How do we make our actions talk as loud as our words? And do targets like 1.5 degrees help or hold us back? Oh and huge thanks to Joeri Rogelj for his input into today's video.
I don't think saying 1.5 degrees helps. Most people think of weather rather than climate, and an extra 1.5 degrees on an average day sounds like quite a pleasant improvement in the weather (yes I know it doesn't work like that!).
In case anyone is thinking of clicking on ClimateCraze's link, try being forewarned by this comment I just left on it... "Odd that a video that insinuates that climate science is all lies and deception makes its twisted and fallacious points using almost entirely lies and deception. The deceit and misdirection in this video is so consistently extreme that the creator cannot be just another stupid gullible denialist - there must be a (malignant and dishonest) mind behind it."
@@climatecraze Well, at least I agree with you that 'climate alarmism' is harmful to what the public believe. While I mostly debunk pathologically irresponsible denialists and 'delayers', unlike many others who do the same I'll also take on the pathological environmentalist alarmists too. Spouting extreme pseudo-scientific bullshit to sway and frighten the public into voting the way the spouter wants them to is extremely non-constructive (are you listening Extinction Rebellion?). Re the 'lie' you linked to: Just a couple of points. Firstly, Gore is a politician, not a climate scientist. He actually said the North polar area MAY be clear of (BTW, he was talking about summer ice extent, not winter) ice by 2013. He was referencing Dr Wieslav Maslowski's projection and was clearly using political rhetoric by simplifying for a non-specialist audience. I am afraid you seem to have the habit of cherry picking snippets of text or dialogue, often out of context - and mostly from non-climate scientists - highlighting sentences and using this technique to try and smear the actual science and actual scientists. Gore was not really lying, more exaggerating, pointing out what he thought was the worst that could happen to the ice and he was cherry picking too... Here's what Gore said at the Copenhagen conference (2008), and commentary thereon: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years." However, Dr Maslowski, whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast. "It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at," Dr Maslowski said. "I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this." Mr Gore's office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a "ballpark figure" several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore... ...Perhaps Mr Gore had felt the need to gild the lily to buttress resolve. But his speech was roundly criticised by members of the climate science community. "This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics," Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said. "You really don't need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic." Others said that, even if quoted correctly, Dr Maslowski's six-year projection for near-ice-free conditions is at the extreme end of the scale. Most climate scientists agree that a 20 to 30-year timescale is more likely for the near-disappearance of sea ice. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ See? Climate scientists pulled up Gore for this (and other things where he hasn't got it completely right). Using stuff like this to create anti-climate science propaganda is deceitful or at least deluded. Similarly, insinuating that because there are some watermelon environmentalists who assert that we need to smash capitalism doesn't mean that all environmentalists are 'reds under the bed'. It also doesn't mean that all of climate science is faked up by climate scientists to enable a socialist revolution either - that's just a very silly paranoid conspiracy theory.
I´d love it that you made a video about Extinction Rebellions demand on cutting emissions to net zero by 2025. I know its “impossible” but there’s a video of a conversation between XR co-founder Roger Hallam and key IPCC reviewer Peter Carter who agrees it is definitely a good idea and no exaggeration from XR. Which is shocking.
I worry that by saying global warming is the problem is too abstract and complex a concept for most people to know where to start, even if they know they need to. Global warming is really not the problem, but rather is a symptom of an economic system that's based on the over-consumption of non-renewable resources to support an exponentially growing human population. Of course we should try to mitigate all Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions as much as possible in order to achieve net zero, but it's going to involve enormous systemic changes in the way we all produce and consume goods and services. And change is difficult for both individuals and institutions. It's not impossible, but I'm skeptical we can convert the world to a sustainable, circular economy in just 30 years. What do you think?
I'm not skeptical. We'd have to use a lot less energy, and the hardware for renewable energy isn't renewable. Solar Panels can't be manufactured without diesel. We don't recycle plastic. I think the solution to staying below 1.5 degrees is going back to pre-industry. We can't make energy without consuming, either.
