Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
A Conversation on Climate Change
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 03. 2014
- Recorded March 3, 2014 in the Chan Auditorium on the Campus of UAH, Huntsville, Alabama.
Moderated by Dr. Russ Roberts, host of EconTalk.
Panelists: Dr. Kerry Emanuel & Dr. John Christy.
I like the way they did not include any CO2 advocates! Those that believe that the CO2 concentration is low! ...that the ecology of the planet would be improved by the the increase of CO2 to 1100ppm. Horticulturists increase the CO2 content of their greenhouses to 1100ppm to create faster growing plants that need less water. This would be significant in the production of food! Allowing the temperature to rise slightly would extend growing seasons. The increase in CO2 would allow the "greening" of arid terrains and potentially turn deserts into gardens! The redistribution of moisture over landmasses could reduce flooding and erosion. Cloud cover could actually (in the case of higher altitude clouds) have a cooling effect on the planet. This is not pseudoscience but a potential return to the average CO2 concentrations that have been present during much of the earth's production of Life upon this planet! Much of the earth's history has CO2 levels in the range of 1000-2000ppm. The result has been more plant growth and higher O2 production. If you want to be a friend to plants, then it's time we stop starving them of one of their primary nutrients for existence!
However theres no extreme scenario ahead of us but warmer weather save 166,000 ppl
Normal flu unalive alot of ppl every year
For me so far the best discussion with both sides involved that I have seen so far.
funny no replies on such a debated subject.
Great conversation from both sides. I liked the down to earth, objective and sincere demeanour of both sides.
Thanks for the video!
The most significant outcome of this video (which is otherwise a very dry debate) is that Dr Emanuel admits time and time again how much is unknown and uncertain. And this is what they call “settled science”?!
Settled: Earth warming, not the sun, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, rise above 400ppm CO2 is because burning fossil fuels, sea levels rising, permafrost thawing, blooms earlier, migrations towards the poles, raw data shows more warming than adjusted data, nights warming faster than days, record warm records outpacing record cold by about 3:1, satellite data shows the same warming as
Christy is wrong about projections. The models did such a good job that he would never show the graphs of the model projections and the results. See here: www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming
Christy banked on the earth not warming, and lost. He should admit it.
I don't believe that Christy ever did issue a mea culpa regarding his satellite results. They had so many things wrong that when properly worked he ended up proving the temp graphs to be accurate.
@@scottekoontz dude pls learn the difference between 1ST HAND SCIENTIFIC DATA and INTERPRETATION , OPINIONS OF SCIENTISTS
They are 2 different things
1st hand scientific data show a normal change in climate that looks completely natural
U are refering to 2nd hand data that is mixed with OPINIONS !
Like those failed models that failed , theyve THOUGHT a bunch of elements have bigger impact but it failed, they had wrong opinions !
I really appreciate the university putting this together. I loved the objectivity and professionalism of both speakers. It's nice to be educated instead of being told what to believe in.
"nobody in their right mind would suggest abandoning fossil fuels" - i guess the entire democrat party is nuts.
It must have been very frustrating for the eminently sane and honest John Christy to deal with Kerry Emanuel's constant lying.
List the lies. Ready...
(end)
He only said "we and 94% of colleagues are sure we cause it"
How
"We dont know much but were causing it"
How are u sure when u dont know much about climate?
"I dont know it looks like it"
"Yes christy can be right but ppl WHAT IF WERE DOOMED!?"
Ur a scientist, show us science that proves it and dont use peasant "fear monegering" method
"We dont know much about climate"
How are u sure christy is wrong?
"I dont know but were sure"
All climate models predictions failed, why ?
"In 1960 we had only paper and penciles , in 1990-2000 we had computer, thats a huge progress"
What !? No answer ?
"Next question"
We had warming/colding all the time in history, why this is different? Prove it?
"Its wrong to say "stpd human death example" (scaping to answer)
But in 1540 we had a extreme warming/drought , what caused it?
Did our co2 traveled in history went to 1540!?
Can we even call this A fking SCIENTIFIC DEBATE !?
I mean this is what we all see all over the climate alarmism !
Only FEAR method only scaping from answer instead of science !!!
