What this man says is true: we must adapt to "baked-in" changes. However, two things should be remembered. * Al Gore's film was released in 2006. If his advice had been heeded, we would require much less adaptation to climate change. * It remains true that mitigation -- cutting CO2 emissions -- costs less than adaptation.
Not only that but I believe 9-11 was an INSIDE JOB that our government knew was coming to get us in the mideast to fight several wars for two interested parties that we are NOW involved in again ! G BUSH was nor interested in going after the Saudis but told our Generals to find a way to go after Sadam . Senator Graham who led the panel that investigated the event still to this day can not get the panel review unclassified ! Interesting that the current Israeli leader shortly after the event said it was good for Israel and the dancing men reported on the top of the van across the bay turned out to be members of the Mossad not arabs !
Super powerful talk, but still out of most people’s reach of understanding. I can imagine COP 28 in Dubai (the irony of an oil rich capital) being vague with lots of climate washing. At an adaptation level the biggest thing anyone can do to effectively help to slow climate change is to remove meat and dairy from your diet.. By 2050, the world’s population is expected to reach 10 billion, requiring an increase in global food production by 70%, with greenhouse gases projected to increase by 80% (Dent, 2020; University of British Columbia, 2016). It is important to acknowledge the environmental harm the production of animal products causes-including high levels of greenhouse gas emissions, mass deforestation, extreme water use, and water pollution-in order to make sustainable choices that that are less damaging to our environment.
We are at 1,5C already for last for months. This year as a whole may go to 1,5C if rest of the year stays as warm as it has been so far. For climatic 30-year trend that will take some time, but soon we will end over 1,5C in every year. Current heat is combination of human made climate warming, El Niño (+0,2-0,3C, still growing stronger), solar radiation (+0,1C), aerosol clearing over seas due to shipping regulations, ... And what are we doing? Even SDG's that are governmental promises for 3,2C are failing by whopping 85%. This means that our governments does not care about climate actions and are betting on human extinction (studies starts adding probabilities from 3C and upwards, we could be at 2,55C as Hansen suggests).
You are babbling nonsense. NASA-NOAA: _"There is a 53% chance of an early El Niño developing by December."_ We are still in La Niña IV, after the longest, wettest, snowiest COLDEST Winter in History. Or are you smarter than NOAA?
There are ups and downs. This year is an up, and next year will be. But after that there will be lower temps. The overall upward trend is not seen every year, but only decade by decade. Twenty years from now, we will be able to say for sure how much warmer it was this decade. To base any conclusion on an instantaneous measurement of temperature is folly. The trend must be analyzed (as it rightly is). You are right that governments are not stepping up to the challenge and seem incapable of doing so. But if the voting public makes a big enough noise, the governments will have to follow or fall. I think many in government are well aware of this. They are just waiting for the day when the voters become aware.
@@davidmenasco5743 This trend has be seen during last 100 years. Few hot years, then lower temps that creeps up to those numbers, then another hot spell, ... Like before current El Niño started, the cooler La Niña phase was rising at levels nearing last El Niño... Current temperature trend is 0,24C per decade. But the trend is going up too. It is exponential trend or even abrubt.
In 2022 the official temperature for global warming was 1.06°C. It is common in promotional climate change videos to use sources of earth average temperatures from sources that are more favorable to promoting signifiant global warming increases, which is not happening. Global warming was reported in 1991 at 1.1°C. In late 1994 global warming was announced for unknown reason to have suddenly paused in the early 1990s and even had gone down a bit by the mid 1990s. Global warming has been steady at about 1°C for over thirty years since the early 1990s. There is no mechanism that would allow greenhouse gases to be causing global warming. It is high school taught science greenhouse gases are only active in earth's greenhouse effect that is always in saturation from the strong greenhouse gas water vapor and can't have its overall effect changed.
I've been saying this for quite a while. Cities need to be overbuilding storm drains in the expectation of extreme rainfall events, if nothing else. Nothing causes more damage than flooding.
CO2 and me-thane don't cause flooding. COLD fronts cause flooding. We just had the longest, wettest, snowiest COLDEST Winter in history. We all felt it. _We didn't need fake Climate Model simulations, like their fake SIM Hottest Day on Record! schtick._
@@caterthun4853 Torrential rain and downwind drought are caused by COLD. There are no torrential rains or droughts in the Congo or Amazon. Just rains at night. Proof that Climate Boiling! is just another franchise of the 9/11 WEF Coup Oil Wars. You'll be driving a pedal car made of bamboo as the UN Elites of Bilderberg Lambos go racing past.
@@jamesbeadle7570I'm pretty sure that the evidence is there that policy makers in fact were not influenced. As for it being too late - even back then - yes it probably was given the inertia of the climate system.
@@craigb8228 First, “less transportation” is absolutely not necessary, and making it a central issue is a political negative. Electrification is MUCH easier now that PV solar has hit economy-of-scale and is the cheapest energy source (and before you say “not enough”, it’s doubling every three years, and has been for a long time, so it will be the dominant source of electricity sometime in the 2030s) .Batteries are on the economy-of-scale growth too, with lithium batteries 90% cheaper and other chemistries coming on for grid-scale power. As for “improve the economy”… well, “the economy” is basically just a measure of work (in the physics sense, not the labor sense), and the coming green energy world is already cheaper than fossil fuel, even without considering the outrageous externalized costs of using our only planet’s atmosphere as an open sewer. And renewable energy is STILL getting cheaper! So a green economy is a stronger, wealthier, more independent economy than a fossil fuel economy. Just ask the Europeans who found out the hard way what it means to have your own national energy sourced from a brutal warmonger. Anyway, EVs will rapidly displace gasoline/diesel for wheeled transportation, not because it’s greener, but because it’s cheaper and better. So my main answer for how to electrify and improve the economy is “Make green energy cheaper and more socially beneficial than fossil fuel”, and for “less transportation”, my answer is “Why does that matter?”
adaptation has to occur regardless, the mitigation is the only thing that matters and good luck with that. we simply will not give up the status quo and truly mitigate because our entire world system runs on fossil fuels and all our treats and goodies depends upon them so goodbye biosphere and I hope the frozen pizza was worth it
Incredible Incredible Incredible. This man knows his field about and can formulate an enticing and insightful speech. Climate change is a problem now. Act now.
We don't even has to totally stop global warming. BUT we need to SLOW DOWN the rate of warming as much as possible. The rate changes is way too high for any adaptation or natural selection. The rate of change is highest EVER on entire planetary history (over 100-times faster growth of CO2 in the air and over 100-times on rate of warming vs the natural background).
Global warming will stop, eventually. The question is, will there be a human civilization left to enjoy it? The faster we stop anthropogenic climate change, the more likely it is that civilization will survive the warming we have already experienced and the warming we have yet to experience.
@@davestagner Yea, rather under 2C or even 3C than 16C (calculation where all worst impacts happens in mere years after 50Gt methane burst from hydrates) and then go toward boiling seas that may end up to somewhere near Venus temperatures (where even lead melts on surface)... Over 3C where we are going with 85% failing pledges, the loss of some societies in almost ensured. Some may still remain there, but some are definately lost. And going above 3C, means we are rising the chances to kill entire humanrace. And for those that this is too much, then check what has been studied... These things are not just tossed to discussion, but are studied and based on facts. Failing even on less than needed pledges is saying: we are still heading toward worst case scenarios. And those makes everyones life on line.
@@martiansoon9092 My fear is that methane hydrates or other tipping points heat the farmland faster than we can respond, even with all our technology, leading to critical crop failures and massive famines. We could see literally billions of people starve very quickly. Now, I’m not one of those who believes we’re on a path to extinction - I believe intelligence is a survival trait, and like to say the last human will eat the last cockroach. But I can easily imagine a collapse of modern civilization, and losing a couple of orders of magnitude of population quite suddenly. And it’s not permanent. Even a 90% population drop only puts us back where we were about 300 years ago. We didn’t always have 8 billion people. It’s more than doubled in my lifetime. And the survivors will have critical things that we didn’t have when civilization first started. Like literacy! They’ll have books full of history, science, math, engineering. They won’t have to re-invent calculus. A modern stainless steel knife, left unused, will still be perfectly functional tens of thousands of years from now. Can you imagine what a caveman might have done with such a tool? And there are millions of them. Modern solar panels can produce electricity for a century. Etc. If you want an injection of hope, check out Tony Seba and RethinkX. He’s my antidote for climate anxiety.
If this phenomenon turns out to be exponential in nature, all of that will be to no avail. The lucky few who own submarines, strategically located underground bunkers and space capsules are best prepared. For the remaining 99.9% of us we should approach this as being diagnosed with a terminal disease
@@teddybearroosevelt1847There is no evidence that things will get that bad. There is plenty of evidence that things will get very bad, but it will take many decades. If we stopped burning fossil fuels within the next two decades, most of the warming would stop, and this would buy time to work on the agribusiness part of the problem. Ending the fossil fuel addiction is the key. Personally, I think the only way we can make it happen in time is to just nationalize all fossil fuel companies and develop a coordinated international plan to phase them out. I couldn't begin to suggest how it would work, but it couldn't possibly be worse than the thirty years of stalling we've seen so far.
@@davidmenasco5743i might know how to stop a large portion of our fuel emissions. This might sound weird but i’ve done years of research and right now i’m 17 (almost 18), talked with a lot of people about this and collected data and put them in a powerpoint. I’m gonna tell how we can and need to stop these emissions and later on you can ask me more specific questions for me to answer else you’ll be reading a little that isn’t needed. 1. Built bike infrastructure, better bus service, electrify railroads and make them all coherent. 2. Update building codes to require passive house standards. 3. Require new construction to be fully electric. 4. Update zoning codes to allow for denser housing. 5. Remove parking requirements. 6. Plant more trees and less asphalt.