I think the thawing of the permafrost will have the worst impact. We don't even know how much methane there is stuck in methane-hydrate. Am I right to think that the so many positive feedbacks in the process will amplify one other's effect over exponential, I mean the CO2 saturation of oceans (changing salinity affecting currents, crustaceans expected mass extinction due to too acidic pH, getting saturated with H3CO4 being unable to suck up more CO2), all the problems around the thawing permafrost (albedo, fires, CH4 release), the higher relative humidity, the increased high altitude clouding and its heat retenting effect; these hitting together can accelerate GW to an unforeseen speed, isn't it? I'm no expert of the subject, but learnt enough natural science to understand the mechanics behind the climate systems and been following the issue since uni. Am I right to think that in reality we won't really have a chance to stop it in time? Will we turn the planet into Venus 2.0 or will we just kill our civilisation and Mother Earth will heal after we will have gone? Can we trigger a cascade-like chain of events that would change Earth in shorter than historical timeline? How bad is it, Adam?
Panama--a nation with the (soon to be carbon-neutral Panama Canal), and Latin America´s most important financial and logistics hub, is carbon negative. Its secret: 65.4% of its land is covered with forests. Massification of reforestation efforts could effectively help meeting our global targets. We should be following Panama´s example.
We're already at +1.1C with tipping points already tipping. It is likely we will be hit or surpass +1.5C before 2050 maybe even as early as 2035 or 2040. A net zero at 2050 is a useless target and isn't likely to happen anyway because we lack the adaptability in the global society to make a substantive change. We have to give up or lose our current adaptations to even start, and there's no indication that we will willingly give them up because evolution uses sunk-cost fallacy to force the full exploitation of all paths. I personally think we're stuck until significant societal collapse. I'm hoping I'm wrong, but the evidence points in the worst direction.
The IPCC and (presumably because they don't specify it) the Paris Agreement use 1850-1900, which I'm using here. This isn't truly 'pre-industrial' but so long as everyone's talking about the same thing, policy can align with the research. Note the 1.5 degree report's justification for this is: "This is the earliest period with near-global observations and is the reference period used as an approximation of pre-industrial temperatures in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report." - www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-1/ As for when such 'tipping points' would kick in - the honest answer in general is we simply don't know, though scientists do work to try and estimate risks. There are some where the risk this century is low (e.g. shutting down the AMOC), but for changes with such severe consequences, low risk is hardly reassuring! To many scientists this leads to the same conclusion: limit emissions and warming as rapidly as we can.
Individuals, politicians and corporations all need to do more to protect the planet from climate change. Support environmentally friendly products and companies. Stop using fossil fuels. Stop using pesticides, add solar energy to your home or business, buy an electric vehicle, eat more fruit and vegetables and less meat and dairy, plant a tree, recycle everything. Every adult and child should own a bicycle and ride it regularly. Donate to non profits fighting for a better future. Support and elect climate leaders. Every child should plant a tree, bush or flowers wiith a parent or teacher. It will help connect them to nature and the environment. .Leave a better future for your children and grandchildren
it's *possible* it's too late for 1.5 degrees, but that doesn't mean it's too late to act on climate change and save lives, as I discuss in more detail here: ruclips.net/video/RoQRkmRjz38/видео.html
I would really appreciate how do we calcilate the average temps of Earth. It feels like already 3 or 4 degrees hotter and i find it difficult to believe we are still under 1.5 degrees.
the average temperature is calculated by averaging over the entire surface of the planet. since oceans heat slower than land, and higher latitude regions heat faster than lower latitude regions, many specific location have indeed heated far more than the global average - in fact the Arctic has been estimated to be heating 3 or 4 times faster than the average. this is important for assessing impacts, but does not affect the goals of the Paris climate agreement, which specifically concern limiting global averages
It's called the Heat Island Effect. Go out of your home and visit the urban areas and you will find far cooler temperatures. And since it's an average as Adam explained, the average increase in urban areas is a lot less then 1.5 degrees by applying mere math.
1.5 is a hard target.. You hit feedback loop if you go past that there's no such thing as 1.7 or 2ﾟ you go past 1.5 and you hit 20.. That's the whole point of limiting it to 1.5 .......
the risk of such tipping points increases as temperatures increase, but there isn't any robust evidence I'm aware of that these points happen between 1.5 and 2 degrees of warming. the 1.5 degree temperature limit (and the 2 degree limit, which is the hard limit of the Paris climate agreement) are set by politicians as what is considered an acceptable level of warming for the world.
