That I know how to fix this and no one believes me. Maybe it's because in return for "stopping hurricanes," I still require 7 things in return. One of them being to change the stars. What I mean is, get the IAU to, OFFICIALLY, change the name to make a new constellation. My idea for changing the stars includes Orion and Pleiades (Subaru). I figure it's time to put something up there that's relevant to us, don't you think? Take Orion's belt and Betelgeuse becomes the head with a baseball hat. The 3 stars of Orion's belt make up the 3 fat belt loops on a baseball uniform. Below the belt are two legs bending at the knee. Saiph is the back foot and Rigel is the front foot. The feet aligning perfectly under the bent knees. The spear pointing at "Subaru" is the bat being swung and "Pleiades" is the baseball flying away after being hit. Bellatrix is the hand that let go of the bat. Put it all together and you get, "THE ALL-STAR." In my case, I see a left-handed batter and I imagine a "7" on the jersey. Which makes him, "Mickey." (As it should be ;-) But you can put any number you want, making, "THE ALL-STAR," any player you want. It'd be wrong of me to not, at least, try. This is me, trying. Pass it on, please and thank you. Don't worry, where I come from, crazy is a compliment. ;-P
If the models don't accurately predict the observations, then the models are factually incorrect. Otherwise, the model results would correlate with these measurements.
The irony of it all is that the climate or the earth does not give a dime about us human beings. It is not about saving the planet, it is about saving us!
Exactly! Life on this planet has come close to extinction several times already. But still after hundreds millions of years life erupted all around on an extraordinary scale. We can raise the temperature until humanity becomes extinct. As a result, we will accelerate the return to balance in nature. Therefore, the faster and more effectively we produce CO2, the worse it is for us and nature here and now, but the better for the planet in the long run.
@@bartolovelo8976is it true that we currently (last 100 years) has had the lowest co2 in planetary history? Plants thrive at 1000 ppm and die under 100 ish?
Seemingly a small amount compared to the sun, but how much does energy loss from heat from combustion or battery make a difference. As we put more people in the planet and use more ac/heat, no matter the source isn’t 80% of energy transfer lost as heat?
Actually, I'd say the irony is that, despite being arguably the most greedy, selfish species on Earth, even when the goal is to save ourselves, we're still failing to achieve it...
I remember the late Brian Kaye saying that the only thing we can reliably predict about non-linear systems is that our predictions will probably be wrong.
I have a poster on the wall in my kitchen which is a modern take on Murphy's Law, one of the statements in it is, "If you plan for A, B, C and D, E will likely happen."
My advisor loved quoting someone else and saying "all models are wrong, but they can be useful." Don't except a computational model with simplified physics equations to predict something down to the T, but if a model is getting 65% of its predictions right, you should still reference it and hope they improve it.
So when the heat rise. You got more greenhouse gases yes. So the Milankovitch cycles tells us that it should be warm know. That the greenhousegasese should rise. And that we are son heading for an ice age. Why don you talk about the eccentricity of the earth? Is it any reason for that?
When you say "the natural world", do you mean flora? Do you mean the wilderness? Do you mean everything that's not human despite humans being nature's best and most advanced creation? Climate activists have managed to brainwash everyone into thinking their movement isn't anti-human.
I live in the topics, not so much. But in October 2024, I'm moving to Tasmania, it's becoming uninhabitable for someone with lighter skin in the Tropics.
Neil, I think another interesting Star Talk would be if you had Sir Brian May, guitarist of the legendary band Queen on as a guest. Most people don't know that he has a PhD in Astro Physics as well and collaborates with NASA in his "spare time".
@@idontknowhowtoplaylol280 that would make it scarier. Temperatures hit this high before yes. But the change was never this abrupt. These changes take hundreds of thousands of years to occur naturally, compared to that the changes we have caused are basically instant which would make for quite a discrepancy in the graph.
@@idontknowhowtoplaylol280 Always the same argument, cruelly lacking in perspective. The changes observed over the last two centuries should not have appeared and manifested themselves in this way over several millennia. We are +1.49 degrees compared with the pre-industrial era, and for the record, the difference between 1850 and the last deglaciation period 12,000 years ago is 2.5 degrees. At that time, Paris was under 4 metres of ice. You have no idea how far ahead of the initial cycle we are (but find out for yourselves).
A few things that stick out: The early 1940s bulge, I would posit was due to the mechanization and increased manufacturing involved in WWII. The cone at the top seems to start around 1980 I'd love to see historical data going back a few thousand years presented this way, but I suspect the accuracy that data would be suspect. As they said, there's science to do.
@@Broockle You have zero idea about how quickly or slowly climate has changed in the past. We use proxies to estimate, the margin of error is greater than the change in temperature.
One aspect of Startalk that I truly enjoy is the irreverence and humor that is constantly inserted into very deep and serious conversations. SO many science conversations lose people to the tone of the conversation when they are struggling with the basics. Humanizing the conversation makes the serious content more digestible for many people. Science needs to speak to the people at large vs the in crowd.
You guys are surprised that the models didn't predict this? The IPCC, Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report declared: “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible.”
As with a LOT of this conversation... we need to know what they meant by "long-term". It's kind of like how geological records use "present day" to mean 1950.
@@UteChewb The term "exact" is non-scientific. Contrary to Spock's overuse of the term when answering Captain Kirk's inquiries, all scientific measurements use significant digits to imply accuracy. They also use standard error calculations to state the confidence level of their rightmost significant digit. This confidence level is expressed in standard deviations. Climate scientist's like to say that standard error calculations are "difficult" (meaning impossible) in climate science, which is the very first clue that anyone schooled in the methods of science understand they are not flogging (selling us) science at all.
@@brucefrykman8295 using Star Trek in a science based debate --- automatic fail. You seem to ignore the fact that all measurements and predictions have error bars, and that the track record for past climate predictions has been very good. But you deniers never seem to understand the basics.
Living out here on an island in the middle of the Pacific with a volcano on it, we know that the particulates in our air change our climate and the other thing that he didn’t really talk about, but is a big factor is that giant volcano that blew up and sent water aerosol vapor into the stratosphere, which is a big big deal and that’s why we were a bit hotter in 2023 because of that volcano
Jan ‘22 Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haʻapai did indeed affect climate. Cubic kilometres of water thrown into the stratosphere or mesosphere. We had pumice rafts 10s of kilometres long, green sunsets for a year and of course the Tsunami was devastating for the western Pacific.
That volcano breaks assumptions by the IPCC. The introduction of water vapour into the Mesosphere is a critical factor and is ignored by climate models. It doesn't fit the narrative that man is the ONLY player, and not Volcanoes, the Sun and release of subsea Methyl Hydrates by Earthquakes/ Tsunamis. QED.
@@matthewgraham2518 Yes aerosols cool the air by blocking the sun, the issue is that volcanos also eject tons of waters directly into the stratosphere where it does a lot of heating in a layer that is supposed to carry the heat of the lower atmosphere into the upper atmosphere where it cools down in large convective cells, heating this layer directly negates some of the cooling effect of the lower atmosphere, increasing the average temperature close to the ground.
I'd like to point out that this was noticed in 2001. When air traffic was grounded for just a few days after the Sept-11 attack, the increase in warming was measured. As I recall, "pan evaporation rates" are daily measurements made in standard pans, as they are topped off each day. The effect of aerosols was dubbed "global dimming" and the irony that pollution was mitigating global warming was very much noted, too.
@@woodchipgardens9084 "Its a fake average because" yada yada yada. Give us a break. If a compendium of the numerous and varying climate change contrarian opinions, claims and excuses was compiled, it would be larger than a single book volume of all three episodes of Lord Of The Rings. Mean while the actual scientific research, explanations, evidence and reality regarding AGW have remained consistent for over 100+years. When are climate change contrarians ever going to stop making stuff up and pretending they know more than they actually do. If they keep this up there will be another episode to add to the compendium of nonsense claims.
The effect of aerosols in dimming insolation has been known for a long time; it was noted in university earth science courses in the late 1980s. Eliminating acid rain cleared the atmosphere and increased warming. Interestingly spring plowing for crops was regarded as helping cool the planet because it put particulate matter into the atmosphere, but since then it's been learned that it actually releases massive amounts of CO2, so the net effect is a big contribution to warming. More recently in an online seminar I learned that the trick for using particulate matter to cool the planet is picking the right size particles. That size happens to match the smaller of the sort of volcanic dust sent up by the Mount Saint Helens eruption that circled the globe several times before all falling out -- go just a bit smaller and it will take several years to all fall out. So aerosols are too tiny but volcanic ash dust is about right.
I'd read an article recently stating that the underwater volcano that erupted near Tonga the other year may actually be a major disruptor in relation to the expected outcomes of the years following it. They did modelling based on the tons of water it shot into the stratosphere and I think they were saying that with that variable alone the models significantly narrowed the gaps in the discrepancies between the previous models and reality.
Changes we are seeing in the atmosphere caused by Tonga are highly likely short term, as that eruption might raise the risk that at least one year in the next five will temporarily exceed the 1.5C warming threshold. Climate trends take at least 30 years to show. It will take an eruption more powerful than Tonga’s to affect a climate trend, a volcanic eruption bigger than any in human history. Basically an event like Tonga in the long run will work out to zero as a climate forcing over the long-term considering the prediction from main stream climate science is a possibility of only a temporary increase in temp for a short period. If the Tonga eruption does push the global mean temp up globally temporarily; still insignificant in regard to long-term climate trend, but not for the stratosphere, as it has created a wide range of potential long-lasting repercussions for its global composition and dynamics. A much bigger concern is how its chemistry affects ozone variations causing an impact on sea ice and sea surface temperature.
That article has also been read into a YT video and republished here: wattsupwiththat.com/2024/07/09/hunga-tonga-volcano-impact-on-record-warming/. It was certainly a rare event with a measurably massive water vapor impact, that should dissipate without establishing a higher new threshold global temperature. Tyson recorded this 4-5 months before this analysis was published, but after the hypothesis had been floated that such a potent greenhouse gas as H2O would surely overwhelm any man-made warming.
Fun vid ought to have Dire Straits in the background ;-). Politically obtuse IMO. Sabine Hossenfelder punditry on this news item much better for public perception and expectation.
As a novice I've been studying climate change since I was 11 years old. One of the big problems here with respect to the drastic rise in temperature in 2023 is that no one is factoring in the massive amounts of methane being released by the melting of permafrost.
You are not telling climate researchers something they don't know here. Of course that is factored in, and to imagine nobody else is thinking about something you happen to have heard about is ridiculous.
It does no good now to correct these comments hey I just changes the words back so the comment is senseless meaningless and you can't hardly read it .. this is how I'm being censored
A major issue with hindering the arrival of sun energy by geoengineering instead of allowing it to leave easier again is that that energy that arrives and leaves easily helps with agricultural crops, while not allowing the energy to arrive would reduce photosynthesis and harvests. That would make the world cooler, but also hungrier.
Most plants aren't limited by sunlight but by nutrients, temperature, daylength and water. In fact planets that live in full sun have pigments to protect them from the extra light.
We could build & deploy millions of water-bomber drones, and then control where they dump their water. They could make clouds in the morning (so they dissipate by evening for a net cooling affect), and do that over oceans, so as not to shade crops. Those same drones could be used during droughts to irrigate crops and dry habitat. Water is needed for plants to absorb CO2. They could also be used to put out wild-fires and rebuild glaciers & ice-sheets (just add water in winter).
A big problem today revolves around, "The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.” Some stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the second part, while others use it to dismiss what we do know.
@@orionred2489 Dr Dunning Krueger won his PhD for describing the effect bearing his name so you can count on it; it was all peer reviewed. I googled it somewhere.
Cycles grow more and more variable(to and fro) until they either break or restabilize. And repeat until they break. This is present in every single ecosystem
I don't think this is necessarily true, at least from a systems/process control perspective. If your inputs are truly cyclical (e.g. sinusoidal) then your response CAN overshoot and cause de-stabilization (whether increasing or decreasing uncontrollably), but it depends on the dynamics of the system you're analyzing. The "inputs" here are highly non-linear (take the sunspot cycle for example), so it's not an easy task to build a model and use it predict such global phenomena.
There was an episode of the Drew Carey Show where Drew complained about how cold the Cleveland winter was, so he angrily sprayed aerosol from his front door into the sky in order to accelerate global warming. That scene has stuck with me for over 20 years and the irony of it coming full circle is terrifying
Well Drew totally mixed up causes & effects. The aerosol was destroying the ozone, not causing global warming. Global warming is from the rapid release of all the Earth stored carbon. There is no carbon in aerosol
remember the ozone layer scam? the problem is always over some place that cant be observed by people. the great plastic patch in the middle of pacific, or polar bears at the poles, AHH ICE IS MELTING IN ANT ACTICA!! WE ONLY HAVE 100 years, will people have the change of clothes by then required to survive teh completely unnoicible practically undetecable without advanced scientific equipment and calculaters of the 1 degree change when averaged world wide. we must spend trillions of dollars to avert the mild discomfort someone may experiance if we havent ended teh world through war by then. OH THE HUMANITY~
Neil, thank you! Paul is very funny and Gavin is a very impressive scientist! I’m glad someone of his caliber is heading that organization and it sounds like some good science is being done.
My dad told me way back in the early 1960s, that we can listen to scientists, and find ways to protect our planet . Or we can continue to ignore the facts that scientists have learned about our planet , and destroy our own home , and ourselves . Or we can DO SOMETHING , AND SAVE THE PLANET , AND OURSELVES . OR CONTINUE TO LET OUR PLANET TAKE CARE OF ITSSELF , FOR A FEW BILLION YEARS , WITHOUT HUMANS AND THEIR CONTINUED LACK OF CARE .
