This is so interesting, and a great reminder that climate communication need not be sensationalised, as the objective truth is powerful in and of itself.
@@jeffw7382 Could you cite some cases of this? I've been involved in grant processes for over four decades, and found a great aversion for sensationalism. Further, by far the largest source of grant funding in the world, committees of the US Congress, have been controlled by Republicans and representatives from coal and oil states, showing clear regulatory capture by the fossil sector, and in no way attracted to sensation. James Hansen's well-known suppression by the US government, the funding of denialists like UAH's weather satellite team of Spencer and Christy whom have been found manipulating NASA data to hide the rise eleven times without professional repercussion, in addition to publicly vowing as part of the Cornwall Alliance to deny all evidence for climate change, and on and on tells us you're making a claim that is audaciously wrong.
I only think the sea level issues aren’t fully understood and might not be 100% right by the scientists, because we don’t understand the amount of groundwater.
Ben Santer did something like this years ago, an exhaustive survey of every prediction reported by the IPCC. 95% of projections of harm turned out to be too conservative; the actual changes and losses were larger than predicted, often by orders of magnitude, and faster, nineteen times in twenty.
Perhaps they could do a video comparing climate scientists today and Exxon’s scientists from the 1950s that accurately predicted the global changes we’ve been experiencing. And then we could follow it with a slow roll of every congressional delegation from every fossil fuel state, one by one - so folks know who to vote against?
Regarding the link between CO2 and temperature: The historical record, including that promulgated by the IPCC has temperature peaks BEFORE peaks in CO2, not AFTER. This would imply the causal trigger is rises in global temperature and the effect is rises in CO2. This has to exclude the populist theory that rises in CO2 trigger temperature rises, where the argument is twisted to be the wrong way around. The scientific reason for the link is that global temperature rises trigger warming of the oceans and hence a release of dissolved CO2. The flip side when Earth cools CO2 is captured by the oceans and CO2 levels in the atmosphere decline. If you look at a chart of the Palaeolithic Time Period you can see peaks in temperature occurring roughly 100,000 years apart each followed by a peak of CO2 approximately 800 years later. It’s a simple chicken vs the egg problem. In each case the chicken {Temperature rise} occurs first and the egg {peak in CO2} comes second. This is not the model for global warming in action as the alarmists would have you believe. Source: IPCC report for scientists circa 2006, Patric Moore, one time Chairman of Greenpeace and currently independent Scientist / Commentator.
Well that's what's commonly known as a feedback loop, CO2 (or other factors such as Milankovich-cycles) causes a rise in global temperatures which in turn leads to rising CO2-levels, which then again lead to rising temperatures and so on. This is, btw, exactly what so many climate scientists keep warning us about. 😉
@pet Nope. Pythonic arguments over a dead parrot. In the past, orbital cycles over 20,000, 40,000, & 100,000 years have triggered warming, which caused a release of some CO2, which then became the driver of every warming. Feedbacks like ice melt, water vapor, etc. heighten it, but CO2 has been the driver in every one. Now, human-emitted CO2 that had been locked in deposits since the Carboniferous age 300 million years ago (plus other greenhouse gases emitted by chemical-industrial agriculture, deforestation, degrasslandization, demangrovization, & industrialization are driving the warming. CO2 is still the driver, as it has always been. But this time it’s human-caused CO2. "CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?” Skeptical Science The consensus has grown with the evidence: “More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change” Krishna Ramanujan, Cornell Chronicle, Cornell U. October 19, 2021 “Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature” Mark Lynas, Benjamin Z Houlton, and Simon Perry 19 October 2021 IOP Publishing Ltd “10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change” Skeptical Science, 30 July 2010 Look at the Patrick Moore page on Desmog. “Response to Patrick Moore's "What They Haven't Told You about Climate Change”” Potholer54 video “Lobbyist Claims Monsanto's Roundup Is Safe To Drink, Freaks Out When Offered A Glass” "Climate Science Denier Patrick Moore Paid by Coal Lobbyists EURACOAL To Speak To EU Officials and Members of Parliament Kyla Mandelon, Desmog, Mar. 14, 2016 "What President Trump, Fox and Breitbart Are Not Saying About Climate Science Denier Patrick Moore" Graham Readfearn, Desmog, Mar. 12, 2019 "WUWT has a poll published today to guess what the minimum arctic sea ice extent is going to be for this year. So far approximately one third of the responders have submitted an answer that has already been exceeded. That’s basically about as dumb as calling a coin flip wrong after watching it land. erased comment on: Thinkprogress 8/31/2011 “The Murdoch media empire has cost humanity perhaps one or two decades of time in the battle against climate change“ Moore was NEVER chairman of Greenpeace. IOW, he lied about that, too. Calling him anything but a lying shill for fossil & fissile fuels, pesticides, tobacco, & other destructive industries is lying, too. As far as I can tell your “source” is nothing but what Moore himself, a scorned & excoriated liar-for-hire, said. He misrepresents science, consensus, his own history, & everything else. In front of Congress, no less, for which he could & should be prosecuted.
Nice to see you back, and what a good video to release with, I also watched this film just out of interest during my Ocean Science undergraduate degree, but critically looking at it raised some eyebrows from me, especially the oceanic componants...
18:45 "content is served to us algorithmically" made me chuckle, the video has conditioned my brain to expect that last word to have something to do with Al Gore
The earths climate is ever changing and has always changed. I’m older than you and I remember when in the 70s we were told climate change would include a resurgence of and ice age by now. Also heard was that most costal areas would be flooded out by now in the 80s and there would be no more polar bears. Al gore also was an owner and profited from many climate scare related industries like solar. He also purchased a lot of bit coin before it was available for public purchase. Money was his main driver. I detest the amount of garbage polluting our world and I think that is a much bigger cause for concern. I also question “science” since “experts” forced a covid vaccine on all when it wasn’t really necessary. Data supports my previous statement. Solar is a good idea, but the world cannot be run by solar that only is here on earth.
In 2022, the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) reported the highest levels of coral cover across two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in over 36 years. 😂
@Frum Corals all over the world have suffered numerous very stressful bleaching events as the world has warmed. Some have recovered, some have partly recovered but are weaker, many have died. Earth continues to warm faster & faster, so corals will become extinct unless they’re saved by massive emergency government action to stop using fossil fuels & chemical industrial agriculture. The lunatic far right wing needs to stop denying reality.
@Frum "Global climate change is now considered to be the biggest long-term threat to Australia’s coral reefs, with many under threat from increased temperatures and changes in ocean circulation patterns. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans is also causing increased ocean acidification.” Know who said that? The Australian Institute of Marine Science. (AIMS, “Coral") Science & scientists overwhelmingly agree that coral is threatened with extinction because of climate catastrophe & other human pollution.
@Frum "Above-average water temperatures led to a mass coral bleaching event over the austral summer of 2021/22, the fourth event since 2016 and the first recorded during a La Niña year.” "Nearly half of the surveyed reefs (39 out of 87) had hard coral cover levels between 10% and 30%, while almost a third of the surveyed reefs (28 out of 87) had hard coral cover levels between 30% and 50%.” “In periods free from intense acute disturbances, most GBR coral reefs demonstrate resilience through the ability to begin recovery. However, the reefs of the GBR continue to be exposed to cumulative stressors. The prognosis for the future disturbance regime suggests increasing and longer-lasting marine heatwaves, as well as the ongoing risk of outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish and tropical cyclones. Therefore, while the observed recovery offers good news for the overall state of the GBR, there is increasing concern for its ability to maintain this state.” That’s scientist-speak for Holy shit! Time to panic! Sorry you didn’t recognize it. "Long-Term Monitoring Program Annual Summary Report of Coral Reef Condition" The Australian Institute of Marine Science, 2021/22 But what about 2023, the hottest year in 125,000 years? "Chris Gloninger on Gobsmacking Ocean Heat” This Is Not Cool, Feb/Mar. 2024 "Current Ocean surface temperatures at once-in-256,000 year level. That sounds bad. Is that bad?"
As a transportation system planner, I question how global warming is supposedly addressed solely with "renewable" energy and "electrifying everything." Of the 3 basic EV drivetrains (BEV all-battery vs PHEV plug-in hybrid vs hydrogen fuel cell HFCEV), which of the 3 offers the most benefits, applications and potential to reduce fuel/energy consumption, emissions AND insane traffic? The correct answer is PHEV which could logically serve 65% future EV needs. BEV serves the remainder in lightweight and short-distance travel needs. Hydrogen fuel cell has no serviceable EV application because 'combustible' hydrogen in the ICEngine of a PHEV+H drivetrain stores at much lower pressure in smaller-safer tanks and can deliver at least twice the equivalent MPG possible in HFCEVs. PHEV+H tech is especially applicable to long-haul freight trucks. The huge battery packs of BEV freight trucks (500+kwh) will deplete and must be replaced at 150k -200k miles. Distribute the same battery resource to 'FIVE' 100kwh PHEV packs (which also last 150k-200k miles) and they collectively deliver 750k to 1million miles plus cost less to replace. The real problem is we drive too much, too far, for too many purposes. We truck and ship essential commodities too far, ship air freight, fly for recreation and otherwise play with motorized big boy toys entirely too much. There is no getting around these facts with "electrifying everything" business as usual.
Polar bears swim very well, in fact. Inuit have observed over decades seeing them well out to sea swimming and hunting, since water in the summer is a fact of life for them. I would also note that there exists lots of data around sea levels, which have changed very little over a hundred or more years.
I am inclined to add that CO2 and temperature, seemingly in lock step is not proof of anything. If you plot ice-cream sales and shark attacks on the US Eastern seaboard you get excellent correlation but eating ice-cream does not cause shark attacks, clearly, it's just that more people eat ice-cream and get into the sea when the weather is good. In fact, the oceans store much more CO2 than the atmosphere and release it when they warm and take more in when they cool. Further in geological time frames CO2 and temperature spend more time moving in opposite directions, something never mentioned by climate alarmists. The IPCC was never and is not an independent scientific body, on the contrary they were hired to find anthropogenic climate change to help justify UN "Climate Change" policy. I think you are being far too kind to Al Gore in this video, my biggest critique of him offering ordinary folk advice on changing to energy efficient light bulbs etc (which of course people have done when they were economically viable) is that he runs multiple homes with huge electricity bills, jets around the world burning enormous amounts of CO2 while telling us to do the opposite.
Thats the thing though, they are not in lock step. Sometimes CO2 goes up then temperature goes up and sometimes temp goes up then CO2 goes up. This is more suggestive of a common cause than a direct causative effect on their own. The entire premise of CO2 causing global warming is absurd at its core. It would be like doing their flawed hotbox experiments that were retracted, taking CO2 out of the air in the box and then breathing in it somewhere withing a square mile or so to add faint CO2 from your breath into the box. There is almost no CO2 released from humans on the grand scale of things. @@andylitespeed
@@seditt5146 You and ya mates (the echo chamber), the wilfully ignorant contrarians, continuing to make up hilariously mischievous narratives full of tired old silly themes, that don't explain a single thing about the situation, LOL. Keep trying entertaining us. Thanks.
The editing, guest scientists are all amazing. Framing the video around the 9 problems that the UK investigation had + 1 more was really compelling and inspired. Look forward to seeing more!
The big real issue is at this time we do not have the ability to remove large volumes of CO2 from the atmosphere. There is lag in emissions (currently at 422 ppm from 280 ppm CO2). So as we reach 1.5 C over preindustrial within the next 3 years massive melting is guaranteed. We may have reached enough lag with positive feedback that Greenland melting over a century or two may be guaranteed. 2 meters of sea level by 2070 WILL happen and reduction of our food supply WILL happen resulting in large scale starvation (not millions but hundreds of millions). These effects are no longer avoidable.
At current costs offsetting CO2 with capture would cost ~$2 trillion per year. Increase that to $3 trillion per year and we will be moving back to 300ppm. 2-3% of global GDP per year to save the world is perfectly achievable technologically. Still won't happen.
@@Crispr_CAS9 I agree it won't happen. I am aware we can scub the atmosphere but I was unware of the cost (thank you). I'd be happy if we just slowed emissions but we keep increasing. Very scary stuff.
@@Crispr_CAS9 Actually, with tree planting and harvest, and basalt fines weathering on farm fields, the cost would be only about 10% of your estimate, and the profits from harvest of wood and crops would more than offset the investment. If you mean using those uneconomical methods involving factories? Yeah. Those are impossible and wrong, economically and pragmatically.
@@bartroberts1514 "Actually, with tree planting and harvest, and basalt fines weathering" Trees and basalt are substantially more expensive than the methods I'm citing. Tree planting is especially bad, with organizations promoting it usually citing removal rates >10x higher than actual observations.
@@Crispr_CAS9 Intriguing claims. Cite? I mean, the carbon per ton of lumber is a pretty well-known number, and pyrolysis converts 70% of that to inert biochar, while the rest becomes biofuel displacing fossil, and all at a profit. Basalt fines act as soil amendment -- as does biochar -- to create higher crop yields, and is essentially free byproduct of making basalt fiber to displace steel in rebar and fiberglass in structural materials, so is also done at a profit. So I don't see how you believe your numbers work.
I have to comment on your statement that peoples of pacific islands are not evacuating due to sea level rises. We, in Australia are already making plans to take in residents of these islands due to sea level rise. Although these people are relocating to different areas within their nations at the moment due to constant inundations due to sea level rise, it won't be long before they can't do that any more and other countries have to take them in. Movement is happening, even if it can't really be called evacuations as such right now. There are negotiations happening and talks about how to deal with 'statelessness' happening every day.
A rising sea level isn't merely a problem of gradual change, as it seems many people may imagine it. The slow contamination of low-lying resources is certainly a problem, but the process of sporadic storm surges of higher and higher wave action is a bigger threat. The last storm tide reached a certain level, but the next one in a few years will not cause "gradual change," but could result in unprecedented catastrophic damage. Advance preparations are essential, so it is good to hear that Australian leaders are already at work.
@@misterlyle. Also, equipartition of sea level rise is a myth in another way. Evidence from iceberg raft debris found in core samples suggests that sea level rise mainly happens intermittently in sub-decadal surges of several meters at a time. Why? Well, the Lake Agassiz episode is a prime example: an ice dam breaks leading to inundation, with a positive feedback of a small amount of sea level rise breaking more ice dams globally. Currents shift, leading to even more sea level rise on one side of the ocean, causing more positive feedback.
@@bartroberts1514 Thanks for the response, Bart. I haven't heard of Lake Agassiz before now, but I have heard of a similar ancient glacial reservoir, Lake Missoula which helped creatively shape the geography of North America.
The melting of arctic sea ice does not contribute to sea level rise as you state at 5:00. The arctic sea ice is already floating, when it melts it displaces exactly the same amount of water as it did in ice form. So, it does not contribute at all to any rise in sea level. I appreciate the overall message of the video, though I think you are giving the climate-change fearmongers much more slack than they deserve. It actually isn't clear what will happen in this century. It may turn out that the fear was mostly unfounded.
That would be a good point, except you aren't co sidering the volume of sea ice that floats above the surface. Also, we've already seen that the claims aren't unfounded
@@spookus5430 Come on, dude. Ice is less dense than water and that is why some ice is above the surface when a block of ice is floating. When floating ice melts it displaces that same amount of water as it did when it was in the form of Ice. This is just basic physics. If the ice on land melts, that could make the ocean rise, but the temperature in the Antarctic never gets close to the melting temperature. I don't think Greenland is in much danger of melting now either at this time.
I used to believe the climate hype. But then did my own research. If you look at Gore's BIG graph, you notice that temperature tracks quite well with CO2 right up to the 20th century; BUT there it stops! If CO2 drove temperature, we should've experienced +17C of warming, but we didn't. 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
@@spookus5430 No, he is right. Go fill a glass with ice water, measure the level before and after the ice melts. Spoiler - it will be the same. Only land-based ice raises sea level when it melts.
I think this video further illustrates how difficult it is to accurately capture something of tremendous complexity and nuance and then convey it in a manor for the masses.
It's pretty simple really. CO2 doesn't control the temperature of Earth and the Earth is historically cold right now, not historically hot. So the hypothesis is based on 2 lies, so it's false. Here's the data to prove my claims. Search : "Global temperature and atmospheric CO2 over geologic time/graph/images."
Thanks for making this. It’s important to acknowledge errors, particularly on our own ‘side’. Bad faith actors will use errors against us, which makes it tempting to deny them, but doing so just plays into their hands.