The root cause of climate change is industrial capitalism. The existing climate mitigation agenda is attempting to preserve capitalism and the conditions for growth. Climate adaptation is an anachronism as long as emissions continue unabated, the climate will remain unstable, and continue drifting. However we try to adapt to the present, will be ineffective for the near future. Adaptation financing could also be called externalized costs of the 20th century. To keep prices low and revenues high, costs were sent to the future, and profit was pulled forward, up to 1/3 or corporate profit.
This was great, clear, helpful, scary. Another thing: Prep our bodies to adapt to where we live, prep habits, needs, preferences to Less is More. Probably changed mindsets and expectations is the way we'll have to go. As McCauley said: prepare for the way things are. The new agenda has to be ambitious. Has to.
Policy makers have known this was comming since 1987. Don't think they are about to change. They live knowing there children and grandchildren will suffer.
Current climate change was in models. When these events happens has become often sooner than predicted. But also effects are masked, like under aerosol dimming effect. Current event occurs within earlier models if we use ie. Hansen et al. study numbers for current temperatures that include this hidden aerosol dimming. Current temperature is 2,55C according to this study. Partially we may already have seen some of these effects. During Covid shutdowns factories were closed and aerosols fall out from skies. In a cooler La Niña time temperatures were higher than in warmer El Niño years. And now after forcing ships to use air filters, the sulphate emissions, that acts as a seeding elements for cooling clouds, have dropped and thereafter we see record high temperatures where these ships roam. These could be the indicators that say: We live in a much warmer world, when aerosol coolling effects are taken in account. Hansen et al. is likely right about their high temperatures. We also cannot keep on burning more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, because every single 1000 tons of carbon is killing a person. In other words, every 0,1C rise 100 million people will die.
Hansen is an astronomer and administrator. He's no climate scientist. His thesis on the temperature of Venus was completely debunked! Mars is 92% CO2 atmosphere, but it's air temperature is exactly what orbital distance and altitude-density would predict. Did you know Hansen was forced to retroactively retire for his Hatch Act felony, mis-using his NASA Director title to get a $1.3 million EU Green award, for pushing the End of Days PRAVDA? He's a _criminal!_ Mann's 'hockey stick' was completely debunked in court! "We are seeing the hottest temperatures since the 1940s!" UN Climate Director. _He just ADMITTED the 1930s were HOTTER._ Kabloowey!😂🎉
I can't understand why the COP meetings aren't online, instead of hundreds of scientists hopping on a plane and jetting halfway around the world? Shouldn't they lead by example?
149k views on a channel with nearly 40 million subscribers in one of the most pivtiol points in human history, the planets history. Says it all, good luck.
Yup, please be proud to see these videos and listen to them, many people don’t have the patience nor the mindset to think about any of this and puzzle a little with the options we have a change we can do ourselves. You’re part of the smart self thinking population 😊
Every single person you share this with is a tiny win. Make this the focus and others close to you will follow. You don’t even need literally every single person, just the amount needed to make a difference.
Nobody watches these videos because people know it's nothing to worry about. The older you are the more you remember the same rhetoric of the 1980's (ice age scare) and the 1940's (global warming). If you _REALLY_ know your stuff, you would know philosophers have noted this fear mongering in the past to control the public. President Eisenhower predicted that corrupt scientists would control public policy. This is exactly what's happening today.
Adaptation is perhaps -just perhaps - a pessimistic concept in some people's mind; it assumes that we will fail. This is why funding is not directed that way by those selling dreams (politicians). As a resident of a small island developing state where tourism is the number 1 economic activity, you get the feeling that things won't change anytime soon.
Nope. The main thing is NOT adaptation. The main thing is to STOP EMISSIONS. By this way we don't need that much adaptation. Let's put this in simple cruel example: A man with a knife charges you. He hits you with several wounds and leaves. Then ambulance comes and ties up your wound and takes you to the hospital. WELL, is it wise to add more ambulances, or take that lone knifeman out? If latter, then you won't even need that ambulance. Even after ambulance has treated you and you have covered from hospital, you have these scars and you might have fears, pains, disfunctions and so on. You may even die on the attack. STOP EMISSIONS, that are the knifeman in this story, so you won't need adaptation, that is the ambulance.
You can cut all the emissions you want and you're still going to get climate change from the rest of the world's emissions. Personally I moved to high ground, am looking at steel roofing, and will make sure my heat pump is in good condition for summer heat waves.
I believe the speaker is likely underestimating the amount being spent on adaptations. I think it's likely the case that the vast majority of funds used to adapt to climate change are not labeled as "climate change adaptation."
@@davidmenasco5743 We have multiple billion dollar climate extreme events even during this year. And the total losses in these events is rising fast. We are rebuilding many zones that have been hit and many has relocated themselves to other places. Expenses are rising. Many does not have money to rebuild. And even those that has the money often loses decades or even centuries worth of cumulated wealth. Insurances are not covering all and now not everyone can even get an insurance. Insurance costs comes to be paid for everyone who takes one.
Wonderful. We need to recognize that CC is here and we need to adapt. But before anything real can happen the denial caused by disinformation needs to stop. How you do that I don't know as it is backed by powerful FF lobbies.
What climate deniers haven’t realised yet is the activists will only tolerate being dragged by their hair from the highway and ridiculed in the press for a while. As the stakes get much higher and more extreme less principled people start to realise the price of having been lied to, climate hecklers will get hung by their neck from street lamps, the question is only when.
There is no doubt that we are already in climate chaos. But as for the measures to try to save ourselves I wonder if he really believes what he is saying.
I don't think it's about belief. Mitigation and adaptation are the next, right, best action(s). After my father learned he had leukemia he adapted to living as well and fully as he could, knowing he was going to die, knowing leukemia would shorten his lifespan. We have a terminal diagnosis, ours is to determine how we will live, how we will engage in our end days. History (as much as we know) shows this is the 6th great extinction. This is about legacy. Doing whatever we can to leave things in as good condition as possible, knowing what we know. My actions to decrease me carbon footprint are not to save myself. They are to give some possibility of life to future generations.
No we are not in climate chaos. Ordinary events are just being reported as "chaos", "crisis" or some other soundbite word to get attention for news sites, politicians and activists.
All of the solutions mentioned are worthy of trying to accomplish. Unfortunately the solutions become mute as long as human beings are intent on going to war with one and other.
Shifting to a plant-based diet can significantly contribute to reducing methane emissions from livestock, a substantial greenhouse gas contributor, heralding a more sustainable future for food systems.
Cheer up. Of all the people who were ever born, 92% are already dead. We're part of the remaining 8%. We're survivors. We'll probably live for ever. Probably.
What is the right temperature of the planet? Why choose a point in history when the Little Ice Age ended in 1850? Do we really want to return to the Little Ice Age, assuming it was in our power to control the climate?
i love people who say poh-kiss-ton instead of pah-kih-staan. They are sooooooo refined. Also, you're old and gonna die soon, I'm not so "mitigation" is the way to go until its finished, also because we've put so much effort into it the tech has already been radically advanced and no one is gonna give up on that just for you. Last, don't worry so much, you will be fine, the atmospheric scrubbing tech is also getting better every year along with life extension so just sit back, chill out, and wait for the high life, which will be comin' directly.
Carbon dioxide is one of the major GHGs and a driver in the domain of climate change. In the drive to mitigate and adapt with the issue of climate change, carbon trading has become a vital policy instrument in majority of the countries in the World. It is also a pivotal element of the UNFCCC’s approach to tackle climate change. National or regional carbon trading schemes are now operational in many counties through a well-defined structural policy, specific for the country. Yet the trading is still in a volatile stage. Many schools think that this concept is not very realistic to combat climate change, while others consider this a strict regulation to put cap/limit on the emitters. Unfortunately, the subject is characterised by jargon, abstract concepts, mathematical formulae, and technical detail, making it hard for most people to understand its implications and evaluate its merits and demerits. This paper is a first order analysis to unravel some of this complexity by imparting thrust on three basic components - cap and trade, carbon offsets and carbon trading - which underpin the trade in carbon quotas. The case study of the highly urbanized city of Kolkata and Indian Sundarban mangrove ecosystem has been discussed in details with CO2 - e of dominant trees to analyse the probable credit that can be received from the producer communities of these two sites that are significantly different in terms of anthropogenic footprints and ecological features. CONTACT ABHIJIT MITRA
This is AI Chat GPT4 word salad, scraped off UN-IPCC. Pure PRAVDA. Wanna see what starving our society in Mandatory Energy Austerity will do? Then watch the Is'reali siege of Gaza. First the infants will starve on soy Similac and pet kibble. Then Seniors become ill, and Big Medicine loots their savings with fake 'cures'. The youth inherit a mouthful of dry sand, except for Greta, the _millionaire paid child actress!_ 😂🎉💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵🔥💥
Carbon trading is not the solution that is needed. The solution that is needed is to find ways to end the use of fossil fuels. Of course, there will be niche cases for some time to come, where fossil fuels must be used. But these must be reduced to something on the order of 2% of current usage, or less.
Just have a comment on the real problem. Adaptation is pretty much useless in that emissions are still rising and war goes on. Survival would depend on reducing emissions and, most importantly, removing c)2, etc. from the atmosphere. None of which is being done. I would think you all can now read the future. I'm g;;ad tp be over 80 years old.
