We're NOT about to pass the 1.5 degree climate change limit
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 май 2024
- The world is getting hotter and the headlines are scary. So does climate change mean the world is about to pass the 1.5 degree limit set by the Paris Climate Agreement? And what would passing this limit even mean? Rather than showing that it's game over, increasing extreme weather and sea level rise would indicate that it's never been so urgent to stop climate change - it's never been so urgent to stop punching ourselves in the face.
Support ClimateAdam on patreon: / climateadam
#ClimateChange
twitter: / climateadam
facebook: / climateadam
instagram: / climate_adam
==MORE INFO==
public.wmo.int/en/media/press...
www.nature.com/articles/d4158...
www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/
unfccc.int/sites/default/file... 
Наука
one of the biggest threats of heating the planet is spreading diseases - old & new. here's what you need to know: ruclips.net/video/V2ZAncRzEkQ/видео.html
Good to have found this channel. My thoughts are that politics supplanting science as an authority is a great threat.
The problem is we have progressed from hitting our selves in the face. To breating our selves with a frying pan
Why should a rational person believe that global cooling would result in less disease? Didn't humans suffer from disease more during the Little Ice Age than during the warmer periods both before and after that time?
Propaganda channel doesn't talk about self reinforcing feedback loops, aerosol masking effect, and the baseline shifting of ipcc
Luckily 2023 will be the coolest year in 2023 to 2028 🙂
As a non-expert, I appreciate this explanation... but this is also what I've gotten from the media coverage I've read. El Nino a plays pretty strong role in a lot of the news pieces I've seen. Even breaching it by one year seems quite unfortunate because it implies that there will be further years that also exceed that 1.5C limit.
we are moving up and down along an ever increasing baseline. The temperature may dip below or rise above it in a short period of time but the long term direction hasn't changed. The issue is when the baseline is 1.5
@@oleonard7319well if we rise as we have since 2010 we will have a 10 year base line by 2028... We have breached the limit for like 15 mo. Now. El Nino does affect it but climate tipping points don't care if warming is 20 percent or 50 percent el Nino.
You say that it's never too late to stop our emissions, but doesn't going over the 1.5 degree limit may cause all sort of feedback loops that could spiral out of control and we would no longer be able to solve the crisis? Wasn't that the whole point of the 2018 IPCC report that by around 2030 if we won't reach 50% green energy globally it might be too late? I might have the wrong impression, but you seem to be pretty clam.
Thanks so much for the question, Michael! That's how the report is often reported on, but it's not what it says. It outlines many serious differences between 1.5 and 2 degrees of warming, but it doesn't say any of these are game over, or that any automatically switch on as soon as we pass 1.5. I include a link to the report in the description, but also touch on these points in a recent vid: ruclips.net/video/pshSE78rmvo/видео.html
@@ClimateAdam Thank you very much for the response. I watched the video you linked, and then also watched your video "Too late to stop Climate Change?", and I understand and agree with you that even if we pass certain thresholds (like 1.5 degree warming or a certain global carbon budget for example), it's still better to act late and try to make the problem less bad, and of course after passing a certain threshold point, civilization won't collapse immediately or anything like that. But still, you mentioned that there are tipping points that we risk passing by a very big probability if we pass these thresholds, and so if we indeed pass certain tipping points, isn't it possible that things could get out of control? To use your punching metaphor, suppose after 50 punches, you get an internal bleeding in the brain that will make you paralyzed for the rest of your life and even the best doctors in the world would not be able to heal you, is that not a good comparison to the tipping points in the climate crisis?
@@michaelnovak9412Good question, it's a shame it never got an answer
Not yet, but this is important milestone towards permanent 1.5C warming, isn't it?
Yes it is
I worry mainly because I'm jaded by our political and economic systems and don't really trust many of them to act rational if they keep trying to maintain a normality we've become totally accustomed and believe is the only way to live.
That said, it's great to see increasing support to face the true issues, and people can change politics given the momentum
What's your opinions on the large Beyond Growth conference in Europe the other week? Really was disappointing seeing how little coverage it got by media.
it's really fascinating to see people challenging the dogma of what makes a 'successful' society, and the idea that growth of all costs is worth it. I'm very curious to see what it leads to in the longer term.
@@ClimateAdam me too.
We need to recognize that this era and obsession with growth doesn't necessarily benefit everyone equally. While it's given us a great many things, like the fancy smartphone I'm using to type this now and can use to keep on top of all the latest news, are the costs worth it?
It mainly rewards those at the top who can get greater and greater returns on their investments, causing the gap between them and the rest of the populace to get bigger and bigger, with the cost of living increasing faster than the increase in actual wages.
I'm deeply convinced we need to truly reexamine our concept of money because it's been so utterly distorted by the expanse of the financial sector, prioritizing the immaterial billions and trillions concentrated in the hands of a few over the money normal people deal with and struggle with as the value of it declines, with high levels of consumer debt just becoming a norm so many take as normal.
If more people can realize that much more simple lives doesn't mean worse, we could really be on track to not just avoid a lot of the future damage, but also to build a better society focused on the people living within it, not some imaginary money going through our financial systems.
I think the slight problem with the punching metaphor, and with downplaying the importance of passing thresholds, is that it doesn’t really address the aspect of reaching tipping points, in various systems that impact each other etc. It’s not like we can reliably predict that a particular threshold like 1.5c is a point at which a bomb goes off and it’s suddenly game-over, but it’s also not true that things just get progressively worse in an incremental way as temperature rises… the risks become more chaotic.