Gavin Shmidt and Michael Mann (hockey stick guy) are two of the world's top climatologists, they run a brilliant web site called 'realclimate'. Anyone who is anyone in the climate science community hangs out there.
Did you miss the part where they said it was a higher solar maximum, which they missed the model. Also look into the Tonga volcano that exploded a few years ago.
No mention of Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai eruption, which was predicted to have significant impact on warming of the Earth. Most eruptions cause cooling, but in this case, it erupted under the ocean throwing water vapor into the upper atmosphere causing a heating affect. The moisture in the stratosphere incresed 10%-15% and is expected to last for many years.
I am fortunate enough to live in the most isolated (state) capital city in the world and have a near pristine ocean view to the West. After the eruption in 2022 i started to notice around 15-30 minutes after sunset the Western sky had a greenish tinge, not the usual blue, gold or orange/red. This occurred throughout the following year into September/October and has now virtually disappeared. I can only assume it was an effect of the moisture and or volcanic dust in our atmosphere from the eruption.
I think "Don't look up" is a perfect description of what's going on with man-made climate change, only that it's moving a lot slower than that meteorite. But same behavior and probably same outcome...?
@@simonjaz1279 I almost gave up on Don't Look Up in the first 20 minutes, but so many people were talking about it that I stuck with it. Now I really love it. The moment where the meatier hits earth gives me a sort of peace because the main characters are just sitting around having a completely mundane conversation after dinner, knowing they're all about to die. They just carry on talking about store-bought apple pie vs home-made apple pie, I think it is, until the house collapses on them.
In 1958 the observatory on Maui detected patterns of global warming. In 1987 I studied geology at the University and we predicted that America will be driving small cars as in Europe. That didn’t happen. America bought larger vehicles, trucks, SUVs. Speed limits actually increased. In short demand for fuel increased whilst ignoring the climate effects. Now we find ourselves hurrying to change our habits. It’s not going to happen overnight.
@@QuitworkBehappyand the world’s coastlines looked drastically different. The fact that worse ultra slow motion floods have happened in the past doesn’t mean that it won’t cost society dearly
A communication thing. Aerosols in this context refer to particulate matter. Particulate matter is a mixture of small solid particles and liquid droplets in the air. Do not confuse with aerosols from pressurized cans. Not the same thing.
@@singingway Particle pollution - also called particulate matter (PM) - is made up of particles (tiny pieces) of solids or liquids that are in the air. These particles may include: Dust Dirt Soot Smoke Drops of liquid Some particles are big enough (or appear dark enough) to see - for example, you can often see smoke in the air. Others are so small that you can’t see them in the air.
Could you explain what you mean here? I don't see how particulate matter and aerosols are any different in this context. Pressurized gas cans vaporize their contents as they flow out of the nozzle, thus creating microcontaminants (say, Febreze or something similar). Smoke particulates would effectively be the same thing, less any difference in their overall size, no?
@@Strategies2010 - Pariticluate matter (smoke, dust, ash, etc.) blocks the sun and is a cool forcing. Aerosol can propellants like butane and isobutane, are greenhouse gases and are a warm forcing.
Great content! My question is regarding the affects of space weather on the surrounding planets, moons, and asteroids within the solar system as predicters of the affects of space weather on the earth. While solar storms may be the largest predicter to date of space weather, I am also curious about other systems such as magnetic storms that happen in the solar system which can also influence the geomagnetic storms on earth.
It's like the guy I heard around 10 + years ago said, scientist are downplaying the positive feedback loops in their models. It was a safe bet that unknown positive feedback loops would pop up from out of nowhere, not sure if they could add unknowns into a model.
From what I remember from middle school they basically said 2 billion people will die very quickly. And I've always believed it. Just waiting for it to fully kick into high gear.
Those unknowns are what make the model results probabilities instead of certainties, the model makers may talk about probabilities in their professional papers but it never makes it to the headline or the policy debate.
Let's be clear with language. Removing aerosols is not increasing the temperatures. The atmospheric carbon is increasing the temperatures. Removing the arrosols is just showing us the full effect of the atmospheric carbon instead of hiding some of it.
@@5353Jumper CO2 is a VERY efficient greenhouse gas--in a small range of wavelengths; specifically, 14 -16 microns. The CO2 present in the atmosphere already effectively absorbs 100% within that range, and additional CO2 does NOT add to the effect. Since CO2 is essentially a trace gas, even going from 320 parts PER MILLION to 410 ppm, the assumption that this increase is significantly affecting global climate is suspect and requires more support than models that have yet to make an accurate prediction and can be tweaked to output whatever answer the modelers want (while hoping to be published and having their grants approved).
That is an interesting use of language, and really just semantics. We aren't removing the aerosols from the atmosphere, we are removing the substances that cause them, from the fuel we burn, (or from the exhaust after fuel is burned). When we stop putting them up, they settle out of the atmosphere on their own. Those aerosols were not "hiding some of" the global heating caused by CO2, they were preventing it. Hiding something implies that it is there, but unseen. The warming is NOT there, but it's potential is. When the aerosols are gone and they stop reflecting sunlight back into space, then the full potential of the CO2 blanket we have wrapped the planet in, is felt.
The planet’s imbalanced and these storms will increase in frequency and severity until the imbalance has been corrected. I’m sure you guys remember the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, scientists said almost 33 years ago, pretty much what I just said, that as climate change progressed, storms and severe weather would exponentially increase in both frequency and severity.
Brings to mind Henry's Law describes equilibrium conditions, but. Climate “skeptics” love to to bring up Henry’s Law when going on about how CO2 lags temperature when it does, but not when it doesn’t; trying to make an argument that CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere. But any one familiar with basic atmospheric physics knows Henry’s Law doesn’t apply now because there is no equilibrium now because human activity has disrupted the equilibrium, which is why oceans are absorbing too much CO2 now because the partial pressure of CO2 is higher in the air than in the ocean. Henry's Law will not apply again until equilibrium is restored.
@@ika5666 No, it's just easy to misremember something that is commonplace, so much so, that it becomes redundant. You ever hear of a 'redundancy' before?
As someone who spends most of their life building PowerPoint Decks, the chart at 4:08 expanding and flipping was pretty sweet (The reason it is expanding, not so sweet of course 😅)
The chart is not someone who spends most of their life building PowerPoint Decks, but the depiction of the global warming trend was clever until it reached the present and tilted up to show the vertical timeline - that was very cool.
Oh good, did they talk about why the cities aren’t flooded yet? Hint: It’s because the ocean rises 3mm/year so it will take 100 years to rise 1 foot. 😉
@@Greg-yu4ij Except 1) Some cities will begin to see flooding at less than a one foot sea level rise, with some places seeing it at around 6 inches, and 2) As the climate continues to warm that 3mm per year will increase year after year with recent projections saying US coastlines could be approaching a one foot sea level rise from where it is now in as little as 26 years
@@Kazihirom either you pay or endure the commercials but atm Google is finding new ways to f us over and become even more annoying with these adds then they ever have been and it totally ruins the use of RUclips for me.
I love ads. As they come on I just say boycotted, boycotted, added to boycotts...it saves me a fortune. If I get junk mail I send it back to them without a stamp. I get envelopes for free and they pick up the cost.
The thing that worries me most about last year was the rise in ocean temperatures. When you think just how much heat capacity that amount of water has, it's terrifying.
Ocean warming has a lag of 800 years as they are HUGE and take a very long time to hear or cool. As such oceans warming has a cause that happened hundreds of years ago.
i mean if a nearly undetectable trace amount of co2 can determine the climate, imagine what simply painting your roof black will do. it is going to detrail entire ecosystems and melt the polar ice caps. what i am worrying about is after the end of the world has happened. most people wont have the scientific equipment to detect that the average temperature has increased by 1 degree, how are they going to know that the world has ended? where i live were to far away from the icce caps to notice any change what so ever. the other day my back porch rose 5 degrees between 8am and 10am, should i be terrified? thats 5x greater than 1 degree, not in 50 years in 2 hours! global warming is reaking havok! AHH! WE NEED TO BE WORRIED
@@N.Snipera lag can’t happen that quickly and in such a high magnitude. The energy has to come from somewhere and that kind of jump don’t happen even when you nuke the ocean.
Nice interview. I really would've liked to hear Gavin's take on climate aspects that cannot easily be reversed, such as snow albedo in the polar/mountain regions. Also the permafrost melt going on in the north, which is releasing buried methane and CO2 into the atmosphere. Even if we ended carbon emissions tomorrow, those processes would still continue, would they not?
What I like about your output is that you follow the Dragnet TV show, “Just the facts…” You let the facts speak for themselves. “Truth” are facts as interpreted by someone. Bob and Charlie do a cross country race. Bob comes in first , Charlie 2 days later. Bob reports, “I came in first.” Charlie reports, “I came in second and Bob came in next to last.” Without the full context one can’t interpret the statements correctly. Both statements are true but only with all the facts can you interpret them accurately. Glad you are a fact chaser, a scientist.
@@flagmichael *RE "Scientists test theories. Doing that with global effects is spectacularly expensive and spectacularly hard."* So is creating the entire universe out of nothing, thankfully we now have God and Scientists to tell us how they did it.
Hello from Maldon, Essex, England. I'm the manager of a Heritage Centre, which focuses on the Battle of Maldon in 991, but ponder about older stuff, like the cosmos. Would you mind explaining how lagrange points work in the bars of barred spiral galaxies? And, if it's not too much to ask, how does a galaxy's barycenter without a black hole differ from one with? I think it has to do with the velocity gradient of stars in the central bulge, but, I hope my favourite astrophysicist will help, as 'there are times, when all the world's asleep, the questions seem too deep for such a simple (wo)man'.
It may be the warmest year on record but I understand NASA has studies showing the planet has been getting greener for the last 35 years. Was it also the greenest year on record? More plants = more food = good!
Many years ago, there were one or two scientists pointing out the direct heating affect, from the energy released into the atmosphere, of the fossile fuels - basically the BTUs/calories in the fuel burned, which is millions of tons a year.
@@susanlovesjava4961 Humans themselves are constituents of the Earths current carbon cycle, which is essentially a balanced system. Human existence is not in and of itself contributing to climate change. Fossil fuels that have been locked up deep in the Earth for millions of years and not naturally part of the current carbon cycle, when reintroduced into the atmosphere are causing climate change. Please avoid simplistic ill informed comments in future.
Is the particulate flow of the solar wind part of the model, especially as relates to magnetic field of the earth? How do I get this question discussed.
Go to a specific astro physics page for that. Otherwise you just get the tail end of discussion or gossip from people who are unqualified. The item these ppl are missing is goode et al 2021.......
Thank you for bringing you. You should consider captioning it in other languages for broader audiences! Probably through some partnerships, but that is also above my pay grade.
I'm glad you put down the argument for Eco Engineering: The complexities are well beyond human social capacity for good management. We could introduce a regulatory fix like we did with ozone depleting aerosols and leaded benzene - but the expense of maintaining it while also tracking the multi-order effects would be a recipe for systemic failure.
Only one Ice age, which is coming to an end. Why ???? We are burning fossil fuels and returning those precious elements, to the atmosphere. The result is the world is greening again
The earth has a huge loss of CO2, and other elements buried in the fossil fuel layer, since burning fossil fuels, some of those elements are returning, and greening the earth again. @@BenotzJoe
??? He said that if we stop adding carbon dioxide emissions then the warming just stops, but I thought there was a lag time of roughly 10 years between the addition of carbon dioxide and the warming it will produce. Which means the models would need to consider possible feedback loops triggered during the 10 year interval among a million other factors.
@@simongross3122than you should acquire a skill which is more valuable than the skills you currently have. Buying a house isn’t difficult and neither is making money on this country. If you are physically able, the trades will make you plenty of money.
@eduardosantana8300 Walmart pays more than the trades now. And have you seen the housing prices lately? Anywhere within 1 hour of a city costs a million.
predictive modeling is difficult. get it wrong, and Fox Noooz goes nuckin futz and uses it to advocate for more coal mining and opening up our Wildlands to oil barons...
Models have not proven as well as the historical record. We are now better at knowing the climate sensitivity, which is greater than models. All anyone needs is an understanding of the Antarctica ice build anomaly of last year.
1.5C is a tipping point and one that has at least three different tipping points that will push us faster onto the next tipping point, once we hit Solar Maxim in 2026ish, we will hit or pass 1.5C Global increase and we will be on the top of the slide getting ready to go down the other side :). The problem with Climate change is that it's the Climate and not our local Weather , people will hear Global Warming and then go outside and freeze to death because it's minus 26 or colder where they are and then laugh about how GLobal warming is a load of BS :). We just came out of a 25+ year drought and now the last two years have beaten the records for the amount of rain we ever got, so not normal weather for us and places not far from us are in Bushfires. Our main problem is that we have non experts telling us that the experts don't know what they ae talking about, something like the passengers on a Ship telling the Captain how to drive :). All thanks to the most dangerous system ever invented and allowed to be used by anyone, the Internet, the worst thing ever invented and destroys more lives per day than any war or pandemic combined.