A brilliant talk by an articulate speaker with only one drawback. Its far too late to slow, let alone stop or reverse, abrupt, lethal climate change. The Brazilian Amazon rain forest fas been clearcut and slashed and burned to the extent that it is now a net producer of "greenhouse gasses" rather than the sink that it once was. There is NO rational way to "unextinct" the thousands (millions?) of species now gone forever. The region was once a great climate moderator now changed forever. The Arctic Ocean snow and sea ice are in terminal melt. A blue ocean event (fewer thn one million hectares of refletive sea snow and ice remaining) will accellerate submarine methne clathrate and tundra melting/sublimation spewing massive amounts of carbon dioxide and potent "greenhouse gas" methane into the atmosphere this decade. Worldwide heat waves, droughts, floods, rising sea levels and salt water contamination are NOW destroying food crops worldwide. Famine in East Africa, Madagascar, and Central America are sending climate change migrants across international borders. We are well into Earth's 9th (at least) mass extinction. And, it includes us! old geologist
Everything in nature expands and contracts. Usually due to external limits. If we do not contract our footprint and impacts in the same exponential way we have just expanded, voluntarily, then we will complete this volitional extinction event and take the rest of life with us.
Very good talk. True, there is a lot each single person can do to adapt to and mitigate climate change. Also, the local level is very important as necessary changes tend to be reachable faster than at national, let alone international levels. But David rightly stresses "the need of supportive government policies and to stop planning (and building) for the way things have been and preparing for the way things are. --> Hold governments and business accountable!
If only a farmer used the best kind of seed he could for he situations at hand. Clearly you haven’t tried to ask a farmer about his seed in any way 🤦♂️
Hello David, Would you like me to help you move from "shallow ecology" to "deep ecology" during this latter part of your life...Warning?!? This would take immense courage and increased hardship resiliency on your part!?! Sincerely, Professor-Marty.
Greenhouse gases comprise 4/10ths of one percent of the atmosphere. Without them (even at this seemingly low percentage), Earth’s temperature would be well below zero. So, what do you think happens as greenhouse gas levels increase? On the other hand, non-greenhouse gases such as nitrogen and oxygen, which comprise about 99% of the atmosphere do not absorb heat (infrared light) and for this we should begrateful, for if they did, our planet would be too hot for life to exist.
I copied and pasted the following.. "The tilt of the Earth on its axis can alter by how much Antarctica's ice-sheets grow or melt, according to New Zealand and international scientists. Studying the rocks deep below Antarctica, the researchers found that variations in the ice sheet over vast time scales (hundreds of thousands of years) matched eccentric changes in the Earth's tilt"/ end . With that said, we have been seeing a net gain of ice on the east side of the continent of Antarctica of between 82 billion tons a year to 110 billion tons a year since 1992. And that is a net gain after taking into account all losses of ice on the west side of the continent. To give you some perspective on how much ice 82 billion tons of ice is, just two years worth is like adding the weight of Mount Everest to Antarctica's east side. So if scientist are correct, we are about to experience a serious change in Earth's tilt. That will be a major weather changer.
I have a question (may require a small grain of NaCl to digest) I have been waiting to see if any concerned climate change activists have computed the carbon foot print of the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. I know we are all doomed to die by man made carbon dioxide emissions so this seems important to me. I don’t know much about science since I am a retired chemist who only worked a few years in the chemical industry so I am wondering if there any really smart people, perhaps even high school students here or in Europe who can help an old dummy figure this out. I am making a helpful list of things to consider below. Carbon dioxide Sources Fuel used to ship people and supplies to war zones, be sure to include both sides since this is everyone’s Earth. This fuel is used by planes, trucks, tanks non-nuclear ships such as destroyers, escorts, transports or gunboats. You can exclude the nuclear subs and aircraft carriers since the are “Green” electric vehicles, however the planes and missiles they carry would contribute to their carbon foot prints. The good news is that any nuclear detonations will send particulates into the atmosphere thereby blocking out some solar gain, a win for us all! The destroyed buildings, forests and other infrastructure needs to be included as most of the stuff will have been burned. Unfortunately you also need to include the carbon foot print of rebuilding all of that stuff, assuming there are still people to inhabit them. Be sure not to include the nuclear carriers and subs (unless they burn up and sink), then they will need to be replaced. Do not include any electric vehicles such as cars, trucks, electric fighter planes, electric tanks, electric drones of any size. Of course you must include any payload that they fire. And the carbon foot print needed to replace these Green conveyances plus any spent ordinance. People and animals: The people involved in these wars won’t be commuting to work so that is a big savings of carbon dioxide but they will still be generating more or less the same carbon foot print elsewhere so let’s call that a wash. Unfortunately we need to consider the dead animals and people because they will have a final carbon foot print (in some cases literally). As they decompose back to their constituent elements which includes some carbon. Lucky for us however, their carbon foot printing days are over, and as soon as they completely decompose their contribution ceases. They will not be able to be father/mother/them-ers of any offspring so that is another big win for us all. One cautionary note, don’t forget the Baby Boom that will certainly follow the war when the lonely soldiers return home, if history teaches us anything. I am certain I have missed a few things such as Nitrogen and Sulfur oxides that will be emitted by rocket exhaust ,cannon fire bombs and bullets. Also, carbon foot print to the extra food that needs to be grow to replace the destroyed land/crops need to be calculated. I believe the even those who starve will continue to have a carbon foot print until they leave their final carbon foot print (see above). I leave that calculation to those who are wiser than me. Assuming that the carbon dioxide results of this calculation may be somewhat higher than a net zero, it becomes important to figure out who is to blame for the weak (I hesitate to say idiotic) leadership that has allowed the wars to happen, but I don’t want to offend anyone so I will just leave that quest to others.
"The climate has always changed." Well, yes and no. The climate HAS often changed in the past, but the climate has also often been very stable for thousands of years. In fact, average global temperatures had been very stable for the last 6,000 years and were supposed to be very stable for the next 50,000 years, until us burning fossil fuels started jacking up global temps. "It isn't a problem." Unfortunately, we're not just "changing the climate" in some mild and normal way, we are jacking up global temps ~20 times faster than it usually warms after an ice age, and that rapid rate of warming is already causing hundreds of problems for people, societies, other species, and the ecosystems all life depends on. The longer we keep this up, the more the web of life will break down, including our food supply. That's just how nature works.
Post your data that refutes the world's scientists, over 80 academies of science and ALL of the world's major scientific institutions, from NASA to NOAA to the World Meteorological Organization. We'd love to see it.
"The chemistry of the atmosphere has been changed " ? Can he explain that statement further ?" A 50% increase in the levels of the gas that is THE main atmospheric control knob of global temps. That IS a big change.
This all may sound good, but it sounds like trying to come up with alternatives to keep business as usual. There's no way to keep going on the path of preserving modern civilization with the increase of polulations and demands of resources. Any kind of resources. Overshoot is going to be a problem. Many people are going to die regardless of what we do. That is the inconvenient truth. Our decisions to become consumers and desire to have more and more has resulted in our own destruction.
When the horses have left the barn should you be slamming the door shut or maybe start building a door to shut? Might be no horses for awhile so monkeys are going back to being bipedal. Not like any monkey walks willingly so the pedal remains full gas.
Someone should tell the faux savant Jordan Peterson who has morphed his expertise from psychology to climate expertise based on fresh air and little else.
At 4:15 and 4:26. Not true. All statements like this are based on comparing modern accurate, global, regular measurements with pre-1850 proxies that are none of those things. All modern warming fits into the differences, which are significant, between the proxies. All modern warming fits into the typical time gap between temperatures in the proxies which is an average of 150 years. At 5:24. Not true. Fires have a habit of starting near human sources of ignition and in forests where preventative management has stopped. At 7:39. Completely normal rate if you actually check individual proxies. At 7:54. In what way is this normal change dangerous At 8:36. Most proxies for CO2 in the past show fairly significant variations within the last few thousand years. However these are sidelined in favour of the Antarctic sources which are very stable. At 12:30. Take a look at long term weather records.
Brush and tinder dried out from high temperatures and drought are far more prone to ignition. You really can't ignore that. Canada's burn acreage this year set a record, SIX TIMES higher than normal, which previously was DOUBLE what it was in the 1970s. Fires start from lightning, from downed power lines, from arson and human negligence but none of these explain the massive increase in burn acreage over the last few years. The wildfire season itself has expanded by over a month, according to the U.S. Forest Service, and that alone must account for at least some of the increase.
We are warming ten times faster than the normal rate seen in proxies during a warm interglacial. This is not at all a normal rate of warming. Moreover, all three Milankovitch Cycles are in cooling phases now and we should be COOLING ever so slightly.
"In what way is this normal change dangerous?" Sea level has risen four inches since 1993 and the rate of rise has doubled since then. High tide flooding along the American south and Gulf coasts is up 400% and 1100% respectively since the year 2000, according to NOAA. Even New England, which is uplifting land from glacial rebound, is up 140%. It's why Houston, New York and Louisiana have a combined $100 billion in flood mitigation projects in the works. Now add in a tripling of heatwaves since the 1960s, an 8% per decade increase in hurricane intensity and a 20-fold increase in marine heatwaves. No worries? No harm? How about an increase in extreme precipitation events and longer droughts? The expanded range of tick-and-mosquito-borne diseases?
Here in Austria we had a perfect spring and summer this year. Just the proper amount of rain, lots of sunny days, some quite hot but no reason to be concerned. The first weeks of autumn were likewise perfect. There will be a rich harvest of all kinds of crops this year. To sum it up: What are you talking about? There have been floods somewhere on earth? There have been some droughts or wildfiese in other places? I guess that's what you could have said about every single one of the last 10.000 years.