The Vatican committed to net zero by 2050 last year! This is the same date as Europe and better than some of the signees! They should be able to afford it too! I'm a guy, 51 and I wear purple nail polish on my toes, which is hillarious every summer wearing sandals! Old and cool is a thing.
I'm visiting psychiatrist because of my so-called eco-anxiety...I nearly killed myself. It's tough...I hope we will win this fight, because I don't know why I'm gonna do if we don't
The only reason that we aren't already "at" +1.5C. above pre-industrial baseline temps. is because of the repeated redefining of "pre-industrial." Originally it was set at 1750AD. Then it was adjusted to 1880, approximately the time when oil became available. Then it was set to 1950, to coincide with the "present" used by paleontologists and geologists to have a fixed point in the modern era to compare their long-term measurements against. Now it's 1951-1980. We can forever stay under +1.5C. if we keep moving the goalposts. There is about 10-12 years of heating "baked in" to the current level. That is how long a bolus of CO2 emissions takes to manifest fully in higher temperatures. So, even if we ended CO2 emissions TODAY, the heating would continue for over a decade. That is, AFTER an initial burst of intense heating during the first couple of years due to the loss of the aerosol masking effect.
different baselines are used for different things. for example for plotting graphs it's often useful to have a baseline we have a great deal of certainty over, and so one from the 20th Century is used. The IPCC and (presumably because they don't specify it) the Paris Agreement use 1850-1900 as the 'pre-industrial' baseline, which I'm using here when I refer to 1.5 degrees. This isn't truly 'pre-industrial' but so long as everyone's talking about the same thing, policy can align with the research. Note the 1.5 degree report's justification for this is: "This is the earliest period with near-global observations and is the reference period used as an approximation of pre-industrial temperatures in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report." - www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-1
"There's no fundamental law of physics stopping the world from doing it." I'd like to argue against this statement by these others. If we take the laws of physics and accept that the universe fundamentally works by them then we also have to accept that human nature/behaviour, down to the personal level, is an emergent property thereof. So there technically could be a law in physics that stops the world from doing it. Take a star of 8 solar masses, it is in its final stages where the iron core becomes so massive that a collapse into a supernova or blackhole is imminent. With the current and historical behaviour of civilizations the (imo) idea that we can totally do a 180 is like telling that iron core not to go nova. No fundamental law of physics stopping us? Perhaps the laws of physics actually demands our behaviour (as it is in the case of the star going nova)? Now you can call me a defeatist, but at a certain point I think admitting it becomes more beneficial. So instead of hoping on these lofty agreements to halt climate change actually pan out (a 50/50 even then, as you said) we should be already be building new infrastructure as if we are living in the worst case scenario. Sure keep at trying to halt as much as we can, as you said not doing anything will automatically mean failure, but at this point we should accept we've totally blown it. What's better: come 2050 and our hopes to curb climate change didn't work and we get *******, or we already have the necessary infrastructure to deal with it as best we can? At this point I think it's too risky to civilization to put all its eggs in the "lets hope we an do it" basket. We are in the worse than worst case scenario. We are the 2021 of that worse than worst case 2050. Every year now, "scientists find that x is actually y times worse than we thought" or "x is disappearing y times faster than we thought before". Climate change affects all physical systems on Earth. We do not understand or even know all these systems, so it's likely that more estimates are underestimations rather than correct or over..
CO2 does not fill upp a glas like water. there is a balance of emitting and absorbing that makes it possible to have a constant temperature granted that emission do not rise, but remain at the same level.
Very well presented, but unfortunately it doesn't add up. The IPCCs original hypothesis, was that carbon had little or no effect, greenhouse wise. The UN officials, or whatever they are, sent the report back and it was rewritten, making CO2 public enemy number one. CO2 makes up less than 4% of the total of all so called greenhouse gases. Anthropogenic CO2, is 0.03% of that 4%, amounts so small as to be insignificant. Carbon is a big business idea, as Carbon marketing boards run by people like Al Gore stand to skim billions off of this grift. The planet has warmed 1° since 1899, and that does have regional effects, that is not in dispute. But barking up the wrong tree isn't going to change anything. Bankrupting ourselves will not change it, not one iota. Climate science as we know it today, is political theatre, the real scientists are defunded, they have lost tenure, they have been silenced and exiled.