@@scottekoontz I'll mention one glaring lie I noticed: At 20:20, Emanuel says, "This warming that we've seen in the last 40 years, I would say with 95% confidence, and 95% of my colleagues agree, has been caused by greenhouse gases going up." And at 21:16, he says, "Can I prove absolutely in a court of law [that the warming we are seeing now is caused by greenhouse gases going up]? Probably not. But to the satisfaction of 97% of my colleagues? Yes."
But these are lies. There is no survey of Emanuel's colleagues that shows that 95% or 97% of his colleagues endorse the claim he's making. In fact, the survey by Cook et al. from 2013, which Emanuel implicitly cites with the 97% figure, doesn't show anything like that -- in the abstract and introduction section of Cook et al., they say very explicit that 2/3 of the 12,000 climate change paper abstracts they examined didn't even take a position on whether recent global warming is primarily caused by human activity or not, and they say that 1/3 of the 12% of authors they surveyed directly also say that their papers don't take a position one way or the other. If Emanuel had even read the abstract of Cook et al., he would know this, and it's hard to believe that he didn't.
Moreover, direct surveys of members of the American Meteorological Society sharply contradict his claims: one survey from 2016, where a little over half of AMS members responded, found that only 2/3 endorsed Emanuel's claim; another survey from 2014, where 26% of AMS members responded, found that only 1/2 endorsed Emanuel's claim. Granted, the latter survey could have been done after this debate happened, but it still indicates considerable disagreement and uncertainty within the AMS over the causes of recent global warming. Disagreement and uncertainty that it's hard to believe Emanuel wasn't aware of at the time of this debate (he's also a member of the AMS and was at the time).
@@maanelid "they say very explicit that 2/3 of the 12,000 climate change paper abstracts they examined didn't even take a position" EXACTLY!!!
What scientists, i.e. anyone who has EVER written a paper do is remove the papers that do not take a position. If, for example, they took a huge swath of science papers on any topic, they would ignore the ones that were reporting on the density of an element at low temps and those reporting on covid. Why? They do not mention climate thus they do not take a stance on climate. This is proper science. Using your math only 0.0001% of science papers believe gravity is stronger on the Earth than our moon since so many papers do not take a position.
"But these are lies." HA HA HA HA, OK then. Facts are lies. Good one.
"American Meteorological Society" I get my climate science from... people who report on the weather.
Cook read the paper by Cook. Maybe ask the authors next time what their papers mean instead of using gut feelings.
@@scottekoontz I see that I'm dealing with either a low-IQ adult or some kid in K-12 school.
No, not "exactly". The point here should be obvious: If there are X papers on the topic of climate change (and yes, those papers DID talk about climate change), and 2/3 of them don't even state a position on its cause, but (allegedly) 97% of 1/3 of them say it's human caused, you cannot then logically infer that 97% of the authors (climate scientists) of all these X papers endorse the claim that it's human caused. Those 2/3 of papers that didn't take a position (even though they explicitly talked about climate change) might have refrained from taking a position for any number of reasons, including that the authors of those papers are not sure what the primary causes are, or because they don't think it's primarily human caused but don't want to say so publicly because that lowers their chances of getting federal government grants for their research.
If you think the AMS members are merely people who report the weather, you really are clueless on this topic. Educate yourself by searching AMS and look at who their members are.
Never mind the models. Dump the models. Where's the evidence?
There is none!
Quality of Models
Great history from Emanuel. There is so much you can gain from models that cannot be entirely solved, like the projection that each successive decade will be warmer no matter what solar irradiation does. It gets harder when you consider feedbacks, but we do know that CO2 will increase temps enough that sea ice will melt (it is) and albedo will change (it is).
13:00 Christy talks about measuring using satellites. GREAT! Thank you Christy for proving that the ground stations are doing well. They match!
14:00 The data is robust. In a similar fashion, you can arbitrarily take 50 temp sites in the US and arrive at the same temp graph. Use only rural stations, same. Use only
15:00 Models have not over predicted. In fact, they have done extremely well. Christy refuses to look at them, but talks as though he did.
I like that Emanuel is talking like a scientist and admitting what we don't know, but Christy is pretending that he knows better. Sure sign of an issue.
17:00 Climate is changing, and we're doing it. Bravo. News flash: temps have NOT been falling, each decade is warmer. Christy thinks it may someday fall... good luck to us. And no, the models did NOT overproduce, especially for the last few years 2016, 2017, 2018, and of course we are going to have another warm year in 2019.