Yup. Standard mindset for the last 50 years you have demonstrated there. There might be a problem but I don’t care if it doesn’t effect me yet. I do worry, I do think we should have acted more strongly and earlier, I have changed my personal lifestyle. The thing I find weird is, I don’t have children, how can so many people who do have children be so selfish and foolish when it comes to their own descendants?
Thank you for your response. I do care about problems. That includes problems which do not affect me personally. What I dont care about is other peoples imagined problems. @@jgreen9361
Yes, of course anything might happen. It's just that there are many severe threats (like conventional or nuclear war, having to live in a failed state or under organized crime, pandemics etc.) which might occur at a degree of probabability which is orders of magnitude higher than the probability of any climate-change-related event of similar destructive power. @@rociomiranda5684
All this mind farting is very frustrating. Why are people afraid to address the core cause of man-made climate change. Our collective behavior towards our environment is the cause of man-made climate change and the core cause of our bad behavior is our erroneous behavior model, namely, "profit = income - expenses". You should be shocked that our profit model doesn't include the word 'environment' when, in fact, all of our actual gains come to us from the environment; furthermore, you should all be appalled that this definition of profit defines all of us and the entire environment as nothing more than expenses. This explains why there is so much homelessness and why the planet is on fire. Solution: "Profit = protecting and enriching the environment, and sharing the sustenance that it provides to all of us". This new profit model would virtually end homelessness and it would literally reverse man-made climate change by making it economically mandatory for us to create millions of new jobs that will come under the heading "Caretakers of the Environment". Caretakers will earn higher wages than most other workers. Caretakers will be divided into many thousands of subcategories. Just to name some: (1) removing pollution that is already contaminating the environment (2) collecting pollution before it contaminates the environment (3) dealing with the waste in such ways that are good for the environment and or good for the production of products. (4) regulating human population by economically incentivizing families with 2 or fewer children and economically punishing families with too many children. The list goes on and on. Thanks! I hope my comment is helpful to you. p.s. It may already be too late to correct the definition of profit, but it is never too late to try; besides, there is no other viable way to reverse man-made climate change and as an added bonus virtually put an end to homelessness.
2023 summer wasn't close to the warmest in history. Wildfires are not increased by modest climate warming. The problem is forest management and growth in populations moving into forests.
"2023 summer wasn't close to the warmest in history" which was - source of that data? How do you manage 16 million sq miles of forest? Much of which is hard or dangerous to get to. How much are you willing to spend on that?
@@drkstrong The best data we have (recorded highs and lows in the US and Europe) shows the 1936 to be the hottest years on record in the US and Europe (which was most of the measured temperature record in 1936). That's part of History. "History" is a broad term, and the error margins around proxies cannot definitively assert that the medieval warming period or the Roman warming period were not warmer. Prior to the hockey stick graph and revisions made to support it, all estimates of those periods were higher than today's temperatures. If one discards revised and updated estimates in favor of the previous estimates that carried for decades prior to the hockey stick, one wouldn't assert that the summer of 2023 was warmer than that of 1936 and these other warm periods. We find tree stumps uncovered by retreating glaciers much further north in the arctic dating from the Medieval period that have been covered in ice until now. How did trees grow there if it was colder? As far as 16 million square miles of trees, they have existed for millions of years before mankind. I don't know what you are asking.
@@paulsnow "The best data we have (recorded highs and lows in the US and Europe) shows the 1936 to be the hottest years on record in the US and Europe (which was most of the measured temperature record in 1936). That's part of History." Data source? Even if you accept the premise (which I don't) you are a couple of decades out with that assertion. 1998 broke all the 1930's records in the US and since then the 1930s have dropped out of the top 10 for the US. Globally the hottest year in the1930's (1937) is now in 64th place. The hottest month in the 1930s is now ranked as the 308th hottest month. (WMO/NOAA/UKMet) The MWP was only discovered in the1960's by Lamb et al. based on central England temperatures only. Lamb estimated based on proxies that temperatures there were only about 1C warmer than the early part of the 20th Century (1900 through 1950). That was relatively cool period. Studies since then of the N. Hemisphere as a whole show no particular warming during the MWP observed in the UK. Since 1950 AGW have taken temperatures well beyond the uncertainty limits of the MWP (which was warmer than the Roman WP). According to the scientific literature (not anti AGW blogs) those tree stumps found in Greenland date back 7000 - 130,000 years ago, not the MWP. Yes, the trees existed (actually many more of them) before industrialization but there was not forest management back then so why claim that's the problem now?
@drkstrong The data you are citing for 1930's temperature data is adjusted data. I'm sorry, but not only will your data sources fail to disclose the updates, but finding the raw data is extremely difficult. You might have to tap skeptic sources. Why do I trust the skeptic sources? I'm 60+ years old, and as an engineer, I did pay attention to reported temperature data since I was a teenager. I saw the data change. I saw no notation explaining the methods used to "correct" high low temperature measurements in the US. Forest management today suppresses fire, leading to fuel build-up. Without Europeans, fires were more frequent. The plains were routinely burned off by Native Americans. More frequent burns reduced fuel loads and protected forests from large fires. Fire suppression allows fuel loads to build up. 1) wildfires are natural 2) Fire suppression is not natural Higher CO2 levels create higher drought tolerance in plants, which means plants stay hydrated with less water, meaning we actually see less intense fires, all things being equal, with higher co2 levels.
@@paulsnow What do you mean by "adjusted"? The data sources list the raw data, the level 1-3 data, and the final processed data. Those process are all explained in the scientific literature - I defy you to read the papers and find a problem. The sketics have eeb trying for 30 years and so far, been unsuccessful. If you are an engineer, did you use uncalibrated equipment to do your job. Not much of an engineer then. If you did then all your data was "adjusted". So you argue that forest management is unnatural and should be avoided? "meaning we actually see less intense fires, all things being equal, with higher co2 levels." but all other things are not equal.
This guy must be the average climate alarmist in a sense that his nonsense is even considered a valid Ted talk gobbled up by a naive set of spectators. It is so mindboggling below average that the only thing that springs to mind are the words from another commentor: "nice suit".
"The chemistry of our atmosphere has been fundamentally changed" This guy has no idea what he's talking about. CO2 has gone from 0.03% to 0.04% of the atmosphere, that's not "fundamental". He wants to just ditch any 'old data' because it would 'no longer apply' to the new atmosphere, and just trust the models, the ones that have yet to accurately predict anything.
More irreversable damage will occur and a billion will die if we wait too long to research and if safe implement geoengineering, rather than blind moralizing.
![Hunxho - Ball Forever [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nki9ZTF9Uls/mqdefault.jpg)
What this man says is true: we must adapt to "baked-in" changes. However, two things should be remembered.
* Al Gore's film was released in 2006. If his advice had been heeded, we would require much less adaptation to climate change.
* It remains true that mitigation -- cutting CO2 emissions -- costs less than adaptation.
CATASTROPHYSING. Alex Epstein 's "FOSSIL FUTURE" on sale now.The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. HUMAN FLOURISHING. Alex Gore refused to debate him.
Not only that but I believe 9-11 was an INSIDE JOB that our government knew was coming to get us in the mideast to fight several wars for two interested parties that we are NOW involved in again ! G BUSH was nor interested in going after the Saudis but told our Generals to find a way to go after Sadam . Senator Graham who led the panel that investigated the event still to this day can not get the panel review unclassified ! Interesting that the current Israeli leader shortly after the event said it was good for Israel and the dancing men reported on the top of the van across the bay turned out to be members of the Mossad not arabs !
Great speech David! You have a great expertise and knowledge. See you...
Super powerful talk, but still out of most people’s reach of understanding.
I can imagine COP 28 in Dubai (the irony of an oil rich capital) being vague with lots of climate washing.
At an adaptation level the biggest thing anyone can do to effectively help to slow climate change is to remove meat and dairy from your diet..
By 2050, the world’s population is expected to reach 10 billion, requiring an increase in global food production by 70%, with greenhouse gases projected to increase by 80% (Dent, 2020; University of British Columbia, 2016). It is important to acknowledge the environmental harm the production of animal products causes-including high levels of greenhouse gas emissions, mass deforestation, extreme water use, and water pollution-in order to make sustainable choices that that are less damaging to our environment.
CATASTROPHYSING. Alex Epstein 's "FOSSIL FUTURE" on sale now.The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. HUMAN FLOURISHING
You're an optimist for thinking that will last until 2028, not even mentioning 2050
We are at 1,5C already for last for months. This year as a whole may go to 1,5C if rest of the year stays as warm as it has been so far. For climatic 30-year trend that will take some time, but soon we will end over 1,5C in every year.
Current heat is combination of human made climate warming, El Niño (+0,2-0,3C, still growing stronger), solar radiation (+0,1C), aerosol clearing over seas due to shipping regulations, ...
And what are we doing? Even SDG's that are governmental promises for 3,2C are failing by whopping 85%. This means that our governments does not care about climate actions and are betting on human extinction (studies starts adding probabilities from 3C and upwards, we could be at 2,55C as Hansen suggests).
Yes,adapt to what?
You are babbling nonsense. NASA-NOAA: _"There is a 53% chance of an early El Niño developing by December."_ We are still in La Niña IV, after the longest, wettest, snowiest COLDEST Winter in History. Or are you smarter than NOAA?
There are ups and downs. This year is an up, and next year will be. But after that there will be lower temps. The overall upward trend is not seen every year, but only decade by decade.
Twenty years from now, we will be able to say for sure how much warmer it was this decade.