I've sadly found that these days an increasing number of people online are perfectly happy just to be on the "right side" rather than be arguing with actual facts and knowledge. If you point out logical errors or mistakes of fact in their arguments, they will often just accuse you of being opposed to what they are saying or worse, conservative.
@@Tinil0 Increasing? I've been on the internet since it was just IRC and document exchange. It's been this way always, just like face to face. And actual facts and knowledge require something deeper than mere trading of quips.
@@Tinil0 funny.....I've found the exact opposite to be true. The "left" considers the science to be "settled", no matter how many scientific arguments are shown that totally dispute the effects of man-made climate change. And to be clear, I do believe that man does have a measurable effect on our climate, but it's barely measurable and the Earth can handle that effect quite easily.
This film had many, many flaws. But what it was great at was getting people to focus on climate change and the impending issues that're plaguing the planet. So, I give VP Gore credit for making this issue known to the public, despite it's many flaws. It's just like how _Super Size Me_ changed the landscape of Fast Food culture, despite all of that documentary's issues.
I think it was unfortunately preaching to the converted but maybe my memory is faulty. Super size me was an unscientific stunt. Everyone already know the health risks of that kind of diet many c years before then.
The political impact of media can be really interesting because you can never know what's going to be the effect. Like, surely the general public would have cared about climate change at some point, but it just so happens that An Inconvenient Truth, a work by a politician, is what generated awareness. It's like how The Jungle, a _novel,_ was raised awareness about the meatpacking industry, even though it was intended to be a socialist story.
Exactomundo. There was no other Academy Award documentary describing global warming to the public. Al Gore really helped the Climate Change movement. Simon should NEVER have implied Gore might have actually diminished it
10:23 there is the fact that co2 lags the global temperature rise by about 800 years during the glacial-interglacial transition during an overall ice age, although that was caused by milankovitch cycles rising temperatures first by changing the amount sunlight hitting the polar ice caps in summer which melts the ice, reduces the albedo, and causes the planet to warm up, than co2 is degassed from the oceans (because co2 is less soluble in warmer water, it’s one reason why you store carbonated drinks like Soda cold), than that causes most of the warming after which is why we enter an interglacial period. So while the initial warming is caused by milankovitch cycles during a glacial-interglacial transition, most of the warming comes after co2 is degassed from the oceans which amplifies the warming. The forcing from milankovitch cycles alone isn’t enough to actually stop or start glacial cycles. Just thought I’d mention it because it is a misleading claim many climate “skeptics” make “because if co2 lags temps than it can cause it to rise”.
The lag of 800 years isn’t a definitive fact. More recent studies have found that the time difference is smaller or even that they happened so close that the order of what happened first is indistinguishable. It also has the problem that this idea is based on ice core data. Ice core data can only be collected in certain places and won’t tell what the global temperature is doing.
@@YraxZovaldo what study? Because co2 is not what initially ended glacial cycles and the glacial interglacial transitions line up perfectly with the milankovitch cycles. And co2 couldn’t rise if the oceans didn’t get warmer, something had to initially start it off. But most of the warming (I think like 90%, I need to check) following the initial warming is caused by more co2
@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI This paper for example: Marcott, S. A., Bauska, T. K., Buizert, C., Steig, E. J., Rosen, J. L., Cuffey, K. M., ... & Brook, E. J. (2014). Centennial-scale changes in the global carbon cycle during the last deglaciation. Nature, 514(7524), 616-619. I'm not saying that CO2 is the initial cause of warming. However, the idea that the 800 year lag is a fact, is wrong.
CO2 is now absolutely the only factor capable of warming the atmosphere. Nothing else has changed like GHGs, mainly CO2. Also, the last ice age ended because of a massive burp of CO2 from the Southern Ocean. "Boron isotope evidence for oceanic carbon dioxide leakage during the last deglaciation" - Marino, et al 2015
Criticizing An Inconvenient Truth? You're one of them! *grabs pitchfork. Seriously though, I always appreciate it when 'my side' is corrected. That means there's more knowledge to soak up. Thank you for this video.
Sea level rise is predicted to be between 1.3 to 1.6 meters by 2100, but the IPCC has consistently underestimated sea level rise in their projections, so the idea this is a lowball is plausible. Arctic Ocean is predicted to be sea ice free by between 2035 and 2040, known as the blue ocean event, is the acceleration turning point where global warming is out of humanity's hands. Solomon Islands are five Pacific islands which have already been submerged due to sea level rise, and a sixth, Tuvalu, home to 12,000 people, is likely to join them in the next few decades. Regarding Kilimanjaro, I have to ask how it's possible that mountains melting isn't attributed to global warming. There are so many locations where mountain glaciers are rapidly retreating.
see the note in the description - it seems the glaciers are retreating due to changes in precipitation, but that likely took place in the late 19th century and so likely due to natural climate change
@@SimonClark Industrial Revolution started in the 1700's. Which may well have driven those precipitation changes in the late 19th century (as in almost certainly did). Natural climate change hasn't happened at any point since human influences on land use and atmospheric content grew to push positive feedback loops past tipping points, likely for six thousand years or more, to some degree. Also, Greenland's ice sheet is only about 10% the size of the Antarctic ice sheet, and about equal to all the other ice sheets in the world combined, so that 7 meters of sea level rise from Greenland's melt over hundreds of years is only one eleventh of the total, and thermal expansion is more than half of sea level rise during that timeframe, so 7 meters over 1,000 years would be 7 meters over 1000/22 overall. There you go: as much as 7 meters in 50 years, on assumptions of equipartition.
@@chrisruss9861 There's numerous islands in the Solomons, five of which have sunk under the rising tide, six more are on the brink of going under in the coming years. Fortunately, none of them are heavily inhabited. There are other Pacific island nations which are in deep trouble, starting with Tuvalu. What China is doing is adding a lot more dirt and sand to existing atolls and rising them up. They're doing it for strategic military reasons, to claim control over the majority of the South China Sea, and in doing so are aggravating their neighbors and putting themselves at odds with US foreign policy. You'd think all this is a separate discussion from what global warming is doing to the oceans though.
Yes and big companies like Tesla what you to buy there cars that do more damage to the environment than most petroleum driven cars. The sourcing of rare minerals including lithium is extremely bad for the environment. But who cares about that?
Yep. The website 'De-Smog' records the finances paid by Fossil Fuel companies (which is to say - paid for by anyone who ever buys petrol or oil-fuelled anything at all) to produce climate/science denial which we see eevery day. I recommend it for more statistics and accountuing than anyone can stand. $billions spent so far... and rising. All to keep up their massive profits.
I was always a trifle leery about Al Gore’s film if only because he’s a politician. It’s the same with celebrities, film stars and the rest - it’s probably resentment at being talked down to by people who aren’t themselves experts. Nice video, Simon. But I am also a little cautious about your apparent - to the complete layperson ( see - nothing sexist here…) - reduction in the dangers by bringing in the geological timescales involved. My understanding is that the RATE of GG emissions is important, but it’s the TOTAL amount of carbon that is more relevant due to the geological timescales that it remains in the atmosphere before natural sequestration pulls it out of the equation: every kilogram just adds to the problem and increases the positive feedbacks. And in that respect of course the RATE of using up the carbon budget does matter since every addition makes the long term problem worse. My own - limited - meteorological and climatology education was well over half a century ago and was fairly superficial: I can still look at my tephigrams and remember how they work but that’s about it, but it does give an understanding of just how complex are the sciences involved and how each acknowledgement of the inaccuracies and gaps are leaped upon in the echochamber of ignorance to “prove” how the man at the other end of the saloon bar “knows better than these jumped-up experts.”
Great work and all, but can I just say one detail I think is important and was missed... is that Dr Simon has a WH40K box in his library and I think that's awesome.
I have data based on antarctic ice cores that says that the higher CO2 levels follow rising temperatures not the other way around. The last Ice Age ended about 10 to 12 thousand years ago. This means that we may be less than halfway through an inter-glacial period, hence, I would expect global avg temperatures to continue rising for a few more centuries or perhaps millennia with or without human contributions of CO2
One problem is that most Climate Scientists aren't scientists, they experts in consensus dogma and lack basic atmospheric and chemical backgrounds. Physical scientists flee Climate Science since it's a political minefield. If any physical result doesn't accord with the consensus dogma one's career is endangered. The result is a plethora of 'soft' scientists in Climate Science, but a dearth of good physical scientists.
I love your sentiments about climate deniers and 'clickbait'-ish climate activists. Similar methods employed by both sides, but for different motives and with different ethics; one attempts in aiding and guiding society *due to* science's discoveries and subsequent hypothesises and advice, and the other... well, doesn't. In a culture (especially online) where everything needs to be snappy and scary to get our attention (and to get us to act/shout-out), it may well be a necessary evil to be almost unscientific in our way of 'educating' to mitigate the worst of climate change's effects... but as you said, there's a fine line, because the science speaks for itself too, and surely that should be enough motivation without half-truths! An interesting one for sure. Thank you very much for the video, glad to see you're back, and take care!
@wombatcom Both the judge and Simon pointed out that the film was mostly true not half true. It pointed out things that will happen if nothing is changed and there has been some sea level rise, temperature rise, and some effect on hurricanes. If we wait longer the reversibility will decline because with the melting of the permafrost more and more methane will be generated and/or will escape. Methane is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2.
I’m trying to find out how to buy property in Antarctica for when the ice melts and the land becomes fertile in a few years. I want to be ahead of the next pioneer movement.
@@aceman0000099 It will take many decades if not centuries to build soil & infrastructure to support substantially more people than live there now. Climate is a moving target now & will rarely coexist with those other things that make “civilized" life possible. It’s extremely unlikely there will be a time for the next thousand years when those things come together with a tolerable climate in any places bigger than tiny enclaves.
@@J4Zonian a thousand years is a bit of a stretch. In 200 years we will maybe have floating cities in the ocean and a colony on Mars or two. Population will have declined for almost 100 years at that point, maybe back down to 9 or 8 from a peak of 10 billion. So after enough resource wars and immigration crises, the world will be a lot different and much more effort will be put into fixing the climate. So by 2300 the world should be back to a decent shape
I read the judge's decision. You missed the mark on what he said about the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature. He stated that, though there is correlation between the two, close examination revealed that CO2 increases lagged temperature increases. Thus, the graph more likely indicated that increased temperatures caused increased CO2 levels, not that increased CO2 caused increased temperatures. There might be other evidence that CO2 increases cause increased temperatures, but this graph does not qualify.
I'm still struggling here. Given evaporation from the oceans due to heat increases CO2 in the atmosphere, do we know CO2 is at the root of climate change, or is it merely a CONSEQUENCE of climate change and we need to look elsewhere? We're using models that think you can have negative cloud cover and don't know fresh water freezes as 0 C. Instead of fixing the physics, they've added fudges to stop these errors, and that tells me the models aren't accurate. Before we impoverish the western world by switching off all fossil fuels (which, btw, would also remove clothing, computers, phones, windfarms and solar panels, shoe soles, eye glasses, medicines, medical equipment, food deliveries to northern climes in winter, and just about everything else that has ensured the flourishing of humans on Earth since they are ALL based on on oil derivatives), wouldn't it be a good thing to be absolutely CERTAIN increased CO2 is CAUSING increased temps and not the other way around? Wouldn't it be a good idea to make the models accurate to actual physics instead of using ad-hoc fudges to conform to a political agenda? Shouldn't we be paying more attention to the satellite temperature data (which says the temperature hasn't gone up that much) rather than weather stations that are being surrounded by urban sprawl or are next airports? Might it be an idea to move the CO2 sensors off the Hawaiian islands (known for volcanic activity) and base them somewhere there is NO volcanic activity? Also, if CO2 (plant food, remember, which was at 1,000 ppm when primates first evolved -- the optimum level for plant life and the level we pump it into greehouses) IS the driving force, and neither China nor India have ANY intention to stop their use, what difference will it make to starve and impoverish the advanced countries which have the equipment and money to find solutions?
I don’t know if you actually think these things, but we know co2 causes a green house effect, we know we are responsible for a certain amount of it. We also know that the warming taking place is causing acceleration of the warming do to methane escaping from thawing permafrost. We know things need to be done to mitigate the warming, and that the longer we wait, the worse it will get.
Dude, heat does not evaporate water, it needs to be goimg towards boiling point for this to happen. Photons from the sun, (light ) breaks aprts h20 to create evaporation, not too far away from photosynthesis when photons react with plants.
First of all, I'm glad you are asking good questions and seem to have decent understanding despite your skepticism of the subject, which is understandable. I'll try to help you with the answers as much as I can. A) Simon has another good video about how we can tell it's carbon dioxide that is trapping heat in our atmosphere, you should check that out. B) nobody's planning to shut down most or all industry, hardly even tone it down. The plan is to decarbonise mainly by swapping out power plants (personally I'm super in favour of nuclear power) and transitioning to EVs, then each industry individually trying to reduce carbon emissions e.g. the cement manufacturers. There are details in Simon's other videos and you can likely see what your local green party is proposing (although they'll never get elected 😄) C) I've heard this argument that measurements are being taken in dubious places, and it's not entirely wrong but it's cherry picking. Measurements are being taken all over the earth and also in the sky with weather balloons. If you think it's silly that the hottest temperature on record was measured near an airport, that's fine, just ignore that and look at the hottest temperatures recorded in a neutral area, or indeed look at the average temperatures over large regions. You will see significant changes, not just increasing but also decreasing in some areas. The average global trend is a combination of measurements from all over the world though, not sure how you could argue with that. D) I know it wasn't your point but the mention of CO2 as plant food does seem counterintuitive, I know, but the main issue is that plants aren't able to adapt quick enough to absorb the new CO2 we are creating. Previously we have had way more, true, but the change in levels was much, much slower over thousands of years. The second is that the change we have seen, e.g in crops grown recently, is not entirely good anyway. Simon has covered this. Basically, more carbon content in plants just means more sugar created, instead of nutrients like vitamins. We don't actually want to reduce CO2 levels to pre-industrial levels, closer to 1850-1900 levels are usually the target in fact. Because it's about minimising the rate of change overall, as much as it is about keeping the earth temperate. E) China and India do have intentions to decarbonise, especially China, and they have in fact already lower CO2 emissions per person than the U.S. has. So the US needs to catch up to China, if anything. Again, nobody intends to 100% stop using fossil fuels, the plan is usually to capture the carbon from any such use and store it underground or in plants to mitigate the emissions impact. Likewise, there is a growing debate about how African and other developing nations should be allowed to develop with fossil fuels or not. Since Europe had the advantage of no restrictions when they industrialized, it wouldn't be "fair" to stop Nigeria from developing because of climate change policy. The other issue is that these southern nations are disproportionately more likely to be affected by climate change, and natural disasters will force millions of Africans and South Americans to migrate north, to safety. Nobody wants that.
@@stephenbermingham6554that's not fully true. Heat is actually measuring the average molecular kinetic energy. Each molecule can vary outside this average. And some molecules can individually have enough energy to evaporate despite their neighbours being slower. Increasing temperature effectively increases the likelihood of this happening, which is why water can partially evaporate out of a glass in sunlight. It won't all vapourise though.
DUDE, we know burning of fossil fuels dumps 70 million tons of CO2 a day into the atmosphere! I don't think it's a leap of logic to attribute higher CO2 to this fact!....70 million tons a day sounds significant to me???
There is a classic error at 5:00 that may be present in the Gore presentation. Melting (floating) sea ice causes a sea level rise. According to Archimedes it doesn’t.
FFS. That's NOT what Gore said. Melting sea ice reduces albedo, leading to faster warming which leads to thermal expansion of seawater, which is over half of all sea level rise. Melting land ice in the Arctic and elsewhere leads to more mass of seawater, which is almost half of all sea level rise.
That's not what's being demonstrated in that example. That's part of a longer clip, ice that's floating in water doesn't make the water level rise and they say that in the film but iced that stacks all the way to the sea floor (in that animation, the stack of ice cubes goes all the way to the bottom of the glass) or is otherwise sitting on land does because it's adding new water to the system.
@@AlRoderick what’s being said here is :”Greenland is melting, arctic sea ice is melting … and both are contributing to the sea level rise” But thank you to mention “sea ice that is on land”
@@2adamast That's a good point. Of course, the melting of polar sea ice does contribute to sea level rise, but only indirectly, by lowering the ocean's albedo, creating positive feedback. Without stating that carefully, it sounds as if the contribution is direct, as it is for continental ice sheets. Even land ice contributes to sea level rise more indirectly than people usually think, since the gravitational effect on ocean water means that different coastlines will have different rises in sea level as the Greenland ice sheet melts.