Tipping points are when you start to get a bleed on the brain from the punching.
Yes - but 2 degrees is viewed as a possible tipping point either as this is when the West Antarctica Ice Sheet could collapse due to warm water undermining its stability or somewhat later the Atlantic Overturning Current being blocked by too much melt water from Greenland ice sheet.
1.5c is not a tipping point. It is an arbitrary number thought up by the same people who desperately misinform us about the importance of climate change. Did you know Al Gore has invested $300 Million in carbon credits? Di you know Bill Gates has bought up a huge number of fam acreage in the US. Seems kind weird if the droughts are coming...doesn't it? Oprah is now buying farmland too. Billionaire farmers?
Metaphors tend to struggle under scrutiny.
If we stopped all emissions (punching), temps would continue to rise because of latent response times to greenhouse gases. And when this latency has played out, change will continue until a new climate equilibrium is reached. According to James Hansen.
+1.5oC has gone - not sure why this is being downplayed.
As Adam points out, our leaders have failed us. It's now up to us.
@@mikeKirwin metaphors often struggle under scrutiny, but also often I find it remarkable how naturally they can actually extend... So counter to my previous comment, I suppose one might say that at some point as the punching continues, the harm done goes from bruises to life-changing injuries, maybe brain damage... It can encapsulate tipping points after all.
That didn't age well...
Even aged worse here 8 mo. Later lol as we have hit the 1.5 degree for like 15 mo
We are actually over 2c
Adam, we live in the mountains of California. In the last ten years, hundreds of millions of trees have died, 300 or so on our place. wildfires frequency that was historically generational is now annual. 127 homes burned in our town last summer; my street was one of the firebreaks. Wells have been going dry. And last winter we got a freak snowstorm that dropped 2 meters of snow at an elevationthat doesn’t get more than 30 centimeters or so from a storm. 1.2 degrees is doing a bit of damage.
The freak snowstorm destroyed even more trees and for me was just as terrifying as the fires as my family was completely cut off from essential services for three days. It really opened my eyes even further how dangerous climate change will make our world.
No one wants FF. I wonder if they will be happy about shutting down oil when many will experience 😮 Wet Bulb Temperatures in their regions. 😢
Look back at the the historical record. When were droughts, heavy snow fall, wildfires etc? I'll bet you will find newspaper articles from a hundred years ago describing similar events.
@@timbookedtwo2375 several hundred year old newspaper articles with a multi year long scope on weather occurrences happening in the mountains of colorado? doubtful
this needs to be updated.......
Hey nice to know you! I’m subscribing already, so i wanna ask a question if it’s ok. So, my bachelor degree is French literature, is it possible to take master degree in climate, i know it sounded silly and weird but I’ve been learning and trying to understand how climate and weather works since I was in high school (which was 6 years ago) from the Internet (hear me out sometimes when you don’t have enough resource the Internet is the best way to learn new things and it kinda worked too). So far i’ve just in the surface of climatology (maybe a bit deeper), i just wanna know if it’s possible and if not will taking bachelor degree in climate will be hard for someone who hates math? thank you btw!!! great channel you have here ❤
I think whether it's possible, really depends on the education system. that said, I definitely know lots of people who have shifted from the arts or humanities into environmental work, so I'm sure there are pathways!
I'm not an expert but doesn't it mean that if we hit an increase of 1.5C even more tipping points/'positive' feedbacks kick in possibly to an actual 'runaway-climate-change' scenario and when these kick-in they can't really be 'put back in the bottle' ?
thats about the long and short of it i believe !
Depends on the "tipping point". Some of them can be reset. That's harder than not reaching that "tipping point" in the first place.
That's what I've been taught, and it makes sense in terms of the laws of thermodynamics
@@anovosedlik The general public are not being told the whole truth and as such are ill informed and not feeling as afraid as they should be ... You are "In The Know" as they say !! most are still blissfully unaware !!
@@politicalfoolishness7491 second
THE RATE!
Warming by 1,5C is almost nothing if it happens in 10 000 years (even that is a rapid change in Earth's history). But it is happening in a century. And the rate is the most important fact along the actual warming.
Faster we warm the planet (proven scientific fact), less nature or we have chances to adapt to these changes. If warming in the area exceeds reproduction rate, then there is no way to survive. If area dries too much, there is no water that is needed to support all known life on Earth.
We have global and local changes. Global change is hardly killing anyone, but local conditions may chance in few years and make life unbearable. Global change is making local extreme changes more likely.
Interesting you should mention bombs going off. Anyone know the likely effects of the warming seas in the western Atlantic on the clathrate deposits in the area under the Bermuda triangle and Gulf of Mexico? If I remember the phase diagram correctly then once the water temperature at the sea floor hits about 17C the hydrates effectively decompose to water and methane gas. Given that the waters in the coastal areas around Florida are pushing 38C someone might want to check if there are any ocean currents which might draw some of that water down to where it could affect the lower depths. Probably not desirable at this point in time to start venting huge quantities of methane into the atmosphere.
No reason to worry, psychopathic corrupt politicians all over the world will come to save us,
as allways 😊👍
We’re not about to reach 1.5 but all indications point to us getting there soon, based on our behavior
1.5 degrees has also been a moving target because it was *originally* 1750 and was later moved to 1850 to move the goal post.
You are seriously understating the risk and the explanation here. If there's a 55 MPH speed limit and you go 57 MPH for a few minutes did you breach the speed limit? Yes.
If a levee is breached is the levee destroyed? No.
A breach is not a permanent state. We are in *fact* breaching the threshold.