To base any conclusion on an instantaneous measurement of temperature is folly. The trend must be analyzed (as it rightly is).
You are right that governments are not stepping up to the challenge and seem incapable of doing so. But if the voting public makes a big enough noise, the governments will have to follow or fall. I think many in government are well aware of this. They are just waiting for the day when the voters become aware.
@@davidmenasco5743 This trend has be seen during last 100 years. Few hot years, then lower temps that creeps up to those numbers, then another hot spell, ... Like before current El Niño started, the cooler La Niña phase was rising at levels nearing last El Niño...
Current temperature trend is 0,24C per decade. But the trend is going up too. It is exponential trend or even abrubt.
In 2022 the official temperature for global warming was 1.06°C. It is common in promotional climate change videos to use sources of earth average temperatures from sources that are more favorable to promoting signifiant global warming increases, which is not happening. Global warming was reported in 1991 at 1.1°C. In late 1994 global warming was announced for unknown reason to have suddenly paused in the early 1990s and even had gone down a bit by the mid 1990s. Global warming has been steady at about 1°C for over thirty years since the early 1990s.
There is no mechanism that would allow greenhouse gases to be causing global warming. It is high school taught science greenhouse gases are only active in earth's greenhouse effect that is always in saturation from the strong greenhouse gas water vapor and can't have its overall effect changed.
I've been saying this for quite a while. Cities need to be overbuilding storm drains in the expectation of extreme rainfall events, if nothing else. Nothing causes more damage than flooding.
CO2 and me-thane don't cause flooding. COLD fronts cause flooding. We just had the longest, wettest, snowiest COLDEST Winter in history. We all felt it. _We didn't need fake Climate Model simulations, like their fake SIM Hottest Day on Record! schtick._
Are we supposed to tell people that we are no longer supplying Municipal services in the country and make everybody move to the city?
Theoretically you have your own municipal governments to take care of such things.
You are correct cities will suffer due to droughts and rain preventing crops being grown to full potential.
@@caterthun4853 Torrential rain and downwind drought are caused by COLD. There are no torrential rains or droughts in the Congo or Amazon. Just rains at night. Proof that Climate Boiling! is just another franchise of the 9/11 WEF Coup Oil Wars. You'll be driving a pedal car made of bamboo as the UN Elites of Bilderberg Lambos go racing past.
If policy makers were actually influenced by An Inconvenient Truth, our policies and our situation would look far different today.
Or maybe they were, but too late.
@@jamesbeadle7570I'm pretty sure that the evidence is there that policy makers in fact were not influenced.
As for it being too late - even back then - yes it probably was given the inertia of the climate system.
How do you get people to electricity, less transportation and improve the economy?
@@craigb8228 First, “less transportation” is absolutely not necessary, and making it a central issue is a political negative. Electrification is MUCH easier now that PV solar has hit economy-of-scale and is the cheapest energy source (and before you say “not enough”, it’s doubling every three years, and has been for a long time, so it will be the dominant source of electricity sometime in the 2030s) .Batteries are on the economy-of-scale growth too, with lithium batteries 90% cheaper and other chemistries coming on for grid-scale power. As for “improve the economy”… well, “the economy” is basically just a measure of work (in the physics sense, not the labor sense), and the coming green energy world is already cheaper than fossil fuel, even without considering the outrageous externalized costs of using our only planet’s atmosphere as an open sewer. And renewable energy is STILL getting cheaper! So a green economy is a stronger, wealthier, more independent economy than a fossil fuel economy. Just ask the Europeans who found out the hard way what it means to have your own national energy sourced from a brutal warmonger. Anyway, EVs will rapidly displace gasoline/diesel for wheeled transportation, not because it’s greener, but because it’s cheaper and better.
So my main answer for how to electrify and improve the economy is “Make green energy cheaper and more socially beneficial than fossil fuel”, and for “less transportation”, my answer is “Why does that matter?”
Alex Epstein 's "FOSSIL FUTURE" on sale now.The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. HUMAN FLOURISHING
adaptation has to occur regardless, the mitigation is the only thing that matters and good luck with that. we simply will not give up the status quo and truly mitigate because our entire world system runs on fossil fuels and all our treats and goodies depends upon them so goodbye biosphere and I hope the frozen pizza was worth it
CATASTROPHYSING. Alex Epstein 's "FOSSIL FUTURE" on sale now.The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. HUMAN FLOURISHING
Incredible Incredible Incredible. This man knows his field about and can formulate an enticing and insightful speech. Climate change is a problem now. Act now.
CATASTROPHYSING. Alex Epstein 's "FOSSIL FUTURE" on sale now.The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. HUMAN FLOURISHING
We don't even has to totally stop global warming. BUT we need to SLOW DOWN the rate of warming as much as possible.
The rate changes is way too high for any adaptation or natural selection. The rate of change is highest EVER on entire planetary history (over 100-times faster growth of CO2 in the air and over 100-times on rate of warming vs the natural background).
Current climate change is nothing special
Global warming will stop, eventually. The question is, will there be a human civilization left to enjoy it? The faster we stop anthropogenic climate change, the more likely it is that civilization will survive the warming we have already experienced and the warming we have yet to experience.
@@davestagner Yea, rather under 2C or even 3C than 16C (calculation where all worst impacts happens in mere years after 50Gt methane burst from hydrates) and then go toward boiling seas that may end up to somewhere near Venus temperatures (where even lead melts on surface)...
Over 3C where we are going with 85% failing pledges, the loss of some societies in almost ensured. Some may still remain there, but some are definately lost. And going above 3C, means we are rising the chances to kill entire humanrace.
And for those that this is too much, then check what has been studied... These things are not just tossed to discussion, but are studied and based on facts.
Failing even on less than needed pledges is saying: we are still heading toward worst case scenarios. And those makes everyones life on line.
@@martiansoon9092 My fear is that methane hydrates or other tipping points heat the farmland faster than we can respond, even with all our technology, leading to critical crop failures and massive famines. We could see literally billions of people starve very quickly. Now, I’m not one of those who believes we’re on a path to extinction - I believe intelligence is a survival trait, and like to say the last human will eat the last cockroach. But I can easily imagine a collapse of modern civilization, and losing a couple of orders of magnitude of population quite suddenly.
And it’s not permanent. Even a 90% population drop only puts us back where we were about 300 years ago. We didn’t always have 8 billion people. It’s more than doubled in my lifetime. And the survivors will have critical things that we didn’t have when civilization first started. Like literacy! They’ll have books full of history, science, math, engineering. They won’t have to re-invent calculus. A modern stainless steel knife, left unused, will still be perfectly functional tens of thousands of years from now. Can you imagine what a caveman might have done with such a tool? And there are millions of them. Modern solar panels can produce electricity for a century. Etc.
If you want an injection of hope, check out Tony Seba and RethinkX. He’s my antidote for climate anxiety.
@@davestagner The idea that greenhouse gases will kill all humans is insane.
Incredible speech, very inspiring and one we can all learn valuable lessons from.
He is absolutely right. We must prepare, adapt and recalibrate every day and in parallel mitigate as good as possible
If this phenomenon turns out to be exponential in nature, all of that will be to no avail. The lucky few who own submarines, strategically located underground bunkers and space capsules are best prepared. For the remaining 99.9% of us we should approach this as being diagnosed with a terminal disease
@@teddybearroosevelt1847 Even the rich won't be able to survive the nuclear meltdown!
@@teddybearroosevelt1847well…… there is Solar geoengineering,
@@teddybearroosevelt1847There is no evidence that things will get that bad. There is plenty of evidence that things will get very bad, but it will take many decades.
If we stopped burning fossil fuels within the next two decades, most of the warming would stop, and this would buy time to work on the agribusiness part of the problem.
Ending the fossil fuel addiction is the key. Personally, I think the only way we can make it happen in time is to just nationalize all fossil fuel companies and develop a coordinated international plan to phase them out. I couldn't begin to suggest how it would work, but it couldn't possibly be worse than the thirty years of stalling we've seen so far.
@@davidmenasco5743i might know how to stop a large portion of our fuel emissions.
This might sound weird but i’ve done years of research and right now i’m 17 (almost 18), talked with a lot of people about this and collected data and put them in a powerpoint.
I’m gonna tell how we can and need to stop these emissions and later on you can ask me more specific questions for me to answer else you’ll be reading a little that isn’t needed.
1. Built bike infrastructure, better bus service, electrify railroads and make them all coherent.
2. Update building codes to require passive house standards.
3. Require new construction to be fully electric.
4. Update zoning codes to allow for denser housing.
5. Remove parking requirements.
6. Plant more trees and less asphalt.
The root cause of climate change is industrial capitalism. The existing climate mitigation agenda is attempting to preserve capitalism and the conditions for growth. Climate adaptation is an anachronism as long as emissions continue unabated, the climate will remain unstable, and continue drifting. However we try to adapt to the present, will be ineffective for the near future. Adaptation financing could also be called externalized costs of the 20th century. To keep prices low and revenues high, costs were sent to the future, and profit was pulled forward, up to 1/3 or corporate profit.
CATASTROPHYSING. Alex Epstein 's "FOSSIL FUTURE" on sale now.The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. HUMAN FLOURISHING
This was great, clear, helpful, scary. Another thing: Prep our bodies to adapt to where we live, prep habits, needs, preferences to Less is More. Probably changed mindsets and expectations is the way we'll have to go. As McCauley said: prepare for the way things are. The new agenda has to be ambitious. Has to.
Meet the new inconvenient truth...
Same as the old inconvenient truth.
Policy makers have known this was comming since 1987. Don't think they are about to change. They live knowing there children and grandchildren will suffer.