@@TheHunterGracchus Does it create positive feedback? The arctic ocean has a very low sun, thus a lot of reflection (50% at 20°), while it has a water surface that can freely radiate between 48° to 90°. Could be alike a permanent sunrise without any clouds cooling
Try it again with a larger ice chunk in a bowl, only this time the ice chunk breaks the plane of the water surface so that it’s above the height of the bowl.
Revisiting older documentaries is really helpful for context. Are there any similar videos for the Michael Moore renewables film that a lot of greens I know found misrepresentative?
Wouldn't it be great, though, if Dr. Clark revisited the errors in "The Great Global Warming Swindle" by UK Communist Party co-founder Martin Durkin? Or the errors in the statements of the UK taxpayer funded coal-industry driven GWPF? The errors in the Idsos' "CO2 Science" websites? The errors in WUWT? The errors in Climate Audit? The errors in Warwick Hughes' claims that sparked what became Climategate? I mean, Ayn Rand was wrong and Einstein right. Why belabor the wrong views of the Ayn Rands of the world?
@davyhotch That is a great question. I believe that the Michael Moore film has a very pessimistic outlook. I'd like to investigate to learn if there have been substantial improvements in solar, wind, batteries, geothermal, hydrogen and hydroelectric technology since then? I would also like to see the information about biomass's destructivity made well known and this exposed as just as harmful as using filthy fossil fuels. I do think that the Moore film is beneficial in that it brings up the elephant in the room which is the human population currently being beyond the carrying capacity of ecosystems on Earth - especially with regard to the extra energy required for all of the technology we now demand to have at our fingerprints. I believe each woman should have only one child whereby each generation will be halved. However, I am not optimistic that any great headway will be achieved in instituting such a policy. I believe Moore's film shows that although it is going to exact heavy costs, installing individual passive and active energy methodology, more large scale housing, and more underground residency are preferable to huge corporations continuing to supply the brunt of our energy and so much of our arable land being plastered with postage stamp individual housing units. Techniques to save more of our bath and dishwater and capture runoff for agricultural applications are also needed. What do you think?
1) I'm on board with the sci consensus of Climate Change 2) I was in school when I watched An Inconvenient Truth 3) At the time I didn't think it was convincingly scientific because it sounded like correlation not causation 4) communicators like Simon and others have become so great at communicating it so I have understood more of how it is scientifically supported.
.. and now you'll rally and lobby for immediate useful action by governments to curtail fossil extraction down to zero by 2030, avoid methane emissions, replace fossil with alternatives, drawdown CO2 faster, increase conservation and energy efficiency programs?
The tiny period of time we have studied climate is not enough to make any long term prediction. The climate has and will always will change. There has been many changes in the history of earth.
I have to applaud your strength of will in not calling this video "An inconvenient truth about An Inconvenient Truth." That aside, thank you Dr Clark for giving a detailed and nuanced exploration of the topic; while it's good to get people engaged with the problem of climate change, proper solutions require accurate information.
@sathreyn9699 We have more accurate information now two decades later. You certainly don't think knowing faierly accurately about a problem means you have to have the solution 20 years in advance do you?
@@Rick-yk5qb It is incredible to believe that the human population with it's ingenuity having created a technology that uses so much energy would not have an accelerating impact on the Earth.
@@vernonfrance2974 Science isn't about what you believe, it's about what you can prove. I can prove CO2 doesn't control the temperature of Earth and that's all I need to falsify the hypothesis. Would you like to see the proof? Search : "Global temperature and atmospheric CO2 over geologic time/graph/images." Do you see atm. CO2 and temperatures going in opposite directions? Yes, therefore CO2 doesn't control the temperature of Earth and the hypothesis is false. That's how science works.
well one political side still denies basically everything about climate change, so yeah. maybe we can start saying it is their fault instead of apologizing for our correct position all the time? on the other hand, i understand where you are coming from, but i feel like releasing the video with a thumbnail with the word "WRONG." in red font (edit: it's not red, the line confused me, my bad), all caps doesn't exactly help your argument against sensationalism.
Except both political sides contribute to the ~$6 TRILLION a year in global fossil extraction subsidies. Looking past their words to their actions, all politicians are making this worse, or at least not doing what is needed to end the threat of famine, fire and flood from fossil: curtail fossil extraction 2% per month down to zero by 2030.
Their fault? Are you senile? If this nonsense were true, then it would be down to humans using energy since the industrial revolution. All humans. Specifically industries, not individuals. If people disagree with it doesn't make them responsible for your climate change. Do you just need someone to hate? Luckily, it's just nonsense. Put your energy elsewhere, like your family and children.
False. These days scientists ARE starting to talk about metres of SLR this century, due to the imminent loss of the Thwaites glacier. And the acceleration of warming in general. Thermal expansion. Loss of Greenland ice, Himalayas etc
Common trick. Your father has one life. Buy this snake oil for 200 dollars. It may or may not cure your father, ....//in invisible print//:: but will certainly enrich me. 😉
@@theeraphatsunthornwit6266 who says my father has one life? What if I strongly believe he has several? Maybe that will make it so. And what snake are we talking about?
in my lab, the local german television came to record a documentary. They wanted catchy videos, so the professor just outright made up interpretations on a blank sample because they redid it 50 times :')
Anyone notice something odd about Al Gore's graph shown at 10:23 in this video? When you compare two elements in a line chart, you're supposed to overlay the lines so you can directly compare them. I've never seen a graph where the two lines are separated like they are Al Gore's movie. Fortunately, in an ABC TV special, John Stossel brought the top graph directly down over the lower and found that the rise in CO2 consistently lagged the rise in temperature. So if there were a causal relationship here, it would be that change in temperature causes a similar change in CO2. I guess that's what Al was trying to hide with his clever slight of hand. Incidently, the chart goes back several thousand years. If I'm not mistaken, that was before the discovery of fossil fuel. I wonder what made the CO2 go up and down so dramatically then.
@fo What I wonder is how people can be so absurdly stupid, or pretend to be, paying any attention to a mercenary ideological toadstool like Stossel, or TVMOB, or any of the other psychopatholes who have used this same trick over the last 20 or 30 years. They’re the ones with the constant, varied sleights created by the insane right wing’s science denial & disinformation industry. Sane people should read the science.
So you’re blaming the messenger? Al Gore made it too personal and that’s why anti-climate-change people don’t believe it? Rather, I think those against it have a vested interest in keeping things as they are, either for short term gain or for political purposes. These factors would remain regardless of Al Gore. What Al Gore did was make the issue known. And knowing is not an error. It’s the first step in correcting the problem.
Ice floating in water displaces the same amount of water as liquid water. Thus, whenever the arctic sea ice melts it has no significant impact on sea level. If you take a glass of ice water & measure the water level before the ice melts & after it melts it should be the same (If you are in an arid environment some of the water will evaporate more so than if you were in a humid environment as well as your elevation may impact that as well.). Now ice on dry land that melts if it makes it to the oceans can cause the levels in the ocean to rise. Also, you forgot to point out that the hockey stick was found to be based on a lie that tree ring data is a good substitute for a lack of actual temperature data. If you compared the two further than he did in that film you will find that the correlation stops matching up. Tree ring growth is based on more than just the temperature. The film & your video both ignore the fact that the output from the sun varies based on a cycle which impacts how much energy is available to cause any changes in weather. Another related factor is that the Earth's tilt off the plane it orbits on varies over time which can also change summer & winter times along with other complicated variations in the Earth's orbit around the sun. I think you & Al Gore both oversimplified the model as well as using bad data for the inputs. You might want to read "An Inconvenient Book" as it points out several possible issues with the movie that you missed. IIRC it also listed sources. It has been too long since the one time I streamed that movie on Netflix to remember if Al Gore did or didn't include any sources for where his data came from.
The big elephant in the room that shows most reporting of AGW is simply wrong is the reporting on heat waves leading to negative outcomes (deaths). While it is true that heat waves lead to increased deaths, warming leads to far fewer deaths from the cold. Cold kills many times more people than heat. In other words, a warming world leaves us better off in this regard.
I completely disagree with this. Yes, there is some sensationalism in the film, this misses the point entirely. If you don’t think that the crisis is as urgent as Gore said it is, then you haven’t been following the latest news, and you don’t understand the *exponential* part of the crisis. It happens painfully slow at first. Then, it accelerates to the point you can see changes in real time. Then, multiple tipping points are crossed, and huge, rapid acceleration begins and cascading events occur. To downplay this is both shortsighted and irresponsible. I will add that I do like most of your videos. My problem is with this dismissal of rapid acceleration.
Did you actually read what you wrote? Or did your brain just stop functioning because of your emotional outburst? Firstly, and I’m not a climate denier, but to say the earth is hurtling towards utter chaos, collapse, and destruction, is monumentally wrong. Your statement makes it sound like you have seen this all before, which you haven’t. The climate has changed many, many times over the earth’s entire existence, and nothing, and I repeat, nothing is going to change that. The fact that plant life thrives in CO2 levels of between 300ppm, to 2000ppm, should indicate that extra CO2 levels are not such a concern. Nearly every living organism on this planet needs CO2 to survive, without it, or lower it to much will end up being more harmful than having to much. Primates emerged when CO2 levels were higher than 1000ppm. And considering that every IPCC report has so many variables that it’s a wonder how it even exists. Take the so called scientific experts on Polar Bears, AIT says Polar Bears are screwed, but the actual Inconvenient Truth is that polar bear numbers have been growing steadily since 1975, when a Canadian led moratorium on SHOOTING them was put in place, you see it wasn’t climate change, it was trophy hunters that were reducing polar bear numbers. There were around 3,000 polar bears left in 1975, NOW! It is estimated that they number about 40 to 50,000+, and the Inuit council in Nunavut have allowed the shooting of polar bears, only in self defence, because of the rising numbers. As for coral reefs, the Australian Institute of Marine Science, recently published a study, all be it hard to find (strangely enough), that shows the Great Barrier Reef, has a higher coverage than in 1985, reaching nearly 50% coverage, and still climbing, which puts paid to the doomsday predictions for coral reefs. And believe it or not, the pacific island of Tuvalu is actually getting bigger, this observation is from the University of Auckland over 4 decades. And what do you think happens to those massive blades on wind turbines? They are not recyclable, they are just BURIED in the ground when they are replaced, so much for “Green Energy”. That’s some of the actual Inconvenient Truth.
5:04 Simon states that sea ice melting contributes to sea level rise. This is inaccurate, because floating ice displaces its own weight once it melts, which means that it won't affect sea level. This can easily be demonstrated by filling a glass of water to the brim, with ice floating in it. Once the ice melts, the water level does not spill over the top of the glass, rather it stays at the same level. Land-based ice melting, and running into the oceans, however, will raise sea level. BTW: Ice and water can be at the same temperature.
If the floating ice is massive enough then gravitational attraction between it and the sea will raise the local sea level significantly. Consequently you cannot use Archimedes principle to argue that the ice melting won't result in a sea level rise somewhere.
Respect to all the viewers here that RUclips's algorithm suggesting might like such a nuanced, thoughtful, and well cited video ...despite it seemingly off-putting title "The Many Errors of An Inconvenient Truth". For decades, big oil and the Heritage Foundation has funded so much misleading media trying to counter scientific consensus that I was surprised and hesitant to click this one. But everything stated is entirely fair and well sourced. Thank you Simon. And thanks to everyone seeking nuance and still willing to hear out potentially conflicting viewpoints.
It’s interesting to se the development of a tropical wheat (Brazil) because it holds the promise of greater food security in tropical countries now reliant on imports. It’s claimed to have a 15% protein content, 10% higher over regular wheat. There are still huge problems of water and seasonal weather chaos. If humans cannot survive heat waves, like seen in Asia and are driven out, I don’t know how much wheat can even matter. Also destruction of the water supply throughout Asia carrie’s ramifications to industry, transport and municipal water supply.
Brazil here. Yes EMPBRAPA has developed over the past 4 decades strains of wheat that can withstand warmer climes but still, that doesn't mean we've come up with a "tropical" wheat, like we do bananas, coffee, and mangoes. Wheat can only be cultivated in the highlands of southern Brazil where winter is mild and can reach below-freezing temps. However, the weather down south has been so finicky that this year's harvest is being greatly compromised. Not just wheat, but corn, soy, etc. That being said, we´ll have to come to grips with food insecurity worldwide, including in the northern hemisphere. We have actually topped the USA as the greatest producer of food in the world (Wow!) but frankly, things don't look good here and in Argentina as we won't be able to compensate for American, Canadian and EU losses. We're toast sir.
@@martiusyamamoto1578 I was using its description. Your information is important. It may be the wheat variety can offer options to many countries who all face food security issues. I hope it can, but yes. I cover they worrisome aspects of food security as I have gleaned. The dry conditions up and down the Americas (central US, Central and South) are quite acute. The devastation of extreme weather on crops and farmland this year are quite unsettling and likely common in a warming future.
Am I the only one who noticed the incorrect animation at 4:43? (the ice in the glass--the ice below the waterline would DROP the water level...and only THEN would the ice above the water level begin to fill. Since the volume of the ice above the water level is less than or equal to the space in the glass above the water level, then it is not possible for the water to overflow the glass....
Yep. Melting sea ice is a problem in its own way, but the only way it contributes to rising sea levels is when the sea ice was a dam stopping the land ice siding down into the ocean. The actual sea level rise is always from that land ice.
Wasn't New York supposed to be underwater by 2020? Better let them know they're drowning. Oh, and tell all the politicians who own ocean front mansions to head for the hills. Good luck.
Another error of AIT: focus on sea level rise, when what's critical to coastal infrastructure and communities is storm surge rise, which is happening faster and more severely by far.
I appreciate your willingness to present a critique of “your side”. It shows the humility I’d like to see more from the scientific community. Like you, I was presented with a similar documentary in school back in the 70’s. Instead of Al Gore, it was Leonard Nemoy (Spock) Instead of global warming the scientific consensus according to all the data said the United States would be covered in a sheet of Ice by now. And we’d all be dead from freezing temperatures. In my 60 years of living, it’s been one false prediction after another. I wish scientists didn’t act like now they know everything, period. It’s so arrogant.
And yet, even in the late 70s, scientists were predicting the warming effects we are now seeing. Some did say the warming had an error rate of plus or minus 1.5 degrees, but they don't have to be exactly accurate to be true. Clark's other video, "Global Warming: the decade we lost Earth", shows this, and how the scientific truth was suppressed by government in the 1980s, it's brilliant! 😊
@wa Yes, those who can’t tell science from folklore bollox up the debate over this & a lot of other things. Not the scientists; they do just fine. People who trust Leonard Nimoy’s garbage sensationalist show over peer-reviewed science are also part of the problem. Scientific projections have been extremely accurate. I wish right wing dupes didn’t act like they knew anything.
3:50, where is your evidence that it will take “centuries”? Ice can melt very fast. We don’t know what the tipping point is, but they do exist at some temperature and weather conditions.
@@bnielsen56 yes, there is, the greenland ice sheet. the greenland ice is continental ice, its not floating on the sea, meaning if it melts it will contribute with sea level rise.
@@danilooliveira6580 The Greenland Ice Sheet extends from approximately 60° N to 80° N and thus is not in the polar zone, so don't say it's part of the Arctic. This is just more of the same misinformation that surrounds the issue - don't add to it. Also look up when was the last time it melted. Even in prior inter-glacial periods that were much warmer than today (>5egC), the ice never melted at the poles.
@er NOAA, NASA, IPCC, CSIO, other organizations, 99.9% of scientists & peer-reviewed papers disagree. But you know better. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Good one. To claim what you're claiming, you also have to claim that all climate scientists & most other scientists for 1 1/2 centuries have either been unbelievably stupid or completely corrupt, & so terrifying that unlike the Mafia, Stasi, KGB, Savak, US military, Masons, Skull and Bones, and professional magicians, not one word has ever leaked about this vast conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of trained scientists. Tool.
@stoodmuffinpersonal3144 I wouldn't necessarily trust google to be objective. I'm apolitical, but I know the vast majority of leadership and many key staff have a strong left wing ideological bias and donate heavily to one political party. Even if their intentions are of the highest aims, this political aspect makes their suggested result and AI summaries somewhat unreliable in my opinion. You should read the relevant scientific papers before holding any strong opinion.
That the film amounted to 'political indoctrination' of children is pretty funny, when you consider that you can easily argue the opposite - that the decision to censor the film, is exactly the same thing - and that it's political indoctrination but for climate denial. All education is a form of indoctrination on some level, what matters is what is the education/indoctrination is preparing you for? Is it teaching you to think critically for yourself or to passively accept things around you as you find them? Everything is political, even the choice to be apolitical is itself, a political choice.