@@billybobjones4317 The Jet Stream is bringing the polar vortex down. Makes me wonder how Mammoth, eating so much vegetation would have a coat & be found, frozen to this day. Hansen & company last report was stunning. The insurance companies are moving out of state. I would not want to live without good heating & cooling, maybe back in a cave. I forget how 1.5 C was set as some mark to avoid. The Charney report of '79 said things might get hairy around 2025, but it would be too late by then, by the time the public alarm could be heard, because there was a vast flywheel of the ocean currents 10 - 30 years. This huge wabble in the Antarctic ice build record & the rapid acceleration of glacier ice too. I guess I have been expecting stuff like this for about 15 years, just following tube vids. It took a thousand years to recover ceramic production of the Roman world. We have nothing written around 936 AD. In the XII century significant events take place, as described in the Gospels: the coming of Jesus Christ, his life and crucifixion, although the existing text of the Gospels was edited and most likely dates to the XIV-XV cc. In the mid XII century, in the year 1152, Jesus Christ is born. In secular Byzantine history he is known as Emperor Andronicus and St. Andrew the Apostle the First-Called in Russian history he was portrayed as the Great Prince Andrey Bogolyubsky. To be more specific, Andrey Bogolyubsky is a chronicler counterpart of Andronicus-Christ during his stay in Vladimir-Suzdal Rus’ of the XII century, where he spent most of his life. In fact, the Star of Bethlehem blazed in the middle of the XII century. This gives us an absolute astronomical dating of Christ’s Life. [ЦРС], ch.1. ‘Star of Bethlehem’ - is an explosion of a supernova, which at present is incorrectly dated to the middle of the XI century. The present-day Crab Nebula in the Taurus Constellation is the remnant of this explosion. Enigmatic timber scarcity in Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages as first recognized by dender-pioneer Ernest Hollstein (1918-1988) "No sites exist anywhere with uninterrupted timber specimen from about 1000 CE backwards to Imperial Antiquity(1st-3rd c.). which is why the dendro-chronologies for Ancient Rome and, thereby the entire first millennium are in disarray. Since the very existence of the chronology periods without wood samples was never doubted by the researchers, nobody started to question our textbook chronology. Instead, out of stratigraphic context, scholars searched for wood samples in wells or moors to fill the irritating gaps. In addition, identical reign sequences were used twice in a row to gamer more years. Therefor, "all dendrochronological datings done on West Roman time wood is wrong by some unknown number of years"(") ruclips.net/video/c876lPZ-UZU/видео.html&ab_channel=PlanetAmnesia
Me too! Also explanations about temp. measurements. The city can be warmer by 10C than a nearby forest. If weather station 60 years ago was still in the forest, but now the city surrounded it - how do they adjust? In that case temperature change has nothing to do with increased CO2 levels, but more tarmac and concrete around the station.
@@hotbit7327 I don't remember where I saw it originally, but there was a clip out there describing the process as first breaking Earth's surface into a large number of grids (imagine longitude and latitude lines, but finer resolution / smaller scale). Temperatures are measured within those grids and we take the average to get an idea of the temperature. This is done worldwide, constantly. So your inner-city high temperatures would likely get averaged out by the lower forest temperatures, to yield some value in between them. Not sure how altitude comes into play, but we've also got weather balloons and other depth/height-sensitive equipment for things like that
The heat Island effect is a well known problem & controlled for, like solar cycles .. kinda basic stuff, but deniers think they are smart enough to think of this & professional climate scientists are not!
I'm wondering if the number and size of the forest fires this past summer (particularly in Canada) may have been a significant factor in the difference of the projected model for 2023 compared to the actual temperature.
The released store carbon dioxide inside the trees definitely increases temperature globally or on a very large area. The particles in the air probably slightly make it cooler for a very short time period around a fire location (microclimate), just like a volcano eruption does and did.
@@RSTirendi All BS. Propagated by the deniers. Show us EVIDENCE of your allegation! And it fkng makes no sense! It does makes sense to BLAME it on an activist! It does make sense for a deranged denier to set it and then blame, or knowing the hate cult will then blame and make the blame go viral. We will be the first to prosecute anyone that deliberately caused any fire! The deniers are the first to DEFEND the perpetrator!
I must say that much of what I experience on your discussions is beyond my understanding I was particularly impressed and pleased at the diplomatic manner in which the Terrance Howard ideas were listened to, considered, and then refuted. I have been appalled by some people’s inability to discuss opposing views without it turning into an overdramatic emotional exchange. When I heard Mr Howard’s story of his interaction with Dr deGrasse Tyson it was hard for me to believe. Hearing your response to that JRE interview I was restored to my faith in your demonstrated respect for science and its processes. Thank you Bruce Rannells
In fact we have a Kobayashi Maru situation where there is a no win scenario, when it comes to without pollution the earth heats up, and when we stop the pollution the earth still heats
No it's not like that. The impact of reducing air pollution has caused a short-term, small uptick in heat input, but it's only offseting other measures. Longterm it is still far better to reduce air pollution. GHG emissions are a slightly different topic, and it's always better to reduce GHG emissions. It's not a Kobayashi Maru, there is a win condition for climate survival - and it's to reduce our GHG emissions.
@@Yvaelle Not really. There was a win condition had we reduced GHG emissions starting in 1990 and come to 0 emissions by 2010. Instead, Ronnie and Margaret made sure we tripled emissions by 2023 instead. NOW it is Kobyashi Maru, as evidenced by our top billionaires trying to escape the planet and immigrate to the nearest friendly colony of psychotic brethren!
Putting particulates back in the air doesn’t fix Ocean (and estuarine) aragonite saturation quotient acidification. Which is pushing the oceans (and estuaries) over their tipping points.
This is an excellent overview of global warming. It's reassuring to hear Gavin's take on trying to engineer a solution. That approach has consistently proved to be counter productive in the past with other similar issues. The associated concern with this is that climate change is currently profitable for the associated businesses like construction, suppliers, etc.
I don't see the problem with improving building codes and standards if we want to move forward as a civilization? I also liked Neil's suggestion in an episode way back when, about using the sun against itself to cool us if we have to deal with a long term heat age. Solar to help power cooling solutions. But solar powerplants still need to become more efficient and get better at collecting and production power to help with that on a large scale. Enough sunlight hits the earth surface in one day, to power the globe for a year or more? If only it could be harnessed.
@@silvercloud1641 The issue these days is storing all that excess energy when it's not sunny for cheap. There's multiple battery solutions coming out for this. For example, there's a "box with rocks" solution that's essentially as it sounds: filling up a box with rocks that can heat up from the excess solar energy, and then it's there for peak demand times when the sun isn't shining.
I appreciate the depth of understanding of atmospheric conditions of earth by this panel. My concern is we can't ignore methane emission's through atmospheric temperature rise, ancient vegetation decomposition and released from permafrost etc.
They completly miss goode et al 2021 showing the planet albedo has reduced by about 250 TW meaning that the planet is absorbing an additional 250TW of solar energy - heat. Why have they failed to point this out?
Well, one thing i noticed is that volcanic particular matter both air born and in our oceans were not a factor in cause and effect. I believe both particular matter and gases from volcanic matter should be explored in climate change.
They do consider the effect of volcanos, it’s just not something they can predict in advance. So they can look at the effect after it happens, and can extrapolate what will happen over the long term in the future. It might only be helpful for checking if the models change when they include it as a factor, vs don’t include it. Climate change happens over a longer timescale, so effects from volcanos are less important than if they’re looking at weather predictions for the month following the eruption for example. As far as I’m aware, there’s nothing to suggest volcano eruptions are happening more or less than what otherwise would be naturally, and most of the effect is short term (a few months to years). So for example, if they’re releasing a yearly prediction for 2024 and a big volcano erupted in 2023, then they could include that in the prediction. But if a volcano erupts in 2024 then the effect won’t be in the original prediction because they can’t know about it in advance.
its important to remind people before and after this climate costastrophe has occured. since 1 degree is less the temperature change between lunch and noon, most people will not have the scientific equipment and mesurements to know that the world has ended due to climate change. good thing we have 100 years to prepare for this disaster, were goign to need trillions of dollars to avert this. RING THE ALARMS THE END IS NEAR!
*RE: "When I heard..."we're all Fucked"...I spit coffee all over my keyboard...smiles."* He was talking about getting more taxpayer funded grants for telling scary stories no one but fools and prepubescent little girls from Sweden would believe at this point.
@@jannichi6431 I could imagine his schedule is always booked as he's super popular and he's trying to contribute as much as he can to society. Either way he should pencil in a few breathers 🤟
Did they forget that between September and October 2022 record amount of methane was dumped into the atmosphere from the Nord2 pipeline that was sabotaged (220,000 + tonnes)? Incidentally methane is roughly 20 times the green house than carbon.
the annual atmospheric CH4 flux is roughly 420 teragrams or 420 000 000 metric tonnes so an increase of that magnitude, while being a huge single emission, still wouldn't make that big of a difference in global temperatures. According to United Nations Env. programme (UNEP) the emissions from Nord2 were at most 230 kilotonnes which is 0.23 teragrams
Recently, cows have been blamed for CH4 emissions. Science has found that these cow farts actually breakdown in the atmosphere to CO2. So cattle operations which maintain constant long term herd numbers have been shown to be carbon neutral. CH4 has leaked from natural sources for thousands of years. The stability of CH4 over the long haul needs to be evaluated.
This was one of the best moments of my day, thank you for lettibg me join in your talk. My hope for humanity is just that we still have real people, like you guys.
Thank you for talking to leading climate scientists and explaining man-made global warming. It's nice to see people, who actually know what they are talking about.
How about we educate people on icehouse earth cycles and greenhouse? The earth has been in a greenhouse stage with far warmer temps and far high co2 levels for over 70% of it's existence. During which life THRIVES during a greenhouse earth. We need clean air, water, etc but it wouldn't matter if human beings ceased to exist today. The earth would continue to warm and go back to a greehouse stage. We are still recovering from a catastrophe that caused the ice age. We're technically still in that ice age because of the glacial mass that's NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE. This is known and accepted science. Why are the alarmists completely ignoring it and spreading fear???? It's going to happen regardless of human emitted co2.
@@p.lyskawa2651 Why do you consider nearly all climate scientists alarmists? You are also ignoring the main problem with current warming which is the RATE of warming.
@YourArmsGone Why do I consider most of them alarmists? Because most are and it's irresponsible. There's a handful I've heard speak out but they're instantly black balled by the alarmists that are profiting from it. That said, most of the outright crazy alarm bells are being sounded by common citizens, media and politicians. I understand the current rate is faster than what they believe is normal. So the alarm is that we're going to return to normal too soon? Again.......if all of humanity persished tomorrow, we'd still return to a greenhouse earth. Much higher avg temps and far higher co2 levels. And don't forget the sun is entering its solar maximum cycle. We're a planet that revolves around a star in a universe. Things are ever changing. The human race is in ZERO danger of perishing if the avg temp increases. Quite the opposite actually. Animals that live at the poles will either adapt or perish. Antarctica was once tropical for goodness sake. I'm sure there was thousands of species that died or adapted. As technology rapidly advances we absolutely will transition away from fossil fuels. There's no dire emergency to put ridiculous and unattainable deadlines from our government. Especially at the expense of our adversaries growing more powerful. There are other countries that would love to see the USA fall. And if you think it's not possible, you're incredibly naive and uninformed.
@@p.lyskawa2651 Problem is current global warming and how it affects the current earth configuration, not the warming coming in the next hundreds of thousands of years. warming is much more dangerous to human societies that are sedentary for example, think of all the billion people living inside or close to the equatorial region, high temperatures and air saturated with humidity, impossible to survive even for a healthy human , that's what will happen within this century, not in thousands of years, people currently alive will live something we cannot face that easily.
This is the kind of people we need to see daily on tv. Talking about important scientific issues and educating the public. What a different world we’d live on if this was the case.
Absolutely we remain in dire circumstances in our worship of rock stars and actors like Ronald Reagun, Arnold Swartznegger, and Trump. Get the media to start honoring truth seekers called scientists.
@@summerbrooks9922 Trump isn't a rockstar or an actor. He's just a businessman. A lot of scientists are not truth seekers, they're money seekers. That's the really uncomfortable truth that no one wants to admit to.
First-time viewer and neither a climate change denier nor panicker. I appreciate and enjoy your factual and logical discussion and your collective sense of humor. I think your more personal approach will get more people engaged in realistic solutions than either extreme. Thanks for this well-done content.
No matter what's done, it's a matter of balance. Unfortunately for such balance, it's taking us long enough, or we just don't have the right data that if we leave things to nature, humanity is extinct.
True. While we possess the knowledge and potential to avert climate catastrophe and safeguard a brighter future for our planet and its inhabitants, the stark reality is that our collective FAILURE TO UNITE and act decisively has sealed our fate. COP28, a grand stage for global cooperation, instead exposed our INABILITY to forge meaningful commitments, leaving us stranded on a trajectory towards an uncertain and potentially perilous future.
I love that you see this situation with humour cause yes, we'll need a lot of it! :'D Also, it now makes a tons of sense that the time around COVID also had us see warmer and warmer years. We reduced pollution significantly around this time. Also with all the weather and stuff going nuts ... I guess we also saw population decrease - I'd assume? Which again likely affected pollution, no?
In a far future, aliens coming to visit will conclude that we went extinct trying to print the most little green papers possible for a thousand paper hoarders. This will be an intergalactic joke
Could we have a deeper dive into the AMOC and the risks associated with it shutting down? I just read a short piece by Dr. Levke Caesar and it is frightening.
Science is always advancing, the sheer hubris to say the science is settled on anything refutes the understanding of that fact. We know a bit, but there’s still a lot more to discover.
