient wind/solar is and how much the whole thing is simply outsourcing the burning of hydrocarbons elsewhere and even adding to emissions a lot of places,this viewpoint is a logical one.
It made me into a staunch nuclear maximalist even if that too still includes burning hydrocarbons but every serious scenario includes burning hydrocarbons,the mining alone would ensure this in any renewables scheme.
There are ways we can lower the carbon content of petroleum products and there are ways to make burning processes more efficient..but not as much funding is going this way.
For example,a thing we could do to reduce carbon emissions vastly is getting the west to subsidize LNG exports to India,this would provide incentives to not industrialize on coal like done today.
There is a classic error at 5:00 that may be present in the Gore presentation. Melting (floating) sea ice causes a sea level rise. According to Archimedes it doesn’t.
FFS. That's NOT what Gore said.
Melting sea ice reduces albedo, leading to faster warming which leads to thermal expansion of seawater, which is over half of all sea level rise.
Melting land ice in the Arctic and elsewhere leads to more mass of seawater, which is almost half of all sea level rise.
That's not what's being demonstrated in that example. That's part of a longer clip, ice that's floating in water doesn't make the water level rise and they say that in the film but iced that stacks all the way to the sea floor (in that animation, the stack of ice cubes goes all the way to the bottom of the glass) or is otherwise sitting on land does because it's adding new water to the system.
@@AlRoderick what’s being said here is :”Greenland is melting, arctic sea ice is melting … and both are contributing to the sea level rise” But thank you to mention “sea ice that is on land”
@@2adamast That's a good point. Of course, the melting of polar sea ice does contribute to sea level rise, but only indirectly, by lowering the ocean's albedo, creating positive feedback. Without stating that carefully, it sounds as if the contribution is direct, as it is for continental ice sheets. Even land ice contributes to sea level rise more indirectly than people usually think, since the gravitational effect on ocean water means that different coastlines will have different rises in sea level as the Greenland ice sheet melts.
@@TheHunterGracchus Does it create positive feedback? The arctic ocean has a very low sun, thus a lot of reflection (50% at 20°), while it has a water surface that can freely radiate between 48° to 90°. Could be alike a permanent sunrise without any clouds cooling
Hey i just wanna say thanks for linking your sources that is some good work !
I'll worry about climate change when I have to heat my home less than 8 months out of the year.
Regarding the definition of climate change provided by CZcams at the top of the description: what are we supposed to call climate change caused by forces other than humans? If we aren't supposed to assume that ALL climate change is caused by humans -- and such an assumption is egregiously hubristic -- then WHAT ARE WE DOING TO LANGUAGE?
The big real issue is at this time we do not have the ability to remove large volumes of CO2 from the atmosphere. There is lag in emissions (currently at 422 ppm from 280 ppm CO2). So as we reach 1.5 C over preindustrial within the next 3 years massive melting is guaranteed. We may have reached enough lag with positive feedback that Greenland melting over a century or two may be guaranteed. 2 meters of sea level by 2070 WILL happen and reduction of our food supply WILL happen resulting in large scale starvation (not millions but hundreds of millions). These effects are no longer avoidable.
At current costs offsetting CO2 with capture would cost ~$2 trillion per year. Increase that to $3 trillion per year and we will be moving back to 300ppm. 2-3% of global GDP per year to save the world is perfectly achievable technologically.
Still won't happen.
@@Crispr_CAS9 I agree it won't happen. I am aware we can scub the atmosphere but I was unware of the cost (thank you). I'd be happy if we just slowed emissions but we keep increasing. Very scary stuff.
@@Crispr_CAS9 Actually, with tree planting and harvest, and basalt fines weathering on farm fields, the cost would be only about 10% of your estimate, and the profits from harvest of wood and crops would more than offset the investment.
If you mean using those uneconomical methods involving factories? Yeah. Those are impossible and wrong, economically and pragmatically.
@@bartroberts1514 "Actually, with tree planting and harvest, and basalt fines weathering" Trees and basalt are substantially more expensive than the methods I'm citing. Tree planting is especially bad, with organizations promoting it usually citing removal rates >10x higher than actual observations.
@@Crispr_CAS9 Intriguing claims.
Cite?