Your punching is a piss poor example. The "breach" with the punch is assault. Once you are punched the level needed for assault has been breached. There is no going back from having been assaulted.
You also completely ignore tipping points. Some tipping points make not care about your pedantic argument around definition of words. Paper has a "tipping point" of 451 degrees Fahrenheit. It doesn't care if you just breach that for a minute...
Agreed. The downplaying of risk here is disturbing. But then you don't get views without a happy chapter to keep people believing it's going to be alright.
We are all living in the Climate Change Casino.
So it's less 1.5C being coming into our homes and more like it calling saying it's on it way, while you still have the ability to cancel plans
Also, since world leaders are playing the game like it's easy mode when reality it's hard mode, we should definitely keep pressuring them, and definitely point out how they can profit (cause at the end of the day it's all about the money isn't it?) from mitigating climate change (CC), and the biodiversity crisis cause dealing with both CC and a mass extinction is unmanageble for literally all civilizations that have ever existed, including us, once either gets going because feedback loops
Just found your channel. I want to say that I'm really glad I did. We need lots more folks just like you shining more wisdom on what's going on in climate change and how to address it.
I would very much appreciate information on how the Hunga Tonga Hunga Ha'apai volcano has affected climate this past year and next. I got that there would be some great effect, but then I heard it was all about high pressure ridges that failed to form. Why?
The biggest effect I've heard from it was putting a fair amount of H2O into the stratosphere.
The last thing we needed was more water vapor in the air.
Other than that I don't think it did all that much to make things worse.
Oh yes we are. In fact we are already at 2.0-2.2 deg C when calculated from 1770. The IPCC moved up the baseline to make the data more palatable to politicians. With that said, it is Jan 2024 and 2023 was easily the hottest year in the last 125,000 years. Temps exceeded 1.5 deg in many regions. They will exceed 1.5 deg C in 2024. It will take until around 2026 for the worldwide average to surpass 1.5 deg C. Regardless, 1.5 deg C is bogus number. The actual amount of global average temp rise is now 2.2 deg C...which is catastrophic.
We already passed it
Did you get that from a good, reliable source or not?
Still love the punching metaphor. It's so accurate.
Every time someone somewhere buys gasoline!
There is a direct relationship between the extent to which one is informed on issues pertaining to humanity's 'overshoot' of our planetary boundaries and the extent to which one is prone to pessimism about the future.
Unfortunately, climate change is only one of many aspects of this overshoot (others include soil degradation, collapse of insect numbers, collapse of fish stocks, severe pollution of land sea and air, poor management of fresh water, habitat loss, mass extinction of wild species, increasing pandemic vulnerability, worrying population projections, proliferation of PFAs and micro-plastics, decreasing mineral and fertiliser availability, the persistence of new bird flu strains and their devastating effect on the poultry industry etc, etc) and it is the combination of all of these impacts - together with our quite severe global economic and energy-related challenges, that have led the well informed to their somewhat bleak outlook. And that's before you even consider the tense geopolitical landscape, the seemingly unstoppable rise of the hard right, and the impact of rapidly developing use of AI in all aspects of our lives.
Even climate scientists can be prone to myopia on the big picture issues. They are used to viewing the world though a narrow lens and this can impede their ability to see the bigger picture. A climate scientist might, for example, suggest that we have decades before the worst climate impacts are witnessed, which may be true according to some models, but this belies the fact that the climate is only one of a myriad of issues that threaten our way of life. I find that systems experts and those from more generalised academic disciplines tend to be the ones who see things most clearly, as they seem adept at 'joining the dots' in the way that is necessary to truly understand the perilous state of our predicament.
The 'doomer' movement is growing with every failed COP, and now includes some very eminent scientists. Alternatively, the likes of Michal Mann and others who refuse to accept our predicament are now in a minority and their pleas, like your own, are sounding increasingly plaintive against the backdrop of relentlessly bleak news and data. And it hasn't escaped our attention that climate scientists are increasingly reporting that the pace of climate change is taking them by surprise - making their previous models and predictions look somewhat optimistic, to say the least.
There have been a huge number of scientific articles and reports in recent years that have highlighted the extent to which the latest data is puzzling scientists. What was thought to have been a slow process is, in fact, racing away from us at breakneck speed. I, for one, expect that trend to continue, and even accelerate, and I see no value in clinging to the hope that our (hitherto ineffective) governments will suddenly see sense, untether themselves from fossil fuel interests and act rapidly and purposefully on this issue. Let us face it...that is simply not going to happen. Rather, the methods that have been used so effectively to date (misinformation, the systematic undermining of science and scientists, the use of funds to 'buy' political influence etc) will be ramped up and will result in further political inertia until we finally enter a collapse phase.
It doesn't take much research to expose the 'green transition' as a myth. Electricity accounts for but 20% of our collective energy needs, the rest is fossil fuel-powered. The airline industry, shipping, steel, the pharmaceutical industry, concrete and a myriad of other industries still rely on fossil fuels and their bi-products with no viable alternatives in sight. And with what do we replace our reliance on plastics in manufacturing? Siloed climate scientists are all too often unaware of these problems.
As for 'doomers'. They are simply people who have read widely, understand, and recognise the severity of these complex and multifarious challenges, and refuse to countenance denial as a means of dealing with our predicament.
Pretending things are not as bad as they are is disempowering people from making the kind of sensible decisions that might give them a chance at surviving climate chaos by becoming more resilient. A person who is of the view that things are 'in hand' and governments still have time to respond will not act with due urgency by taking control of their own food, water and energy needs. It's time to face facts....Our governments are not going to solve this problem, no fix-all technology is on the horizon and things are going to get very bad, very quickly. Let's be grown up and start having this difficult, but necessary conversation.