A measured delivery despite the message of the catastrophic upon us now.
Love it. Thank you: very enlightening!
Current climate change was in models. When these events happens has become often sooner than predicted.
But also effects are masked, like under aerosol dimming effect. Current event occurs within earlier models if we use ie. Hansen et al. study numbers for current temperatures that include this hidden aerosol dimming. Current temperature is 2,55C according to this study.
Partially we may already have seen some of these effects. During Covid shutdowns factories were closed and aerosols fall out from skies. In a cooler La Niña time temperatures were higher than in warmer El Niño years. And now after forcing ships to use air filters, the sulphate emissions, that acts as a seeding elements for cooling clouds, have dropped and thereafter we see record high temperatures where these ships roam. These could be the indicators that say: We live in a much warmer world, when aerosol coolling effects are taken in account. Hansen et al. is likely right about their high temperatures.
We also cannot keep on burning more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, because every single 1000 tons of carbon is killing a person. In other words, every 0,1C rise 100 million people will die.
Hansen is an astronomer and administrator. He's no climate scientist. His thesis on the temperature of Venus was completely debunked!
Mars is 92% CO2 atmosphere, but it's air temperature is exactly what orbital distance and altitude-density would predict.
Did you know Hansen was forced to retroactively retire for his Hatch Act felony, mis-using his NASA Director title to get a $1.3 million EU Green award, for pushing the End of Days PRAVDA?
He's a _criminal!_ Mann's 'hockey stick' was completely debunked in court!
"We are seeing the hottest temperatures since the 1940s!" UN Climate Director. _He just ADMITTED the 1930s were HOTTER._
Kabloowey!😂🎉
CATASTROPHYSING. Alex Epstein 's "FOSSIL FUTURE" on sale now.The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. HUMAN FLOURISHING
I intend to grow pineapples at latitude 35.964668° in the next few years. Knoxville's finest pineapples since 2030!
I can't understand why the COP meetings aren't online, instead of hundreds of scientists hopping on a plane and jetting halfway around the world?
Shouldn't they lead by example?
COP isn't scientists, it's Fossil Fuel lobbying of politicians - see who's hosting this year's COP
It's upon you.
149k views on a channel with nearly 40 million subscribers in one of the most pivtiol points in human history, the planets history.
Says it all, good luck.
Thank you!
Mr. beast gets 10M views on childish stunts, climate action video 5k views. Lemmings - meet the cliff. 😢
Yup, please be proud to see these videos and listen to them, many people don’t have the patience nor the mindset to think about any of this and puzzle a little with the options we have a change we can do ourselves. You’re part of the smart self thinking population 😊
They don’t know they fell off it years ago and the sensation of free fall is so comfortable until they hit the ground below…
Every single person you share this with is a tiny win. Make this the focus and others close to you will follow. You don’t even need literally every single person, just the amount needed to make a difference.
Nobody watches these videos because people know it's nothing to worry about. The older you are the more you remember the same rhetoric of the 1980's (ice age scare) and the 1940's (global warming).
If you _REALLY_ know your stuff, you would know philosophers have noted this fear mongering in the past to control the public.
President Eisenhower predicted that corrupt scientists would control public policy. This is exactly what's happening today.
RUclips nuked my comment.
That's why people don't care about GW.
Adaptation is perhaps -just perhaps - a pessimistic concept in some people's mind; it assumes that we will fail. This is why funding is not directed that way by those selling dreams (politicians).
As a resident of a small island developing state where tourism is the number 1 economic activity, you get the feeling that things won't change anytime soon.
Nope. The main thing is NOT adaptation.
The main thing is to STOP EMISSIONS. By this way we don't need that much adaptation.
Let's put this in simple cruel example:
A man with a knife charges you. He hits you with several wounds and leaves. Then ambulance comes and ties up your wound and takes you to the hospital. WELL, is it wise to add more ambulances, or take that lone knifeman out? If latter, then you won't even need that ambulance. Even after ambulance has treated you and you have covered from hospital, you have these scars and you might have fears, pains, disfunctions and so on. You may even die on the attack. STOP EMISSIONS, that are the knifeman in this story, so you won't need adaptation, that is the ambulance.
You can cut all the emissions you want and you're still going to get climate change from the rest of the world's emissions. Personally I moved to high ground, am looking at steel roofing, and will make sure my heat pump is in good condition for summer heat waves.
I believe the speaker is likely underestimating the amount being spent on adaptations. I think it's likely the case that the vast majority of funds used to adapt to climate change are not labeled as "climate change adaptation."
@@davidmenasco5743
I agree, much of it is emergency spending AFTER something has happened.
@@davidmenasco5743 We have multiple billion dollar climate extreme events even during this year. And the total losses in these events is rising fast. We are rebuilding many zones that have been hit and many has relocated themselves to other places. Expenses are rising.
Many does not have money to rebuild. And even those that has the money often loses decades or even centuries worth of cumulated wealth. Insurances are not covering all and now not everyone can even get an insurance. Insurance costs comes to be paid for everyone who takes one.
CATASTROPHYSING. Alex Epstein 's "FOSSIL FUTURE" on sale now.The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. HUMAN FLOURISHING
Wonderful. We need to recognize that CC is here and we need to adapt. But before anything real can happen the denial caused by disinformation needs to stop. How you do that I don't know as it is backed by powerful FF lobbies.
If you want to limit climate change, you’ll need to change your lifestyle completely from consumerism to transportation.
Climate changes. Alex Epstein 's "FOSSIL FUTURE" on sale now. The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. HUMAN FLOURISHING
What climate deniers haven’t realised yet is the activists will only tolerate being dragged by their hair from the highway and ridiculed in the press for a while.
As the stakes get much higher and more extreme less principled people start to realise the price of having been lied to, climate hecklers will get hung by their neck from street lamps, the question is only when.
Can’t adapt to a dead planet
Yes, that's right, no corruption or alterior motive at all on the doomsayers side, none at all.
There is no doubt that we are already in climate chaos. But as for the measures to try to save ourselves I wonder if he really believes what he is saying.
I don't think it's about belief. Mitigation and adaptation are the next, right, best action(s). After my father learned he had leukemia he adapted to living as well and fully as he could, knowing he was going to die, knowing leukemia would shorten his lifespan. We have a terminal diagnosis, ours is to determine how we will live, how we will engage in our end days. History (as much as we know) shows this is the 6th great extinction. This is about legacy. Doing whatever we can to leave things in as good condition as possible, knowing what we know. My actions to decrease me carbon footprint are not to save myself. They are to give some possibility of life to future generations.
CATASTROPHYSING. Alex Epstein Fossil "FOSSIL FUTURE" on sale now.The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. HUMAN FLOURISHING
No we are not in climate chaos. Ordinary events are just being reported as "chaos", "crisis" or some other soundbite word to get attention for news sites, politicians and activists.
flat-earther alert ... again lol@@old_toucs6283
All of the solutions mentioned are worthy of trying to accomplish. Unfortunately the solutions become mute as long as human beings are intent on going to war with one and other.
Shifting to a plant-based diet can significantly contribute to reducing methane emissions from livestock, a substantial greenhouse gas contributor, heralding a more sustainable future for food systems.
We're all gonna die man.
Right on brother.
Cool beans
Why wait?
CATASTROPHYSING. Alex Epstein 's "FOSSIL FUTURE" on sale now.The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. HUMAN FLOURISHING
Cheer up. Of all the people who were ever born, 92% are already dead. We're part of the remaining 8%. We're survivors. We'll probably live for ever. Probably.
What is the right temperature of the planet? Why choose a point in history when the Little Ice Age ended in 1850? Do we really want to return to the Little Ice Age, assuming it was in our power to control the climate?
i love people who say poh-kiss-ton instead of pah-kih-staan. They are sooooooo refined. Also, you're old and gonna die soon, I'm not so "mitigation" is the way to go until its finished, also because we've put so much effort into it the tech has already been radically advanced and no one is gonna give up on that just for you. Last, don't worry so much, you will be fine, the atmospheric scrubbing tech is also getting better every year along with life extension so just sit back, chill out, and wait for the high life, which will be comin' directly.
Carbon dioxide is one of the major GHGs and a driver in the domain of climate change. In the drive to mitigate and adapt with the issue of climate change, carbon trading has become a vital policy instrument in majority of the countries in the World. It is also a pivotal element of the UNFCCC’s approach to tackle climate change. National or regional carbon trading schemes are now operational in many counties through a well-defined structural policy, specific for the country. Yet the trading is still in a volatile stage. Many schools think that this concept is not very realistic to combat climate change, while others consider this a strict regulation to put cap/limit on the emitters. Unfortunately, the subject is characterised by jargon, abstract concepts, mathematical formulae, and technical detail, making it hard for most people to understand its implications and evaluate its merits and demerits. This paper is a first order analysis to unravel some of this complexity by imparting thrust on three basic components - cap and trade, carbon offsets and carbon trading - which underpin the trade in carbon quotas. The case study of the highly urbanized city of Kolkata and Indian Sundarban mangrove ecosystem has been discussed in details with CO2 - e of dominant trees to analyse the probable credit that can be received from the producer communities of these two sites that are significantly different in terms of anthropogenic footprints and ecological features. CONTACT ABHIJIT MITRA
This is AI Chat GPT4 word salad, scraped off UN-IPCC. Pure PRAVDA.
Wanna see what starving our society in Mandatory Energy Austerity will do? Then watch the Is'reali siege of Gaza. First the infants will starve on soy Similac and pet kibble. Then Seniors become ill, and Big Medicine loots their savings with fake 'cures'.