I mean, the carbon per ton of lumber is a pretty well-known number, and pyrolysis converts 70% of that to inert biochar, while the rest becomes biofuel displacing fossil, and all at a profit.
Basalt fines act as soil amendment -- as does biochar -- to create higher crop yields, and is essentially free byproduct of making basalt fiber to displace steel in rebar and fiberglass in structural materials, so is also done at a profit.
So I don't see how you believe your numbers work.
I’m trying to find out how to buy property in Antarctica for when the ice melts and the land becomes fertile in a few years. I want to be ahead of the next pioneer movement.
Great analysis, summary and interpretation. Will help many in their understanding of how ‘science’ operates and how to tease out the credible information on the climate issue in the face of scepticism and denial from those who might find the facts inconvenient to their political and commercial interests
It's a global scam. All lies.
Around 5:10 to 5:15 This guy made a HUGE scientific error citing BOTH melting sea ice and land ice contributes to sea level rise. Incorrect. Only melting land ice could contribute to sea level rise. Melting sea ice will not change the water level.
"the real problem we have is; we only have one planet" pretty much sums up the entire situation nicely
True, though the nature of that statement is on the statistical challenge to attribute natural events to cc.
@@m.caeben2578 Yes, I am perfectly well aware of that. The multiple applications are precisely why I liked that quote
Common trick.
Your father has one life. Buy this snake oil for 200 dollars. It may or may not cure your father, ....//in invisible print//:: but will certainly enrich me. 😉
@@theeraphatsunthornwit6266 who says my father has one life? What if I strongly believe he has several? Maybe that will make it so. And what snake are we talking about?
"Taking a complex statement and reducing it down to snappy headlines..."
This happens a lot more than should be acceptable... I hate it...
I LOVE watching objective scientists talking. They're becoming the unicorns of the earth.
The problem I have with all of this CO2 stuff is, Ice Core Samples show that our current CO2 levels are much, much lower than in some of the ice core samples, and our average temperature likewise. If polar bears and etc. survived the earlier higher temps and CO2 levels, odds are that they will survive the current levels, but that's not say that they will survive other human activities (habitat destruction, lack of traditional food sources...........).
I am not sure what were the highest levels of CO2 and temps affecting polar bears in the past, but another issue is the rate of changes which doesn't allow species to adapt by means of evolution.
The melting of arctic sea ice does not contribute to sea level rise as you state at 5:00. The arctic sea ice is already floating, when it melts it displaces exactly the same amount of water as it did in ice form. So, it does not contribute at all to any rise in sea level. I appreciate the overall message of the video, though I think you are giving the climate-change fearmongers much more slack than they deserve. It actually isn't clear what will happen in this century. It may turn out that the fear was mostly unfounded.
That would be a good point, except you aren't co sidering the volume of sea ice that floats above the surface. Also, we've already seen that the claims aren't unfounded
@@spookus5430 Come on, dude. Ice is less dense than water and that is why some ice is above the surface when a block of ice is floating. When floating ice melts it displaces that same amount of water as it did when it was in the form of Ice. This is just basic physics. If the ice on land melts, that could make the ocean rise, but the temperature in the Antarctic never gets close to the melting temperature. I don't think Greenland is in much danger of melting now either at this time.
Nice to see you back, Simon.
I just did the math:
*_Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice at the rate of 42 billion tons per year. 42 billion seconds is over 133 CENTURIES. And every one of those seconds is a TON of ice!!! EVERY YEAR!!!_*
what the fuck are you doing to help fix this mess?
Melting sea ice DOES NOT contribute to rising sea level.
The problem with attribution modeling is that it assumes the models are accurate, and yet not a single public prediction on climate that I can find has ever been close to accurate. When I say close, I mean, did the predicted result get within 2X of the prediction, from my reading, it's never even close! A model that can't make predictions isn't a good model and so any type of attribution study based on a bad model isn't a good study.
? Sure doesn't seem like every model is wrong...
www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right.amp
@je …a peer-reviewed study found that global climate models are even more accurate than previously thought.