Not errors at all. Right presentation and minimal speculation to make people act asap. And now retrospectively we're understanding that wasn't enough to awake political will on time. You will never move people from sofa with your-style vague statements, Gorr is a politician and he knows how to direct people
Simon, I am very surprised that you did not mention the most serious error of the film: the climate temperature "hockey stick". Completely omitting the Medival Warm Period (900 - 1300 AD, when Greenland was actually green) and the Mini Ice Age (1300 - 1850). It is also interesting to note that climate alarmists like Obama, Gore and Keery all own beachfront property that would be flooded if Sea Rise was a serious issue. It is a known fact that climate activists are always making wild, shrill predictions of climate catastrophe because they want people to take action. I would recommend that you review Dr Rich Lindzen's video, "Climate Change: What do Scientists Say?". It shows a graph of Global Warming starting around 1850, long before human activity was a significant factor.
"Completely omitting the Medival Warm Period" The MWP was not globally coherent, the average global temperature was actually lower then than now. "Obama, Gore and Keery all own beachfront property" This is, by a wide margin, the stupidest argument denialists make. It's shockingly dumb, for so many reasons it's hard to know where to start. But here's the short form: Rich people want to live by the beach, and they don't care if it'll flood in 100 years.
No: Greenland is not melting (right now), nor are islands disappearing, nor are ice bears drowning: ice bears live in the water, where they hunt for food.
Greenland has actually been ADDING to its ice mass over the last decade. The summertime Arctic ice extent has been constant since 2007. The CDN has a whole series on sea levels - historic and modern - proving the sea level rise is and has been about 3mm per year. ... next?
Amen. I really want a video doing a deep dive on predictions that actually came true. It would be a short video. Much better would be a video about table pounding predictions that made headlines that were made by prominent people that didn't come true.
@@localkauf The source for Greenland gaining mass is usually some blog that misrepresents information from the Danish meteorological institute. I see Polar Portal has been misrepresented so much it now has to explain the difference between surface mass balance and total mass balance in red capitals. Arctic ice loss was running way ahead of models - PIOMAS shows September ice volume is still less than a third of what it was when satellite monitoring began in 1979. Sea level rise has accelerated to 3.3 mm/year from essentially zero before 1900 - see Bob Kopp, 'Global sea-level change over the Common Era' and also Guardian article 'Earth is warming 50x faster than when it comes out of an ice age'.
@@localkauf I just looked it up and i couldn't find a single source that showed the ice gaining. I find the majority of climate related "science" to be nonsense (models that have SO many assumptions as to make them virtually meaningless etc) but the greenland sheet does seem to be receding.
If you actually watch the video, it actually supports Gore's overall points and the seriousness of human-caused climate change due to anthropogenic CO2 & CH4: Quote:12:27 "British Justice Gore actually concluded that Gore's film was substantially founded upon scientific research and that the film's four scientific hypotheses were very well supported by research published in respected peer-reviewd journals".
What you're really saying: Give the fossil fuel industry a millimeter of discrepancy in your scientific rigour and they'll bog down climate negotiations for a century until its 4 degrees of warming not 1.5 and too late for any of us.
@@letzte_maahsname Correct but it does prove wrong gores statement "no more snow on Kilimanjaro". Here is a chart of temperature at the top going back to the 60swww.americanscientist.org/sites/americanscientist.org/files/20085291220246712-2007-07MoteF6.jpg
I appreciate your perspective and arguments even if I disagree. 1. There is no evidence that CO2 will cause runaway heating which seems to be the most common extreme position of climate activists. Large-scale multivariate systems with no overwhelming and dominating factor ever cause a runaway state, and that is what we see with Climate. According to prehistoric climate data, we know that CO2 was two orders of magnitude higher, and yet the Earth still cooled and life existed. 2. Climate models don't account for solar variation, cloud cover, or the infinite heat sink of space. These three factors are major contributors to climate and without accounting for them we can never expect climate models to be accurate.
Have you actually checked what you wrote here, that is your reasons to 'disagree'? 1. Well, scientists generally think a moist runaway greenhouse effect like happened on Venus won't happen for 500 million years (when the Sun will be brighter). But if you are referring to other tipping points, yes very credible research shows risks of permanent change and even possibilities of mass extinction. I'm pretty sure CO₂ has never been at 42,500 ppm at any point in the Phanerozoic. Yes, it was even higher in the Archaean, but then life was all single-celled, the Sun was much fainter, and the sky was pink. 2. Climate models certainly account for loss of heat to space, that's fundamental. Clouds are approximated, often not well. Models include the predictable 11-year solar cycle, and hypothetical future solar variations like a Maunder minimum has been modelled eg by Gerald Meehl. Kate Marvel: ruclips.net/video/Tmk7nAvpMXQ/видео.html
The problem with attribution modeling is that it assumes the models are accurate, and yet not a single public prediction on climate that I can find has ever been close to accurate. When I say close, I mean, did the predicted result get within 2X of the prediction, from my reading, it's never even close! A model that can't make predictions isn't a good model and so any type of attribution study based on a bad model isn't a good study.
? Sure doesn't seem like every model is wrong... www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right.amp
@je …a peer-reviewed study found that global climate models are even more accurate than previously thought. Robust comparison of climate models with observations using blended land air and ocean sea surface temperatures Kevin Cowtan, Zeke Hausfather, Ed Hawkins, Peter Jacobs, Michael E. Mann, Sonya K. Miller, Byron A. Steinman, Martin B. Stolpe, Robert G. Way agupubs onlinelibrary wiley "How accurate are scientific predictions about climate?”potholer54 doing what he does, debunking nonsense, this time on models "Correcting the underestimation in the current IPCC future average global temperature projections…" .jobone for humanity "Most Accurate Models Predict Highest Climate Warming" December 18, 2017 climatecrocks The difference between scenarios, projections, predictions and (weather) forecasts climate4impact eu impact portal The IPCC has underestimated the observed speed and direness of climate effects 20 times more often than it's overestimated or hit it exactly right. Over and over the most dire scenarios in studies have turned out to be the most accurate, and every aspect of climate catastrophe has moved faster than expected for decades, right up to this week: The extent of ice floating around the continent has contracted to below 2m sq km for 3 years in a row, indicating an ‘abrupt critical transition’ US National Snow and Ice Data Center, Guardian 24/2/2024 Scientists amazed as Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years early Reuters, June 18, 2019 "Scientists amazed as..." We've heard phrases like that hundreds of times over the last few decades-almost every time a new study of ice melt anywhere, for example, adds new scientific measurements to the accumulating data, AKA facts. “Antarctica sea ice reaches alarming low for third year in a row” How good have climate models been at truly predicting the future? 14 out of the 17 projections statistically indistinguishable from what actually occurred. In an upcoming paper in Geophysical Research Letters, Zeke Hausfather, Henri Drake, Tristan Abbott and I [Gavin Schmidt] took a look at how well climate models have actually been able to accurately project warming in the years after they were published. This is an extension of the comparisons we have been making on RealClimate for many years, but with a broader scope and a deeper analysis. We gathered all the climate models published between 1970 and the mid-2000s that gave projections of both future warming and future concentrations of CO2 and other climate forcings "IPCC Reviews Climate Models. Turns Out They’ve Been Spot On" This Is Not Cool, May 7, 2022 30th anniversary of Hansen’s testimony: “BBC Spot-on in 1988 - Warming will be Greatest in the Arctic” This Is Not Cool, June 24, 2018 “What we knew in 82” This Is Not Cool, 2018/06/24 “James Hansen's 1988 testimony after 30 years. How did he do?” youtube The first transient climate projections using GCMs are 30 years old this year, and they have stood up remarkably well. We’ve looked at the skill in the Hansen et al (1988) simulations before (back in 2008), and we said at the time that the simulations were skillful and that differences from observations would be clearer with a decade or two’s more data. Well, another decade has passed! realclimate Exxon predicted in 1982 exactly how high global carbon emissions would be today CO2 in the atmosphere has reached unprecedented levels. May 14, 2019 (thinkprogress exxon predicted high carbon emissions) Most things denying delayalists call “predictions" are really projections, parts of multiple sets of mathematical hypotheses in studies. On the other hand, the actual predictions by the denying delayalist industry have turned out to be way off over and over and over. Overwhelmingly. (skeptical science ice age predictions in 1970s) “Checkmate: how do climate deniers' predictions stack up?” The Guardian, Dec 19, 2017 David Evans (Jo Nova’s husband) makes a prediction. And another. and another… Oops. (hotwhopper 2016/02 another cool prediction from force-x) Climate science has been making remarkably good projections (1) since the 1970s (Nuccitelli 2015) and IPCC projections are on track. (2) Meanwhile even recent “predictions” (3) by Heartland’s denialist friends have failed miserably. (4) (1) theguardian climate-consensus 97 per-cent 2015/jul/31 climate models are even more accurate than you thought (2) skeptical science ipcc global warming projections (3) hotwhopper 2013/12/ denier weirdness crank blog popularity (4) reuters climate change bets
I'm also very much interested in physics and planning to do undergraduate study in it, after telling about my interest in physics , most of my well wishers asked about employment opportunities. They are worried about it. Can you please tell me about job opportunities for an physics undergrad. It means a lot if you could reply.
Most Engineering is applied Physics. So study in Engineering may sate your Physics urge. And if you choose the science discipline, you'll have many opportunities besides primary research, social media, or teaching; lawyers with science degrees are highly sought after in Intellectual Property Law; medicine careers based on Physics undergrad degrees are great, too. Physics teaches a discipline in rational thought, so is also a great basis for business and management. You didn't mention which branches of Physics you're most interested in?
I had the DVD in a drawer for many years, until this exceptionally cold winter here. It wasn't utterly useless after all, it generated a little warmth when burned.
"Climate skeptics cherry-pick data and they take findings out of context in order to make statements that fly completely counter to the scientific consensus." Mr. Clark follows that up with a statement about the problem of exaggerated claims made by climate activists that are nevertheless still grounded in fact. *The first quote appears to suggest that no scientist should ever make statements that oppose the scientific consensus.* If that is what he means, it is a highly irresponsible statement for a science educator to make, especially one who recognizes the complexity and nuance associated with some areas of study.
Except the premise of the movie, that man's CO2 and Methane are the CAUSE of global warming was just as true then as it is today. Your attempts to claim otherwise by creating STRAWMAN arguments from things said by non-scientists is sickening and completely anti-science.
@@granthurlburt4062 Did you watch the video? There were a lot of errors made, and the problem sensationalized. He wasn't sharing science, he was pushing a problem that his government could solve.
It's a pity Gore didn't have Dr James Hansen on at the end to talk about solutions. Hansen's book "Storms of My Grandchildren" and his Ted talk from around the same time both discussed the need for and co-benefits of federal legislation of Carbon Fee and Dividend. Citizens Climate Lobby is now trying to make that possible as a bipartisan bill in the US, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act. Canada has already done it.
Admirable though Hansen's position and work have been, they -- like Canada's Carbon Dividend Act -- fall far short of real solutions. Perhaps if we'd done as Hansen suggests in 1965 when Revelle's report came out, it might have been enough. Now? The actions will need to be: 1) curtailing fossil extraction 2% per month down to zero by 2030, 2) avoiding methane emission as much as possible, 3) replacing fossil-emitting activities with fossil-free alternatives and shutting down the fossil activities when replaces instead of letting them go on, 4) drawing down CO2 from air equivalent to planting 60 trillion new trees by 2060, 5) wildlife conservation equivalent to slowing ship traffic 40% at sea and similar levels on land, and 6) increasing energy efficiency at least 8% year over year.
Finance leader of Canada has video on RUclips showing her saying that the climate tax is about increasing government revenues. When it was originally introduced in BC, it was revenue neutral. It just incentivized behavior. Great, but now it's not. Now it's just a money grab. Carbon tax is hurt the most vulnerable the most. Go to your local grocery store. If you want to see why. People who are having trouble making ends meet, can't afford the increase in gas prices, and the increase in groceries. It's cruel and inhumane.
@@jasondashney - 80% of all Canadian families are coming out ahead financially because all the money is being returned in quarterly payments. The fossil fuel industry hates cash-back carbon pricing, because it's very good for everyone except for the fossil fuel billionaires (Koch Network villains). Don't listen to the polluters, listen to the economists. Carbon Fee and Dividend is the most cost-effective, powerful, equitable, and far-reaching way to rapidly reduce climate pollution, and it puts more money in most people's pockets.
There is still no proper understanding of what proportion of global temperature rise is attributable to C02 emissions. The melt back of the ice caps on the planet Mars correspond closely to the meltback of the ice caps on Earth. This can only be explained by variation in solar output, according to the work of Professor Valentina Zharkova. This is only one of many factors that could affect global temperature increase. I am also wondering why Al Gores graphs do not show the significant temperature rise during the Medieval warm period, and the Roman warm period, long before anthropogenic C02 rise was a factor.
@nig ENOUGH of the lies! (Or at least get some that haven’t been debunked 600,000 times.) Get into psychotherapy for help figuring out why you’re compelled to aid the most criminally psychopathic bunch in history in stopping the solutions to climate catastrophe (with blatantly stupid lies we’ve all got memorized). People interested in the reality can find it at Skeptical Science.
Also if Nebula wants to communicate science better than media and algorithms then they can add spanish subtitles to everything just to battle the overwhelming amount of misinformation reaching latino america ahead of any attempt to squash it.
And maybe we could speak about what a pointless exercise recycling plastic is when only 5% of it gets reused, and the rest goes in the landfill or into the ocean. That’s a far more important question than global warming.
"Was opposed by a group of people who claims [it] contained a multitude of scientific errors. [The justice] ruled that [the film] was 'substantially founded upon scientific research and fact' " Way to bury the lead! Opposed by some unspecified group of people. By any chance did monies from a similar people-group assist in providing the jacks necessary to tilt your coverage so impressively? The movie's four main scientific hypotheses are very well supported by the latest research in respected journals... So let's ignore all that and focus this entire video on nine inconsequential errors that you admit are the exception rather than the norm. But we can make hay with em! And then that FUD threat of the secret evil 10th!! Which turns out to be a nothing burger smuggled inside another nothing burger. So much so that you even apologize for it. But I must admit, props for the nicely clipped British accent which might help people confuse you with Potholer54.
The difference between people of my generation and people of Simon Clarke's generation is that my generation wasn't indoctrinated to the extent that Mr Clarke's generation was. When I was at school we were told about the dangers of nuclear power and the ozone layer, in later years the 'global treat' was global warming, in the 1970 kids were told the global crisis was global cooling. At some point the politicians wanted the alarmism to be more easily transferable, so they settled on climate change. Fun fact, the same people who are telling us that the answer to the problem is "renewable energy" also bought shares in renewable energy companies when their stock was virtually worthless, it's now a multi-billion dollar industry. However that renewable energy isn't very renewable, wind turbines break down and literally fall apart too regularly, solar panels are far from environmentally friendly, and the system is driving the cost of living through the roof. It's very politicised.
Perhaps if people like you acknowledged the fact that climate change is real, we could work on finding better solutions to climate change than wind turbines and solar panels (like Nuclear energy, which we've had for decades but has been fear mongered to death). But that's not the case. And broken systems offer broken solutions.
Wind turbines are powered by fossil fuels. They have to be in constant motion, otherwise the arms would shear off. If there is not enough wind, then they are powered electrically.
@@cjshakesyou guys just want enemies. It doesn't matter if I don't believe in anthropological climate change, nor the OP, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT POLICY MAKERS. Do you really think that people not agreeing with you is an existential problem?
On the UC DAVIS website, there have been web pages up for many years about nitrogen and boreal forests. You have to read their long explanations for at least a couple pages to understand what they are talking about! If you do so you will learn they are talking about nitrogen in the mountain ⛰️ waters of boreal forests feeding the forest trees 🌲 and causing HUGE growth blooms of those forests when there are excess levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. They say this needs to be more studied because the trees are obviously using the nitrogen directly from the mountain waters without mycorrhiza in those soils to make the nitrogen available to the trees 🌲. AND IN THE PAST, MANY TIMES THESE FOREST BLOOMS HAVE REVERSED RAPID RISES IN CO2 IN THE EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE, ABSORBING MASIVE AMOUNTS OF CO2! If you really have some understanding how nature works, like I do, you would KNOW that once in history nature has corrected some adversity in the Earth’s biome, it will happen again and again from then on rapidly and automatically. Therefore, your global warming is a LIE that should NOT be feared and ALL OF YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, AT ALL! 😅
The earth is becoming measurably greener. Since the 1980s, 29% of human CO2 emissions were cancelled out by the CO2-induced greening of the Earth. The post-2000 vegetative greening expansion has been so massive (5.4 million km²) its net area increase is equivalent to a region the size of the Amazon rainforest. This is an unquestionable fact and wasn't what was assumed in the past. Source: 'Characteristics, drivers and feedbacks of global greening' Nature reviews earth & environment Dec 2019. Crop yields per acre are 30% higher than in 1980, this is largely down to the CO2 rise. In the past the Sahara desert has flipped over to tropical forest when CO2 has risen and this may well happen again bringing CO2 back down. Timber standards have had to be revised as timber is growing far more rapidly than in the past, sub Arctic pine forests in particular. There is enough evidence now to suggest that there are powerful feedback mechanisms to limit CO2 rise - though they may take a few decades to kick in.