How do we make our actions talk as loud as our words? And do targets like 1.5 degrees help or hold us back?
Oh and huge thanks to Joeri Rogelj for his input into today's video.
I don't think saying 1.5 degrees helps. Most people think of weather rather than climate, and an extra 1.5 degrees on an average day sounds like quite a pleasant improvement in the weather (yes I know it doesn't work like that!).
More CO2 and more warmth is actually good for our earth -- the data shows this to be true ... ruclips.net/video/DNeujL1IoCA/видео.html
In case anyone is thinking of clicking on ClimateCraze's link, try being forewarned by this comment I just left on it...
"Odd that a video that insinuates that climate science is all lies and deception makes its twisted and fallacious points using almost entirely lies and deception. The deceit and misdirection in this video is so consistently extreme that the creator cannot be just another stupid gullible denialist - there must be a (malignant and dishonest) mind behind it."
@@nicholaspalmer2220 I especially like this lie ... ruclips.net/video/w4nwq5NGvGw/видео.html
@@climatecraze Well, at least I agree with you that 'climate alarmism' is harmful to what the public believe. While I mostly debunk pathologically irresponsible denialists and 'delayers', unlike many others who do the same I'll also take on the pathological environmentalist alarmists too. Spouting extreme pseudo-scientific bullshit to sway and frighten the public into voting the way the spouter wants them to is extremely non-constructive (are you listening Extinction Rebellion?).
Re the 'lie' you linked to:
Just a couple of points. Firstly, Gore is a politician, not a climate scientist. He actually said the North polar area MAY be clear of (BTW, he was talking about summer ice extent, not winter) ice by 2013. He was referencing Dr Wieslav Maslowski's projection and was clearly using political rhetoric by simplifying for a non-specialist audience.
I am afraid you seem to have the habit of cherry picking snippets of text or dialogue, often out of context - and mostly from non-climate scientists - highlighting sentences and using this technique to try and smear the actual science and actual scientists. Gore was not really lying, more exaggerating, pointing out what he thought was the worst that could happen to the ice and he was cherry picking too...
Here's what Gore said at the Copenhagen conference (2008), and commentary thereon:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."
However, Dr Maslowski, whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.
"It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at," Dr Maslowski said. "I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this."
Mr Gore's office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a "ballpark figure" several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore...
...Perhaps Mr Gore had felt the need to gild the lily to buttress resolve. But his speech was roundly criticised by members of the climate science community. "This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics," Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.
"You really don't need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic."
Others said that, even if quoted correctly, Dr Maslowski's six-year projection for near-ice-free conditions is at the extreme end of the scale. Most climate scientists agree that a 20 to 30-year timescale is more likely for the near-disappearance of sea ice.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
See? Climate scientists pulled up Gore for this (and other things where he hasn't got it completely right). Using stuff like this to create anti-climate science propaganda is deceitful or at least deluded. Similarly, insinuating that because there are some watermelon environmentalists who assert that we need to smash capitalism doesn't mean that all environmentalists are 'reds under the bed'. It also doesn't mean that all of climate science is faked up by climate scientists to enable a socialist revolution either - that's just a very silly paranoid conspiracy theory.
And, a month later, we now know 1.5 is unavoidable
Your analogies are great by the way!
Also, lovely nails as usual. Such a striking colour!
If you like blue, try matte blue, it’s one of my faves!!
Are you kidding? Your analogies are the best! This is why I love your channel so much and I recommend it to everyone I meet!
haha I just meant I was sick of rapidly drinking water out of a straw!
You mean it was the last straw?? At least it was a metal straw!! Although I do like bamboo ones better, there are more pleasant on your teeth…
What happens at 2C. Massive crop failures. Food producing crops can't handle high temps.