Robust comparison of climate models with observations using blended land air and ocean sea surface temperatures
Kevin Cowtan, Zeke Hausfather, Ed Hawkins, Peter Jacobs, Michael E. Mann, Sonya K. Miller, Byron A. Steinman, Martin B. Stolpe, Robert G. Way
agupubs onlinelibrary wiley
"How accurate are scientific predictions about climate?”potholer54 doing what he does, debunking nonsense, this time on models
"Correcting the underestimation in the current IPCC future average global temperature projections…"
.jobone for humanity
"Most Accurate Models Predict Highest Climate Warming"
December 18, 2017 climatecrocks
The difference between scenarios, projections, predictions and (weather) forecasts
climate4impact eu impact portal
The IPCC has underestimated the observed speed and direness of climate effects 20 times more often than it's overestimated or hit it exactly right.
Over and over the most dire scenarios in studies have turned out to be the most accurate, and every aspect of climate catastrophe has moved faster than expected for decades, right up to this week:
The extent of ice floating around the continent has contracted to below 2m sq km for 3 years in a row, indicating an ‘abrupt critical transition’
US National Snow and Ice Data Center, Guardian 24/2/2024
Scientists amazed as Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years early
Reuters, June 18, 2019
"Scientists amazed as..." We've heard phrases like that hundreds of times over the last few decades-almost every time a new study of ice melt anywhere, for example, adds new scientific measurements to the accumulating data, AKA facts.
“Antarctica sea ice reaches alarming low for third year in a row”
How good have climate models been at truly predicting the future?
14 out of the 17 projections statistically indistinguishable from what actually occurred.
In an upcoming paper in Geophysical Research Letters, Zeke Hausfather, Henri Drake, Tristan Abbott and I [Gavin Schmidt] took a look at how well climate models have actually been able to accurately project warming in the years after they were published. This is an extension of the comparisons we have been making on RealClimate for many years, but with a broader scope and a deeper analysis. We gathered all the climate models published between 1970 and the mid-2000s that gave projections of both future warming and future concentrations of CO2 and other climate forcings
"IPCC Reviews Climate Models. Turns Out They’ve Been Spot On"
This Is Not Cool, May 7, 2022
30th anniversary of Hansen’s testimony:
“BBC Spot-on in 1988 - Warming will be Greatest in the Arctic”
This Is Not Cool, June 24, 2018
“What we knew in 82”
This Is Not Cool, 2018/06/24
“James Hansen's 1988 testimony after 30 years. How did he do?” youtube
The first transient climate projections using GCMs are 30 years old this year, and they have stood up remarkably well.
We’ve looked at the skill in the Hansen et al (1988) simulations before (back in 2008), and we said at the time that the simulations were skillful and that differences from observations would be clearer with a decade or two’s more data. Well, another decade has passed!
realclimate
Exxon predicted in 1982 exactly how high global carbon emissions would be today
CO2 in the atmosphere has reached unprecedented levels.
May 14, 2019
(thinkprogress exxon predicted high carbon emissions)
Most things denying delayalists call “predictions" are really projections, parts of multiple sets of mathematical hypotheses in studies. On the other hand, the actual predictions by the denying delayalist industry have turned out to be way off over and over and over. Overwhelmingly. (skeptical science ice age predictions in 1970s)
“Checkmate: how do climate deniers' predictions stack up?”
The Guardian, Dec 19, 2017
David Evans (Jo Nova’s husband) makes a prediction. And another. and another… Oops.
(hotwhopper 2016/02 another cool prediction from force-x)
Climate science has been making remarkably good projections (1) since the 1970s (Nuccitelli 2015) and IPCC projections are on track. (2) Meanwhile even recent “predictions” (3) by Heartland’s denialist friends have failed miserably. (4)
(1) theguardian climate-consensus 97 per-cent 2015/jul/31 climate models are even more accurate than you thought
(2) skeptical science ipcc global warming projections
(3) hotwhopper 2013/12/ denier weirdness crank blog popularity
(4) reuters climate change bets
I always point out that Svante Arrhenius wrote about the theory of CO2 global warming in 1896: "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground." Look up this paper and it will give you an idea of the basic mechanism, which has been expanded upon for more than a century.
Yes but it was disproved by Angstrom in around 1906
@@billbogg3857 That' is a complete and very stupid lie.