Scary... :-(
8 months later. We have surpassed it.
This did not age well
.. and foreseeably so.
Why? Why 1.5 degrees? In the late eighties the “guardrail” was 1.0 degrees. Who picked 1.5? Suspiciously rounded number, just like the 2 degree upper limit. Again, why those numbers? Why not 1.4 or 1.6 ? And if someone decided on 1.5, what consequences are they associating with this number? Also, the question of 1.5 above the pre industrial average. Talk about moving the goal posts. The year 1880 or 1850 is now considered as pre industrial ? You can add between 0.1 and 0.2 degrees, depending on where you decide to start. My history books say that the industrial era began in Britain in the eighteenth century.
I think one issue with your punching analogy is that the frequency and intensity of the punches go up as the world warms. The punches at 2.0 degrees C are gonna significantly more damage, than the punches at 1.5 degrees C. At 4 degrees C of warming we might as well be getting hit with a hammer. Stopping the increased warming, isn't going to stop the punches, it's going to stop the punches from doing more damage. If tomorrow we switched completely to renewal energy we will still be seeing the effects of increased warming.
Hmmm, from the climatologists iv spoken with they are actually being modest . The feedback loops are often more severe than reported, we are in track for failure, not success.
then check out early for the rest of us. your carbon footprint will be a sacrifice
We went through it ealier this month
Question: But would reaching the tipping points take us to a point of no return?
Yes
We have already breached a number of tipping points. That have already caused enormous amounts of damage. Inspite of the propganda from people with vested interest in carbon capture.we fundmentally lack the ability to remove enough carbon from the air once we burn it to make a perceivable difference.
Yes , and there no realistic sign that we’re not reaching lots of them ..
... yet, when walking slowly from one end of a see-saw to the other there is a point where the whole system gets 'chaotic', specifically as it approaches the 'tipping point' of it's violent descent to the opposite 'resting point'. Our weather is already in flux yet we keep on stepping further. Just one unseen, unexpected or unfortunate gust ...
As usual, a lucid explanation of an important concept in climate science, thanks Adam. Fossil fuel non-proliferation is a great idea. I also wonder about the impact of a rule to keep fossil fuel interests out of international climate negotiations…although I suppose they would just adapt and pressure their leaders before the conference.
4:15 Please create a short of the face punching metaphor. It's funny and brilliant and will get the word out. BTW, the sensible thing to do is to have a 25 year plan where we gradually reduce the face punching before we stop it entirely. Of course, we'll have to develop some new plastic surgery techniques to reverse some of the damage, but we're just too reliant on face punching to stop cold turkey.
We'll also need a cap and trade face punching system where people who have done all the face punching they want can sell their face punching rights to those who can't get enough face punching. This will let us pick the low hanging fruit in face punching mitigation.
We should hit 1.5c in 6 years at current speeds of burn…
Even if its not permanent its going to trigger feedback loops that will make it permanent
Probably, which means we have to fight harder.
Let's try to stop buying and burning fossil fuels.
ANY way we can cut our use helps.
Please please please reply to me I was told in the 70s that the ice caps would be gone by the 90s please tell why they are still there and was the science wrong and how do we know if it is right now
You don,t get information from scientists . The media reports bias status quo .common beliefs and capitalist propaganda. . RUclips shows videos and clever editors can show any pictures you want . The science is not wrong but you are getting interpreted information so that can be way off.
I love punching metaphor, I will start using it.
It is a good metaphor in someways but the climate situation is worse because there are feedback systems.
@@atticustay1
like how punches create bruises and punching bruised areas hurts more than punching non bruised areas + makes the bruises worse
Uh is a 5 year mean really the conventional standard when discussing 1.5C average warming thresholds? Apparently I gotta read the Katowice Climate Package for those details. Anyone gotta summary?
Sad no evidence to share 0:24
The planet continued its exceptionally warm start to the year with its second-warmest March on record.
Global sea ice coverage also felt the heat, with sea ice running at its second-smallest extent since records began in 1979, according to scientists from NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information.
Below are more highlights from NOAA’s latest monthly global climate report:
What a load of crap. The protests and legal actions are in countries which are at least trying. The problem with the Paris accords is that they do not specify, nor could they enforce, actions that might be necessary. Why aren't there protests in China and India? Add to that the fact that the limit was chosen in an arbitrary manner, and the legal challenges will fail.
Love Your channel dude, discovered it only yesterday and on a row to watch all of it now. 😂 Hope you keep making videos for us. Wish you all the best
ah thank you so much! glad you discovered it!
How do we know when we pass +1.5°C? Is it like a 5 year rolling average? Because I know looking at a 5 year rolling mean we are at like +1.25°C right now (correct me if I’m wrong)
It's hard to tell the exact year, but my best guess is early to mid-2030s.
@@fromnorway643 yeah but how is the WMO defining it? Like the first time we reach +1.5°C in a 5 year running average?
@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI
5 years would make sense since it is roughly equal to an El Niño cycle, or maybe 10 years since that is almost equal to the 11-year solar cycle.