I´d love it that you made a video about Extinction Rebellions demand on cutting emissions to net zero by 2025. I know its “impossible” but there’s a video of a conversation between XR co-founder Roger Hallam and key IPCC reviewer Peter Carter who agrees it is definitely a good idea and no exaggeration from XR. Which is shocking.
I worry that by saying global warming is the problem is too abstract and complex a concept for most people to know where to start, even if they know they need to. Global warming is really not the problem, but rather is a symptom of an economic system that's based on the over-consumption of non-renewable resources to support an exponentially growing human population. Of course we should try to mitigate all Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions as much as possible in order to achieve net zero, but it's going to involve enormous systemic changes in the way we all produce and consume goods and services. And change is difficult for both individuals and institutions. It's not impossible, but I'm skeptical we can convert the world to a sustainable, circular economy in just 30 years. What do you think?
I'm not skeptical. We'd have to use a lot less energy, and the hardware for renewable energy isn't renewable. Solar Panels can't be manufactured without diesel. We don't recycle plastic. I think the solution to staying below 1.5 degrees is going back to pre-industry. We can't make energy without consuming, either.
Saving our footprints is what we need to worry about ... ruclips.net/video/QOpOnaRMGCY/видео.html
Yes! Just finished work and ClimateAdam is here with a brand new video!
Thank you for continuing to make great videos
Love this video, informative and an entertaining way to deliver it. Cheers.
thanks Andrew!
loving your nails
You make climate science accessible.
glad to hear it!
I love your analogies Adam! Keep up the excellent work :D
I think the thawing of the permafrost will have the worst impact. We don't even know how much methane there is stuck in methane-hydrate. Am I right to think that the so many positive feedbacks in the process will amplify one other's effect over exponential, I mean the CO2 saturation of oceans (changing salinity affecting currents, crustaceans expected mass extinction due to too acidic pH, getting saturated with H3CO4 being unable to suck up more CO2), all the problems around the thawing permafrost (albedo, fires, CH4 release), the higher relative humidity, the increased high altitude clouding and its heat retenting effect; these hitting together can accelerate GW to an unforeseen speed, isn't it?
I'm no expert of the subject, but learnt enough natural science to understand the mechanics behind the climate systems and been following the issue since uni. Am I right to think that in reality we won't really have a chance to stop it in time? Will we turn the planet into Venus 2.0 or will we just kill our civilisation and Mother Earth will heal after we will have gone? Can we trigger a cascade-like chain of events that would change Earth in shorter than historical timeline? How bad is it, Adam?
@Staci S *agrees sadly*
Keep going👍your videos are very importent
not planning on stopping anytime soon!
Panama--a nation with the (soon to be carbon-neutral Panama Canal), and Latin America´s most important financial and logistics hub, is carbon negative. Its secret: 65.4% of its land is covered with forests. Massification of reforestation efforts could effectively help meeting our global targets. We should be following Panama´s example.
We're already at +1.1C with tipping points already tipping. It is likely we will be hit or surpass +1.5C before 2050 maybe even as early as 2035 or 2040. A net zero at 2050 is a useless target and isn't likely to happen anyway because we lack the adaptability in the global society to make a substantive change. We have to give up or lose our current adaptations to even start, and there's no indication that we will willingly give them up because evolution uses sunk-cost fallacy to force the full exploitation of all paths. I personally think we're stuck until significant societal collapse. I'm hoping I'm wrong, but the evidence points in the worst direction.
Who would have thought chess sandwiches will be our doomed? Above anything else!
Great exam analogy, I may have to use that one
only the old school-est CliMates will know this is my second time using that analogy. #recycling
People hello!! We are over 1.5C. source artic need blog. FYI 1.73C!!! Oh don't forget the aerosol masking effect.
You're awesome
aw thanks Dayanand!
How close is 1.5 C to runaway feedback loops global warming? Also, what is the baseline year you use for the 1.5 C rise threshold?
The IPCC and (presumably because they don't specify it) the Paris Agreement use 1850-1900, which I'm using here. This isn't truly 'pre-industrial' but so long as everyone's talking about the same thing, policy can align with the research. Note the 1.5 degree report's justification for this is:
"This is the earliest period with near-global observations and is the reference period used as an approximation of pre-industrial temperatures in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report."
