A four hour lecture probably wouldn't be enough time to truly understand the depth of the problem , no evidence was provided to prove that it's not too late . If I were inclined to gamble I'd hedge my bets on humanity having at best a 5% chance of survival , hope and faith in humanity did not come into the equation and that's more realistic I think .
I believe you are correct. Given the way we treat each other and the earth and considering the economic system we live in, we are already doomed. This is a problem that should have been addressed decades ago, but the population keeps rising, emissions as well and we can forget about green energy and transportation to get us out of this mess. I have no hope for humanity. We have created something that most people believe can go on forever, but earth's resources are diminishing, yet consumption and our footprint on the environment keeps rising, so how can it go on forever ? Only in our deluded hope filled minds.
11:00 The remarkable thing: it's also vastly more, by orders of magnitude, than the amount of energy gained by burning all the carbon that created that amount of excess CO2.
There are about 3-1/2 million undersea volcanic vents changing the chemistry and heating the ocean waters that scientists are stating need much better accounting.
Since the mid 1990s there has been little real interest in global warming because it's been static at about 1°C. Global warming was a long term concern in the 1970s and 1980s with it increasing at about 2/10°C per decade. USA crude oil exploration companies had derived the practical concern for global warming that once global warming hit 1.3°C, on track to be reached in 1998, it would cause measurably stronger hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico requiring stronger and higher offshore oil platforms. There were other concerns as well such as expanding sea water causing global sea level rise. Then in late 1994 it was announced global warming for no known reasons had suddenly paused in the early 1990s when global warming was reported at 1.1°C in 1991. In 2022 global warming was reported at 1.06°C. The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) obsession with human caused carbon dioxide emissions has for over 25 years been a laugh to the engineering and scientific audience. In 1990 - 1991 a large study of carbon dioxide's levels and effect in the atmosphere was done by large oil companies with the results being carbon dioxide from human activities was non poisonous and responsible for 1/100°C of earth warming due to its greenhouse gas behavior. In the 2000s another study couldn't find even 1/100°C of warming from human caused carbon dioxide emissions and concluded between 4/1000°C - 6/1000°C of warming. The reality is that these human caused carbon dioxide temperature forcings of 4/1000°C - 1/100°C are just a share in earth's greenhouse effect that is always in saturation from the strong greenhouse gas water vapor and can't be changed that adds 10°F (5.55°C) to earth's average temperature. Earth's greenhouse effect absorbs all the greenhouse radiant energy. There is nothing left over. There are people without a full high school science education or a life history going back 40 years that have been taken in by the marketing of the United Nation's IPCC that human caused greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming which is impossible to well known science. It is high school taught science earth's greenhouse effect is the model of system always in saturation from the strong greenhouse gas water vapor that adds 10°F (5.55°C) to earth's average temperature and takes place within 20 meters of the earth's surface. After 20 meters from the radiating surface all the greenhouse radiant energy has been completely absorbed by greenhouse gases. Its further heat transfer is by convection i.e. gas molecules bumping into each other. At 1% average tropospheric water vapor over 99% of earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor. It's suppose to seem cool and a bit of a brain conundrum to high school students causing it to be fascinating that with water vapor varying hugely across the earth's surface water vapor still always holds earth's greenhouse effect in saturation. The variation is accommodated by the qualification of "within 20 meters of the surface" a great deal of the time all the greenhouse radiant energy is entirely absorbed by greenhouse gases before that distance. In the back of the United Nation's IPCC science report of about 200 pages it states the truth it took its greenhouse gas samples at 20,000 meters altitude and only that one altitude! If this were real science it would be expected the entire air column would be sampled, but it's not real science. That 20,000 meter altitude greenhouse gas sampling statement is a legal disclaimer of data transparency. It can be legally argued a high school science educated person would know from that 20,000 meter altitude sampling statement the IPCC is not dealing with active greenhouse gas behavior or earth's greenhouse effect and is therefore in-fact is not dealing with greenhouse gases in a manor conducive to the discussion of global warming. This is the same marketing practice as when a beverage is labeled as "All Natural Fruit Juice Flavors" and in the ingredients it states the truth "contains no actual fruit juices".
“Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.” Albert Einstein. Sounds like all the fuels sources we took out of the ground, which held CO2 underground, have now caused our atmosphere and oceans to heat. All that heat now has to react in an extreme way.
Hello! We discuss more on politics and business, the world over, than Climate Change which we consider as academic but one day we shall be faced with the reality that we have destroyed the Planet Earth our base of Life and Existence. Thank you. Best Regards.
I don't recall which countries specifically, but solar energy plants/farms in the middle east are making them non-dependent on oil, although I'm not sure how that affects their actual GDP.
@@petername2608 Thank you, I watched a talk that Neil deGrasse Tyson did there some years ago which covered the history of science in the middle east. It's good to see them return to the intelectual world of science.
This was posted over 2 years ago. It concerns me about the small number of views. It suggest that not enough people are concerned about the end of the human race.
The Mauna Loa is a Hockey Stick from 1956, avoiding all the Earth CO2 sites from1800 on. So we don't KNOW what the true CO2 is because it could be a average of 255ppm. GIGO, SMH
The statement the Sierra Nevada mountain range became the first to have no glaciers corresponds to 300 ppm co2 from the earlier chart just 20ppm above the preindustrial 280ppm. Surely the exit from the ice age is the cause of ice loss where incremental anthropogenic CO2 is marginal at best... it's as if the presentation is not linking causality to mans CO2 through the data and yet the message is it's all mans fault. Not convincing at all.
"Surely the exit from the ice age is the cause of ice loss where incremental anthropogenic CO2 is marginal at best" Well.. NASA, NOAA, EPA, ESA, every science academy from every nation and every major scientific institution on the planet disagrees with your conclusion. However.. If you want to feed your confirmation bias type on the search box: PragerU, CATO institute or the Heartland institute, to name a few. All of them organizations at least partially funded by fossil fuel interests and by listening to their content you'll hear want you want to hear.
Nuno Foo Nino it is impossible to disagree with the fact we are exiting a glacial period and that ice retreats in this situation until there is no standing ice on the planet and an ice age is over. Last time was the Pliocene Eocene 50million years ago when there was no ice on the planet and thus a warm period. geology is the study of the earth its methods are accepted as fact. Yes anthropogenic activity has added a marginal amount to a warming trend though largely increases in CO2 above 400ppm are not significant as a greenhouse effect as the increase from 280 to 400ppm was I do not dispute this addition. That we do not see correlation to CO2 with temperature from 1945 to 1978 some 33years when the planet cooled set against a backdrop of increasing co2 should be a case for the false causation and correlation from interested parties funded for false climate alarmism.
@@climatecraze Right, it's not like the fossil fuel industry has nothing to gain by our continued use of that product but the climate scientists, well...
![Megan Thee Stallion - Roc Steady (feat. Flo Milli) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HozPPyqW0dY/mqdefault.jpg)
I m loving Ted talks
Here before the world ends
sb I usually eat fast food :)
sb lol I know, that’s on me
The world will not end. The human species will end. We are inviting our own extinction.
@@MHiggins Humanity probably won’t go completely extinct, but a mass population and civilization collapse is likely.
There is no urgency where it matters.
Hello,In my city has protests because climate change i made some captures
A four hour lecture probably wouldn't be enough time to truly understand the depth of the problem , no evidence was provided to prove that it's not too late . If I were inclined to gamble I'd hedge my bets on humanity having at best a 5% chance of survival , hope and faith in humanity did not come into the equation and that's more realistic I think .