The reference period used to define the current "normal" is often 30 years, but that wouldn't make sense when the rate of warming is as high as it currently is (~0.2°C per decade).
neither climate scientists nor politicians have a single agreed metric for working it out. that said rolling averages over ~ ten years generally smooth out the unusually hot and cold bumps
Originally the base point was 1750 as the start of the Industrial Revolution, now the goal posts have been moved to 1850-80. If the 1750 is used, then we have already reached the 1.5 C rise. One scientist has measure the amount of CO2 forcing has exceed 2 watts per meter, which is equivalent to 2 degrees of warning. Positive feedback loops are now irreversible and we are already in the fastest mass die-off of species in planetary history. In a peer-reviewed article in a prestigious Natural Science organization it has been estimated the rate of climate change exceeds by 10,000 times the ability of ALL vertebrae mammals to adapt. As they say, "It ain't over until the fat lady sings." But unfortunately, she is warming up her vocal cords just off-stage.
They always use the 1970's as "base point" because that was the coldest decade in recent times. However middle ages in Europe was 3 degrees colder. Climite is cyclic in periods of 30,000 to 90,000 years ore more (like 100's of thousands not 60 years).
The IPCC and (presumably because they don't specify it) the Paris Agreement use 1850-1900 as the 'pre-industrial' baseline. 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
After the end of the last glacial maximum temperatures went up by about 8 degrees. Why is 1.5 degree such a big deal. I know the rate of change is higher this time. But what is the real danger why should it be such a high priority. Can you explain what 1 degree is impacting the planet today a why it is dangerous?
We should line the sides of roads and freeways with native plant seeds of bushes flowers succulents cactus trees all to reduce co2 air and ground pollution reduce flooding heat wind and soil erosion.
If you can do those things, (even on a small scale) every little bit helps.
I think that the punshing metapher does not get it correct.
It is more like driving a car. At some point, pressing the breaks won't stop you from hitting the wall.
There is some inertia in how climate change works as far as I understand. So if we record 1,5° more, there is still CO2 already on its way up. It takes up to 10 years that our CO2-emissions will cause global warming. So what we do measure are more the effects of what we did a decade ago. What we did in the past 10 years, we will measure in the future and we are unable to do something about it because we cannot change the past.
Another inertia is in our ability to stop the emissions. The social processes to agree upon this goal will take years if not decades. And what we do agree upon will not be a full break, which means turning off all fossil fuel usage on the same day. Which means much more emissions to come, since we are currently not reducing emissions but our annual emissions are the historic peak, which means we do the opposite of breaking but accelerating - which increases the braking distance.
So with measuring 1.5° we are not driving us off the 1.5°-cliff. But it means that braking won't prevent us from passing this line because of inertia.
Excellent metaphor, but don't forget that when, or if, the punching stops, it will take a long long time to heal the bruising and the accumulated damage to tissue and bone. You may even require surgery. Your face, like the planet, will never be the same.
Very true, it can always be better, or worse. It all depends on what we DO.
@@jimthain8777 And, by we, you mean the entire species. One person or one country is not going to solve this alone. It will take the entire world--which has never happened before.
@@kimwelch4652
Yes and no, Yes the whole human race would be good, but no, it starts with one, and that one inspires others, and it goes viral.
That's what we really need, is for the use of things like EVs, Heat pumps, solar panels, and other forms of energy production and use to be something, other than fossil fuels.
Everyone thinks that their little bit isn't doing much, but when I look at the savings (measured in dollars not spent on gasoline) in pollution by my little EV, and then I see others with their EVs, their heat pumps, their solar panels, and think of their savings it doesn't feel so small.
It takes a lot of people to change anything, but if no one changes, nothing happens.
So I try to be a little bit of that change and to encourage others to be a little bit too.
@@jimthain8777 Based on the history of humanity, and the speed with which the planet is warming up. That's probably not going to work. Keep in mind that if (or when ) you replace gas cars with EV's, we will have to double or even triple our electrical generation to power them all. That means finding more renewable sources (unlikely) or burn more fuel. A better solution is to eliminate personal vehicles altogether--which is going to be very unpopular. Any real solutions are going to be socially disruptive--no, pain, no gain.
I’ve found that most articles have explained this and not been that misleading. It’s too complicated to explain in a headline. Also once we do hit 1.5 in one particular year we will hit it more and more frequently and it won’t be long until the average is 1.5. I think the chances of staying below 1.5 average are extremely low. We would need to start reducing emissions rapidly starting immediately and even then we might not make it because there’s at least a 10 year lag between putting c02 into the atmosphere and the resulting warming.
glad to hear you weren't misled! but I've definitely seen lots of people across social media who had clearly got it wrong from what they'd read/
I wonder if it might be useful to make the distinction between a sporadic breach of the 1.5-degree limit and a breach of the average temperature limit, when discussing this issue. We can then talk about sporadic breaches getting more frequent until the average temperature limit is breached (in how many years ???, according to scientists' best estimate). And if the frequency of sporadic breaches starts going down, we know we are moving in the right direction. Unfortunately, there is probably a time lag (how long???) between the year that net zero is achieved and the year that the frequency of sporadic breaches starts going down. And to think that the world (specifically the major emitters of the world) haven't even started moving in the right direction.
so that's very close to how the WMO frame it - they explain that individual years will be above 1.5 with increasing frequency.
in terms of time lag - reaching net zero will stop warming, and so would level off the number of years breaching 1.5 (if we stop soon enough that not all years breach 1.5). we'd need net-negative emssions (i.e. some way of removing them) in order to reverse the trend.
@@ClimateAdam assuming we aren't entering a feedback loop. As, we now have massive wildfires happen pumping even more carbon into the air
@@ClimateAdamI don’t think this is necessarily true is it? Even if we went net-zero tomorrow there are negative feedback loops already in place such as glacial melt, permafrost loss, and coral bleaching. These loops of loss of reflectivity, methane release, and reduction/loss of carbon sink are all long term cycles we can little immediate impact on; no?