A huge advance in science was quantum physics, which works on extremely small scale where Newtonian physics stops making successful predictions. And yet, Newtonian physics continues to be true for almost all cases. Advancing science doesn’t mean the old knowledge suddenly becomes wrong. It means we have an answer for a tiny piece that didn’t work before.
luckly i live in a place that changes more than 1 degree between noon and lunch we have always survived, we recommend people carry a light jacket to avert such a contastrphe. since we have 100 years to prepare for an event that cannot be detected without temperature sensors and advanced scientific equipment mesuring things in 100s of places around the globe. thats why its important to remind people of this cotastrophe after it has happened, if you do not chances are no one would notice that average temp increased 1 degree and i agree that somwhere there is poribably a person that will have experianced some mild discomfort due to this. We must spare no expense to avert such a future, it is an outcome we sholdnt be willing to except. if you give me all your money, i am willing to put in the hard workd to save this planet.
@@mrschnider6521You've just announced to the world that you have absolutely no clue about climate whatsoever. With all the public debate there's been, how can you possibly think that this crisis is a question of whether or not individuals can tolerate a 1 degree change in temperature? I know a 10 year old who can explain why heating our atmosphere is dangerous. Here's a resource to help you reach the level of understanding of that 10 year old: climatekids.nasa.gov/
@@jpkjnn6733 we dont tottaly understand it and there is no scientific consensus and not a shred of evidence that shows man made co2 is having any effect on climate what so ever is precisely what those you call conspiracy theorists, I call them those who possess the gift of higher intelligence are saying. 1600 top scientists have published a paper and signed a letter that totally refutes and disproves the entire climate emergency narritive. it seems that the consensus among 99% of scientist that this is a hoax created by the un that oligarghs like billl gates are used to presssure govenment to create policies that put farmers out of business and form monopolies that aalow then to control everything people need to survive creeating multinational corporations that so powerful that aalow a handful of people to dictate every aspect of our lives. in the future we will have one man that own the machine tthat creates everything. and ever day each of us will beg him for a small piece of bread to share with our families so we dont die if hunger. "you will own nothing, and be happy. we bend you over, and you will smile happily as we brutally F u in the A and when we are done you can let us know how thankful and privilieged you feel that I chose you. The poeple of earth will all understand that their sole purpose to their existence is to pleasue a handful of 90 year old men that own all that exists on this planet including its people, we are part of the lizzard race sent here to enslave humanity. i hope you appreciate what we have done for you in creating ZISS utopia. " - kluas scwabb if that is the future you want for your planet, keep falling for crap like this and we will get there in no time at all.
As a volcanologist, people dont realize what Hunga-Tunga Hunga-Haipi did to make the climate do what it did drastically. Most of us predicted the mass injection of water vapor into the upper stratosphere would cause a .2 to .5 increase in global temperature. Food for thought.
Then you know that It will take an eruption more powerful than Tonga’s to affect a climate trend, a volcanic eruption bigger than any in human history. Basically an event like Tonga will work out to zero as a climate forcing over the long-term considering that the increase in temp will only be temporary/short period. You need at least fifty years for a climate trend to stand out from weather noise and ocean oscillations, and thirty years to stand out from weather noise alone. If the Tonga eruption does push the global mean temp up globally temporarily; still insignificant in regard to long-term climate trend, but not for the stratosphere, as it has created a wide range of potential long-lasting repercussions for its global composition and dynamics. A much bigger concern is how its chemistry affects ozone variations causing an impact on sea ice and sea surface temperature.
Yes, but also a different point of view 12.000 years cycles Douglas Vogt Egon Cholakian Elizaveta Khromova (geologist and spokesperson of Creative Society, first hour video, 22 November 2022; 'our survival is in unity')
10:40 I'm just an observer and I called this 10 years ago. The city air was polluted we got 20 feet of snow, the city air is clean now we dont get snow.
Just based on the time we have been recording temperatures these models mean absolutely nothing if you try to argue that this isn’t a normal fluctuation throughout the history of the world……
Fortunately we have ways of estimating temperatures from way before we were measuring them, so we can indeed put together functional long-term models ^-^
@@eyesofthecervino3366 ‘estimating temperatures’ ??? i highly doubt you can even have any accuracy on that. even carbon dating is ‘somewhat’ accurate, but temperatures?? no way
@@terrodar19 So in other words, you haven't actually researched this subject at all. No shade, I've been there before, but you seriously might want to look deeper before drawing conclusions.
@@kingofgranges i just dont see how indirect methods of determining temperature of certain geographic locations (let alone the entire word) from thousands and even millions of years ago could be accurate. Carbon dating literally measures the decay of c14 , its relatively simple math based on the amount of it in the sample, how in the F could you quantify the ENERGY of a system from millions of years ago, whats even more hilarious is that we’re talking about a few dozen degrees, even if it were hundreds the difference is miniscule to even reach a conclusion, its BS
What about the positive feedback effect? As I understand it the warmer it gets the more ice that melts the more ice that melts the warmer it gets.. and so I am under the impression that that process has already been underway so if we stop putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (not that I have much hope for that) but would that automatically curtail the positive feedback effects?
I’m so happy you covered off the pronunciation of buoy vs booyee 😂 Living in Scotland- I thought that my dad had just called them boys in error .. now I know he was right 👍
Wait. 1 cm = 10^-2 m and 1 um = 10^-6 m. So the difference between is 10^-4 m which is 1/10,000. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I would have said the same thing as Neil.
What was your biggest takeaway from this Explainer?
The Sun People existsence confirmed ✅
The fact that no one is discussing a much bigger problem. Plastic pollution will be far more detrimental to human health than climate change.
That I know how to fix this and no one believes me. Maybe it's because in return for "stopping hurricanes," I still require 7 things in return. One of them being to change the stars. What I mean is, get the IAU to, OFFICIALLY, change the name to make a new constellation.
My idea for changing the stars includes Orion and Pleiades (Subaru). I figure it's time to put something up there that's relevant to us, don't you think? Take Orion's belt and Betelgeuse becomes the head with a baseball hat. The 3 stars of Orion's belt make up the 3 fat belt loops on a baseball uniform. Below the belt are two legs bending at the knee. Saiph is the back foot and Rigel is the front foot. The feet aligning perfectly under the bent knees. The spear pointing at "Subaru" is the bat being swung and "Pleiades" is the baseball flying away after being hit. Bellatrix is the hand that let go of the bat. Put it all together and you get, "THE ALL-STAR." In my case, I see a left-handed batter and I imagine a "7" on the jersey. Which makes him, "Mickey." (As it should be ;-) But you can put any number you want, making, "THE ALL-STAR," any player you want. It'd be wrong of me to not, at least, try. This is me, trying. Pass it on, please and thank you. Don't worry, where I come from, crazy is a compliment. ;-P
Hi Neil can you do these climate change news updates regularly? Maybe every year or half year?
That if NDT calls them "booeys", I wonder how he pronounces buoyancy
7:00 "When we don't understand something, there's science to be done." I love that statement
- of course the science is settled however - just let Armageddon roll on.
Just how long will the jury be out on this crime scene?
If the models don't accurately predict the observations, then the models are factually incorrect. Otherwise, the model results would correlate with these measurements.
@@rickmoore6527 or there is something wrong in the methodology of your evidence collection.
In the meantime let me ridicule your stance
The irony of it all is that the climate or the earth does not give a dime about us human beings. It is not about saving the planet, it is about saving us!
Exactly! Life on this planet has come close to extinction several times already. But still after hundreds millions of years life erupted all around on an extraordinary scale. We can raise the temperature until humanity becomes extinct. As a result, we will accelerate the return to balance in nature. Therefore, the faster and more effectively we produce CO2, the worse it is for us and nature here and now, but the better for the planet in the long run.
As animals we benefit from global warming. It makes more of the earth inhabitable and produces more food.
@@bartolovelo8976is it true that we currently (last 100 years) has had the lowest co2 in planetary history? Plants thrive at 1000 ppm and die under 100 ish?
Seemingly a small amount compared to the sun, but how much does energy loss from heat from combustion or battery make a difference. As we put more people in the planet and use more ac/heat, no matter the source isn’t 80% of energy transfer lost as heat?
Actually, I'd say the irony is that, despite being arguably the most greedy, selfish species on Earth, even when the goal is to save ourselves, we're still failing to achieve it...
I remember the late Brian Kaye saying that the only thing we can reliably predict about non-linear systems is that our predictions will probably be wrong.
I agree and love this statement!
I have a poster on the wall in my kitchen which is a modern take on Murphy's Law, one of the statements in it is, "If you plan for A, B, C and D, E will likely happen."
My advisor loved quoting someone else and saying "all models are wrong, but they can be useful." Don't except a computational model with simplified physics equations to predict something down to the T, but if a model is getting 65% of its predictions right, you should still reference it and hope they improve it.
So when the heat rise. You got more greenhouse gases yes.
So the Milankovitch cycles tells us that it should be warm know. That the greenhousegasese should rise.
And that we are son heading for an ice age.
Why don you talk about the eccentricity of the earth?
Is it any reason for that?
Because it is, in this context, about as relevant as the price of fish in Hull.@@havardmika
I noticed it was so nice during the covid shutdowns so far as the natural environment experienced.
horrible catastophy for society, but for the natural world it was a relief
It was the complete oppisite where i live we knew it was a hoax and they payed us not to work so we got out and went all in the natural world...
When you say "the natural world", do you mean flora? Do you mean the wilderness? Do you mean everything that's not human despite humans being nature's best and most advanced creation?
Climate activists have managed to brainwash everyone into thinking their movement isn't anti-human.
Only time in my lifetime I’ve never seen smog in Los Angeles
I live in the topics, not so much. But in October 2024, I'm moving to Tasmania, it's becoming uninhabitable for someone with lighter skin in the Tropics.
Neil, I think another interesting Star Talk would be if you had Sir Brian May, guitarist of the legendary band Queen on as a guest. Most people don't know that he has a PhD in Astro Physics as well and collaborates with NASA in his "spare time".
Wut. TIL
You dig RUSH?
@@CantForgetJ6 absolutely. Best band out of the Great White North
EXCUSE ME, there are a few boomers who are well aware of Dr. May's OTHER professional credentials.
@@michaelsmith2017 wait, Guess Who?
Best climate graph ever I really liked the tornado. It really visualizes change.
it looks scary and that is the point, if they would use data for thausends years, that we have, that would not look as scary at all.
@@idontknowhowtoplaylol280 that would make it scarier. Temperatures hit this high before yes. But the change was never this abrupt.
These changes take hundreds of thousands of years to occur naturally, compared to that the changes we have caused are basically instant which would make for quite a discrepancy in the graph.
@@idontknowhowtoplaylol280 Always the same argument, cruelly lacking in perspective. The changes observed over the last two centuries should not have appeared and manifested themselves in this way over several millennia. We are +1.49 degrees compared with the pre-industrial era, and for the record, the difference between 1850 and the last deglaciation period 12,000 years ago is 2.5 degrees. At that time, Paris was under 4 metres of ice. You have no idea how far ahead of the initial cycle we are (but find out for yourselves).
A few things that stick out:
The early 1940s bulge, I would posit was due to the mechanization and increased manufacturing involved in WWII.
The cone at the top seems to start around 1980
I'd love to see historical data going back a few thousand years presented this way, but I suspect the accuracy that data would be suspect.
As they said, there's science to do.
@@Broockle You have zero idea about how quickly or slowly climate has changed in the past. We use proxies to estimate, the margin of error is greater than the change in temperature.
"we is not an effective we" hit the nail on the head.
Scientists sound alarms, Politicians fart in their sleep.
Problem is "We" change our minds every 10 years or so ... Coming Ice age... Acid Rain ... Global Warming ... Climate change ...
@@merodobson we need to stop feeding the politicians, they are nowhere as useful as cows but fart just as much.
@@merodobson Not like oil companies have admitted this issue within the last 20 years and not like we were all warned of this issue 40 years ago. 🤷♂
And thank god for that.
One aspect of Startalk that I truly enjoy is the irreverence and humor that is constantly inserted into very deep and serious conversations. SO many science conversations lose people to the tone of the conversation when they are struggling with the basics. Humanizing the conversation makes the serious content more digestible for many people. Science needs to speak to the people at large vs the in crowd.
I enjoyed to see my heroes humanity, as well.
It's rude
You guys are surprised that the models didn't predict this? The IPCC, Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report declared: “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible.”
As with a LOT of this conversation... we need to know what they meant by "long-term". It's kind of like how geological records use "present day" to mean 1950.
"exact" is the important qualifier.
@@UteChewb The term "exact" is non-scientific. Contrary to Spock's overuse of the term when answering Captain Kirk's inquiries, all scientific measurements use significant digits to imply accuracy. They also use standard error calculations to state the confidence level of their rightmost significant digit. This confidence level is expressed in standard deviations.
Climate scientist's like to say that standard error calculations are "difficult" (meaning impossible) in climate science, which is the very first clue that anyone schooled in the methods of science understand they are not flogging (selling us) science at all.
@@brucefrykman8295 using Star Trek in a science based debate --- automatic fail. You seem to ignore the fact that all measurements and predictions have error bars, and that the track record for past climate predictions has been very good. But you deniers never seem to understand the basics.
@@UteChewb you are also a denier 🤔
Living out here on an island in the middle of the Pacific with a volcano on it, we know that the particulates in our air change our climate and the other thing that he didn’t really talk about, but is a big factor is that giant volcano that blew up and sent water aerosol vapor into the stratosphere, which is a big big deal and that’s why we were a bit hotter in 2023 because of that volcano
Jan ‘22 Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haʻapai did indeed affect climate. Cubic kilometres of water thrown into the stratosphere or mesosphere. We had pumice rafts 10s of kilometres long, green sunsets for a year and of course the Tsunami was devastating for the western Pacific.
That volcano breaks assumptions by the IPCC.