I believe you are correct. Given the way we treat each other and the earth and considering the economic system we live in, we are already doomed. This is a problem that should have been addressed decades ago, but the population keeps rising, emissions as well and we can forget about green energy and transportation to get us out of this mess. I have no hope for humanity. We have created something that most people believe can go on forever, but earth's resources are diminishing, yet consumption and our footprint on the environment keeps rising, so how can it go on forever ? Only in our deluded hope filled minds.
Absolutely prescient!
11:00 The remarkable thing: it's also vastly more, by orders of magnitude, than the amount of energy gained by burning all the carbon that created that amount of excess CO2.
There are about 3-1/2 million undersea volcanic vents changing the chemistry and heating the ocean waters that scientists are stating need much better accounting.
@@douglasengle2704And that has to do with exactly WHAT?
Since the mid 1990s there has been little real interest in global warming because it's been static at about 1°C. Global warming was a long term concern in the 1970s and 1980s with it increasing at about 2/10°C per decade. USA crude oil exploration companies had derived the practical concern for global warming that once global warming hit 1.3°C, on track to be reached in 1998, it would cause measurably stronger hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico requiring stronger and higher offshore oil platforms. There were other concerns as well such as expanding sea water causing global sea level rise. Then in late 1994 it was announced global warming for no known reasons had suddenly paused in the early 1990s when global warming was reported at 1.1°C in 1991. In 2022 global warming was reported at 1.06°C.
The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) obsession with human caused carbon dioxide emissions has for over 25 years been a laugh to the engineering and scientific audience. In 1990 - 1991 a large study of carbon dioxide's levels and effect in the atmosphere was done by large oil companies with the results being carbon dioxide from human activities was non poisonous and responsible for 1/100°C of earth warming due to its greenhouse gas behavior. In the 2000s another study couldn't find even 1/100°C of warming from human caused carbon dioxide emissions and concluded between 4/1000°C - 6/1000°C of warming.
The reality is that these human caused carbon dioxide temperature forcings of 4/1000°C - 1/100°C are just a share in earth's greenhouse effect that is always in saturation from the strong greenhouse gas water vapor and can't be changed that adds 10°F (5.55°C) to earth's average temperature. Earth's greenhouse effect absorbs all the greenhouse radiant energy. There is nothing left over.
There are people without a full high school science education or a life history going back 40 years that have been taken in by the marketing of the United Nation's IPCC that human caused greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming which is impossible to well known science. It is high school taught science earth's greenhouse effect is the model of system always in saturation from the strong greenhouse gas water vapor that adds 10°F (5.55°C) to earth's average temperature and takes place within 20 meters of the earth's surface. After 20 meters from the radiating surface all the greenhouse radiant energy has been completely absorbed by greenhouse gases. Its further heat transfer is by convection i.e. gas molecules bumping into each other. At 1% average tropospheric water vapor over 99% of earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor.
It's suppose to seem cool and a bit of a brain conundrum to high school students causing it to be fascinating that with water vapor varying hugely across the earth's surface water vapor still always holds earth's greenhouse effect in saturation. The variation is accommodated by the qualification of "within 20 meters of the surface" a great deal of the time all the greenhouse radiant energy is entirely absorbed by greenhouse gases before that distance.
In the back of the United Nation's IPCC science report of about 200 pages it states the truth it took its greenhouse gas samples at 20,000 meters altitude and only that one altitude! If this were real science it would be expected the entire air column would be sampled, but it's not real science. That 20,000 meter altitude greenhouse gas sampling statement is a legal disclaimer of data transparency. It can be legally argued a high school science educated person would know from that 20,000 meter altitude sampling statement the IPCC is not dealing with active greenhouse gas behavior or earth's greenhouse effect and is therefore in-fact is not dealing with greenhouse gases in a manor conducive to the discussion of global warming. This is the same marketing practice as when a beverage is labeled as "All Natural Fruit Juice Flavors" and in the ingredients it states the truth "contains no actual fruit juices".
Do you have an update on the last 12 months?
Hint: warmest 12 months on record.