I would add that the current media frenzy is barely mentioning el-nino, which will also likely have a bigger impact next year.
Is there any validity to the idea of tipping points leading to self-reinforcing feedback loops?
Yes, I think so, but, there are things we can do to push things the other way too.
So far our biggest hurdle has been not to act.
Every day I see people buying gasoline I think of Adam's punching in the face metaphor.
The only difference is that the people buying gas, are punching themselves in the face, and paying a hefty premium of hard earned money for the "privilege" !
We have already passed it.
These videos are informative on the issue of climate change as well as the dangers of Earth heating up.
thanks Teddy
We stand at a precipice, it is not about one freakishly hot year. If you guess we can get away with 1.4°C then I pity with you. One needs to be calm, and meditative and try to visualise how compromised our agriculture, animal husbandry, supply-chains, production, mass manufacturing and energy supplies will get even if the warming was to stop at a very conservative 1.3°C. Unfortunately, we are in a loop - it gets warmer, and we use aerosols and air conditioning - and it further gets warmer.
When I meditate on that I clearly see that humanity is a lost cause already. But no worries. Life on Earth will recover in just a few million years.
Thank you Adam. Really appreciate your entertaining explanations ...entertexplanations?
thanks Paul!
Feedback loops and aerosol masking?
MEER Reflection Framework?
feedbacks and aerosols are explicitly taken into account when climate scientists assess limits (and carbon budgets, etc)
Sorry to but in, but the industrial revolution started in 1750 not 1850, Here where I live we have industrial scale iron works from 1750. And if we stop moving the goal post into increasingly more modern times we see we are closer to 2.c in reality and breached 1.5.c a while ago.
We use this as a baseline because we have good data for it, not to shift the goal posts. And the important thing is that policy and science use the same baseline, so that when policymakers talk about this limit, the science is telling us what the impacts of that limit mean. And they are indeed using the same baseline.
@@ClimateAdam Thanks for your reply Adam! I moderate a sub-reddit mostly dedicated to climate change and as such I see papers and reports all the time from various government and private entities that use baselines of different years.
Some papers use 1750, some 1850 and I have even seen some with an absurd 1950! like seriously!?
I wish the scientific community unified and agreed on one single baseline but I don't see that as being the case.
I could assume they are trying to be as least alarmist as possible, and after reading reports and papers for over a decade I personally feel the situation is far more grave than the public are being told.
Lastly, I absolutely love your videos Adam! and I think you are a really wonderful human being. Keep going!
Fossil fuel development took off in the late 1860's with the discovery of oil in Pennsylvania, US.
@@HaldaneSmith Right ok, but we were burning coal a lot longer than that. And peat and loam and wood before even that too.
Thank you
I wonder who on earth thought that the 1.5° limit would be a once-and-for-all-time event? Of course it will take a few years until it's permanently exceeded. This is totally trivial and obvious. The reason why it's so much exaggerated now is because they don't want to admit that humanity has failed. But exactly that would be needed for taking corrective actions to climate mitigation programs. If you don't admit failure, why change anything? I'm honestly sick of the people who say "we can still do it" (call them "climate cheerleaders") because what they actually say is "we didn't pass the limit yet, so we can continue business as usual".
Meer reflection project
Hmm.. a "freakishly hot year" that is following a trend line. BE ALARMED!! BE VERY ALARMED!! Cascading tipping points. See Jason Box's work on Greenland. By the way "Don't look up."
Great video Adam! You deserve way more views and subscribers!
Of course the situation is dire, I don't know how hard it will be, but I don't need my PhD in engineering to say that what will NOT help in any way is being stuck in doomism like I saw in so many countries.
We need to be proactive about climate change, and focus our efforts to this cause.
thanks Wojciech - really appreciate it!
Im afraid, we have already passed the 1.5 limit. Oh and the base-line used is conveniently different ( later) from what it should be, i.e 1750.
The IPCC and (presumably because they don't specify it) the Paris Agreement use 1850-1900 as the 'pre-industrial' baseline. 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
Arnt pre industrial levels of co2 too low ? 180 ppm ? In Fact the lowest and most threatening to all life on earth.
Dear ClimateAdam. There was a comment posted earlier by a Jeremy Jackson (I think), which does not appear in the comments any more. I had responded to it and so did you. But he responded to my response and I wanted to write back. But the original thread appears to have disappeared. Now I can't respond to him. Is this a deletion on your part?
March 2024 here, we’ve hit 1.5C now.
We need a name for Adams counterpart.
Mada perhaps?
Great. More views for you.❤
Thanks for another great video!
Just wanted to pop back to your video here ... 1.5 c breached all through 2023 ? so did we PASS 1.5c ? and 2024 is going to be hotter ? 1.6c ?
The media loves to show drought pictures from hot dry places. My local reservoirs are all overflowing down their spillways. I've never seen it them that full. The were quite low a few years ago, but not now.
where is this? if it was in california there was a massive snow melt that occured recently from the last winter.
The face punching metaphor is not useful. It doesn't describe tipping points and no linear responses.
And how about what happens when we stop or significantly reduce emitting pollutants that provide aerosol masking?
Also what about the baked in warming that we haven't experienced yet, but no amount of emitions reductions will change?
Climate change is too complex for simple metaphors and it feels like you are falling into the same oversimplification trap as the journalists you are critising.