The introduction of water vapour into the Mesosphere is a critical factor and is ignored by climate models. It doesn't fit the narrative that man is the ONLY player, and not Volcanoes, the Sun and release of subsea Methyl Hydrates by Earthquakes/ Tsunamis. QED.
Increased aerosols in the atmosphere cool the air by blocking sunlight, whether it is pollution or volcanoes.
@@matthewgraham2518 Yes aerosols cool the air by blocking the sun, the issue is that volcanos also eject tons of waters directly into the stratosphere where it does a lot of heating in a layer that is supposed to carry the heat of the lower atmosphere into the upper atmosphere where it cools down in large convective cells, heating this layer directly negates some of the cooling effect of the lower atmosphere, increasing the average temperature close to the ground.
Water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas. That was likely underestimated in the modeling.
I'd like to point out that this was noticed in 2001. When air traffic was grounded for just a few days after the Sept-11 attack, the increase in warming was measured. As I recall, "pan evaporation rates" are daily measurements made in standard pans, as they are topped off each day. The effect of aerosols was dubbed "global dimming" and the irony that pollution was mitigating global warming was very much noted, too.
In climate modeling i never hear about weather the temperatures represent winds from the Desert or Winds from Alaska affecting the same territory.
Yep the average daily temp, right across the US was almost 1 degree higher.
@@jonovens7974 Its a fake average because wind direction determines temperature and these things are too Variable to come to any conclusions.
@@woodchipgardens9084 "Its a fake average because" yada yada yada.
Give us a break. If a compendium of the numerous and varying climate change contrarian opinions, claims and excuses was compiled, it would be larger than a single book volume of all three episodes of Lord Of The Rings. Mean while the actual scientific research, explanations, evidence and reality regarding AGW have remained consistent for over 100+years.
When are climate change contrarians ever going to stop making stuff up and pretending they know more than they actually do. If they keep this up there will be another episode to add to the compendium of nonsense claims.
The effect of aerosols in dimming insolation has been known for a long time; it was noted in university earth science courses in the late 1980s. Eliminating acid rain cleared the atmosphere and increased warming.
Interestingly spring plowing for crops was regarded as helping cool the planet because it put particulate matter into the atmosphere, but since then it's been learned that it actually releases massive amounts of CO2, so the net effect is a big contribution to warming.
More recently in an online seminar I learned that the trick for using particulate matter to cool the planet is picking the right size particles. That size happens to match the smaller of the sort of volcanic dust sent up by the Mount Saint Helens eruption that circled the globe several times before all falling out -- go just a bit smaller and it will take several years to all fall out. So aerosols are too tiny but volcanic ash dust is about right.
I'd read an article recently stating that the underwater volcano that erupted near Tonga the other year may actually be a major disruptor in relation to the expected outcomes of the years following it. They did modelling based on the tons of water it shot into the stratosphere and I think they were saying that with that variable alone the models significantly narrowed the gaps in the discrepancies between the previous models and reality.
Changes we are seeing in the atmosphere caused by Tonga are highly likely short term, as that eruption might raise the risk that at least one year in the next five will temporarily exceed the 1.5C warming threshold. Climate trends take at least 30 years to show. It will take an eruption more powerful than Tonga’s to affect a climate trend, a volcanic eruption bigger than any in human history. Basically an event like Tonga in the long run will work out to zero as a climate forcing over the long-term considering the prediction from main stream climate science is a possibility of only a temporary increase in temp for a short period.
If the Tonga eruption does push the global mean temp up globally temporarily; still insignificant in regard to long-term climate trend, but not for the stratosphere, as it has created a wide range of potential long-lasting repercussions for its global composition and dynamics. A much bigger concern is how its chemistry affects ozone variations causing an impact on sea ice and sea surface temperature.
That article has also been read into a YT video and republished here: wattsupwiththat.com/2024/07/09/hunga-tonga-volcano-impact-on-record-warming/. It was certainly a rare event with a measurably massive water vapor impact, that should dissipate without establishing a higher new threshold global temperature.
Tyson recorded this 4-5 months before this analysis was published, but after the hypothesis had been floated that such a potent greenhouse gas as H2O would surely overwhelm any man-made warming.
It's ignored for climate change hysteria reasons.
Niel made a mistake there : a millionth of a meter is not 1/1000 cm, but rather 1/1000 mm (or 1/10000 cm)
Yes, a micrometer is 1000th of a millimeter, but PM10s are 10 micrometers, so it is the particles that are around 1000th of a cm.
Most of the time
I came here to say this too.
@@ahaveland Except they were talking about PM2.5 particles, so, 1/4 of a 1,000th of a cm.
Not very accurate either way he meant it.
@@blakewalker84120 It's easy to be petty and hypercritical from your comfy chair when you aren't the one in a hot spot on a livestream.
Gavin Schmidt took a lot of shots in this lol, he handled it well
Looks like Neil threw back more than a few shots
Paul, show some respect. Your barbed comments to Mr. Schmidt did not go unnoticed.
We, Wee, Wee, all the way home
Fun vid ought to have Dire Straits in the background ;-). Politically obtuse IMO. Sabine Hossenfelder punditry on this news item much better for public perception and expectation.
Paul was extremely rude.
As a novice I've been studying climate change since I was 11 years old. One of the big problems here with respect to the drastic rise in temperature in 2023 is that no one is factoring in the massive amounts of methane being released by the melting of permafrost.
atmosphere is already saturated with methane when it comes to absorption of infrared light
Look into methane sink in greenland
@@ChaosQueen040bserver?
You are not telling climate researchers something they don't know here. Of course that is factored in, and to imagine nobody else is thinking about something you happen to have heard about is ridiculous.
You're a novice. Your opinion is irrelevant.
The real "Take" from this discussion is when Neil exclaimed "We can't win" !
👍 Rock on 🙂.
It does no good now to correct these comments hey I just changes the words back so the comment is senseless meaningless and you can't hardly read it
.. this is how I'm being censored
@donniebaker5984 I can clearly see why ?
A major issue with hindering the arrival of sun energy by geoengineering instead of allowing it to leave easier again is that that energy that arrives and leaves easily helps with agricultural crops, while not allowing the energy to arrive would reduce photosynthesis and harvests. That would make the world cooler, but also hungrier.
Possibly less CO2 uptake as well when photosynthesis rates decline
Most plants aren't limited by sunlight but by nutrients, temperature, daylength and water. In fact planets that live in full sun have pigments to protect them from the extra light.
We could build & deploy millions of water-bomber drones, and then control where they dump their water. They could make clouds in the morning (so they dissipate by evening for a net cooling affect), and do that over oceans, so as not to shade crops. Those same drones could be used during droughts to irrigate crops and dry habitat. Water is needed for plants to absorb CO2. They could also be used to put out wild-fires and rebuild glaciers & ice-sheets (just add water in winter).
A big problem today revolves around, "The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.”
Some stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the second part, while others use it to dismiss what we do know.
And also a huge group of people who refuse to do the first part at all. Conservatives in the United States are proudly ignorant and anti-education.
Most underestimated comment I've ever read. Honestly. This is the point. We want to feel safe as a species. Your comment hits on this.
someone was talking about Dunning Krueger last week and I told them I already knew everything about it... they didn't get the joke.
@@orionred2489that’s hilarious.
@@orionred2489 Dr Dunning Krueger won his PhD for describing the effect bearing his name so you can count on it; it was all peer reviewed. I googled it somewhere.
Cycles grow more and more variable(to and fro) until they either break or restabilize. And repeat until they break. This is present in every single ecosystem
Surely some had negative feedback loops in other words a stabilising effect.
Regards from a Tom :)
@tomdavies6443 yes in that case they eventually break and restabilize
Please sing your song freely anywhere tonight.@@TangentFuture41
I don't think this is necessarily true, at least from a systems/process control perspective. If your inputs are truly cyclical (e.g. sinusoidal) then your response CAN overshoot and cause de-stabilization (whether increasing or decreasing uncontrollably), but it depends on the dynamics of the system you're analyzing.
The "inputs" here are highly non-linear (take the sunspot cycle for example), so it's not an easy task to build a model and use it predict such global phenomena.
I just love that people admit the models dont represent reality, then make an opinion based off models
Astrophysicist: "We are in control of our future."
Supervolcano: "Seriously?."
Asteroid: "Wanna bet?"
Supernova: "LMAO."
@@slevinchannel7589 No but I've altered it anyway just to keep you happy.
Solar flares.
IK pegassi is close to going super nova, but too far to be a concern
No Nova I've ever driven has been super.
@@inguzwulf Thank you, my 1st car was a 1973 Chevy Nova……..😂
Not in control but efficient enough at destroying the basis of life
There was an episode of the Drew Carey Show where Drew complained about how cold the Cleveland winter was, so he angrily sprayed aerosol from his front door into the sky in order to accelerate global warming. That scene has stuck with me for over 20 years and the irony of it coming full circle is terrifying
That episode was hilarious! But it was (and yes, I’m nit picking) his back door - where his pool table was in his backyard!!
The price is right
Well Drew totally mixed up causes & effects. The aerosol was destroying the ozone, not causing global warming. Global warming is from the rapid release of all the Earth stored carbon. There is no carbon in aerosol
Writer's have been predicting things forever, 'Doc Savage' was written in the late 30's and had a Jet Plane
remember the ozone layer scam? the problem is always over some place that cant be observed by people. the great plastic patch in the middle of pacific, or polar bears at the poles, AHH ICE IS MELTING IN ANT ACTICA!! WE ONLY HAVE 100 years, will people have the change of clothes by then required to survive teh completely unnoicible practically undetecable without advanced scientific equipment and calculaters of the 1 degree change when averaged world wide. we must spend trillions of dollars to avert the mild discomfort someone may experiance if we havent ended teh world through war by then. OH THE HUMANITY~
Neil deGrasse
We need more climate change episodes like this.
Maybe an advertised before hand live stream so others can ask questions?
If you join their patron you can probably get a question or 2 if it's a great one.
They are extremely dishonest about this subject... unfortunately
I love this idea
They hate questions.
Ask whats in the( strataspheric aerosol injections) that we breath!!
Neil, thank you! Paul is very funny and Gavin is a very impressive scientist! I’m glad someone of his caliber is heading that organization and it sounds like some good science is being done.
My dad told me way back in the early 1960s, that we can listen to scientists, and find ways to protect our planet . Or we can continue to ignore the facts that scientists have learned about our planet , and destroy our own home , and ourselves . Or we can DO SOMETHING , AND SAVE THE PLANET , AND OURSELVES . OR CONTINUE TO LET OUR PLANET TAKE CARE OF ITSSELF , FOR A FEW BILLION YEARS , WITHOUT HUMANS AND THEIR CONTINUED LACK OF CARE .
This was an eye opener. The insight of how climate works was really great .
Gavin Shmidt and Michael Mann (hockey stick guy) are two of the world's top climatologists, they run a brilliant web site called 'realclimate'. Anyone who is anyone in the climate science community hangs out there.
Which is ironic considering how Neil is barely able to keep his eyes open in this video
Did you miss the part where they said it was a higher solar maximum, which they missed the model. Also look into the Tonga volcano that exploded a few years ago.
Its may more complicated than that.
Not that complicated, just to many humans consuming to much stuff…🔥🪦🌎🪦🔥
No mention of Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai eruption, which was predicted to have significant impact on warming of the Earth. Most eruptions cause cooling, but in this case, it erupted under the ocean throwing water vapor into the upper atmosphere causing a heating affect. The moisture in the stratosphere incresed 10%-15% and is expected to last for many years.
IT IS THE WATER IN THE MESOSPHERE INDEFINITELY THAT WILL FRY US TOTALLY 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
No mention here, but yes that's definitely a biggie. It was so powerful it ejected into space. (technically)
I am fortunate enough to live in the most isolated (state) capital city in the world and have a near pristine ocean view to the West. After the eruption in 2022 i started to notice around 15-30 minutes after sunset the Western sky had a greenish tinge, not the usual blue, gold or orange/red. This occurred throughout the following year into September/October and has now virtually disappeared.
I can only assume it was an effect of the moisture and or volcanic dust in our atmosphere from the eruption.
It's estimated to be in hundreths of a degree, so it maybe is not as significant as you think
@@benmcconaghy3313 Estimated but not necessarily calculated. Maybe you can tell us when was the last time the climate was not changing?
The kidding around kept reminding me of the talk show in Don’t Look Up. That’s probably the most useful emotion we can express on RUclips though
I think "Don't look up" is a perfect description of what's going on with man-made climate change, only that it's moving a lot slower than that meteorite. But same behavior and probably same outcome...?
Dont look up (if I remember correctly) was a terrible movie lmao
@@simonjaz1279 I almost gave up on Don't Look Up in the first 20 minutes, but so many people were talking about it that I stuck with it. Now I really love it. The moment where the meatier hits earth gives me a sort of peace because the main characters are just sitting around having a completely mundane conversation after dinner, knowing they're all about to die. They just carry on talking about store-bought apple pie vs home-made apple pie, I think it is, until the house collapses on them.
@@MrStevemur one good scene still doesn't make a movie good. I thought it was terrible lmao big thumbs down
The video that Neil deGrasse Tyson & Gavin Schmidt ignore:
Climate Shipwreck- CDN
In 1958 the observatory on Maui detected patterns of global warming. In 1987 I studied geology at the University and we predicted that America will be driving small cars as in Europe. That didn’t happen. America bought larger vehicles, trucks, SUVs. Speed limits actually increased. In short demand for fuel increased whilst ignoring the climate effects. Now we find ourselves hurrying to change our habits. It’s not going to happen overnight.