- www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-1/
As for when such 'tipping points' would kick in - the honest answer in general is we simply don't know, though scientists do work to try and estimate risks. There are some where the risk this century is low (e.g. shutting down the AMOC), but for changes with such severe consequences, low risk is hardly reassuring! To many scientists this leads to the same conclusion: limit emissions and warming as rapidly as we can.
I love your analogies! Never change.
Individuals, politicians and corporations all need to do more to protect the planet from climate change.
Support environmentally friendly products and companies. Stop using fossil fuels. Stop using pesticides, add solar energy to your home or business, buy an electric vehicle, eat more fruit and vegetables and less meat and dairy, plant a tree, recycle everything. Every adult and child should own a bicycle and ride it regularly. Donate to non profits fighting for a better future. Support and elect climate leaders. Every child should plant a tree, bush or flowers wiith a parent or teacher. It will help connect them to nature and the environment. .Leave a better future for your children and grandchildren
No we actually did say chillaxing at one point
phew - thanks for the reality check!
I checked out 3 cat videos first. 🤨
that's still a pretty good cat to climate ratio!
i say "chillaxing" but i am young and uncool. we can conclude that "chillax" is an intergenerationally uncool word.
excellent intel from the youth - thanks!
imo is too late, it's snowballing from ove rpast 7 years now. Just look at the weather this year
it's *possible* it's too late for 1.5 degrees, but that doesn't mean it's too late to act on climate change and save lives, as I discuss in more detail here:
ruclips.net/video/RoQRkmRjz38/видео.html
In a crisis the world has shown that it can stockpile toilet paper. We can do that
greta video, thank you!
I would really appreciate how do we calcilate the average temps of Earth. It feels like already 3 or 4 degrees hotter and i find it difficult to believe we are still under 1.5 degrees.
the average temperature is calculated by averaging over the entire surface of the planet. since oceans heat slower than land, and higher latitude regions heat faster than lower latitude regions, many specific location have indeed heated far more than the global average - in fact the Arctic has been estimated to be heating 3 or 4 times faster than the average. this is important for assessing impacts, but does not affect the goals of the Paris climate agreement, which specifically concern limiting global averages
It's called the Heat Island Effect.
Go out of your home and visit the urban areas and you will find far cooler temperatures.
And since it's an average as Adam explained, the average increase in urban areas is a lot less then 1.5 degrees by applying mere math.
It is too late. We don't recycle plastic and the high school I used to go to doesn't have air conditioning.
1.5 is a hard target.. You hit feedback loop if you go past that there's no such thing as 1.7 or 2ﾟ you go past 1.5 and you hit 20.. That's the whole point of limiting it to 1.5 .......
the risk of such tipping points increases as temperatures increase, but there isn't any robust evidence I'm aware of that these points happen between 1.5 and 2 degrees of warming.
the 1.5 degree temperature limit (and the 2 degree limit, which is the hard limit of the Paris climate agreement) are set by politicians as what is considered an acceptable level of warming for the world.
@@ClimateAdam Politicians are just unsuccessfully attempting to hold back decarbonisation until 2050.
Still got it Adam. I mean, up n Adam
The Vatican committed to net zero by 2050 last year! This is the same date as Europe and better than some of the signees! They should be able to afford it too! I'm a guy, 51 and I wear purple nail polish on my toes, which is hillarious every summer wearing sandals! Old and cool is a thing.
work from home buy local and ride a bicycle
commenting cause I love yah! bye!
responding because that was a lovely comment to receive!
Possible?! Yes! Probable!? No!!
I'm visiting psychiatrist because of my so-called eco-anxiety...I nearly killed myself. It's tough...I hope we will win this fight, because I don't know why I'm gonna do if we don't
Our climate is good and it is getting better ... ruclips.net/video/DNeujL1IoCA/видео.html
i understand
If you are looking for a way to help the environment and fight climate change you can use ecosia they are a search engine that plants trees
You just wanted an excuse to eat cake , I see you!
#exposed!
Your voice sounds so familiar. Do you make any podcasts or voice over for other videos?
I do! Most notably I'm often on the Nature Podcast (which I used to co-host) and making videos for Nature.