@Za Misleading cherry picking where it’s not outright lies. Crop yields are higher because of increased fertilizer, obviously, which has disastrous effects like poisoning water, ocean dead zones, climate catastrophe... Increased CO2 has hundreds of other catastrophic effects: ocean acidification is wiping out many thousands of species; global warming is wiping out millions of species, spreading deadly diseases, decreasing yields of hundreds of crops, making them & others less nutritious, ice melt, sea level rise, ecological disruption & collapse, "Humans are greening the planet, but the implications are complicated" Skeptical Science, 15 July 2016 "New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’" Skeptical Science, 19 September 2016 "More CO2 in the atmosphere hurts key plants and crops more than it helps" Skeptical Science, 21 December 2020
Well done. I recall being impressed at the time An Inconvenient Truth was released that, despite what was likely a very important message to the world, it was more about the messenger than it was the message. And I strongly suspect that today there are many - a significant percentage - of reputable scientists who are more moderate in their views of climate change and its consequences. Unfortunately, because we've allowed the issue to become political (in no small part due to this film), they aren't at liberty to freely express their views and conclusions, at the risk of appearing to be on side with irrational deniers. Some objectivity is certainly lost because of the politics.
@du The film was entirely about climate catastrophe, except for a few seconds about Gore, & a few minutes about his family, a very important part of getting the story across. The issue HAS been politicized-entirely by the far right, in service of their & the corporate oligarchs’; personal gain. Scientists are perfectly free to express their opinions, but science is done by presenting evidence, & the evidence is OVERWHELMINGLY in support of the scientific consensus; that’s the only reason there is a scientific consensus. Any scientist who could disprove warming WITH EVIDENCE (the only thing that matters) would be a millionaire, & respected by all scientists. Those very few scientists still denying the science are either believers in extreme right wing dogma, or being paid by fossil fuel corporations & the far right, or both. No one in the scientific community has the slightest respect for them, because they, above all, are using bad science, pretend science, or no science at all, for political & personal gain.
When he says lying by omission he nailed it. With the 24/7 news cycle they only present one side because if they present the other side their argument falls apart. Most important to the climate scientist the money goes away. Follow the money folks...
@I Astounding that you criticize people whose chosen profession limits almost every one of them to at most a middle class income, while ignoring the tens of millions going to denying delayalist policy makers like oil executives & PR/lobbying bigwigs. Any scientist disproving global warming would also be paid many millions by the insane right wing, as Wei-Hock Soon & others already have been despite their utter ineffectiveness disproving anything. The science, evidence, & scientists are completely clear: 99.9% of papers (Cornell, 2021) & scientists, & every single major & national scientific organization in the world agree now: Earth is warming. It’s caused by humans. It’s a dire threat to civilization & nature.
Is it just me, or did the graph of CO2 v Temp indicate that temperature rose BEFORE CO2? That being the case, one must re-examine the causes of the temp increases first, before blaming the innocent compound. ...and what is the cyclical nature of the graph reflective of? What is the wave crest to crest and trough to trough times? Do they relate to vulcanism? Plate techtonics?Asteroid impact epochs related to the Solar System cycling through the galactic plane? Aliens dumping radioactive waste on a regular basis?
correction islands in the western pacific are sinking except TANNA of Vanuatu which is rising it is called plate tectonics and the undulation of the earth's crust,
Actually the correlation between CO2 gases and climate change does exist, although not exactly as it's sold by the climate change folks; as it turns out, the correlation is that as the mean average temperature of oceans rises, co2 amounts rise. In fact, this is the source of over 80% of all CO2 gas in our atmosphere. What this means is that the warming occurs FIRST and THEN CO2 is released into the atmosphere. So, as it turns out, CO2 is an EFFECT of warming climates, NOT the CAUSE. THE SINGLE GREATEST CONTRIBUTOR to warming global temperatures (by a VERY wide margin) is solar activity (the Sun), NOT CO2.
@@ClimateScepticSceptic-ub2rg Yes - now take a look at the CO2 scale. Tell me what the maximum CO2 level was that supposedly 'caused' the warming event more than 5degC hotter than today. Correlation is not causation.
This is so interesting, and a great reminder that climate communication need not be sensationalised, as the objective truth is powerful in and of itself.
muuuuuuuuuh climate crisis
fucking npcs
@@Noqtis GFY, denialist.
But you get more grant money if you sensationalize things.
@@jeffw7382 Could you cite some cases of this? I've been involved in grant processes for over four decades, and found a great aversion for sensationalism. Further, by far the largest source of grant funding in the world, committees of the US Congress, have been controlled by Republicans and representatives from coal and oil states, showing clear regulatory capture by the fossil sector, and in no way attracted to sensation. James Hansen's well-known suppression by the US government, the funding of denialists like UAH's weather satellite team of Spencer and Christy whom have been found manipulating NASA data to hide the rise eleven times without professional repercussion, in addition to publicly vowing as part of the Cornwall Alliance to deny all evidence for climate change, and on and on tells us you're making a claim that is audaciously wrong.
@@jeffw7382 more if you muddy and/or deny it....
Perhaps you could do a video examining all of the predictions by climate scientists, and how accurate they have been?
That's what I was expecting based on the title.
I only think the sea level issues aren’t fully understood and might not be 100% right by the scientists, because we don’t understand the amount of groundwater.
Ben Santer did something like this years ago, an exhaustive survey of every prediction reported by the IPCC.
95% of projections of harm turned out to be too conservative; the actual changes and losses were larger than predicted, often by orders of magnitude, and faster, nineteen times in twenty.
There have been many, and all have been wrong. Done! 😊
Just kidding. I'd like to see such a video too -- but the bottom line will be as I stated.
Perhaps they could do a video comparing climate scientists today and Exxon’s scientists from the 1950s that accurately predicted the global changes we’ve been experiencing. And then we could follow it with a slow roll of every congressional delegation from every fossil fuel state, one by one - so folks know who to vote against?
Great to see you back Dr Simon Clark, official real doctor of science things.
a German, I assume?
Great to see you back SaintPhoenixx, I see you haven’t watched the video
I'm new to this. Is SaintPhoeniix a troll that comments on Simon Clark videos, mocking Simon?
@@JohnSmith-cg3cvi was wondering the same!
He said nothing.
Regarding the link between CO2 and temperature: The historical record, including that promulgated by the IPCC has temperature peaks BEFORE peaks in CO2, not AFTER. This would imply the causal trigger is rises in global temperature and the effect is rises in CO2. This has to exclude the populist theory that rises in CO2 trigger temperature rises, where the argument is twisted to be the wrong way around.
The scientific reason for the link is that global temperature rises trigger warming of the oceans and hence a release of dissolved CO2. The flip side when Earth cools CO2 is captured by the oceans and CO2 levels in the atmosphere decline. If you look at a chart of the Palaeolithic Time Period you can see peaks in temperature occurring roughly 100,000 years apart each followed by a peak of CO2 approximately 800 years later. It’s a simple chicken vs the egg problem. In each case the chicken {Temperature rise} occurs first and the egg {peak in CO2} comes second. This is not the model for global warming in action as the alarmists would have you believe.
Source: IPCC report for scientists circa 2006, Patric Moore, one time Chairman of Greenpeace and currently independent Scientist / Commentator.
Indeed. I'm surprised he didn't pick up on that one.
Thank you.
Well that's what's commonly known as a feedback loop, CO2 (or other factors such as Milankovich-cycles) causes a rise in global temperatures which in turn leads to rising CO2-levels, which then again lead to rising temperatures and so on.
This is, btw, exactly what so many climate scientists keep warning us about. 😉
@pet Nope. Pythonic arguments over a dead parrot. In the past, orbital cycles over 20,000, 40,000, & 100,000 years have triggered warming, which caused a release of some CO2, which then became the driver of every warming. Feedbacks like ice melt, water vapor, etc. heighten it, but CO2 has been the driver in every one.
Now, human-emitted CO2 that had been locked in deposits since the Carboniferous age 300 million years ago (plus other greenhouse gases emitted by chemical-industrial agriculture, deforestation, degrasslandization, demangrovization, & industrialization are driving the warming. CO2 is still the driver, as it has always been. But this time it’s human-caused CO2.
"CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?”
Skeptical Science
The consensus has grown with the evidence:
“More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change”
Krishna Ramanujan, Cornell Chronicle, Cornell U. October 19, 2021
“Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature”
Mark Lynas, Benjamin Z Houlton, and Simon Perry
19 October 2021 IOP Publishing Ltd
“10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change”
Skeptical Science, 30 July 2010
Look at the Patrick Moore page on Desmog.
“Response to Patrick Moore's "What They Haven't Told You about Climate Change””
Potholer54 video
“Lobbyist Claims Monsanto's Roundup Is Safe To Drink, Freaks Out When Offered A Glass”
"Climate Science Denier Patrick Moore Paid by Coal Lobbyists EURACOAL To Speak To EU Officials and Members of Parliament
Kyla Mandelon, Desmog, Mar. 14, 2016
"What President Trump, Fox and Breitbart Are Not Saying About Climate Science Denier Patrick Moore"
Graham Readfearn, Desmog, Mar. 12, 2019
"WUWT has a poll published today to guess what the minimum arctic sea ice extent is going to be for this year.
So far approximately one third of the responders have submitted an answer that has already been exceeded.
That’s basically about as dumb as calling a coin flip wrong after watching it land.
erased comment on: Thinkprogress 8/31/2011 “The Murdoch media empire has cost humanity perhaps one or two decades of time in the battle against climate change“
Moore was NEVER chairman of Greenpeace.
IOW, he lied about that, too. Calling him anything but a lying shill for fossil & fissile fuels, pesticides, tobacco, & other destructive industries is lying, too. As far as I can tell your “source” is nothing but what Moore himself, a scorned & excoriated liar-for-hire, said. He misrepresents science, consensus, his own history, & everything else. In front of Congress, no less, for which he could & should be prosecuted.
@@mightymike2192 Why would he? He has an agenda.
Nice to see you back, and what a good video to release with, I also watched this film just out of interest during my Ocean Science undergraduate degree, but critically looking at it raised some eyebrows from me, especially the oceanic componants...
18:45 "content is served to us algorithmically" made me chuckle, the video has conditioned my brain to expect that last word to have something to do with Al Gore
Al Gore Rhythmically!
The earths climate is ever changing and has always changed. I’m older than you and I remember when in the 70s we were told climate change would include a resurgence of and ice age by now. Also heard was that most costal areas would be flooded out by now in the 80s and there would be no more polar bears. Al gore also was an owner and profited from many climate scare related industries like solar. He also purchased a lot of bit coin before it was available for public purchase. Money was his main driver. I detest the amount of garbage polluting our world and I think that is a much bigger cause for concern. I also question “science” since “experts” forced a covid vaccine on all when it wasn’t really necessary. Data supports my previous statement. Solar is a good idea, but the world cannot be run by solar that only is here on earth.
Good to see you back Simon. Hope things are going good.
In 2022, the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) reported the highest levels of coral cover across two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in over 36 years. 😂
@Frum Corals all over the world have suffered numerous very stressful bleaching events as the world has warmed. Some have recovered, some have partly recovered but are weaker, many have died. Earth continues to warm faster & faster, so corals will become extinct unless they’re saved by massive emergency government action to stop using fossil fuels & chemical industrial agriculture. The lunatic far right wing needs to stop denying reality.
@Frum "Global climate change is now considered to be the biggest long-term threat to Australia’s coral reefs, with many under threat from increased temperatures and changes in ocean circulation patterns. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans is also causing increased ocean acidification.”
Know who said that? The Australian Institute of Marine Science. (AIMS, “Coral")
Science & scientists overwhelmingly agree that coral is threatened with extinction because of climate catastrophe & other human pollution.
@Frum "Above-average water temperatures led to a mass coral bleaching event over the austral summer of 2021/22, the fourth event since 2016 and the first recorded during a La Niña year.”
"Nearly half of the surveyed reefs (39 out of 87) had hard coral cover levels between 10% and 30%, while almost a third of the surveyed reefs (28 out of 87) had hard coral cover levels between 30% and 50%.”
“In periods free from intense acute disturbances, most GBR coral reefs demonstrate resilience through the ability to begin recovery. However, the reefs of the GBR continue to be exposed to cumulative stressors. The prognosis for the future disturbance regime suggests increasing and longer-lasting marine heatwaves, as well as the ongoing risk of outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish and tropical cyclones. Therefore, while the observed recovery offers good news for the overall state of the GBR, there is increasing concern for its ability to maintain this state.”
That’s scientist-speak for Holy shit! Time to panic! Sorry you didn’t recognize it.
"Long-Term Monitoring Program
Annual Summary Report of Coral Reef Condition"
The Australian Institute of Marine Science, 2021/22
But what about 2023, the hottest year in 125,000 years?
"Chris Gloninger on Gobsmacking Ocean Heat”
This Is Not Cool, Feb/Mar. 2024
"Current Ocean surface temperatures at once-in-256,000 year level.
That sounds bad. Is that bad?"
As a transportation system planner, I question how global warming is supposedly addressed solely with "renewable" energy and "electrifying everything." Of the 3 basic EV drivetrains (BEV all-battery vs PHEV plug-in hybrid vs hydrogen fuel cell HFCEV), which of the 3 offers the most benefits, applications and potential to reduce fuel/energy consumption, emissions AND insane traffic? The correct answer is PHEV which could logically serve 65% future EV needs. BEV serves the remainder in lightweight and short-distance travel needs. Hydrogen fuel cell has no serviceable EV application because 'combustible' hydrogen in the ICEngine of a PHEV+H drivetrain stores at much lower pressure in smaller-safer tanks and can deliver at least twice the equivalent MPG possible in HFCEVs.
PHEV+H tech is especially applicable to long-haul freight trucks. The huge battery packs of BEV freight trucks (500+kwh) will deplete and must be replaced at 150k -200k miles. Distribute the same battery resource to 'FIVE' 100kwh PHEV packs (which also last 150k-200k miles) and they collectively deliver 750k to 1million miles plus cost less to replace.
The real problem is we drive too much, too far, for too many purposes. We truck and ship essential commodities too far, ship air freight, fly for recreation and otherwise play with motorized big boy toys entirely too much. There is no getting around these facts with "electrifying everything" business as usual.
Polar bears swim very well, in fact. Inuit have observed over decades seeing them well out to sea swimming and hunting, since water in the summer is a fact of life for them. I would also note that there exists lots of data around sea levels, which have changed very little over a hundred or more years.
I am inclined to add that CO2 and temperature, seemingly in lock step is not proof of anything. If you plot ice-cream sales and shark attacks on the US Eastern seaboard you get excellent correlation but eating ice-cream does not cause shark attacks, clearly, it's just that more people eat ice-cream and get into the sea when the weather is good. In fact, the oceans store much more CO2 than the atmosphere and release it when they warm and take more in when they cool. Further in geological time frames CO2 and temperature spend more time moving in opposite directions, something never mentioned by climate alarmists. The IPCC was never and is not an independent scientific body, on the contrary they were hired to find anthropogenic climate change to help justify UN "Climate Change" policy. I think you are being far too kind to Al Gore in this video, my biggest critique of him offering ordinary folk advice on changing to energy efficient light bulbs etc (which of course people have done when they were economically viable) is that he runs multiple homes with huge electricity bills, jets around the world burning enormous amounts of CO2 while telling us to do the opposite.
Spot on, the pair of ya 😉😎👍
Thats the thing though, they are not in lock step. Sometimes CO2 goes up then temperature goes up and sometimes temp goes up then CO2 goes up. This is more suggestive of a common cause than a direct causative effect on their own. The entire premise of CO2 causing global warming is absurd at its core. It would be like doing their flawed hotbox experiments that were retracted, taking CO2 out of the air in the box and then breathing in it somewhere withing a square mile or so to add faint CO2 from your breath into the box. There is almost no CO2 released from humans on the grand scale of things. @@andylitespeed
several hundred years don't matter numbnuts.