Sad thing is that no one (I mean the auto industry, majority deniers and basically all corporations) are not changing anything.
@@memi4586ya, it's that damned human freedom that needs to stop!
Actually the US just voted for Trump as a president who thinks global warming isn't real.
@@hg6996 "global warming" is obvious. HUMAN caused GLOBAL warming is absurd
I don't think I've ever seen a graph like the one used for temperature over the years before now. Very neat and communicates the data well!
sure but let's put it into context. Greenland was a temperate rainforest 11 to 19 C warmer on average than today, only 2 million years ago.
@@QuitworkBehappy 2 million....
perfectly normal for the planet@@danguee1
@@QuitworkBehappyand the world’s coastlines looked drastically different.
The fact that worse ultra slow motion floods have happened in the past doesn’t mean that it won’t cost society dearly
well, that's alright then, we can all relax@@QuitworkBehappy
A communication thing. Aerosols in this context refer to particulate matter. Particulate matter is a mixture of small solid particles and liquid droplets in the air. Do not confuse with aerosols from pressurized cans. Not the same thing.
Wait...what?
@@singingway Particle pollution - also called particulate matter (PM) - is made up of particles (tiny pieces) of solids or liquids that are in the air. These particles may include:
Dust
Dirt
Soot
Smoke
Drops of liquid
Some particles are big enough (or appear dark enough) to see - for example, you can often see smoke in the air. Others are so small that you can’t see them in the air.
Could you explain what you mean here? I don't see how particulate matter and aerosols are any different in this context. Pressurized gas cans vaporize their contents as they flow out of the nozzle, thus creating microcontaminants (say, Febreze or something similar). Smoke particulates would effectively be the same thing, less any difference in their overall size, no?
@@Strategies2010 - Pariticluate matter (smoke, dust, ash, etc.) blocks the sun and is a cool forcing.
Aerosol can propellants like butane and isobutane, are greenhouse gases and are a warm forcing.
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is geoengineering the weather.
Great content! My question is regarding the affects of space weather on the surrounding planets, moons, and asteroids within the solar system as predicters of the affects of space weather on the earth. While solar storms may be the largest predicter to date of space weather, I am also curious about other systems such as magnetic storms that happen in the solar system which can also influence the geomagnetic storms on earth.
I just love startalk. Neil is amazing, funny and makes science relatable. Thanks for sharing your knowledge with the world! ❤ cheers from Belgium.
11:11 Gavin’s face when Paul says, “We have hair, and you don’t.” He was not amused.
I think that was mainly due to him completely misusing the term 'aerosols' and potentially confusing the audience.
And then he goes "see, I know words" 😅
😢
It's like the guy I heard around 10 + years ago said, scientist are downplaying the positive feedback loops in their models. It was a safe bet that unknown positive feedback loops would pop up from out of nowhere, not sure if they could add unknowns into a model.
Unknowns are included in the error bars. Betting on unknown positives is a very risky play.
As is betting on unknown negatives.
@@mattleathen445
Unknown positives and negatives are hard to track.
From what I remember from middle school they basically said 2 billion people will die very quickly. And I've always believed it. Just waiting for it to fully kick into high gear.
Those unknowns are what make the model results probabilities instead of certainties, the model makers may talk about probabilities in their professional papers but it never makes it to the headline or the policy debate.
Let's be clear with language.
Removing aerosols is not increasing the temperatures.
The atmospheric carbon is increasing the temperatures.
Removing the arrosols is just showing us the full effect of the atmospheric carbon instead of hiding some of it.
Let me ask you a question: how big is an aerosol particle compared to a Co2 molecule?
Straight answer please..
@egoncorneliscallery9535
A sulfate aerosol particle is around 1000nm to 2000nm.
A CO2 molecule is around 0.33nm.
Ocean CO2 releases more into the atmosphere when ocean temperature rises.
@@5353Jumper CO2 is a VERY efficient greenhouse gas--in a small range of wavelengths; specifically, 14 -16 microns. The CO2 present in the atmosphere already effectively absorbs 100% within that range, and additional CO2 does NOT add to the effect. Since CO2 is essentially a trace gas, even going from 320 parts PER MILLION to 410 ppm, the assumption that this increase is significantly affecting global climate is suspect and requires more support than models that have yet to make an accurate prediction and can be tweaked to output whatever answer the modelers want (while hoping to be published and having their grants approved).
That is an interesting use of language, and really just semantics. We aren't removing the aerosols from the atmosphere, we are removing the substances that cause them, from the fuel we burn, (or from the exhaust after fuel is burned). When we stop putting them up, they settle out of the atmosphere on their own. Those aerosols were not "hiding some of" the global heating caused by CO2, they were preventing it. Hiding something implies that it is there, but unseen. The warming is NOT there, but it's potential is. When the aerosols are gone and they stop reflecting sunlight back into space, then the full potential of the CO2 blanket we have wrapped the planet in, is felt.
The planet’s imbalanced and these storms will increase in frequency and severity until the imbalance has been corrected. I’m sure you guys remember the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, scientists said almost 33 years ago, pretty much what I just said, that as climate change progressed, storms and severe weather would exponentially increase in both frequency and severity.
Brings to mind Henry's Law describes equilibrium conditions, but. Climate “skeptics” love to to bring up Henry’s Law when going on about how CO2 lags temperature when it does, but not when it doesn’t; trying to make an argument that CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere. But any one familiar with basic atmospheric physics knows Henry’s Law doesn’t apply now because there is no equilibrium now because human activity has disrupted the equilibrium, which is why oceans are absorbing too much CO2 now because the partial pressure of CO2 is higher in the air than in the ocean. Henry's Law will not apply again until equilibrium is restored.
Great vid, thanks. Small note: a micron is 1000th of a millimetre folks, not a 1000th of a centimetre.
It just shows the level and reliability of their "predictions" and "conclusions".
@@ika5666 No, it's just easy to misremember something that is commonplace, so much so, that it becomes redundant. You ever hear of a 'redundancy' before?
@@CynicalBastard I odn't agree. They just don't care and, therefore, their opinions are barely competent and worthy of respect.
@@ika5666 You just described yourself.
@@CynicalBastard You just have shown that you like lies, both your own and those of fake climate change maniacs.
As someone who spends most of their life building PowerPoint Decks, the chart at 4:08 expanding and flipping was pretty sweet (The reason it is expanding, not so sweet of course 😅)
The chart is not someone who spends most of their life building PowerPoint Decks, but the depiction of the global warming trend was clever until it reached the present and tilted up to show the vertical timeline - that was very cool.
Oooooh "deck"... you are dating yourself ;)
That little "Keep looking up" just launched my brain 20 years into the past to watching Stargazer on TV.
Ya mean Jack Horcheimer (sp?) The Star Hustler?
@@markhoffart622 I'm not old enough to remember when it was Star Hustler, but yes.
It just made think of that movie that supposed to project climate future and media / politics reaction to it in "Don't look up"
The Star gazer devotee was for the episode "@@reuireuiop0 I forget. Maybe Lovely flower.
@@markhoffart622 Yes, Jack Horkheimer: Star Hustler.
I can't believe how much I learned from this. Subscribed! 🔔
Thank you again Neil, Paul, Gavin and everyone that makes this channel happen
Okay, this is the first honest and really scientific debate on this topic that I've ever attended. Thank you!
Seriously?
Debate?
Oh good, did they talk about why the cities aren’t flooded yet? Hint: It’s because the ocean rises 3mm/year so it will take 100 years to rise 1 foot. 😉
I wouldnt call it a debate as much as a little q and a with jokes.
@@Greg-yu4ij Except 1) Some cities will begin to see flooding at less than a one foot sea level rise, with some places seeing it at around 6 inches, and 2) As the climate continues to warm that 3mm per year will increase year after year with recent projections saying US coastlines could be approaching a one foot sea level rise from where it is now in as little as 26 years
"We can't win"
Now you're getting it.
There is no win, there is endure and survive to the best of our ability. ADAPT OR DIE.
We have won... It's still the best planet to be cruising the universe on.
When you get 6 commercials in a 15 minute vid the platform the vid is in becomes rapidly invalid and unuseable😢yt aint no fun any more like this
I got literally zero commercials
@@Kazihirom either you pay or endure the commercials but atm Google is finding new ways to f us over and become even more annoying with these adds then they ever have been and it totally ruins the use of RUclips for me.
@@andriesstegeman I wish somebody would make a site like youtube that wasn’t so censored. I even posted this to Elon on X, but I doubt he seen it.
Not to mention i can't understand the British guy
I love ads. As they come on I just say boycotted, boycotted, added to boycotts...it saves me a fortune. If I get junk mail I send it back to them without a stamp. I get envelopes for free and they pick up the cost.
The thing that worries me most about last year was the rise in ocean temperatures. When you think just how much heat capacity that amount of water has, it's terrifying.
It's like we all know it means but it's fun to imagine it's only happening in the laboratory
Ocean warming has a lag of 800 years as they are HUGE and take a very long time to hear or cool. As such oceans warming has a cause that happened hundreds of years ago.
i mean if a nearly undetectable trace amount of co2 can determine the climate, imagine what simply painting your roof black will do. it is going to detrail entire ecosystems and melt the polar ice caps. what i am worrying about is after the end of the world has happened. most people wont have the scientific equipment to detect that the average temperature has increased by 1 degree, how are they going to know that the world has ended? where i live were to far away from the icce caps to notice any change what so ever. the other day my back porch rose 5 degrees between 8am and 10am, should i be terrified? thats 5x greater than 1 degree, not in 50 years in 2 hours! global warming is reaking havok! AHH! WE NEED TO BE WORRIED
@@N.Sniper We're talking about SST, Sea Surface Temperatures. It doesn't take 800 years to warm the top 2m of the ocean. Swing and a miss.
@@N.Snipera lag can’t happen that quickly and in such a high magnitude. The energy has to come from somewhere and that kind of jump don’t happen even when you nuke the ocean.
Nice interview. I really would've liked to hear Gavin's take on climate aspects that cannot easily be reversed, such as snow albedo in the polar/mountain regions. Also the permafrost melt going on in the north, which is releasing buried methane and CO2 into the atmosphere. Even if we ended carbon emissions tomorrow, those processes would still continue, would they not?
All depends on whether the feedback loop is past the point of returning. Hope for the best, fear for the worst
Yup
What I like about your output is that you follow the Dragnet TV show, “Just the facts…”
You let the facts speak for themselves.
“Truth” are facts as interpreted by someone.
Bob and Charlie do a cross country race.
Bob comes in first , Charlie 2 days later.
Bob reports, “I came in first.”
Charlie reports, “I came in second and Bob came in next to last.”
Without the full context one can’t interpret the statements correctly.
Both statements are true but only with all the facts can you interpret them accurately.
Glad you are a fact chaser, a scientist.
Scientists test theories. Doing that with global effects is spectacularly expensive and spectacularly hard.
@@flagmichael *RE "Scientists test theories. Doing that with global effects is spectacularly expensive and spectacularly hard."*
So is creating the entire universe out of nothing, thankfully we now have God and Scientists to tell us how they did it.
It's almost as if the climate is extraordinarily complex
Hello from Maldon, Essex, England. I'm the manager of a Heritage Centre, which focuses on the Battle of Maldon in 991, but ponder about older stuff, like the cosmos.
Would you mind explaining how lagrange points work in the bars of barred spiral galaxies? And, if it's not too much to ask, how does a galaxy's barycenter without a black hole differ from one with? I think it has to do with the velocity gradient of stars in the central bulge, but, I hope my favourite astrophysicist will help, as 'there are times, when all the world's asleep, the questions seem too deep for such a simple (wo)man'.
What would you say if I'd be you a radical 👍 love it now I can't get the song out of my head
And by the way hello from Kentucky
What would you say if I'd be calling you a radical voice text can drive you bonkers sometimes 🤪
It may be the warmest year on record but I understand NASA has studies showing the planet has been getting greener for the last 35 years. Was it also the greenest year on record? More plants = more food = good!
heresy!
@@BenotzJoe Any facts to support your BS?
@@bungeebones I like your post. I was being sarcastic. Sorry.
@@bungeebones Google it. Other studies prove the same result. We are not responsible to educate you.
Don't be silly, that doesn't support the global Marxism doom narrative.
Many years ago, there were one or two scientists pointing out the direct heating affect, from the energy released into the atmosphere, of the fossile fuels - basically the BTUs/calories in the fuel burned, which is millions of tons a year.
Add to that, there's 8 billion 98.6F heaters running around the planet emitting heat.
It's more than millions of tons. Currently ~37 billion tons of CO2 per year is being emitted into the atmosphere by humans.
@@susanlovesjava4961 Humans themselves are constituents of the Earths current carbon cycle, which is essentially a balanced system. Human existence is not in and of itself contributing to climate change. Fossil fuels that have been locked up deep in the Earth for millions of years and not naturally part of the current carbon cycle, when reintroduced into the atmosphere are causing climate change.
Please avoid simplistic ill informed comments in future.
Is the particulate flow of the solar wind part of the model, especially as relates to magnetic field of the earth? How do I get this question discussed.
Go to a specific astro physics page for that. Otherwise you just get the tail end of discussion or gossip from people who are unqualified. The item these ppl are missing is goode et al 2021.......
You could tell me tomorrow in your voice we all are going to die and I’d take comfort hearing it from you. And take the rest of my time accordingly.
Thank you for bringing you. You should consider captioning it in other languages for broader audiences! Probably through some partnerships, but that is also above my pay grade.