@@billbogg3857 SAs theory was correct but his estimate of the degree of heating was incorrect due to a miss-estimated factor. Angstrom (paper 1901) was misled. He based his ideas on a mistake made by his assistant, and his paper was proven wrong. SA published a series of notes (1901-1908) with a revised lower heating factor that was more correct. And the complexities of atmospheric science were only just beginning to be understood.
Arrhenius c1896 established a link betweeen CO2 and temperature. Increased CO2 appeared to mean a linear increase in temperature. However in 1900 Angstrom redid Arrhenius's lab experiment. He found that decreasing the amount of CO2 did not result in a fall in temperature. He concluded that at some point CO2 reached a saturation point and no further increase in temperature was possible. This has never been disproved and no further laboratory experiment has been able to prove otherwise. Arrhenius's original conclusions were wrong.
@@billbogg3857 You just keep blathering the same nonsense with no scientific evidence.
Update "...no scientist is seriously expecting to see sea level rise of multiple metres this century" is no longer true as of Feb '24, NOAA: "Current and future emissions matter. About 2 feet (0.6 meters) of sea level rise along the U.S. coastline is increasingly likely between 2020 and 2100 because of emissions to date. Failing to curb future emissions could cause an additional 1.5 - 5 feet (0.5 - 1.5 meters) of rise for a total of 3.5 - 7 feet (1.1 - 2.1 meters) by the end of this century."
Wasn't New York supposed to be underwater by 2020? Better let them know they're drowning. Oh, and tell all the politicians who own ocean front mansions to head for the hills. Good luck.
Meanwhile polar bears are hybridizing with brown bears and fishing for salmon in rivers. Hardly the end of the world.
I completely disagree with this. Yes, there is some sensationalism in the film, this misses the point entirely. If you don’t think that the crisis is as urgent as Gore said it is, then you haven’t been following the latest news, and you don’t understand the *exponential* part of the crisis. It happens painfully slow at first. Then, it accelerates to the point you can see changes in real time. Then, multiple tipping points are crossed, and huge, rapid acceleration begins and cascading events occur. To downplay this is both shortsighted and irresponsible. I will add that I do like most of your videos. My problem is with this dismissal of rapid acceleration.
Did you actually read what you wrote?
Or did your brain just stop functioning because of your emotional outburst?
Firstly, and I’m not a climate denier, but to say the earth is hurtling towards utter chaos, collapse, and destruction, is monumentally wrong.
Your statement makes it sound like you have seen this all before, which you haven’t.
The climate has changed many, many times over the earth’s entire existence, and nothing, and I repeat, nothing is going to change that.
The fact that plant life thrives in CO2 levels of between 300ppm, to 2000ppm, should indicate that extra CO2 levels are not such a concern.
Nearly every living organism on this planet needs CO2 to survive, without it, or lower it to much will end up being more harmful than having to much.
Primates emerged when CO2 levels were higher than 1000ppm.
And considering that every IPCC report has so many variables that it’s a wonder how it even exists.
Take the so called scientific experts on Polar Bears, AIT says Polar Bears are screwed, but the actual Inconvenient Truth is that polar bear numbers have been growing steadily since 1975, when a Canadian led moratorium on SHOOTING them was put in place, you see it wasn’t climate change, it was trophy hunters that were reducing polar bear numbers.
There were around 3,000 polar bears left in 1975, NOW! It is estimated that they number about 40 to 50,000+, and the Inuit council in Nunavut have allowed the shooting of polar bears, only in self defence, because of the rising numbers.
As for coral reefs, the Australian Institute of Marine Science, recently published a study, all be it hard to find (strangely enough), that shows the Great Barrier Reef, has a higher coverage than in 1985, reaching nearly 50% coverage, and still climbing, which puts paid to the doomsday predictions for coral reefs.
And believe it or not, the pacific island of Tuvalu is actually getting bigger, this observation is from the University of Auckland over 4 decades.
And what do you think happens to those massive blades on wind turbines? They are not recyclable, they are just BURIED in the ground when they are replaced, so much for “Green Energy”.
That’s some of the actual Inconvenient Truth.
Following the latest news.. The biggest problem we have in the world right now. Plenty of news, very economical with truth.
are you a physicist?