We need to have adult conversations about climate change and that requires people educate themselves enough to be able to participate.
how about we don't know if we are going to pass the 1.5c but if predictions are anything to go by we don't have a clue and when the feedbacks properly kick in we are all toast
Tldl. I think what's he saying is that in the next 5 years, the average temperature of the planet might not pass the 1.5 threshold. So, instead of worrying about one year, we should be worried about higher temperatures on average.
But this is like grades in school. Just because 5 get through one test fine, that doesn't mean you should relax and do worse on the rest!
(Also, I'm laying my bets now that if this problem is resolved, morons who discredited global warming will flaunt how it never happened, yet never point out our efforts to stop it.)
The warming for October 2023 is 1,7°C. James Hansen blames less air pollution dimming the sun.
The greater problem is that we are a species that has overpowered nature. All organisms, which we are, tend toward growth. Without limits, organisms go into overshoot.
If it wasn’t climate change and fossil fuels, it would be peak fertilizer. Or peak phytoplankton. Or peak soil. Peak Fish. Peak nature.
We have behaved like a bacteria in a petri dish because we are biological. We will run out of food or choke on our waste.
The only escape is not having children. And I think a lot of people realize that. The next generation will be those that don't. That's evolution.
My take on the situation is that there is concern that we could exceed a global mean of 1.5 C more likely next year if the El Nino remain strong. It's now being reported it is likely to be strong and perhaps very strong later this year. As things have been going, regional intensifications have produced more pronounced effects then would be expected from the current mean. Often this involves increasing releases of carbon previously sequestered in forests, etc. Though what climatologists are predicating is that the current somewhat exponential trend won't be affected in the long-term when we momentarily poke above 1.5 C, a corresponding blip from natural reservoir releases may feedback sufficiently to set the trend higher. Even without the additional heat, I think it was reported that the current fires burning in Canada have consumed many times the area consumed there during the last decade. Also, in the recent past when we had a record-breaking El Nino year it was soon surpassed. Really, all of the above in conjunction with society's reckless unresponsiveness far exceeds my threshold of alarm.
Well written!
@@lennartdekker8396
Some will remain aloof until the ground falls out from under them.
Weather is not Climate! Prehistory Climate has been hooter at times when carbon in the atmosphere has been much lower. Please explain?
Whoa, is that a Fairphone 4 that I spotted? If so, that's very conscientious consumption.
good spot!
*_James Hansen_* has suggested letting the period *_1880-1920_* represent preindustrial climate. If the average of that period is set to zero and if combining the temperature records from NASA, Berkeley Earth and HadCRUT5, the global temperature anomalies in °C have been the following over the last 10 years:
*2013* 1.01
*2014* 1.07
*2015* 1.23
*2016* 1.35
*2017* 1.25
*2018* 1.18
*2019* 1.31
*2020* 1.34
*2021* 1.18
*2022* 1.22
*1. quarter of 2023* 1.34
The next very strong El Niño - like the one in 2015-16 - may produce the first _single year_ warmer than 1.5°, but the _overall_ warming won't reach that threshold until the early to mid-2030s.
Five years, ten years. It doesn't make any difference to the outcome. We aren't stopping our emitions. All that's left is arguing over the timing and what runaway environmental impact is going to get us first.
Deckchairs... Titanic...
Where did you get that data? I didn’t think that recent years were so close to the record high of 2016
@@langdons2848
I certainly believe that the 1.5°C target is dead as the overall warming now has reached at least 1.25°C as defined in my previous comment.
The 2°C target should still be possible to reach if we finally get serious about reducing our CO₂ emission rapidly, but I'm far from convinced that it will be done.
@@fromnorway643 you also have to add in the expected extra two degrees that aerosol masking (caused primarily by sulphates from burning coal) is currently protecting us from. If we end our emitions then you get another two degrees on top fairly quickly. So at best that takes us up to 3.5 degrees.
@@langdons2848
It's _impossible_ to explain the observed warming of about 1.25°C if the cooling impact of aerosols is currently as high as 2°C.
The climate impact of one doubling of CO₂ is about 3°C when including fast feedbacks. That hasn't happened yet if comparing to the CO₂ level in 1850, but we are close to that when including all the other man-made greenhouse gases. If the climate reacted _instantly_ to those greenhouse gases and if ignoring the aerosols, the observed warming by now would likely be about *2.8°C* plus/minus some uncertainty.
But the climate doesn't react instantly as the thermal inertia of the oceans slows things down. According to some _response functions,_ the full response from an instant change of some _climate forcing_ (like a doubling of CO₂) takes about 2000 years, but we can expect 50 % of that after only 30 years and 60 % after a century. The century response of 60 % is a good approximation of the expected warming from the greenhouse gases emitted so far. Multiplying that by 2.8° from an almost doubling of CO₂ (including other greenhouse gases) gives us 2.8°C x 0.6 ≈ *1.7°C.*
Subtracting 2°C of aerosol impact from that gives us *0.3°C of global cooling* over the last 150 years or so, so it's safe to say that the aerosols have cooled the Earth by far less than 2°C.