I'm glad you put down the argument for Eco Engineering: The complexities are well beyond human social capacity for good management. We could introduce a regulatory fix like we did with ozone depleting aerosols and leaded benzene - but the expense of maintaining it while also tracking the multi-order effects would be a recipe for systemic failure.
Not to mention a golden opportunity for bad actors, if we could control it good enough (and if we can't, too).
Only one Ice age, which is coming to an end. Why ???? We are burning fossil fuels and returning those precious elements, to the atmosphere. The result is the world is greening again
Regulatory fixes cannot apply to the largest producers of CO2, China and India. Hence the comment about "we" in the video.
The earth has a huge loss of CO2, and other elements buried in the fossil fuel layer, since burning fossil fuels, some of those elements are returning, and greening the earth again. @@BenotzJoe
Oh yeah? You're going to "fix" the climate by introducing regulations?
China called. They said they don't GAF what you think you can regulate.
Great presentation, love it. Would hope similar pod casts along these lines of subject matter would be great. Thank You.
What about that paper that says that it seems that the falue for climat sensitivity is wrong (too low), and therefor all models are calculating wrong?
Which paper? link? The authors? The title?
@@sarahbettany7546 ruclips.net/video/4S9sDyooxf4/видео.html
??? He said that if we stop adding carbon dioxide emissions then the warming just stops, but I thought there was a lag time of roughly 10 years between the addition of carbon dioxide and the warming it will produce. Which means the models would need to consider possible feedback loops triggered during the 10 year interval among a million other factors.
Yeah I think he oversimplified it. Obviously there will be a lag that we probably cannot predict.
Quit consuming goods that are trucked to your store and travel by horse. Sell the trucks to China as a down payment on our treasuries they hold.
@@doncook3584 Can't afford a horse. Can't afford the land to keep it on.
@@simongross3122than you should acquire a skill which is more valuable than the skills you currently have. Buying a house isn’t difficult and neither is making money on this country. If you are physically able, the trades will make you plenty of money.
@eduardosantana8300 Walmart pays more than the trades now. And have you seen the housing prices lately? Anywhere within 1 hour of a city costs a million.
One thing I didn't hear discussed was tipping points where the response to an input suddenly increases. How do the models account for these?
predictive modeling is difficult. get it wrong, and Fox Noooz goes nuckin futz and uses it to advocate for more coal mining and opening up our Wildlands to oil barons...
Hi dude...maybe you'll find interesting this video about tipping points on climate change: ruclips.net/video/LxoyaCSWFGs/видео.htmlsi=Z4tS_tAV9m610_Xi
Models have not proven as well as the historical record. We are now better at knowing the climate sensitivity, which is greater than models. All anyone needs is an understanding of the Antarctica ice build anomaly of last year.
1.5C is a tipping point and one that has at least three different tipping points that will push us faster onto the next tipping point, once we hit Solar Maxim in 2026ish, we will hit or pass 1.5C Global increase and we will be on the top of the slide getting ready to go down the other side :).
The problem with Climate change is that it's the Climate and not our local Weather , people will hear Global Warming and then go outside and freeze to death because it's minus 26 or colder where they are and then laugh about how GLobal warming is a load of BS :).
We just came out of a 25+ year drought and now the last two years have beaten the records for the amount of rain we ever got, so not normal weather for us and places not far from us are in Bushfires.
Our main problem is that we have non experts telling us that the experts don't know what they ae talking about, something like the passengers on a Ship telling the Captain how to drive :).
All thanks to the most dangerous system ever invented and allowed to be used by anyone, the Internet, the worst thing ever invented and destroys more lives per day than any war or pandemic combined.
@@billybobjones4317 The Jet Stream is bringing the polar vortex down. Makes me wonder how Mammoth, eating so much vegetation would have a coat & be found, frozen to this day. Hansen & company last report was stunning. The insurance companies are moving out of state. I would not want to live without good heating & cooling, maybe back in a cave. I forget how 1.5 C was set as some mark to avoid. The Charney report of '79 said things might get hairy around 2025, but it would be too late by then, by the time the public alarm could be heard, because there was a vast flywheel of the ocean currents 10 - 30 years. This huge wabble in the Antarctic ice build record & the rapid acceleration of glacier ice too. I guess I have been expecting stuff like this for about 15 years, just following tube vids.
It took a thousand years to recover ceramic production of the Roman world.
We have nothing written around 936 AD.
In the XII century significant events take place, as described in the Gospels: the coming of Jesus Christ, his life and crucifixion, although the existing text of the Gospels was edited and most likely dates to the XIV-XV cc. In the mid XII century, in the year 1152, Jesus Christ is born. In secular Byzantine history he is known as Emperor Andronicus and St. Andrew the Apostle the First-Called in Russian history he was portrayed as the Great Prince Andrey Bogolyubsky. To be more specific, Andrey Bogolyubsky is a chronicler counterpart of Andronicus-Christ during his stay in Vladimir-Suzdal Rus’ of the XII century, where he spent most of his life. In fact, the Star of Bethlehem blazed in the middle of the XII century. This gives us an absolute astronomical dating of Christ’s Life. [ЦРС], ch.1. ‘Star of Bethlehem’ - is an explosion of a supernova, which at present is incorrectly dated to the middle of the XI century. The present-day Crab Nebula in the Taurus Constellation is the remnant of this explosion.
Enigmatic timber scarcity in Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages as first recognized by dender-pioneer Ernest Hollstein (1918-1988) "No sites exist anywhere with uninterrupted timber specimen from about 1000 CE backwards to Imperial Antiquity(1st-3rd c.). which is why the dendro-chronologies for Ancient Rome and, thereby the entire first millennium are in disarray. Since the very existence of the chronology periods without wood samples was never doubted by the researchers, nobody started to question our textbook chronology. Instead, out of stratigraphic context, scholars searched for wood samples in wells or moors to fill the irritating gaps. In addition, identical reign sequences were used twice in a row to gamer more years. Therefor, "all dendrochronological datings done on West Roman time wood is wrong by some unknown number of years"(") ruclips.net/video/c876lPZ-UZU/видео.html&ab_channel=PlanetAmnesia
Money is just a story we tell each other, but it's more powerful than science at motivating humans.
I would love to hear Gavin talk about what all the inputs and variables are that he uses for his model.
Me too! Also explanations about temp. measurements. The city can be warmer by 10C than a nearby forest. If weather station 60 years ago was still in the forest, but now the city surrounded it - how do they adjust? In that case temperature change has nothing to do with increased CO2 levels, but more tarmac and concrete around the station.
@@hotbit7327 I don't remember where I saw it originally, but there was a clip out there describing the process as first breaking Earth's surface into a large number of grids (imagine longitude and latitude lines, but finer resolution / smaller scale). Temperatures are measured within those grids and we take the average to get an idea of the temperature. This is done worldwide, constantly. So your inner-city high temperatures would likely get averaged out by the lower forest temperatures, to yield some value in between them.
Not sure how altitude comes into play, but we've also got weather balloons and other depth/height-sensitive equipment for things like that
The heat Island effect is a well known problem & controlled for, like solar cycles .. kinda basic stuff, but deniers think they are smart enough to think of this & professional climate scientists are not!
I would also like to know what assumptions - and how many assumptions - are used in climate modeling.
I really appreciate you educating us with clarity even while half asleep!
And you were able to sleep afterwards?
If you call this one education you need to educate yourself, and not be "educated" by those likes, irresponsible maniac scientists in my book.
I'm wondering if the number and size of the forest fires this past summer (particularly in Canada) may have been a significant factor in the difference of the projected model for 2023 compared to the actual temperature.
I wonder that too. Hard not to think so when they sky was yellow all the way down here in Kentucky for weeks.
Due to a climate activist arsonist.
The released store carbon dioxide inside the trees definitely increases temperature globally or on a very large area. The particles in the air probably slightly make it cooler for a very short time period around a fire location (microclimate), just like a volcano eruption does and did.
In climate modeling i never hear about weather the temperatures represent winds from the Desert or Winds from Alaska affecting the same territory.
@@RSTirendi All BS. Propagated by the deniers. Show us EVIDENCE of your allegation! And it fkng makes no sense! It does makes sense to BLAME it on an activist! It does make sense for a deranged denier to set it and then blame, or knowing the hate cult will then blame and make the blame go viral. We will be the first to prosecute anyone that deliberately caused any fire! The deniers are the first to DEFEND the perpetrator!
I must say that much of what I experience on your discussions is beyond my understanding I was particularly impressed and pleased at the diplomatic manner in which the Terrance Howard ideas were listened to, considered, and then refuted. I have been appalled by some people’s inability to discuss opposing views without it turning into an overdramatic emotional exchange. When I heard Mr Howard’s story of his interaction with Dr deGrasse Tyson it was hard for me to believe. Hearing your response to that JRE interview I was restored to my faith in your demonstrated respect for science and its processes. Thank you
Bruce Rannells
who tf are you bro lmao 😆
In fact we have a Kobayashi Maru situation where there is a no win scenario, when it comes to without pollution the earth heats up, and when we stop the pollution the earth still heats
No it's not like that. The impact of reducing air pollution has caused a short-term, small uptick in heat input, but it's only offseting other measures. Longterm it is still far better to reduce air pollution. GHG emissions are a slightly different topic, and it's always better to reduce GHG emissions. It's not a Kobayashi Maru, there is a win condition for climate survival - and it's to reduce our GHG emissions.
@@Yvaelle Not really. There was a win condition had we reduced GHG emissions starting in 1990 and come to 0 emissions by 2010. Instead, Ronnie and Margaret made sure we tripled emissions by 2023 instead. NOW it is Kobyashi Maru, as evidenced by our top billionaires trying to escape the planet and immigrate to the nearest friendly colony of psychotic brethren!
@@Yvaelle These megalomaniacs who, despite not even being able to predict the climate, still believe they can control it...
Putting particulates back in the air doesn’t fix Ocean (and estuarine) aragonite saturation quotient acidification. Which is pushing the oceans (and estuaries) over their tipping points.
Maybe Co2 is not the problem? Maybe the problem is the billions of gallons of chemical runoff?
This is an excellent overview of global warming. It's reassuring to hear Gavin's take on trying to engineer a solution. That approach has consistently proved to be counter productive in the past with other similar issues. The associated concern with this is that climate change is currently profitable for the associated businesses like construction, suppliers, etc.
I don't see the problem with improving building codes and standards if we want to move forward as a civilization? I also liked Neil's suggestion in an episode way back when, about using the sun against itself to cool us if we have to deal with a long term heat age. Solar to help power cooling solutions. But solar powerplants still need to become more efficient and get better at collecting and production power to help with that on a large scale. Enough sunlight hits the earth surface in one day, to power the globe for a year or more? If only it could be harnessed.
@@silvercloud1641 The issue these days is storing all that excess energy when it's not sunny for cheap. There's multiple battery solutions coming out for this. For example, there's a "box with rocks" solution that's essentially as it sounds: filling up a box with rocks that can heat up from the excess solar energy, and then it's there for peak demand times when the sun isn't shining.
@@CrimsonA1
And there are thousands more electric cars every month, people often ignore the fact that wind is generating in the night
I appreciate the depth of understanding of atmospheric conditions of earth by this panel. My concern is we can't ignore methane emission's through atmospheric temperature rise, ancient vegetation decomposition and released from permafrost etc.
They completly miss goode et al 2021 showing the planet albedo has reduced by about 250 TW meaning that the planet is absorbing an additional 250TW of solar energy - heat. Why have they failed to point this out?
Well, one thing i noticed is that volcanic particular matter both air born and in our oceans were not a factor in cause and effect. I believe both particular matter and gases from volcanic matter should be explored in climate change.
They do consider the effect of volcanos, it’s just not something they can predict in advance. So they can look at the effect after it happens, and can extrapolate what will happen over the long term in the future. It might only be helpful for checking if the models change when they include it as a factor, vs don’t include it. Climate change happens over a longer timescale, so effects from volcanos are less important than if they’re looking at weather predictions for the month following the eruption for example.
As far as I’m aware, there’s nothing to suggest volcano eruptions are happening more or less than what otherwise would be naturally, and most of the effect is short term (a few months to years). So for example, if they’re releasing a yearly prediction for 2024 and a big volcano erupted in 2023, then they could include that in the prediction. But if a volcano erupts in 2024 then the effect won’t be in the original prediction because they can’t know about it in advance.
Always wondered how volcanos under the ocean affect the water temperature where these buoys are taking readings
When I heard..."we're all Fucked"...I spit coffee all over my keyboard...smiles. Thanks.
its important to remind people before and after this climate costastrophe has occured. since 1 degree is less the temperature change between lunch and noon, most people will not have the scientific equipment and mesurements to know that the world has ended due to climate change. good thing we have 100 years to prepare for this disaster, were goign to need trillions of dollars to avert this. RING THE ALARMS THE END IS NEAR!
?
@@aaronjennings838512:58
Shocking.
*RE: "When I heard..."we're all Fucked"...I spit coffee all over my keyboard...smiles."*
He was talking about getting more taxpayer funded grants for telling scary stories no one but fools and prepubescent little girls from Sweden would believe at this point.
The biggest problem is that we human beings feel it's more important to spend money and resources on war instead of solving our atmospheric problems.
We should declare “war” on the atmosphere
Climate change is a fraud, grow up.
The way you explained this made it so easy to understand. 🧠
You look tired sir, have a nap and blame it on me giving you permission
Just a hunch, but he may be on a Pharma cocktail. Although he does work extremely hard and has time to write a book a year!
@@jannichi6431 I could imagine his schedule is always booked as he's super popular and he's trying to contribute as much as he can to society. Either way he should pencil in a few breathers 🤟
Neil, you have my permission as well!