"Models have not over predicted"
Probably u refer to a desperate attempt in interpretting so that it can adjust the horrible failures lol
All of their predictions have been WRONG. I don’t see that changing.
Am I the only one who thinks the Host is not giving fairly the qual amount of time to speak for John Christy?
I've been hearing more voices coming out from this Emmanuel guy's mouth
Far less binary debate than the calamitists like to argue. And far less emphatic that we are heading for crisis than what the politicians and greenies of the world would have us believe.
25:00 Yes, Christy is correct, that at the time this was produced in 2014 the Antarctic sea ice was slowly increasing. The models predicted melting.
Fast forward to today, July 2019, and we see that the models did, sadly, EXTREMELY well. DAMN!!! We are losing so much ice on both poles, glaciers, Greenland, etc.
Decreasing FASTER than the Arctic now. OK then, Christy must eb worried that he may get a call regarding this discussion.
www.cnn.com/2019/07/01/world/antarctica-sea-ice-melting-climate-intl/index.html
If i say 100 predictions that happen next year, if 1 of my predictions come true
Does it mean i know future !?
Does it mean im a time traveller !?
Lets not forget that the whole debate started when the claimed "were causing climate change"
They provided alot of models based on co2 that all failed
-Somebody claimed something
-His proof failed
Whats ur conclusion !?
Should we DIG for reasons to make him look right!?
Do we discuss like childeren card game
-"i have this against u"
-"instead i have this against urself"
-"ok i have that one"
-"Thats nothing this one is better"
Its probably better to look the bigger picture
23:56
So because of one factor came true , should we ignore all the other failed factors !?
If i say 100 predictions that happen next year, if 1 of my predictions come true
Does it mean i know future !?
Does it mean im a time traveller !?
Such a cheap reasoning for a scientist !
Those failed models were based on co2 ! That probably proves co2 is not a factor !
As many scientist screamed it for ages but are ignored completely !
30:00 The rise in temps in the past 15 years is NOT flat, but that is because I'm writing in 2019 with the knowledge that the best thing Earth has going are some flat spots, and unfortunately bursts of extreme warming.
The pause is long over. We are warming, and even Christy admits that today.
36:19
Fear p0rn attempt number 101
Still no scientific proof
Remember that the "pause" was discussed in 2014 (based on 2013 temps). Pause?
What happened since then? Obviously temps went up, and that is clear to everyone including the science aliterates. But now we get to hear about a pause since 2016, another cherry picked starting point. In other words, stop talking about cherry picked pauses, start looking at the simple fact that earth is warming. There will always be "pauses" but there will always be warming as we add CO2 (the primary forcing) to our atmosphere.
24:17
"We have enough compelling evidences"
I begged u for 25min to show those "COMPELLING EVIDENCES" but u only scaped answering and refered to "my colleagues are sure" or "we have compelling evidences" 😂🤦♂️
19:00 Magnitudes matter. Yes, and Christy learned that lesson recently when his satellite data showed the same trend as ground stations. How Christy's team managed to have so many simple math errors in their calculations while thumping their chest about their differing results.
97% is not a canard. Do humans contribute? Yes, and thank you Christy for admitting that simple truth. We need the public to know that scientists are in the 97%, and denier organizations cover the 3%.
22:00 Christy needs a new model. His model (whatever it is) is over predicting, so why is he throwing that straw man out there?
Forcing agents are both pos and neg. If it weren't for CO2, the climate would probably be cooling. It's the sun, stupid, and we should be cooling.
23:50 YES!!! Arctic sea ice and now Antarctic sea ice is diminishing FASTER than predicted. Faster, not slower. So they were wrong, and deniers are somehow happy about this? We all should be frightened when the projections are too conservative.
97% aggreed with the EFFECT
which i myself can agree with it bcuz 0.003% is an effect 1% is also effect, 10% too
if the question was "CO2 IS THE MAIN CAUSE?"
Then the result would def. be something else not 97%
Use some logic..
Plus consensus, the vote of scientists is not SCIENCE as the whole population consensus was the earth is flat but galileo believed it was globe
Did consensus changed the reality !? Absolutely not