Your data and propaganda are sadly wrong.
does anyone know the source of the first image of the earth from space?
Aliens
“Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.” Albert Einstein. Sounds like all the fuels sources we took out of the ground, which held CO2 underground, have now caused our atmosphere and oceans to heat. All that heat now has to react in an extreme way.
Wow. So much misunderstanding and incorrect facts in one paragraph. Well done.
@@wizzyno1566 you dispute Albert Einstein and physics?
Hello! We discuss more on politics and business, the world over, than Climate Change which we consider as academic but one day we shall be faced with the reality that we have destroyed the Planet Earth our base of Life and Existence. Thank you. Best Regards.
It would be nice to hear two important words in environmental systems….. population control. Without that discussion… there is no reverse gears.
Don't worry... the oligarchs have already begun implementing their depopulation/impoverishment plans.
The masses are in for a helluva time.
I think if the earth were to speak to us today it would say "please leave".
Yep the eviction notice has been posted, but not many residents have opened their mailboxes yet.
We’re on the way out.
You first.
Was here early
No use of talks 😅 action have to be taken.
We have end oil companies
@Twoleggedkumulava then what would happen to gulf countries and expats worker there
I don't recall which countries specifically, but solar energy plants/farms in the middle east are making them non-dependent on oil, although I'm not sure how that affects their actual GDP.
@@teethompson7756 it's Abu Dhabi.
My classmate work there😉
@@petername2608 Thank you, I watched a talk that Neil deGrasse Tyson did there some years ago which covered the history of science in the middle east. It's good to see them return to the intelectual world of science.
This was posted over 2 years ago. It concerns me about the small number of views. It suggest that not enough people are concerned about the end of the human race.
The Mauna Loa is a Hockey Stick from 1956, avoiding all the Earth CO2 sites from1800 on. So we don't KNOW what the true CO2 is because it could be a average of 255ppm. GIGO, SMH
The statement the Sierra Nevada mountain range became the first to have no glaciers corresponds to 300 ppm co2 from the earlier chart just 20ppm above the preindustrial 280ppm. Surely the exit from the ice age is the cause of ice loss where incremental anthropogenic CO2 is marginal at best... it's as if the presentation is not linking causality to mans CO2 through the data and yet the message is it's all mans fault. Not convincing at all.
"Surely the exit from the ice age is the cause of ice loss where incremental anthropogenic CO2 is marginal at best"
Well.. NASA, NOAA, EPA, ESA, every science academy from every nation and every major scientific institution on the planet disagrees with your conclusion.
However.. If you want to feed your confirmation bias type on the search box: PragerU, CATO institute or the Heartland institute, to name a few. All of them organizations at least partially funded by fossil fuel interests and by listening to their content you'll hear want you want to hear.
Nuno Foo Nino it is impossible to disagree with the fact we are exiting a glacial period and that ice retreats in this situation until there is no standing ice on the planet and an ice age is over. Last time was the Pliocene Eocene 50million years ago when there was no ice on the planet and thus a warm period. geology is the study of the earth its methods are accepted as fact. Yes anthropogenic activity has added a marginal amount to a warming trend though largely increases in CO2 above 400ppm are not significant as a greenhouse effect as the increase from 280 to 400ppm was I do not dispute this addition. That we do not see correlation to CO2 with temperature from 1945 to 1978 some 33years when the planet cooled set against a backdrop of increasing co2 should be a case for the false causation and correlation from interested parties funded for false climate alarmism.
Nuno Foo I hold a degree in Physics and spend time seeking the truth on the matter.
Correct. They have no data to support man-made climate change -- so they talk around their lack of supporting data -- called propaganda.
@@climatecraze Right, it's not like the fossil fuel industry has nothing to gain by our continued use of that product but the climate scientists, well...
Bad talk. Didn't explain why this is so importsnt
Your about 40 year too late!
Poor thing is so nervous
exactly, it's so cute.
I was here
Everyone go vegan! Now!
No thanks