The youth inherit a mouthful of dry sand, except for Greta, the _millionaire paid child actress!_
😂🎉💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵🔥💥
Carbon trading is not the solution that is needed. The solution that is needed is to find ways to end the use of fossil fuels.
Of course, there will be niche cases for some time to come, where fossil fuels must be used. But these must be reduced to something on the order of 2% of current usage, or less.
Just have a comment on the real problem. Adaptation is pretty much useless in that emissions are still rising and war goes on. Survival would depend on reducing emissions and, most importantly, removing c)2, etc. from the atmosphere. None of which is being done. I would think you all can now read the future. I'm g;;ad tp be over 80 years old.
CATASTROPHYSING.
Alex Epstein 's "FOSSIL FUTURE on sale now.The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. HUMAN FLOURISHING
Bummer 😕
A brilliant talk by an articulate speaker with only one drawback. Its far too late to slow, let alone stop or reverse, abrupt, lethal climate change. The Brazilian Amazon rain forest fas been clearcut and slashed and burned to the extent that it is now a net producer of "greenhouse gasses" rather than the sink that it once was. There is NO rational way to "unextinct" the thousands (millions?) of species now gone forever. The region was once a great climate moderator now changed forever. The Arctic Ocean snow and sea ice are in terminal melt. A blue ocean event (fewer thn one million hectares of refletive sea snow and ice remaining) will accellerate submarine methne clathrate and tundra melting/sublimation spewing massive amounts of carbon dioxide and potent "greenhouse gas" methane into the atmosphere this decade. Worldwide heat waves, droughts, floods, rising sea levels and salt water contamination are NOW destroying food crops worldwide. Famine in East Africa, Madagascar, and Central America are sending climate change migrants across international borders. We are well into Earth's 9th (at least) mass extinction. And, it includes us! old geologist
Everything in nature expands and contracts. Usually due to external limits. If we do not contract our footprint and impacts in the same exponential way we have just expanded, voluntarily, then we will complete this volitional extinction event and take the rest of life with us.
Alex Epstein 's "FOSSIL FUTURE" on sale now.The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. HUMAN FLOURISHING
Very good talk. True, there is a lot each single person can do to adapt to and mitigate climate change. Also, the local level is very important as necessary changes tend to be reachable faster than at national, let alone international levels. But David rightly stresses "the need of supportive government policies and to stop planning (and building) for the way things have been and preparing for the way things are. --> Hold governments and business accountable!
If only a farmer used the best kind of seed he could for he situations at hand. Clearly you haven’t tried to ask a farmer about his seed in any way 🤦♂️
Hello David,
Would you like me to help you move from "shallow ecology" to "deep ecology" during this latter part of your life...Warning?!? This would take immense courage and increased hardship resiliency on your part!?!
Sincerely,
Professor-Marty.
Absolute truth of the matter. We step up or atep out. Which is easy choice since it really is only 1 option!
Greenhouse gases comprise 4/10ths of one percent of the atmosphere. Without them (even at this seemingly low percentage), Earth’s temperature would be well below zero. So, what do you think happens as greenhouse gas levels increase?
On the other hand, non-greenhouse gases such as nitrogen and oxygen, which comprise about 99% of the atmosphere do not absorb heat (infrared light) and for this we should begrateful, for if they did, our planet would be too hot for life to exist.
the great filter in question:
I copied and pasted the following.. "The tilt of the Earth on its axis can alter by how much Antarctica's ice-sheets grow or melt, according to New Zealand and international scientists. Studying the rocks deep below Antarctica, the researchers found that variations in the ice sheet over vast time scales (hundreds of thousands of years) matched eccentric changes in the Earth's tilt"/ end . With that said, we have been seeing a net gain of ice on the east side of the continent of Antarctica of between 82 billion tons a year to 110 billion tons a year since 1992. And that is a net gain after taking into account all losses of ice on the west side of the continent. To give you some perspective on how much ice 82 billion tons of ice is, just two years worth is like adding the weight of Mount Everest to Antarctica's east side. So if scientist are correct, we are about to experience a serious change in Earth's tilt. That will be a major weather changer.
I have a question (may require a small grain of NaCl to digest)
I have been waiting to see if any concerned climate change activists have computed the carbon foot print of the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. I know we are all doomed to die by man made carbon dioxide emissions so this seems important to me. I don’t know much about science since I am a retired chemist who only worked a few years in the chemical industry so I am wondering if there any really smart people, perhaps even high school students here or in Europe who can help an old dummy figure this out. I am making a helpful list of things to consider below.
Carbon dioxide Sources
Fuel used to ship people and supplies to war zones, be sure to include both sides since this is everyone’s Earth.
This fuel is used by planes, trucks, tanks non-nuclear ships such as destroyers, escorts, transports or gunboats. You can exclude the nuclear subs and aircraft carriers since the are “Green” electric vehicles, however the planes and missiles they carry would contribute to their carbon foot prints. The good news is that any nuclear detonations will send particulates into the atmosphere thereby blocking out some solar gain, a win for us all!
The destroyed buildings, forests and other infrastructure needs to be included as most of the stuff will have been burned. Unfortunately you also need to include the carbon foot print of rebuilding all of that stuff, assuming there are still people to inhabit them.
Be sure not to include the nuclear carriers and subs (unless they burn up and sink), then they will need to be replaced. Do not include any electric vehicles such as cars, trucks, electric fighter planes, electric tanks, electric drones of any size. Of course you must include any payload that they fire. And the carbon foot print needed to replace these Green conveyances plus any spent ordinance.
People and animals: The people involved in these wars won’t be commuting to work so that is a big savings of carbon dioxide but they will still be generating more or less the same carbon foot print elsewhere so let’s call that a wash. Unfortunately we need to consider the dead animals and people because they will have a final carbon foot print (in some cases literally). As they decompose back to their constituent elements which includes some carbon. Lucky for us however, their carbon foot printing days are over, and as soon as they completely decompose their contribution ceases. They will not be able to be father/mother/them-ers of any offspring so that is another big win for us all. One cautionary note, don’t forget the Baby Boom that will certainly follow the war when the lonely soldiers return home, if history teaches us anything.
I am certain I have missed a few things such as Nitrogen and Sulfur oxides that will be emitted by rocket exhaust ,cannon fire bombs and bullets. Also, carbon foot print to the extra food that needs to be grow to replace the destroyed land/crops need to be calculated. I believe the even those who starve will continue to have a carbon foot print until they leave their final carbon foot print (see above). I leave that calculation to those who are wiser than me.
Assuming that the carbon dioxide results of this calculation may be somewhat higher than a net zero, it becomes important to figure out who is to blame for the weak (I hesitate to say idiotic) leadership that has allowed the wars to happen, but I don’t want to offend anyone so I will just leave that quest to others.
The climate has always changed. It isn't a problem.
"The climate has always changed." Well, yes and no. The climate HAS often changed in the past, but the climate has also often been very stable for thousands of years. In fact, average global temperatures had been very stable for the last 6,000 years and were supposed to be very stable for the next 50,000 years, until us burning fossil fuels started jacking up global temps.
"It isn't a problem." Unfortunately, we're not just "changing the climate" in some mild and normal way, we are jacking up global temps ~20 times faster than it usually warms after an ice age, and that rapid rate of warming is already causing hundreds of problems for people, societies, other species, and the ecosystems all life depends on. The longer we keep this up, the more the web of life will break down, including our food supply. That's just how nature works.
And it was 'all' known so many many jears ago
blame someone else. it is always someone else problem and someone to blame. how about not
it is extremely difficult to solve a problem that does not exist
Post your data that refutes the world's scientists, over 80 academies of science and ALL of the world's major scientific institutions, from NASA to NOAA to the World Meteorological Organization. We'd love to see it.
yea, right. Tell that to those at 'the top'. They aren't giving up chit
it's called human nature
hey, it was a great run
"The chemistry of the atmosphere has been changed " ? Can he explain that statement further ? This man is scaremongering.
Blatant scaremongering. Nearly everything they say is false when you actually check it.
"The chemistry of the atmosphere has been changed " ? Can he explain that statement further ?" A 50% increase in the levels of the gas that is THE main atmospheric control knob of global temps. That IS a big change.
This all may sound good, but it sounds like trying to come up with alternatives to keep business as usual. There's no way to keep going on the path of preserving modern civilization with the increase of polulations and demands of resources. Any kind of resources. Overshoot is going to be a problem. Many people are going to die regardless of what we do. That is the inconvenient truth. Our decisions to become consumers and desire to have more and more has resulted in our own destruction.
Think he likes his sugar-talk. We're done with the first tipping element flip. Likely to happen in the coming 10 years.
When the horses have left the barn should you be slamming the door shut or maybe start building a door to shut? Might be no horses for awhile so monkeys are going back to being bipedal. Not like any monkey walks willingly so the pedal remains full gas.
Someone should tell the faux savant Jordan Peterson who has morphed his expertise from psychology to climate expertise based on fresh air and little else.
Anyone watching this should really go elsewhere for " facts". This guy has a very nice suit though. Quoting Al Gore ?, Really ? really ! !! Come on.
Alex Epstein 's "FOSSIL FUTURE" on sale now. The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. HUMAN FLOURISHING
Its better at x1. 25
Even better at 1.5x
Antartic Meltdown 2026
Too little - to late. We'r fu**ed up
At 4:15 and 4:26. Not true. All statements like this are based on comparing modern accurate, global, regular measurements with pre-1850 proxies that are none of those things. All modern warming fits into the differences, which are significant, between the proxies. All modern warming fits into the typical time gap between temperatures in the proxies which is an average of 150 years.