I would guess that this el nino will most likely set a new standard and the years after, it will stabilize around that, just as it has before. It is to late to reducing our carbon emission, that would only cause harm for no reason at all. The solution is in technology, like sai, ccs, artificial environment etc. We should not even have it as a goal to reducing our emission, we should forget about that idea all togheter for now, that only cause suffering, if it happens it happens, but it will not really change anything. The carbon we have put up there is there for 1000s of years (without ccs) and it has a long delay effect, so we havnt seen the effect of the carbon we have put up there yet. Then there is feedback loops, and when we trigger enough of that, then it is truly to late to try to reduce our emissions. The question is consider we havnt seen the effect of our emission yet that it could trigger enough feedback loops even if we go net zero tomorrow. So it is punching yourself by trying to reduce the emission for no reason, you only cause people to suffer then, that is all you accomplish with it, more suffering. Either we fix this with technology, like sai, ccs, artificial environment etc, or we are screwed. I think we will fix it with technology. If dessert countries like saudi arabia can export weat, i fail to see the problem.
Gaz emissions have 15 to 20 delay in consequences....so the emissions of today will be mesured in climat temperature by 2040.... So we are already on 1.5 degree path anyway no matter what we are doing, we are screwed
thanks for the comment! actually if we stopped emitting today our best understanding is that we wouldn't see additional warming. I discuss this here:
ruclips.net/video/HKof7NQeMQc/видео.html
@@ClimateAdam nonsense
@@ClimateAdam I don't believe that for a minute. And that's without taking into account the loss of aerosol masking if we end all emitions today.
@@ClimateAdam My understanding is that the new research says that the delay is much less than previously though, like 10 years instead of 30. There would still be some additional warming.
There would also be additional warming because of the aerosol masking effect
Humans are far too greedy to change
Agree, we are doomed.
are you 100% sure ?
Great video, thank you!!!
Yeah but what about the responsible scaremongering?
It’s only a matter of time. If not this year, then soon. When will the heating end?
About when net zero emissions has been reached..
Adam ,in essence, just like Roger Hallam your saying as no politicians are listening we need revolution but you like he hasnt said how you orchestate 8 billion people to do this with any chance of success
my friends from India believe that protesting against fossil fuel companies will not change anything. in fact they say, protesting will harm them and people who protest have nothing better to do. I disagreed with them and they stopped being friends with me. what's your opinion on it?
Sounds like you lost some people who weren't really your friends.
Cop 28 is now a giant joke.
The news telling us we're all about to die and there's no hope? Surely not
Nice top!
As the climate heads into greater extremes globally, how can we best deal with future climate crises?
The short answer is that we cannot deal with them unless we take care of nature's inner balance.
We live in a tightly-closed and interdependent system in which everything boomerangs back to us. While living in such a system, we need to reconsider what we want and think, and how we treat each other, because our human connections are the primary influence on how nature responds to us.
It is common to think that climate is dependent on factors outside of us-whether it be balances between heat and cold in the environment, or the effects of various kinds of pollution we emit-because we lack a complete picture of how our attitudes to each other bring about the strongest responses from nature toward us.
No creature distorts nature the way that we people do. And it is not simply a matter of switching to renewable energy sources, electric cars and the like; it is a matter of how we relate to each other.
If we truly wish to witness more balance throughout nature and not have to deal with all kinds of cold waves and other natural disasters, then similarly to how we have electricity, water and gas meters in our homes, we should also have meters that count how much evil we emit into the world from our negative attitudes to each other. What I mean is that if we could feel the extent to which we emit negative forces into the world, which negatively ricochet back to us, then we would wish to change this negative driver within us. We would want to switch it to a drive that makes our human connections positive, and which harmonizes us with nature.
In simple terms, when we get up in the morning, we should first and foremost consider what we need to do in order for all people to have it good. Developing such an attitude is not so simple, yet we will need to seriously work on it as we head into the future. A life of increasing blows from nature or a life of peace and harmony depends on the extent to which we impact a shift in our attitudes to each other-from negative to positive.
When will the baseline change again?
The IPCC and (presumably because they don't specify it) the Paris Agreement use 1850-1900 as the 'pre-industrial' baseline. 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
1.5 C° ... It seem not too much... People fleel no difference. Human temperature sensing of air is not so sophisticated.
you don't feel the difference between 15 and 17 degrees
1.5 °C means global. Most people will be on land, wich is more warming. For example, Europe was 0.7°C more warming than global.
Great perspective, thanks
thanks for watching, Derek!
What is this video in response to? People who only read headlines? This channel's main concern seems to have morphed from being about climate change to being about "overreacting" to the danger of climate chnage.
Theyve known this was happening for atleast 40 years now. They just dont care.
We hit 1.5 degree increase average temperature last year, 2024 will be higher. Maybe it will slow down in 2025, maybe not.
What is that a climate control wars that we're on😂😂😂😂
Thanks, great content.
Are you familiar with Andrew Glikson, who has critisized the shifting baseline for global mean temp increase, from 1750 to the 1850-1900 period you mentioned?
I have tried to find it on google, but no success. Do you know when it happened, why and by which consensus (who?)?
According to Glikson, by measure of 1750, we are already past 2° warming.
I say let's limit warming to 4°, those who like cold weather can go to Mars!
Seriously, I think that without terraforming technology we are toast.
Yours, cheerful doomer
The IPCC and (presumably because they don't specify it) the Paris Agreement use 1850-1900 as the 'pre-industrial' baseline. 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
@@ClimateAdam
James Hansen has suggested using 1880-1920 as "preindustrial", probably because the GISS record only goes back to 1880. If using the records from Berkeley Earth and HadCRUT5 (both going back to 1850), these two periods differ by only a few hundreds of a degree.
@fromnorway643 Screw it. I propose 1997 as a baseline. We got lots of time if we adopt that date.
@@justmenotyou3151
That solution will give us a few more decades. And when we are approaching 1.5°C relative to 1997, we just change the date _again._ Brilliant! What an elegant way of solving this global warming issue!