@@Atchikaru Seriously?! Is it necessary to be a physicist in order to listen to what scientists are saying or to be able to read a graph? FFS.
I appreciate your perspective and arguments even if I disagree. 1. There is no evidence that CO2 will cause runaway heating which seems to be the most common extreme position of climate activists. Large-scale multivariate systems with no overwhelming and dominating factor ever cause a runaway state, and that is what we see with Climate. According to prehistoric climate data, we know that CO2 was two orders of magnitude higher, and yet the Earth still cooled and life existed. 2. Climate models don't account for solar variation, cloud cover, or the infinite heat sink of space. These three factors are major contributors to climate and without accounting for them we can never expect climate models to be accurate.
The tiny period of time we have studied climate is not enough to make any long term prediction. The climate has and will always will change. There has been many changes in the history of earth.
It's easy to go back 23 years and Judge Al Gore's movie but the fact of the matter is things are far more critical now than he even suggested back then the science and the data are clear that we're heading for a +3.5C world by 2100 - and it will continue to rise after that time. However our responsibility to the people who will suffer after 2100 does not end
I think this video further illustrates how difficult it is to accurately capture something of tremendous complexity and nuance and then convey it in a manor for the masses.
Gotta agree. The heavy equipment required to convey manors is dauntingly expensive.
It's an easily debunked hypothesis.
It's pretty simple really. CO2 doesn't control the temperature of Earth and the Earth is historically cold right now, not historically hot. So the hypothesis is based on 2 lies, so it's false. Here's the data to prove my claims. Search : "Global temperature and atmospheric CO2 over geologic time/graph/images."
@andrewb2548 I was taught from a young age to mind my manors so I can concur the conveyance is a tremendously complex process
If you actually watch the video, it actually supports Gore's overall points and the seriousness of human-caused climate change due to anthropogenic CO2 & CH4: Quote:12:27 "British Justice Gore actually concluded that Gore's film was substantially founded upon scientific research and that the film's four scientific hypotheses were very well supported by research published in respected peer-reviewd journals".
Dear Simon Clark: for your next project could you please do an episode about the Title of this video? You could learn a lot from yourself mate
Good to have you back Dr Clark. Awesome clarity - as always.
Jason Box, who has studied Greenland for decades, has said ‘it hasn’t really sunk in, not even in the science community is that we’ve effectively lost the ice sheets. It’s only a matter of time before we see many meters of sea level rise”. By the end of this century we’ll probably get around a meter. Should we not all start to think on a long term basis, beyond our lifetimes? There will be people alive in the future who could see couple of meters in their lifetime. Catastrophic would be an understatement for those people.
tech will save us, we'll be so advanced by then relax bro
@@caine7024 That's very naive.
Show me some tide guage readings that support this trend. I haven't seen any evidence for this.
You can 'prove' a significant acceleration in sea level rise only if you change your data collection method part the way through the graph. Eg start the graph with tide guages and then fraudulently replace recent data with satellite data, thereby showing an apparent increase rate.
@@caine7024 When we humans created one of our first cities, it was done due to innovation, new tech. Someone made a great irrigation system and the City of Ur. Years later the irrigation system had caused saltification of the soil = no food , social unrest and eventually the destruction of the society.
@@caine7024 You're right. This tech will save us, if we use it:
To avoid increased famine, farm failure, fire-promoting weather, and flooding:
1. Curtail fossil (carbon from the ground in the form of coal, hydrocarbons and limestone) each month by a fraction of the total being extracted down to zero by 2030.
2. Reducing methane emissions of all kinds, especially from fossil, replacing fossil extracts with biomethane and harvesting wood before it decays.
3. As soon as alternatives to fossil-based energy generation, transportation and manufacture are available and economical we must replace all the fossil we can with them and shut down the fossil-based activities.
4. Drawdown CO2 from the atmosphere by the only two legitimate, economical methods available: photosynthesis and weathering of basalt fines.
5. Increase conservation of wildlife, especially aquatic life mainly by reducing ship traffic 40%.
6. Increase energy efficiency 8% year over year.
7. Individual tech in no nation accounts for more than 25% of fossil emissions; tech used by business, institutions and governments are responsible for essentially all climate change famine, farm failure, fire-promoting weather and flooding.
polar bears in 1960 = 5000. polar bears today 37,000
Great content. Thank you. Subscribed!