@@seditt5146 You and ya mates (the echo chamber), the wilfully ignorant contrarians, continuing to make up hilariously mischievous narratives full of tired old silly themes, that don't explain a single thing about the situation, LOL.
Keep trying entertaining us. Thanks.
The editing, guest scientists are all amazing. Framing the video around the 9 problems that the UK investigation had + 1 more was really compelling and inspired. Look forward to seeing more!
The big real issue is at this time we do not have the ability to remove large volumes of CO2 from the atmosphere. There is lag in emissions (currently at 422 ppm from 280 ppm CO2). So as we reach 1.5 C over preindustrial within the next 3 years massive melting is guaranteed. We may have reached enough lag with positive feedback that Greenland melting over a century or two may be guaranteed. 2 meters of sea level by 2070 WILL happen and reduction of our food supply WILL happen resulting in large scale starvation (not millions but hundreds of millions). These effects are no longer avoidable.
At current costs offsetting CO2 with capture would cost ~$2 trillion per year. Increase that to $3 trillion per year and we will be moving back to 300ppm. 2-3% of global GDP per year to save the world is perfectly achievable technologically.
Still won't happen.
@@Crispr_CAS9 I agree it won't happen. I am aware we can scub the atmosphere but I was unware of the cost (thank you). I'd be happy if we just slowed emissions but we keep increasing. Very scary stuff.
@@Crispr_CAS9 Actually, with tree planting and harvest, and basalt fines weathering on farm fields, the cost would be only about 10% of your estimate, and the profits from harvest of wood and crops would more than offset the investment.
If you mean using those uneconomical methods involving factories? Yeah. Those are impossible and wrong, economically and pragmatically.
@@bartroberts1514 "Actually, with tree planting and harvest, and basalt fines weathering" Trees and basalt are substantially more expensive than the methods I'm citing. Tree planting is especially bad, with organizations promoting it usually citing removal rates >10x higher than actual observations.
@@Crispr_CAS9 Intriguing claims.
Cite?
I mean, the carbon per ton of lumber is a pretty well-known number, and pyrolysis converts 70% of that to inert biochar, while the rest becomes biofuel displacing fossil, and all at a profit.
Basalt fines act as soil amendment -- as does biochar -- to create higher crop yields, and is essentially free byproduct of making basalt fiber to displace steel in rebar and fiberglass in structural materials, so is also done at a profit.
So I don't see how you believe your numbers work.
I have to comment on your statement that peoples of pacific islands are not evacuating due to sea level rises. We, in Australia are already making plans to take in residents of these islands due to sea level rise. Although these people are relocating to different areas within their nations at the moment due to constant inundations due to sea level rise, it won't be long before they can't do that any more and other countries have to take them in. Movement is happening, even if it can't really be called evacuations as such right now. There are negotiations happening and talks about how to deal with 'statelessness' happening every day.
A rising sea level isn't merely a problem of gradual change, as it seems many people may imagine it. The slow contamination of low-lying resources is certainly a problem, but the process of sporadic storm surges of higher and higher wave action is a bigger threat. The last storm tide reached a certain level, but the next one in a few years will not cause "gradual change," but could result in unprecedented catastrophic damage. Advance preparations are essential, so it is good to hear that Australian leaders are already at work.
@@misterlyle. Also, equipartition of sea level rise is a myth in another way. Evidence from iceberg raft debris found in core samples suggests that sea level rise mainly happens intermittently in sub-decadal surges of several meters at a time. Why? Well, the Lake Agassiz episode is a prime example: an ice dam breaks leading to inundation, with a positive feedback of a small amount of sea level rise breaking more ice dams globally. Currents shift, leading to even more sea level rise on one side of the ocean, causing more positive feedback.
@@bartroberts1514 Thanks for the response, Bart. I haven't heard of Lake Agassiz before now, but I have heard of a similar ancient glacial reservoir, Lake Missoula which helped creatively shape the geography of North America.
@mbs!isterlyle.
BS!!
"Taking a complex statement and reducing it down to snappy headlines..."
This happens a lot more than should be acceptable... I hate it...
The melting of arctic sea ice does not contribute to sea level rise as you state at 5:00. The arctic sea ice is already floating, when it melts it displaces exactly the same amount of water as it did in ice form. So, it does not contribute at all to any rise in sea level. I appreciate the overall message of the video, though I think you are giving the climate-change fearmongers much more slack than they deserve. It actually isn't clear what will happen in this century. It may turn out that the fear was mostly unfounded.
That would be a good point, except you aren't co sidering the volume of sea ice that floats above the surface. Also, we've already seen that the claims aren't unfounded
@@spookus5430 Come on, dude. Ice is less dense than water and that is why some ice is above the surface when a block of ice is floating. When floating ice melts it displaces that same amount of water as it did when it was in the form of Ice. This is just basic physics. If the ice on land melts, that could make the ocean rise, but the temperature in the Antarctic never gets close to the melting temperature. I don't think Greenland is in much danger of melting now either at this time.
I used to believe the climate hype. But then did my own research. If you look at Gore's BIG graph, you notice that temperature tracks quite well with CO2 right up to the 20th century; BUT there it stops! If CO2 drove temperature, we should've experienced +17C of warming, but we didn't.
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
@@spookus5430 No, he is right. Go fill a glass with ice water, measure the level before and after the ice melts. Spoiler - it will be the same. Only land-based ice raises sea level when it melts.
@@adas1969Yes. Go and fill it kid. You dont want to read,fill the bottle
I think this video further illustrates how difficult it is to accurately capture something of tremendous complexity and nuance and then convey it in a manor for the masses.
Gotta agree. The heavy equipment required to convey manors is dauntingly expensive.
It's an easily debunked hypothesis.
It's pretty simple really. CO2 doesn't control the temperature of Earth and the Earth is historically cold right now, not historically hot. So the hypothesis is based on 2 lies, so it's false. Here's the data to prove my claims. Search : "Global temperature and atmospheric CO2 over geologic time/graph/images."
@andrewb2548 I was taught from a young age to mind my manors so I can concur the conveyance is a tremendously complex process
Thanks for making this. It’s important to acknowledge errors, particularly on our own ‘side’. Bad faith actors will use errors against us, which makes it tempting to deny them, but doing so just plays into their hands.
I've sadly found that these days an increasing number of people online are perfectly happy just to be on the "right side" rather than be arguing with actual facts and knowledge. If you point out logical errors or mistakes of fact in their arguments, they will often just accuse you of being opposed to what they are saying or worse, conservative.
@@Tinil0 Increasing? I've been on the internet since it was just IRC and document exchange. It's been this way always, just like face to face. And actual facts and knowledge require something deeper than mere trading of quips.
@@bartroberts1514 sure, but you haven’t considered [quip]
So really [unrelated argumentative point]
@@MAORIguy25 Far Side?
@@Tinil0 funny.....I've found the exact opposite to be true. The "left" considers the science to be "settled", no matter how many scientific arguments are shown that totally dispute the effects of man-made climate change. And to be clear, I do believe that man does have a measurable effect on our climate, but it's barely measurable and the Earth can handle that effect quite easily.
I'm sure your father is proud of what you have done. condolences.
This film had many, many flaws. But what it was great at was getting people to focus on climate change and the impending issues that're plaguing the planet. So, I give VP Gore credit for making this issue known to the public, despite it's many flaws. It's just like how _Super Size Me_ changed the landscape of Fast Food culture, despite all of that documentary's issues.
🤡🤡🤡
I think it was unfortunately preaching to the converted but maybe my memory is faulty.
Super size me was an unscientific stunt. Everyone already know the health risks of that kind of diet many c years before then.
The political impact of media can be really interesting because you can never know what's going to be the effect. Like, surely the general public would have cared about climate change at some point, but it just so happens that An Inconvenient Truth, a work by a politician, is what generated awareness. It's like how The Jungle, a _novel,_ was raised awareness about the meatpacking industry, even though it was intended to be a socialist story.
Exactomundo. There was no other Academy Award documentary describing global warming to the public. Al Gore really helped the Climate Change movement. Simon should NEVER have implied Gore might have actually diminished it
Climate warming/change has been one of the biggest scam in modern history 🤢🤢🤮 Neptune climate is changing too. 😒 HOW DARE YOU😡
Al's net worth also increased from $ 6 to $ 26m by 2012.
10:23 there is the fact that co2 lags the global temperature rise by about 800 years during the glacial-interglacial transition during an overall ice age, although that was caused by milankovitch cycles rising temperatures first by changing the amount sunlight hitting the polar ice caps in summer which melts the ice, reduces the albedo, and causes the planet to warm up, than co2 is degassed from the oceans (because co2 is less soluble in warmer water, it’s one reason why you store carbonated drinks like Soda cold), than that causes most of the warming after which is why we enter an interglacial period. So while the initial warming is caused by milankovitch cycles during a glacial-interglacial transition, most of the warming comes after co2 is degassed from the oceans which amplifies the warming. The forcing from milankovitch cycles alone isn’t enough to actually stop or start glacial cycles.
Just thought I’d mention it because it is a misleading claim many climate “skeptics” make “because if co2 lags temps than it can cause it to rise”.
The lag of 800 years isn’t a definitive fact. More recent studies have found that the time difference is smaller or even that they happened so close that the order of what happened first is indistinguishable. It also has the problem that this idea is based on ice core data. Ice core data can only be collected in certain places and won’t tell what the global temperature is doing.
@@YraxZovaldo what study? Because co2 is not what initially ended glacial cycles and the glacial interglacial transitions line up perfectly with the milankovitch cycles. And co2 couldn’t rise if the oceans didn’t get warmer, something had to initially start it off. But most of the warming (I think like 90%, I need to check) following the initial warming is caused by more co2
@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI This paper for example: Marcott, S. A., Bauska, T. K., Buizert, C., Steig, E. J., Rosen, J. L., Cuffey, K. M., ... & Brook, E. J. (2014). Centennial-scale changes in the global carbon cycle during the last deglaciation. Nature, 514(7524), 616-619.
I'm not saying that CO2 is the initial cause of warming. However, the idea that the 800 year lag is a fact, is wrong.
CO2 is now absolutely the only factor capable of warming the atmosphere. Nothing else has changed like GHGs, mainly CO2.
Also, the last ice age ended because of a massive burp of CO2 from the Southern Ocean.
"Boron isotope evidence for oceanic carbon dioxide leakage during the last deglaciation" - Marino, et al 2015
@@YraxZovaldo Yep, the 800 year lag thing is a common myth pushed by right wing denialist blogs.
Criticizing An Inconvenient Truth? You're one of them! *grabs pitchfork. Seriously though, I always appreciate it when 'my side' is corrected. That means there's more knowledge to soak up. Thank you for this video.
You're the only one.
@@privateer0561 Only one what? It's got 14 likes.
Sea level rise is predicted to be between 1.3 to 1.6 meters by 2100, but the IPCC has consistently underestimated sea level rise in their projections, so the idea this is a lowball is plausible.
Arctic Ocean is predicted to be sea ice free by between 2035 and 2040, known as the blue ocean event, is the acceleration turning point where global warming is out of humanity's hands.
Solomon Islands are five Pacific islands which have already been submerged due to sea level rise, and a sixth, Tuvalu, home to 12,000 people, is likely to join them in the next few decades.
Regarding Kilimanjaro, I have to ask how it's possible that mountains melting isn't attributed to global warming. There are so many locations where mountain glaciers are rapidly retreating.
see the note in the description - it seems the glaciers are retreating due to changes in precipitation, but that likely took place in the late 19th century and so likely due to natural climate change
@@SimonClark Industrial Revolution started in the 1700's. Which may well have driven those precipitation changes in the late 19th century (as in almost certainly did).
Natural climate change hasn't happened at any point since human influences on land use and atmospheric content grew to push positive feedback loops past tipping points, likely for six thousand years or more, to some degree.
Also, Greenland's ice sheet is only about 10% the size of the Antarctic ice sheet, and about equal to all the other ice sheets in the world combined, so that 7 meters of sea level rise from Greenland's melt over hundreds of years is only one eleventh of the total, and thermal expansion is more than half of sea level rise during that timeframe, so 7 meters over 1,000 years would be 7 meters over 1000/22 overall. There you go: as much as 7 meters in 50 years, on assumptions of equipartition.
Last I heard China was making the most of Solomons as strategic port base and they had not sunk.
@@chrisruss9861 Relevance?
@@chrisruss9861 There's numerous islands in the Solomons, five of which have sunk under the rising tide, six more are on the brink of going under in the coming years. Fortunately, none of them are heavily inhabited. There are other Pacific island nations which are in deep trouble, starting with Tuvalu.
What China is doing is adding a lot more dirt and sand to existing atolls and rising them up. They're doing it for strategic military reasons, to claim control over the majority of the South China Sea, and in doing so are aggravating their neighbors and putting themselves at odds with US foreign policy.
You'd think all this is a separate discussion from what global warming is doing to the oceans though.
The big companies don't want you to hold them accountable. ever. for anything.
Yes and big companies like Tesla what you to buy there cars that do more damage to the environment than most petroleum driven cars. The sourcing of rare minerals including lithium is extremely bad for the environment. But who cares about that?
Unlike which elements in our society which desire and demand accountability? Which elements are those?
Yep.
The website 'De-Smog' records the finances paid by Fossil Fuel companies (which is to say - paid for by anyone who ever buys petrol or oil-fuelled anything at all) to produce climate/science denial which we see eevery day.
I recommend it for more statistics and accountuing than anyone can stand.
$billions spent so far... and rising.
All to keep up their massive profits.
The big companies are owned by the EXACT same oligarchs that push the "green" agenda you believe like an idiot.
@@MarkH10
Actual scientists, who do real science and want to know when they are wrong.
I was always a trifle leery about Al Gore’s film if only because he’s a politician. It’s the same with celebrities, film stars and the rest - it’s probably resentment at being talked down to by people who aren’t themselves experts.
Nice video, Simon. But I am also a little cautious about your apparent - to the complete layperson ( see - nothing sexist here…) - reduction in the dangers by bringing in the geological timescales involved.
My understanding is that the RATE of GG emissions is important, but it’s the TOTAL amount of carbon that is more relevant due to the geological timescales that it remains in the atmosphere before natural sequestration pulls it out of the equation: every kilogram just adds to the problem and increases the positive feedbacks. And in that respect of course the RATE of using up the carbon budget does matter since every addition makes the long term problem worse.
My own - limited - meteorological and climatology education was well over half a century ago and was fairly superficial: I can still look at my tephigrams and remember how they work but that’s about it, but it does give an understanding of just how complex are the sciences involved and how each acknowledgement of the inaccuracies and gaps are leaped upon in the echochamber of ignorance to “prove” how the man at the other end of the saloon bar “knows better than these jumped-up experts.”
CO2 doesn't control the temperature of Earth. The hypothesis is false.
Back when I was a kid, "Fire" wasn't a season.
Great work and all, but can I just say one detail I think is important and was missed... is that Dr Simon has a WH40K box in his library and I think that's awesome.
He has an Ork army in Hawaiian shirts
Check out "Simon Clark Errata" for my painting content!
@tomvandongen8075 Oh phew, a respectable army! I was afraid I would have to stop believing in climate change!
I have data based on antarctic ice cores that says that the higher CO2 levels follow rising temperatures not the other way around. The last Ice Age ended about 10 to 12 thousand years ago. This means that we may be less than halfway through an inter-glacial period, hence, I would expect global avg temperatures to continue rising for a few more centuries or perhaps millennia with or without human contributions of CO2
One problem is that most Climate Scientists aren't scientists, they experts in consensus dogma and lack basic atmospheric and chemical backgrounds. Physical scientists flee Climate Science since it's a political minefield. If any physical result doesn't accord with the consensus dogma one's career is endangered. The result is a plethora of 'soft' scientists in Climate Science, but a dearth of good physical scientists.
I love your sentiments about climate deniers and 'clickbait'-ish climate activists. Similar methods employed by both sides, but for different motives and with different ethics; one attempts in aiding and guiding society *due to* science's discoveries and subsequent hypothesises and advice, and the other... well, doesn't.
In a culture (especially online) where everything needs to be snappy and scary to get our attention (and to get us to act/shout-out), it may well be a necessary evil to be almost unscientific in our way of 'educating' to mitigate the worst of climate change's effects... but as you said, there's a fine line, because the science speaks for itself too, and surely that should be enough motivation without half-truths! An interesting one for sure.