At 5:24. Not true. Fires have a habit of starting near human sources of ignition and in forests where preventative management has stopped.
At 7:39. Completely normal rate if you actually check individual proxies.
At 7:54. In what way is this normal change dangerous
At 8:36. Most proxies for CO2 in the past show fairly significant variations within the last few thousand years. However these are sidelined in favour of the Antarctic sources which are very stable.
At 12:30. Take a look at long term weather records.
Brush and tinder dried out from high temperatures and drought are far more prone to ignition. You really can't ignore that. Canada's burn acreage this year set a record, SIX TIMES higher than normal, which previously was DOUBLE what it was in the 1970s. Fires start from lightning, from downed power lines, from arson and human negligence but none of these explain the massive increase in burn acreage over the last few years. The wildfire season itself has expanded by over a month, according to the U.S. Forest Service, and that alone must account for at least some of the increase.
We are warming ten times faster than the normal rate seen in proxies during a warm interglacial. This is not at all a normal rate of warming. Moreover, all three Milankovitch Cycles are in cooling phases now and we should be COOLING ever so slightly.
"In what way is this normal change dangerous?" Sea level has risen four inches since 1993 and the rate of rise has doubled since then. High tide flooding along the American south and Gulf coasts is up 400% and 1100% respectively since the year 2000, according to NOAA. Even New England, which is uplifting land from glacial rebound, is up 140%. It's why Houston, New York and Louisiana have a combined $100 billion in flood mitigation projects in the works.
Now add in a tripling of heatwaves since the 1960s, an 8% per decade increase in hurricane intensity and a 20-fold increase in marine heatwaves. No worries? No harm? How about an increase in extreme precipitation events and longer droughts? The expanded range of tick-and-mosquito-borne diseases?
Here in Austria we had a perfect spring and summer this year. Just the proper amount of rain, lots of sunny days, some quite hot but no reason to be concerned. The first weeks of autumn were likewise perfect. There will be a rich harvest of all kinds of crops this year. To sum it up: What are you talking about? There have been floods somewhere on earth? There have been some droughts or wildfiese in other places? I guess that's what you could have said about every single one of the last 10.000 years.
Yup. Standard mindset for the last 50 years you have demonstrated there.
There might be a problem but I don’t care if it doesn’t effect me yet.
I do worry, I do think we should have acted more strongly and earlier, I have changed my personal lifestyle. The thing I find weird is, I don’t have children, how can so many people who do have children be so selfish and foolish when it comes to their own descendants?
Thank you for your response. I do care about problems. That includes problems which do not affect me personally. What I dont care about is other peoples imagined problems. @@jgreen9361
Just because it hasn't happened to you yet, it doesn't mean it won't.
Yes, of course anything might happen. It's just that there are many severe threats (like conventional or nuclear war, having to live in a failed state or under organized crime, pandemics etc.) which might occur at a degree of probabability which is orders of magnitude higher than the probability of any climate-change-related event of similar destructive power. @@rociomiranda5684
Trouble with your mindset is that you're part of the problem, not the solution
Aww
Al Gore sure has lost weight!
RUclips Babylon is alive and well by David Assherick
All this mind farting is very frustrating. Why are people afraid to address the core cause of man-made climate change. Our collective behavior towards our environment is the cause
of man-made climate change and the core cause of our bad behavior is our erroneous behavior model, namely, "profit = income - expenses".
You should be shocked that our profit model doesn't include the word 'environment' when, in fact, all of our actual gains come to us from the environment; furthermore, you should all be appalled that this definition of profit defines all of us and the entire environment as nothing more than expenses. This explains why there is so much homelessness and why the planet is on fire. Solution:
"Profit = protecting and enriching the environment, and sharing the sustenance that it provides to all of us". This new profit model would virtually end homelessness and it would literally
reverse man-made climate change by making it economically mandatory for us to create millions of new jobs that will come under the heading "Caretakers of the Environment". Caretakers will
earn higher wages than most other workers. Caretakers will be divided into many thousands of subcategories. Just to name some:
(1) removing pollution that is already contaminating the environment
(2) collecting pollution before it contaminates the environment
(3) dealing with the waste in such ways that are good for the environment and or good for the production of products.
(4) regulating human population by economically incentivizing families with 2 or fewer children and economically punishing families with too many children.
The list goes on and on. Thanks! I hope my comment is helpful to you.
p.s. It may already be too late to correct the definition of profit, but it is never too late to try; besides, there is no other viable way to reverse man-made climate change and as an added
bonus virtually put an end to homelessness.
So many lies and errors in such a short speech. This guy needs to talk to some serious climate scientists!
Hottest e apparently you have never seen temp tables far enough back in history. Shame on you
Cows and barn doors.
Equines and bovines.
Climate Restoration is the only hope. Nuclear power redesigned in 2023 for today's needs, makes it easy, no regrets.
2023 summer wasn't close to the warmest in history.
Wildfires are not increased by modest climate warming. The problem is forest management and growth in populations moving into forests.
"2023 summer wasn't close to the warmest in history" which was - source of that data?
How do you manage 16 million sq miles of forest? Much of which is hard or dangerous to get to. How much are you willing to spend on that?
@@drkstrong
The best data we have (recorded highs and lows in the US and Europe) shows the 1936 to be the hottest years on record in the US and Europe (which was most of the measured temperature record in 1936). That's part of History.
"History" is a broad term, and the error margins around proxies cannot definitively assert that the medieval warming period or the Roman warming period were not warmer. Prior to the hockey stick graph and revisions made to support it, all estimates of those periods were higher than today's temperatures.
If one discards revised and updated estimates in favor of the previous estimates that carried for decades prior to the hockey stick, one wouldn't assert that the summer of 2023 was warmer than that of 1936 and these other warm periods.
We find tree stumps uncovered by retreating glaciers much further north in the arctic dating from the Medieval period that have been covered in ice until now. How did trees grow there if it was colder?
As far as 16 million square miles of trees, they have existed for millions of years before mankind. I don't know what you are asking.
@@paulsnow "The best data we have (recorded highs and lows in the US and Europe) shows the 1936 to be the hottest years on record in the US and Europe (which was most of the measured temperature record in 1936). That's part of History." Data source?
Even if you accept the premise (which I don't) you are a couple of decades out with that assertion. 1998 broke all the 1930's records in the US and since then the 1930s have dropped out of the top 10 for the US. Globally the hottest year in the1930's (1937) is now in 64th place. The hottest month in the 1930s is now ranked as the 308th hottest month. (WMO/NOAA/UKMet)
The MWP was only discovered in the1960's by Lamb et al. based on central England temperatures only. Lamb estimated based on proxies that temperatures there were only about 1C warmer than the early part of the 20th Century (1900 through 1950). That was relatively cool period. Studies since then of the N. Hemisphere as a whole show no particular warming during the MWP observed in the UK. Since 1950 AGW have taken temperatures well beyond the uncertainty limits of the MWP (which was warmer than the Roman WP).
According to the scientific literature (not anti AGW blogs) those tree stumps found in Greenland date back 7000 - 130,000 years ago, not the MWP.
Yes, the trees existed (actually many more of them) before industrialization but there was not forest management back then so why claim that's the problem now?
@drkstrong
The data you are citing for 1930's temperature data is adjusted data. I'm sorry, but not only will your data sources fail to disclose the updates, but finding the raw data is extremely difficult.
You might have to tap skeptic sources.
Why do I trust the skeptic sources?
I'm 60+ years old, and as an engineer, I did pay attention to reported temperature data since I was a teenager. I saw the data change. I saw no notation explaining the methods used to "correct" high low temperature measurements in the US.
Forest management today suppresses fire, leading to fuel build-up. Without Europeans, fires were more frequent. The plains were routinely burned off by Native Americans. More frequent burns reduced fuel loads and protected forests from large fires. Fire suppression allows fuel loads to build up.
1) wildfires are natural
2) Fire suppression is not natural
Higher CO2 levels create higher drought tolerance in plants, which means plants stay hydrated with less water, meaning we actually see less intense fires, all things being equal, with higher co2 levels.
@@paulsnow What do you mean by "adjusted"?
The data sources list the raw data, the level 1-3 data, and the final processed data. Those process are all explained in the scientific literature - I defy you to read the papers and find a problem. The sketics have eeb trying for 30 years and so far, been unsuccessful.
If you are an engineer, did you use uncalibrated equipment to do your job. Not much of an engineer then. If you did then all your data was "adjusted".
So you argue that forest management is unnatural and should be avoided?
"meaning we actually see less intense fires, all things being equal, with higher co2 levels." but all other things are not equal.
Microwave radiation
This guy must be the average climate alarmist in a sense that his nonsense is even considered a valid Ted talk gobbled up by a naive set of spectators. It is so mindboggling below average that the only thing that springs to mind are the words from another commentor: "nice suit".
"The chemistry of our atmosphere has been fundamentally changed" This guy has no idea what he's talking about. CO2 has gone from 0.03% to 0.04% of the atmosphere, that's not "fundamental". He wants to just ditch any 'old data' because it would 'no longer apply' to the new atmosphere, and just trust the models, the ones that have yet to accurately predict anything.
14 of 17 of our earliest models have been quite accurate, even one that's over fifty years old.
More irreversable damage will occur and a billion will die if we wait too long to research and if safe implement geoengineering, rather than blind moralizing.
Yes we need a new inconvenient truth. The original one was full of lies. I’m still waiting to go water skiing at the North Pole.
The cult of B/S.
Paid for by EXXON Mobile
Bachelors of Science?
It's over huh and we have 1/3 trying to elect a dictator. Great.