The only reason that we aren't already "at" +1.5C. above pre-industrial baseline temps. is because of the repeated redefining of "pre-industrial." Originally it was set at 1750AD. Then it was adjusted to 1880, approximately the time when oil became available. Then it was set to 1950, to coincide with the "present" used by paleontologists and geologists to have a fixed point in the modern era to compare their long-term measurements against. Now it's 1951-1980. We can forever stay under +1.5C. if we keep moving the goalposts.
There is about 10-12 years of heating "baked in" to the current level. That is how long a bolus of CO2 emissions takes to manifest fully in higher temperatures. So, even if we ended CO2 emissions TODAY, the heating would continue for over a decade. That is, AFTER an initial burst of intense heating during the first couple of years due to the loss of the aerosol masking effect.
different baselines are used for different things. for example for plotting graphs it's often useful to have a baseline we have a great deal of certainty over, and so one from the 20th Century is used.
The IPCC and (presumably because they don't specify it) the Paris Agreement use 1850-1900 as the 'pre-industrial' baseline, which I'm using here when I refer to 1.5 degrees. This isn't truly 'pre-industrial' but so long as everyone's talking about the same thing, policy can align with the research. Note the 1.5 degree report's justification for this is:
"This is the earliest period with near-global observations and is the reference period used as an approximation of pre-industrial temperatures in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report."
- www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-1
"There's no fundamental law of physics stopping the world from doing it."
I'd like to argue against this statement by these others. If we take the laws of physics and accept that the universe fundamentally works by them then we also have to accept that human nature/behaviour, down to the personal level, is an emergent property thereof. So there technically could be a law in physics that stops the world from doing it. Take a star of 8 solar masses, it is in its final stages where the iron core becomes so massive that a collapse into a supernova or blackhole is imminent. With the current and historical behaviour of civilizations the (imo) idea that we can totally do a 180 is like telling that iron core not to go nova. No fundamental law of physics stopping us? Perhaps the laws of physics actually demands our behaviour (as it is in the case of the star going nova)?
Now you can call me a defeatist, but at a certain point I think admitting it becomes more beneficial. So instead of hoping on these lofty agreements to halt climate change actually pan out (a 50/50 even then, as you said) we should be already be building new infrastructure as if we are living in the worst case scenario. Sure keep at trying to halt as much as we can, as you said not doing anything will automatically mean failure, but at this point we should accept we've totally blown it. What's better: come 2050 and our hopes to curb climate change didn't work and we get *******, or we already have the necessary infrastructure to deal with it as best we can? At this point I think it's too risky to civilization to put all its eggs in the "lets hope we an do it" basket. We are in the worse than worst case scenario. We are the 2021 of that worse than worst case 2050. Every year now, "scientists find that x is actually y times worse than we thought" or "x is disappearing y times faster than we thought before". Climate change affects all physical systems on Earth. We do not understand or even know all these systems, so it's likely that more estimates are underestimations rather than correct or over..
CO2 does not fill upp a glas like water. there is a balance of emitting and absorbing that makes it possible to have a constant temperature granted that emission do not rise, but remain at the same level.
2050 isn't soon enough we need 2035 at the least
cake or death
Optimistic. Fun, but in order to show the apatite of the west consider using hogs.
Very well presented, but unfortunately it doesn't add up. The IPCCs original hypothesis, was that carbon had little or no effect, greenhouse wise. The UN officials, or whatever they are,
sent the report back and it was rewritten, making CO2
public enemy number one.
CO2 makes up less than 4% of the total of all so called greenhouse gases. Anthropogenic CO2, is 0.03% of that 4%, amounts so small as to be insignificant. Carbon is a big business idea, as Carbon marketing boards run by people like Al Gore stand to skim billions off of this grift. The planet has warmed
1° since 1899, and that does have regional effects, that is not in dispute. But barking up the wrong tree isn't going to change anything. Bankrupting
ourselves will not change it, not one iota. Climate science as we know it today, is political theatre, the real scientists are defunded, they have lost tenure, they have been silenced and exiled.
One thing you can do is go vegan for the planet.
You are just searching for excuses to eat cake :).
that is a shocking accusation!
Your analogies make no sense whatsoever.
Oh dear.....