Thank you very much for the video, glad to see you're back, and take care!
Ever it was thus. ruclips.net/video/8K6-cEAJZlE/видео.html
The medium just makes it faster.
@wombatcom Both the judge and Simon pointed out that the film was mostly true not half true. It pointed out things that will happen if nothing is changed and there has been some sea level rise, temperature rise, and some effect on hurricanes. If we wait longer the reversibility will decline because with the melting of the permafrost more and more methane will be generated and/or will escape. Methane is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2.
I’m trying to find out how to buy property in Antarctica for when the ice melts and the land becomes fertile in a few years. I want to be ahead of the next pioneer movement.
I don’t think an individual can own land in Antarctica. There are international treaties against that.
You would be better off moving to Siberia or northern Canada.
You're a liar
@@aceman0000099 It will take many decades if not centuries to build soil & infrastructure to support substantially more people than live there now. Climate is a moving target now & will rarely coexist with those other things that make “civilized" life possible. It’s extremely unlikely there will be a time for the next thousand years when those things come together with a tolerable climate in any places bigger than tiny enclaves.
@@J4Zonian a thousand years is a bit of a stretch. In 200 years we will maybe have floating cities in the ocean and a colony on Mars or two. Population will have declined for almost 100 years at that point, maybe back down to 9 or 8 from a peak of 10 billion. So after enough resource wars and immigration crises, the world will be a lot different and much more effort will be put into fixing the climate. So by 2300 the world should be back to a decent shape
I read the judge's decision. You missed the mark on what he said about the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature. He stated that, though there is correlation between the two, close examination revealed that CO2 increases lagged temperature increases. Thus, the graph more likely indicated that increased temperatures caused increased CO2 levels, not that increased CO2 caused increased temperatures. There might be other evidence that CO2 increases cause increased temperatures, but this graph does not qualify.
While RUclips may not encourage this, thank you for your thoughtful, careful, nuanced content! 😊
*Why are rising sea levels a problem? They would cover all the corrupt major cities of the world. Clearly a positive outcome.*
Those are not Errors, they are lies.
@@seanLee-sk2mi Yup, all commie lies.
@@seanLee-sk2mi Nope. Obviously not.
I'm still struggling here. Given evaporation from the oceans due to heat increases CO2 in the atmosphere, do we know CO2 is at the root of climate change, or is it merely a CONSEQUENCE of climate change and we need to look elsewhere? We're using models that think you can have negative cloud cover and don't know fresh water freezes as 0 C. Instead of fixing the physics, they've added fudges to stop these errors, and that tells me the models aren't accurate. Before we impoverish the western world by switching off all fossil fuels (which, btw, would also remove clothing, computers, phones, windfarms and solar panels, shoe soles, eye glasses, medicines, medical equipment, food deliveries to northern climes in winter, and just about everything else that has ensured the flourishing of humans on Earth since they are ALL based on on oil derivatives), wouldn't it be a good thing to be absolutely CERTAIN increased CO2 is CAUSING increased temps and not the other way around? Wouldn't it be a good idea to make the models accurate to actual physics instead of using ad-hoc fudges to conform to a political agenda? Shouldn't we be paying more attention to the satellite temperature data (which says the temperature hasn't gone up that much) rather than weather stations that are being surrounded by urban sprawl or are next airports? Might it be an idea to move the CO2 sensors off the Hawaiian islands (known for volcanic activity) and base them somewhere there is NO volcanic activity? Also, if CO2 (plant food, remember, which was at 1,000 ppm when primates first evolved -- the optimum level for plant life and the level we pump it into greehouses) IS the driving force, and neither China nor India have ANY intention to stop their use, what difference will it make to starve and impoverish the advanced countries which have the equipment and money to find solutions?
I don’t know if you actually think these things, but we know co2 causes a green house effect, we know we are responsible for a certain amount of it. We also know that the warming taking place is causing acceleration of the warming do to methane escaping from thawing permafrost. We know things need to be done to mitigate the warming, and that the longer we wait, the worse it will get.
Dude, heat does not evaporate water, it needs to be goimg towards boiling point for this to happen.
Photons from the sun, (light ) breaks aprts h20 to create evaporation, not too far away from photosynthesis when photons react with plants.
First of all, I'm glad you are asking good questions and seem to have decent understanding despite your skepticism of the subject, which is understandable. I'll try to help you with the answers as much as I can.
A) Simon has another good video about how we can tell it's carbon dioxide that is trapping heat in our atmosphere, you should check that out.
B) nobody's planning to shut down most or all industry, hardly even tone it down. The plan is to decarbonise mainly by swapping out power plants (personally I'm super in favour of nuclear power) and transitioning to EVs, then each industry individually trying to reduce carbon emissions e.g. the cement manufacturers. There are details in Simon's other videos and you can likely see what your local green party is proposing (although they'll never get elected 😄)
C) I've heard this argument that measurements are being taken in dubious places, and it's not entirely wrong but it's cherry picking. Measurements are being taken all over the earth and also in the sky with weather balloons. If you think it's silly that the hottest temperature on record was measured near an airport, that's fine, just ignore that and look at the hottest temperatures recorded in a neutral area, or indeed look at the average temperatures over large regions. You will see significant changes, not just increasing but also decreasing in some areas. The average global trend is a combination of measurements from all over the world though, not sure how you could argue with that.
D) I know it wasn't your point but the mention of CO2 as plant food does seem counterintuitive, I know, but the main issue is that plants aren't able to adapt quick enough to absorb the new CO2 we are creating. Previously we have had way more, true, but the change in levels was much, much slower over thousands of years. The second is that the change we have seen, e.g in crops grown recently, is not entirely good anyway. Simon has covered this. Basically, more carbon content in plants just means more sugar created, instead of nutrients like vitamins. We don't actually want to reduce CO2 levels to pre-industrial levels, closer to 1850-1900 levels are usually the target in fact. Because it's about minimising the rate of change overall, as much as it is about keeping the earth temperate.
E) China and India do have intentions to decarbonise, especially China, and they have in fact already lower CO2 emissions per person than the U.S. has. So the US needs to catch up to China, if anything. Again, nobody intends to 100% stop using fossil fuels, the plan is usually to capture the carbon from any such use and store it underground or in plants to mitigate the emissions impact.
Likewise, there is a growing debate about how African and other developing nations should be allowed to develop with fossil fuels or not. Since Europe had the advantage of no restrictions when they industrialized, it wouldn't be "fair" to stop Nigeria from developing because of climate change policy. The other issue is that these southern nations are disproportionately more likely to be affected by climate change, and natural disasters will force millions of Africans and South Americans to migrate north, to safety. Nobody wants that.
@@stephenbermingham6554that's not fully true. Heat is actually measuring the average molecular kinetic energy. Each molecule can vary outside this average. And some molecules can individually have enough energy to evaporate despite their neighbours being slower. Increasing temperature effectively increases the likelihood of this happening, which is why water can partially evaporate out of a glass in sunlight. It won't all vapourise though.
DUDE, we know burning of fossil fuels dumps 70 million tons of CO2 a day into the atmosphere! I don't think it's a leap of logic to attribute higher CO2 to this fact!....70 million tons a day sounds significant to me???
There is a classic error at 5:00 that may be present in the Gore presentation. Melting (floating) sea ice causes a sea level rise. According to Archimedes it doesn’t.
FFS. That's NOT what Gore said.
Melting sea ice reduces albedo, leading to faster warming which leads to thermal expansion of seawater, which is over half of all sea level rise.
Melting land ice in the Arctic and elsewhere leads to more mass of seawater, which is almost half of all sea level rise.
That's not what's being demonstrated in that example. That's part of a longer clip, ice that's floating in water doesn't make the water level rise and they say that in the film but iced that stacks all the way to the sea floor (in that animation, the stack of ice cubes goes all the way to the bottom of the glass) or is otherwise sitting on land does because it's adding new water to the system.
@@AlRoderick what’s being said here is :”Greenland is melting, arctic sea ice is melting … and both are contributing to the sea level rise” But thank you to mention “sea ice that is on land”
@@2adamast That's a good point. Of course, the melting of polar sea ice does contribute to sea level rise, but only indirectly, by lowering the ocean's albedo, creating positive feedback. Without stating that carefully, it sounds as if the contribution is direct, as it is for continental ice sheets. Even land ice contributes to sea level rise more indirectly than people usually think, since the gravitational effect on ocean water means that different coastlines will have different rises in sea level as the Greenland ice sheet melts.
@@TheHunterGracchus Does it create positive feedback? The arctic ocean has a very low sun, thus a lot of reflection (50% at 20°), while it has a water surface that can freely radiate between 48° to 90°. Could be alike a permanent sunrise without any clouds cooling
Nice to see you back, Simon.
Melting sea ice does not raise sea levels, Archimedes Principle, try it with an ice cube in a glass of water.
Try it again with a larger ice chunk in a bowl, only this time the ice chunk breaks the plane of the water surface so that it’s above the height of the bowl.
Revisiting older documentaries is really helpful for context. Are there any similar videos for the Michael Moore renewables film that a lot of greens I know found misrepresentative?
Wouldn't it be great, though, if Dr. Clark revisited the errors in "The Great Global Warming Swindle" by UK Communist Party co-founder Martin Durkin? Or the errors in the statements of the UK taxpayer funded coal-industry driven GWPF? The errors in the Idsos' "CO2 Science" websites? The errors in WUWT? The errors in Climate Audit? The errors in Warwick Hughes' claims that sparked what became Climategate?
I mean, Ayn Rand was wrong and Einstein right. Why belabor the wrong views of the Ayn Rands of the world?
@davyhotch That is a great question. I believe that the Michael Moore film has a very pessimistic outlook.
I'd like to investigate to learn if there have been substantial improvements in solar, wind, batteries, geothermal, hydrogen and hydroelectric technology since then?
I would also like to see the information about biomass's destructivity made well known and this exposed as just as harmful as using filthy fossil fuels.
I do think that the Moore film is beneficial in that it brings up the elephant in the room which is the human population currently being beyond the carrying capacity of ecosystems on Earth - especially with regard to the extra energy required for all of the technology we now demand to have at our fingerprints.
I believe each woman should have only one child whereby each generation will be halved. However, I am not optimistic that any great headway will be achieved in instituting such a policy.
I believe Moore's film shows that although it is going to exact heavy costs, installing individual passive and active energy methodology, more large scale housing, and more underground residency are preferable to huge corporations continuing to supply the brunt of our energy and so much of our arable land being plastered with postage stamp individual housing units. Techniques to save more of our bath and dishwater and capture runoff for agricultural applications are also needed.
What do you think?
"Is it a political film? Yes!"
1) I'm on board with the sci consensus of Climate Change 2) I was in school when I watched An Inconvenient Truth 3) At the time I didn't think it was convincingly scientific because it sounded like correlation not causation 4) communicators like Simon and others have become so great at communicating it so I have understood more of how it is scientifically supported.
.. and now you'll rally and lobby for immediate useful action by governments to curtail fossil extraction down to zero by 2030, avoid methane emissions, replace fossil with alternatives, drawdown CO2 faster, increase conservation and energy efficiency programs?
No there is no consensus. So you have lost the conversation there at number 1.
The tiny period of time we have studied climate is not enough to make any long term prediction. The climate has and will always will change. There has been many changes in the history of earth.
I have to applaud your strength of will in not calling this video "An inconvenient truth about An Inconvenient Truth." That aside, thank you Dr Clark for giving a detailed and nuanced exploration of the topic; while it's good to get people engaged with the problem of climate change, proper solutions require accurate information.
@sathreyn9699 We have more accurate information now two decades later. You certainly don't think knowing faierly accurately about a problem means you have to have the solution 20 years in advance do you?
It's not a problem, it's a global scam.
@@vernonfrance2974 Facts prove it's all lies.
@@Rick-yk5qb It is incredible to believe that the human population with it's ingenuity having created a technology that uses so much energy would not have an accelerating impact on the Earth.
@@vernonfrance2974 Science isn't about what you believe, it's about what you can prove. I can prove CO2 doesn't control the temperature of Earth and that's all I need to falsify the hypothesis. Would you like to see the proof? Search : "Global temperature and atmospheric CO2 over geologic time/graph/images." Do you see atm. CO2 and temperatures going in opposite directions? Yes, therefore CO2 doesn't control the temperature of Earth and the hypothesis is false. That's how science works.
well one political side still denies basically everything about climate change, so yeah. maybe we can start saying it is their fault instead of apologizing for our correct position all the time?
on the other hand, i understand where you are coming from, but i feel like releasing the video with a thumbnail with the word "WRONG." in red font (edit: it's not red, the line confused me, my bad), all caps doesn't exactly help your argument against sensationalism.
Except both political sides contribute to the ~$6 TRILLION a year in global fossil extraction subsidies. Looking past their words to their actions, all politicians are making this worse, or at least not doing what is needed to end the threat of famine, fire and flood from fossil: curtail fossil extraction 2% per month down to zero by 2030.
Their fault?
Are you senile?
If this nonsense were true, then it would be down to humans using energy since the industrial revolution. All humans. Specifically industries, not individuals.
If people disagree with it doesn't make them responsible for your climate change.
Do you just need someone to hate?
Luckily, it's just nonsense.
Put your energy elsewhere, like your family and children.
great video, this kind of thoughtful breakdowns of societal problems is exactly what's needed today. Huge inspiration!
False. These days scientists ARE starting to talk about metres of SLR this century, due to the imminent loss of the Thwaites glacier. And the acceleration of warming in general. Thermal expansion. Loss of Greenland ice, Himalayas etc
"the real problem we have is; we only have one planet" pretty much sums up the entire situation nicely
True, though the nature of that statement is on the statistical challenge to attribute natural events to cc.
@@m.caeben2578 Yes, I am perfectly well aware of that. The multiple applications are precisely why I liked that quote
Common trick.
Your father has one life. Buy this snake oil for 200 dollars. It may or may not cure your father, ....//in invisible print//:: but will certainly enrich me. 😉
@@theeraphatsunthornwit6266 who says my father has one life? What if I strongly believe he has several? Maybe that will make it so. And what snake are we talking about?
in my lab, the local german television came to record a documentary. They wanted catchy videos, so the professor just outright made up interpretations on a blank sample because they redid it 50 times :')
Anyone notice something odd about Al Gore's graph shown at 10:23 in this video? When you compare two elements in a line chart, you're supposed to overlay the lines so you can directly compare them. I've never seen a graph where the two lines are separated like they are Al Gore's movie. Fortunately, in an ABC TV special, John Stossel brought the top graph directly down over the lower and found that the rise in CO2 consistently lagged the rise in temperature. So if there were a causal relationship here, it would be that change in temperature causes a similar change in CO2. I guess that's what Al was trying to hide with his clever slight of hand.
Incidently, the chart goes back several thousand years. If I'm not mistaken, that was before the discovery of fossil fuel. I wonder what made the CO2 go up and down so dramatically then.
@fo What I wonder is how people can be so absurdly stupid, or pretend to be, paying any attention to a mercenary ideological toadstool like Stossel, or TVMOB, or any of the other psychopatholes who have used this same trick over the last 20 or 30 years. They’re the ones with the constant, varied sleights created by the insane right wing’s science denial & disinformation industry. Sane people should read the science.
So you’re blaming the messenger? Al Gore made it too personal and that’s why anti-climate-change people don’t believe it?
Rather, I think those against it have a vested interest in keeping things as they are, either for short term gain or for political purposes. These factors would remain regardless of Al Gore. What Al Gore did was make the issue known. And knowing is not an error. It’s the first step in correcting the problem.
Ice floating in water displaces the same amount of water as liquid water. Thus, whenever the arctic sea ice melts it has no significant impact on sea level. If you take a glass of ice water & measure the water level before the ice melts & after it melts it should be the same (If you are in an arid environment some of the water will evaporate more so than if you were in a humid environment as well as your elevation may impact that as well.). Now ice on dry land that melts if it makes it to the oceans can cause the levels in the ocean to rise.
Also, you forgot to point out that the hockey stick was found to be based on a lie that tree ring data is a good substitute for a lack of actual temperature data. If you compared the two further than he did in that film you will find that the correlation stops matching up. Tree ring growth is based on more than just the temperature.
The film & your video both ignore the fact that the output from the sun varies based on a cycle which impacts how much energy is available to cause any changes in weather. Another related factor is that the Earth's tilt off the plane it orbits on varies over time which can also change summer & winter times along with other complicated variations in the Earth's orbit around the sun.