I’m all for sustainability and environmentalism, but I’m against the co2 alarmism. I have a number of concerns that have adjusted the temp data. I agree that co2 is a greenhouse gas and I agree that humans have put co2 in the atmosphere.
In one of your previous video you state emissions from burning oil etc was co2 and other noxious gases. But that these other noxious gases had a cooling effect on temperature. The noxious gases also created a smog blanket over cities which lead to cooling over cities.
So technology was developed to remove this noxious gases. Catalytic converters, conversion to gas from coal etc. this all lead to noxious pollution being removed from the skies. No more huge industrial chimneys or billion cars pumping noxious gas into the atmosphere. Absolutely agree this was the right thing to especially from a health perspective.
Now here is my problem. This technology removed the coolant gases but not the heating gas from exhaust. Consequently our skies have been cleaned of the coolant gases that supposedly masked the co2 warming.
Consequently our skies have significantly reduced coolant and smog blanket and an increase in co2.
We now see especially from the 1980’s a global temp rise particularly over the skies of cleaner air cities.
The temp measures are simply a measure of cleaner skies with less coolant and more co2.
What worries me is that scientists knew this is what would happen with the removal of the coolants. They’ve allowed the temp to increase.
What we must also remember us that when we burnt timber for fuel we also put ash into the atmosphere. Ever been near a fire, it’s toxic to breathe, and we’ve cleaned our skies of those toxins too.
Is the rising temp a consequence not if co2 but cleaner pollution free skies and the albedo of our urban centres.
The "alarmism" is factual though...
The cooling effect of those aerosols are nothing compared to the heating effect of CO2 and other gases from oil combustion...
We know what is causing the heating, its mostly CO2 and other industrial green house gases...
great video, this kind of thoughtful breakdowns of societal problems is exactly what's needed today. Huge inspiration!
Wrong, you should definitely doubt those theory’s!
Recomendo professor Patric Moore, Björn Lomberg and John Christy to better understand why. They all have different approaches, BUT, they definitely breakdown why the story sold is wrong in SOOOO MANY WAYS….
Ice melting in Greenland, Antarctica & glaciers all over is half of SLR. The other half is thermal expansion of seawater. The expected timeline has been shrinking exponentially as scientists have learned more, from many thousands of years to a small fraction of that. Gore’s leaving out the time was perfectly reasonable. Multiple meters by 2100 is reasonable. (Hansen & many others)
#7 /the graph actually shows temperature going up before CO2 rise. So it shows temperature drives CO2???
Exactly!
And vice versa, it's what's commonly known as positive feedback-loops and they are a big concern for our climate.
Frankly, a platform without an algorithm is worse at communication, period. That is one of the main reasons I repeatedly bounced off Nebula. Remember that an algorithm doesn't need to have the aim to increase platform ad revenue, it can be optimized for any goal you want - but one of the more important aspects of it is finding videos one may want to watch but may not know about. Without that, finding content is a lot harder. It's a case of "OK, I watched the two videos I knew about ... so what's next?" And back to CZcams I go.
It's not the only problem I find with Nebula - at least the last time I looked (which is a while ago), I seem to recall being unable to find anything to keep track of what I already watched, for example.
You'll notice that all of these are usability features. Those are very relevant to viewers. Creators tend to only notice them indirectly. Maybe that's the real problem.
I find this very frustrating. CZcams has many problems, most of which, especially the more severe ones, are based around CZcams being mainly in the business of selling ads. I'd love something better. But none of the alternatives I've seen manages to be that better thing.
That is kind of the flaw, Nebula is for people to follow the people they found on CZcams without having to block the ads. It fundamentally doesn't work without CZcams as the path by which people discover people to follow.
The other key word he mentioned is "curated". Who does the curating? How knowledgeable are these curators about the subject matters they are curating?
How careful are they to avoid curating according to their personal biases?
It's dystopian to watch this video split hairs about water levels. As if it's the only factor, and we don't have cactus falling from the heat and tires burning to roads.
If sea lvls were rising the Maldives would be under water by now 😂