Neil, your impact is inmense. Rest a bit
lol
Did they forget that between September and October 2022 record amount of methane was dumped into the atmosphere from the Nord2 pipeline that was sabotaged (220,000 + tonnes)? Incidentally methane is roughly 20 times the green house than carbon.
the annual atmospheric CH4 flux is roughly 420 teragrams or 420 000 000 metric tonnes so an increase of that magnitude, while being a huge single emission, still wouldn't make that big of a difference in global temperatures.
According to United Nations Env. programme (UNEP) the emissions from Nord2 were at most 230 kilotonnes which is 0.23 teragrams
Don't think the effect of that event would be felt in the world's climate only months later.
Every little bit hurts!
Recently, cows have been blamed for CH4 emissions. Science has found that these cow farts actually breakdown in the atmosphere to CO2. So cattle operations which maintain constant long term herd numbers have been shown to be carbon neutral. CH4 has leaked from natural sources for thousands of years. The stability of CH4 over the long haul needs to be evaluated.
Nopppppe
What about the methane being released from permafrost melting? The giant sink holes opening up all over the artic?
This was one of the best moments of my day, thank you for lettibg me join in your talk. My hope for humanity is just that we still have real people, like you guys.
Anybody notice that NDT misspoke. A micron is one-thousandth of a millimeter (not centimeter).
An error in math which one of our greatest scientists made! Makes you wonder, huh?
I noticed immediately ...a US astrophysicist struggles with metric...he may become the first Martian, not that it was planned :-)
Thank you for talking to leading climate scientists and explaining man-made global warming. It's nice to see people, who actually know what they are talking about.
How about we educate people on icehouse earth cycles and greenhouse? The earth has been in a greenhouse stage with far warmer temps and far high co2 levels for over 70% of it's existence. During which life THRIVES during a greenhouse earth.
We need clean air, water, etc but it wouldn't matter if human beings ceased to exist today. The earth would continue to warm and go back to a greehouse stage. We are still recovering from a catastrophe that caused the ice age. We're technically still in that ice age because of the glacial mass that's NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE.
This is known and accepted science. Why are the alarmists completely ignoring it and spreading fear???? It's going to happen regardless of human emitted co2.
@@p.lyskawa2651 Why do you consider nearly all climate scientists alarmists? You are also ignoring the main problem with current warming which is the RATE of warming.
@YourArmsGone
Why do I consider most of them alarmists? Because most are and it's irresponsible. There's a handful I've heard speak out but they're instantly black balled by the alarmists that are profiting from it. That said, most of the outright crazy alarm bells are being sounded by common citizens, media and politicians.
I understand the current rate is faster than what they believe is normal. So the alarm is that we're going to return to normal too soon? Again.......if all of humanity persished tomorrow, we'd still return to a greenhouse earth. Much higher avg temps and far higher co2 levels. And don't forget the sun is entering its solar maximum cycle. We're a planet that revolves around a star in a universe. Things are ever changing. The human race is in ZERO danger of perishing if the avg temp increases. Quite the opposite actually. Animals that live at the poles will either adapt or perish. Antarctica was once tropical for goodness sake. I'm sure there was thousands of species that died or adapted.
As technology rapidly advances we absolutely will transition away from fossil fuels. There's no dire emergency to put ridiculous and unattainable deadlines from our government. Especially at the expense of our adversaries growing more powerful. There are other countries that would love to see the USA fall. And if you think it's not possible, you're incredibly naive and uninformed.
@@p.lyskawa2651 Problem is current global warming and how it affects the current earth configuration, not the warming coming in the next hundreds of thousands of years. warming is much more dangerous to human societies that are sedentary for example, think of all the billion people living inside or close to the equatorial region, high temperatures and air saturated with humidity, impossible to survive even for a healthy human , that's what will happen within this century, not in thousands of years, people currently alive will live something we cannot face that easily.
As long as you cherry-pick which "climate scientists" you choose to believe.
I loved the British reaction to saying that he doesn’t have hair and "we are all fffed.
Question for Gavin Schmidt; what would be the effect of zero-emission on the Ozone level Urgent response required please
This is the kind of people we need to see daily on tv. Talking about important scientific issues and educating the public. What a different world we’d live on if this was the case.
Need celebrate and idolize these ppl over celebrities
Absolutely we remain in dire circumstances in our worship of rock stars and actors like Ronald Reagun, Arnold Swartznegger, and Trump. Get the media to start honoring truth seekers called scientists.
@@CountryLifestyle2023 Tyson _is_ a celebrity. And he's an arrogant and narcissistic one at that.
@@summerbrooks9922 Trump isn't a rockstar or an actor. He's just a businessman.
A lot of scientists are not truth seekers, they're money seekers. That's the really uncomfortable truth that no one wants to admit to.
@@fredmercury1314 yet still deserves more respect than musicians or sports players
First-time viewer and neither a climate change denier nor panicker. I appreciate and enjoy your factual and logical discussion and your collective sense of humor. I think your more personal approach will get more people engaged in realistic solutions than either extreme. Thanks for this well-done content.
Well said. Thank you
No matter what's done, it's a matter of balance. Unfortunately for such balance, it's taking us long enough, or we just don't have the right data that if we leave things to nature, humanity is extinct.
Nature gave rise to humanity, sort it out.
True. While we possess the knowledge and potential to avert climate catastrophe and safeguard a brighter future for our planet and its inhabitants, the stark reality is that our collective FAILURE TO UNITE and act decisively has sealed our fate. COP28, a grand stage for global cooperation, instead exposed our INABILITY to forge meaningful commitments, leaving us stranded on a trajectory towards an uncertain and potentially perilous future.
you cant play with ya heart......decisions have to be made@@jonassteger-jensen4136
“Our ability to keep track of all these things is, limited” head sinks down in shame
But we are launched PACE, and now have a tool to capture more data.
I love this little episode, keep them up.
I love that you see this situation with humour cause yes, we'll need a lot of it! :'D
Also, it now makes a tons of sense that the time around COVID also had us see warmer and warmer years. We reduced pollution significantly around this time. Also with all the weather and stuff going nuts ... I guess we also saw population decrease - I'd assume? Which again likely affected pollution, no?
In a far future, aliens coming to visit will conclude that we went extinct trying to print the most little green papers possible for a thousand paper hoarders. This will be an intergalactic joke
There is no paper.
It's all numbers in a computer.
Could we have a deeper dive into the AMOC and the risks associated with it shutting down? I just read a short piece by Dr. Levke Caesar and it is frightening.
Science is always advancing, the sheer hubris to say the science is settled on anything refutes the understanding of that fact. We know a bit, but there’s still a lot more to discover.
I agree, however there is quite a bit in science that is understood very well and works that can’t simply be dismissed as unsettled.
A huge advance in science was quantum physics, which works on extremely small scale where Newtonian physics stops making successful predictions.
And yet, Newtonian physics continues to be true for almost all cases. Advancing science doesn’t mean the old knowledge suddenly becomes wrong. It means we have an answer for a tiny piece that didn’t work before.
They're not mutually exclusive. The sheer hubris to claim they are is disingenuous...
Great show as always. I actually feel better that there is a natural redundancy to climate control
Now this is more like real science: we don't fully understand this, but we're still learning more about it.
No 'like' about it.
luckly i live in a place that changes more than 1 degree between noon and lunch we have always survived, we recommend people carry a light jacket to avert such a contastrphe. since we have 100 years to prepare for an event that cannot be detected without temperature sensors and advanced scientific equipment mesuring things in 100s of places around the globe. thats why its important to remind people of this cotastrophe after it has happened, if you do not chances are no one would notice that average temp increased 1 degree and i agree that somwhere there is poribably a person that will have experianced some mild discomfort due to this. We must spare no expense to avert such a future, it is an outcome we sholdnt be willing to except. if you give me all your money, i am willing to put in the hard workd to save this planet.
@@mrschnider6521You've just announced to the world that you have absolutely no clue about climate whatsoever. With all the public debate there's been, how can you possibly think that this crisis is a question of whether or not individuals can tolerate a 1 degree change in temperature? I know a 10 year old who can explain why heating our atmosphere is dangerous. Here's a resource to help you reach the level of understanding of that 10 year old:
climatekids.nasa.gov/
Right on. "We don't totally understand it.." is not something you'll ever hear a conspiracy theorist say.
@@jpkjnn6733 we dont tottaly understand it and there is no scientific consensus and not a shred of evidence that shows man made co2 is having any effect on climate what so ever is precisely what those you call conspiracy theorists, I call them those who possess the gift of higher intelligence are saying. 1600 top scientists have published a paper and signed a letter that totally refutes and disproves the entire climate emergency narritive. it seems that the consensus among 99% of scientist that this is a hoax created by the un that oligarghs like billl gates are used to presssure govenment to create policies that put farmers out of business and form monopolies that aalow then to control everything people need to survive creeating multinational corporations that so powerful that aalow a handful of people to dictate every aspect of our lives.
in the future we will have one man that own the machine tthat creates everything. and ever day each of us will beg him for a small piece of bread to share with our families so we dont die if hunger. "you will own nothing, and be happy. we bend you over, and you will smile happily as we brutally F u in the A and when we are done you can let us know how thankful and privilieged you feel that I chose you. The poeple of earth will all understand that their sole purpose to their existence is to pleasue a handful of 90 year old men that own all that exists on this planet including its people, we are part of the lizzard race sent here to enslave humanity. i hope you appreciate what we have done for you in creating ZISS utopia. " - kluas scwabb
if that is the future you want for your planet, keep falling for crap like this and we will get there in no time at all.
As a volcanologist, people dont realize what Hunga-Tunga Hunga-Haipi did to make the climate do what it did drastically. Most of us predicted the mass injection of water vapor into the upper stratosphere would cause a .2 to .5 increase in global temperature. Food for thought.
Then you know that It will take an eruption more powerful than Tonga’s to affect a climate trend, a volcanic eruption bigger than any in human history. Basically an event like Tonga will work out to zero as a climate forcing over the long-term considering that the increase in temp will only be temporary/short period. You need at least fifty years for a climate trend to stand out from weather noise and ocean oscillations, and thirty years to stand out from weather noise alone.
If the Tonga eruption does push the global mean temp up globally temporarily; still insignificant in regard to long-term climate trend, but not for the stratosphere, as it has created a wide range of potential long-lasting repercussions for its global composition and dynamics. A much bigger concern is how its chemistry affects ozone variations causing an impact on sea ice and sea surface temperature.
Good to see the 'McPherson Paradox' explained to the masses!
Yes, but also a different point of view
12.000 years cycles
Douglas Vogt
Egon Cholakian
Elizaveta Khromova (geologist and spokesperson of Creative Society, first hour video, 22 November 2022; 'our survival is in unity')
10:40 I'm just an observer and I called this 10 years ago. The city air was polluted we got 20 feet of snow, the city air is clean now we dont get snow.
Known from the days of the "killer fogs" (smog) of London early Industrial revolution and many large volcanic eruptions.
In what city? WHERE?
Just based on the time we have been recording temperatures these models mean absolutely nothing if you try to argue that this isn’t a normal fluctuation throughout the history of the world……
Fortunately we have ways of estimating temperatures from way before we were measuring them, so we can indeed put together functional long-term models ^-^
@@eyesofthecervino3366 ‘estimating temperatures’ ??? i highly doubt you can even have any accuracy on that. even carbon dating is ‘somewhat’ accurate, but temperatures?? no way
@@terrodar19
So in other words, you haven't actually researched this subject at all. No shade, I've been there before, but you seriously might want to look deeper before drawing conclusions.
@@terrodar19also you can "highly doubt" is as strong as you want, it won't change the outcome much
@@kingofgranges i just dont see how indirect methods of determining temperature of certain geographic locations (let alone the entire word) from thousands and even millions of years ago could be accurate. Carbon dating literally measures the decay of c14 , its relatively simple math based on the amount of it in the sample, how in the F could you quantify the ENERGY of a system from millions of years ago, whats even more hilarious is that we’re talking about a few dozen degrees, even if it were hundreds the difference is miniscule to even reach a conclusion, its BS
What about the positive feedback effect? As I understand it the warmer it gets the more ice that melts the more ice that melts the warmer it gets.. and so I am under the impression that that process has already been underway so if we stop putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (not that I have much hope for that) but would that automatically curtail the positive feedback effects?
I’m so happy you covered off the pronunciation of buoy vs booyee 😂
Living in Scotland- I thought that my dad had just called them boys in error .. now I know he was right 👍
Either pronunciation is valid, as long as it's used consistently for buoy and buoyant
Generally, I favour dropping syllables, rather than adding them
From the south of England. Always been called "Boys" by every seafaring person I have talked to.
I've always like the one that says the ocean is where the buoys meet the gulls.
Typical American pronunciation fails. See also route, rhymes with out, Aluminum should be Aliminium etc.
@@johnbell2722 Another whine from the little folks on the west edge of Asia who think they still matter.
Superb, comprehensible explanations of the current situation. Thanks folks! 🖖
I must have missed, the part where they explained anything.
Co2 can add on 3,6 W/m2 if we double it from now. That is nothing.
There was no mention of the fact that there's been no increase in the melting of the Arctic sea ice since 2012. I'd like to see that addressed.
Minor correction: a micron is 1000th of a mm, not a cm.
Wait. 1 cm = 10^-2 m and 1 um = 10^-6 m. So the difference between is 10^-4 m which is 1/10,000. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I would have said the same thing as Neil.
Oh wait. Derp. You said 1000th and I don’t have my reading glasses. I thought you said 10,000th so I would NOT have said what Neil said. 😂