I think you & Al Gore both oversimplified the model as well as using bad data for the inputs. You might want to read "An Inconvenient Book" as it points out several possible issues with the movie that you missed. IIRC it also listed sources. It has been too long since the one time I streamed that movie on Netflix to remember if Al Gore did or didn't include any sources for where his data came from.
The big elephant in the room that shows most reporting of AGW is simply wrong is the reporting on heat waves leading to negative outcomes (deaths). While it is true that heat waves lead to increased deaths, warming leads to far fewer deaths from the cold. Cold kills many times more people than heat. In other words, a warming world leaves us better off in this regard.
I completely disagree with this. Yes, there is some sensationalism in the film, this misses the point entirely. If you don’t think that the crisis is as urgent as Gore said it is, then you haven’t been following the latest news, and you don’t understand the *exponential* part of the crisis. It happens painfully slow at first. Then, it accelerates to the point you can see changes in real time. Then, multiple tipping points are crossed, and huge, rapid acceleration begins and cascading events occur. To downplay this is both shortsighted and irresponsible. I will add that I do like most of your videos. My problem is with this dismissal of rapid acceleration.
Did you actually read what you wrote?
Or did your brain just stop functioning because of your emotional outburst?
Firstly, and I’m not a climate denier, but to say the earth is hurtling towards utter chaos, collapse, and destruction, is monumentally wrong.
Your statement makes it sound like you have seen this all before, which you haven’t.
The climate has changed many, many times over the earth’s entire existence, and nothing, and I repeat, nothing is going to change that.
The fact that plant life thrives in CO2 levels of between 300ppm, to 2000ppm, should indicate that extra CO2 levels are not such a concern.
Nearly every living organism on this planet needs CO2 to survive, without it, or lower it to much will end up being more harmful than having to much.
Primates emerged when CO2 levels were higher than 1000ppm.
And considering that every IPCC report has so many variables that it’s a wonder how it even exists.
Take the so called scientific experts on Polar Bears, AIT says Polar Bears are screwed, but the actual Inconvenient Truth is that polar bear numbers have been growing steadily since 1975, when a Canadian led moratorium on SHOOTING them was put in place, you see it wasn’t climate change, it was trophy hunters that were reducing polar bear numbers.
There were around 3,000 polar bears left in 1975, NOW! It is estimated that they number about 40 to 50,000+, and the Inuit council in Nunavut have allowed the shooting of polar bears, only in self defence, because of the rising numbers.
As for coral reefs, the Australian Institute of Marine Science, recently published a study, all be it hard to find (strangely enough), that shows the Great Barrier Reef, has a higher coverage than in 1985, reaching nearly 50% coverage, and still climbing, which puts paid to the doomsday predictions for coral reefs.
And believe it or not, the pacific island of Tuvalu is actually getting bigger, this observation is from the University of Auckland over 4 decades.
And what do you think happens to those massive blades on wind turbines? They are not recyclable, they are just BURIED in the ground when they are replaced, so much for “Green Energy”.
That’s some of the actual Inconvenient Truth.
Following the latest news.. The biggest problem we have in the world right now. Plenty of news, very economical with truth.
are you a physicist?
@@Atchikaru Seriously?! Is it necessary to be a physicist in order to listen to what scientists are saying or to be able to read a graph? FFS.
I agree.
5:04 Simon states that sea ice melting contributes to sea level rise. This is inaccurate, because floating ice displaces its own weight once it melts, which means that it won't affect sea level. This can easily be demonstrated by filling a glass of water to the brim, with ice floating in it. Once the ice melts, the water level does not spill over the top of the glass, rather it stays at the same level. Land-based ice melting, and running into the oceans, however, will raise sea level. BTW: Ice and water can be at the same temperature.
If the floating ice is massive enough then gravitational attraction between it and the sea will raise the local sea level significantly. Consequently you cannot use Archimedes principle to argue that the ice melting won't result in a sea level rise somewhere.
Thought it was actually that as Temp. went up CO2 went up. Not CO2 increase causing temp to go up
Respect to all the viewers here that RUclips's algorithm suggesting might like such a nuanced, thoughtful, and well cited video ...despite it seemingly off-putting title "The Many Errors of An Inconvenient Truth". For decades, big oil and the Heritage Foundation has funded so much misleading media trying to counter scientific consensus that I was surprised and hesitant to click this one. But everything stated is entirely fair and well sourced. Thank you Simon. And thanks to everyone seeking nuance and still willing to hear out potentially conflicting viewpoints.
👍👍👍👍👍
It’s interesting to se the development of a tropical wheat (Brazil) because it holds the promise of greater food security in tropical countries now reliant on imports. It’s claimed to have a 15% protein content, 10% higher over regular wheat. There are still huge problems of water and seasonal weather chaos. If humans cannot survive heat waves, like seen in Asia and are driven out, I don’t know how much wheat can even matter. Also destruction of the water supply throughout Asia carrie’s ramifications to industry, transport and municipal water supply.
Brazil here. Yes EMPBRAPA has developed over the past 4 decades strains of wheat that can withstand warmer climes but still, that doesn't mean we've come up with a "tropical" wheat, like we do bananas, coffee, and mangoes. Wheat can only be cultivated in the highlands of southern Brazil where winter is mild and can reach below-freezing temps. However, the weather down south has been so finicky that this year's harvest is being greatly compromised. Not just wheat, but corn, soy, etc. That being said, we´ll have to come to grips with food insecurity worldwide, including in the northern hemisphere. We have actually topped the USA as the greatest producer of food in the world (Wow!) but frankly, things don't look good here and in Argentina as we won't be able to compensate for American, Canadian and EU losses. We're toast sir.
@@martiusyamamoto1578 I was using its description. Your information is important. It may be the wheat variety can offer options to many countries who all face food security issues. I hope it can, but yes. I cover they worrisome aspects of food security as I have gleaned. The dry conditions up and down the Americas (central US, Central and South) are quite acute. The devastation of extreme weather on crops and farmland this year are quite unsettling and likely common in a warming future.
Am I the only one who noticed the incorrect animation at 4:43? (the ice in the glass--the ice below the waterline would DROP the water level...and only THEN would the ice above the water level begin to fill. Since the volume of the ice above the water level is less than or equal to the space in the glass above the water level, then it is not possible for the water to overflow the glass....
You nailed it. That's a perfect example of the Climate deception game that has many 100-millionaires in it's wake including Gore.
Yep. Melting sea ice is a problem in its own way, but the only way it contributes to rising sea levels is when the sea ice was a dam stopping the land ice siding down into the ocean. The actual sea level rise is always from that land ice.
Wasn't New York supposed to be underwater by 2020? Better let them know they're drowning. Oh, and tell all the politicians who own ocean front mansions to head for the hills. Good luck.
Good to have you back Dr Clark. Awesome clarity - as always.
Another error of AIT: focus on sea level rise, when what's critical to coastal infrastructure and communities is storm surge rise, which is happening faster and more severely by far.
Yes, storm surges are exponentially increased by sea level rise.
I appreciate your willingness to present a critique of “your side”.
It shows the humility I’d like to see more from the scientific community. Like you, I was presented with a similar documentary in school back in the 70’s. Instead of Al Gore, it was Leonard Nemoy (Spock) Instead of global warming the scientific consensus according to all the data said the United States would be covered in a sheet of Ice by now. And we’d all be dead from freezing temperatures. In my 60 years of living, it’s been one false prediction after another. I wish scientists didn’t act like now they know everything, period. It’s so arrogant.
And yet, even in the late 70s, scientists were predicting the warming effects we are now seeing. Some did say the warming had an error rate of plus or minus 1.5 degrees, but they don't have to be exactly accurate to be true. Clark's other video, "Global Warming: the decade we lost Earth", shows this, and how the scientific truth was suppressed by government in the 1980s, it's brilliant! 😊
I couldn’t agree more.
@wa Yes, those who can’t tell science from folklore bollox up the debate over this & a lot of other things. Not the scientists; they do just fine. People who trust Leonard Nimoy’s garbage sensationalist show over peer-reviewed science are also part of the problem. Scientific projections have been extremely accurate. I wish right wing dupes didn’t act like they knew anything.
3:50, where is your evidence that it will take “centuries”? Ice can melt very fast. We don’t know what the tipping point is, but they do exist at some temperature and weather conditions.
There’s no shortage of studies that show that to be true. Homework
For Gods sake, that film was intended for general distribution to the general public. It was not an academic thesis, it was never intended to be.
5:00 you made a small error - arctic sea ice melt does not significantly contribute to sea level rise because of displacement.
If it is ice trapped on land it is a contributing factor becouse the mass is not part ov the ocean
@@definitlynotbenlente7671 I don't think there's and land at the Arctic...
..any land...
@@bnielsen56 yes, there is, the greenland ice sheet. the greenland ice is continental ice, its not floating on the sea, meaning if it melts it will contribute with sea level rise.
@@danilooliveira6580 The Greenland Ice Sheet extends from approximately 60° N to 80° N and thus is not in the polar zone, so don't say it's part of the Arctic. This is just more of the same misinformation that surrounds the issue - don't add to it. Also look up when was the last time it melted. Even in prior inter-glacial periods that were much warmer than today (>5egC), the ice never melted at the poles.
Nope: sea levels are not rising. Not right now. There is erosion of land, which is something different.
@er NOAA, NASA, IPCC, CSIO, other organizations, 99.9% of scientists & peer-reviewed papers disagree. But you know better.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Good one.
To claim what you're claiming, you also have to claim that all climate scientists & most other scientists for 1 1/2 centuries have either been unbelievably stupid or completely corrupt, & so terrifying that unlike the Mafia, Stasi, KGB, Savak, US military, Masons, Skull and Bones, and professional magicians, not one word has ever leaked about this vast conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of trained scientists.
Tool.
Quick Google will say you're wrong on that one.
And land can erode at the same time as sea levels rise
Oh, my bad. I forgot that glacier ice is the only kind that disappears when heated rather than melting or sublimating 🤭
@stoodmuffinpersonal3144 I wouldn't necessarily trust google to be objective. I'm apolitical, but I know the vast majority of leadership and many key staff have a strong left wing ideological bias and donate heavily to one political party. Even if their intentions are of the highest aims, this political aspect makes their suggested result and AI summaries somewhat unreliable in my opinion.
You should read the relevant scientific papers before holding any strong opinion.
Dear Simon Clark: for your next project could you please do an episode about the Title of this video? You could learn a lot from yourself mate
That the film amounted to 'political indoctrination' of children is pretty funny, when you consider that you can easily argue the opposite - that the decision to censor the film, is exactly the same thing - and that it's political indoctrination but for climate denial.
All education is a form of indoctrination on some level, what matters is what is the education/indoctrination is preparing you for? Is it teaching you to think critically for yourself or to passively accept things around you as you find them?
Everything is political, even the choice to be apolitical is itself, a political choice.
How is math political? Astronomy? Physics?
Not everything is political. To leftists, everything is political.
Not errors at all. Right presentation and minimal speculation to make people act asap. And now retrospectively we're understanding that wasn't enough to awake political will on time. You will never move people from sofa with your-style vague statements, Gorr is a politician and he knows how to direct people
Simon, I am very surprised that you did not mention the most serious error of the film: the climate temperature "hockey stick". Completely omitting the Medival Warm Period (900 - 1300 AD, when Greenland was actually green) and the Mini Ice Age (1300 - 1850). It is also interesting to note that climate alarmists like Obama, Gore and Keery all own beachfront property that would be flooded if Sea Rise was a serious issue. It is a known fact that climate activists are always making wild, shrill predictions of climate catastrophe because they want people to take action.
I would recommend that you review Dr Rich Lindzen's video, "Climate Change: What do Scientists Say?". It shows a graph of Global Warming starting around 1850, long before human activity was a significant factor.
"Completely omitting the Medival Warm Period" The MWP was not globally coherent, the average global temperature was actually lower then than now.
"Obama, Gore and Keery all own beachfront property" This is, by a wide margin, the stupidest argument denialists make. It's shockingly dumb, for so many reasons it's hard to know where to start. But here's the short form: Rich people want to live by the beach, and they don't care if it'll flood in 100 years.
This past year Gore was talking about sea water boiling 🤦
No: Greenland is not melting (right now), nor are islands disappearing, nor are ice bears drowning: ice bears live in the water, where they hunt for food.
@er Actually, overwhelming science says those are all happening.
And they’re called polar bears, Ursus maritimus.
@J4Zonian yeah, because people named them. They were not named by some ethereal mandate.
@@Madonnalitta1and? There's no such thing as ice bears unless you're on about the hockey team 😛
@@aceman0000099 In dutch they are named IJSBEER, translated to english is ICE BEAR
@JacobBax No. It translates to polar bear or noun; sea bear. To pronounce in English, it is similar to "ice beer" as in beverage.
Greenland has actually been ADDING to its ice mass over the last decade. The summertime Arctic ice extent has been constant since 2007. The CDN has a whole series on sea levels - historic and modern - proving the sea level rise is and has been about 3mm per year.
... next?
Amen. I really want a video doing a deep dive on predictions that actually came true. It would be a short video. Much better would be a video about table pounding predictions that made headlines that were made by prominent people that didn't come true.
Do you have a source for this please?
@@localkauf The source for Greenland gaining mass is usually some blog that misrepresents information from the Danish meteorological institute. I see Polar Portal has been misrepresented so much it now has to explain the difference between surface mass balance and total mass balance in red capitals. Arctic ice loss was running way ahead of models - PIOMAS shows September ice volume is still less than a third of what it was when satellite monitoring began in 1979. Sea level rise has accelerated to 3.3 mm/year from essentially zero before 1900 - see Bob Kopp, 'Global sea-level change over the Common Era' and also Guardian article 'Earth is warming 50x faster than when it comes out of an ice age'.
@@localkauf I just looked it up and i couldn't find a single source that showed the ice gaining. I find the majority of climate related "science" to be nonsense (models that have SO many assumptions as to make them virtually meaningless etc) but the greenland sheet does seem to be receding.
@@jasondashney and yet models since the 60s/70s have been largely accurate at predicting rising temperatures
If you actually watch the video, it actually supports Gore's overall points and the seriousness of human-caused climate change due to anthropogenic CO2 & CH4: Quote:12:27 "British Justice Gore actually concluded that Gore's film was substantially founded upon scientific research and that the film's four scientific hypotheses were very well supported by research published in respected peer-reviewd journals".
What you're really saying: Give the fossil fuel industry a millimeter of discrepancy in your scientific rigour and they'll bog down climate negotiations for a century until its 4 degrees of warming not 1.5 and too late for any of us.
I was wrong... it was 50 years and we're going to get 4 degrees of warming anyway -_-
Welcome back Dr. Clark! I never watched An Inconvenient Truth as a kid. I always heard about it as something bad people liked.
Never listen to'what people say' it's not usually accurate!
Kilamanjaro; today 22.6.23 weather (mid summer, longest day, almost) snow showers, high -2c, low -3c
Welcome to the world of anecdotes
Weather does not equal climate.
@@letzte_maahsname Correct but it does prove wrong gores statement "no more snow on Kilimanjaro". Here is a chart of temperature at the top going back to the 60swww.americanscientist.org/sites/americanscientist.org/files/20085291220246712-2007-07MoteF6.jpg
how about what we are teaching kids about CRT ? Same critique applies to social science.
I appreciate your perspective and arguments even if I disagree. 1. There is no evidence that CO2 will cause runaway heating which seems to be the most common extreme position of climate activists. Large-scale multivariate systems with no overwhelming and dominating factor ever cause a runaway state, and that is what we see with Climate. According to prehistoric climate data, we know that CO2 was two orders of magnitude higher, and yet the Earth still cooled and life existed. 2. Climate models don't account for solar variation, cloud cover, or the infinite heat sink of space. These three factors are major contributors to climate and without accounting for them we can never expect climate models to be accurate.
Have you actually checked what you wrote here, that is your reasons to 'disagree'? 1. Well, scientists generally think a moist runaway greenhouse effect like happened on Venus won't happen for 500 million years (when the Sun will be brighter). But if you are referring to other tipping points, yes very credible research shows risks of permanent change and even possibilities of mass extinction. I'm pretty sure CO₂ has never been at 42,500 ppm at any point in the Phanerozoic. Yes, it was even higher in the Archaean, but then life was all single-celled, the Sun was much fainter, and the sky was pink.
2. Climate models certainly account for loss of heat to space, that's fundamental. Clouds are approximated, often not well. Models include the predictable 11-year solar cycle, and hypothetical future solar variations like a Maunder minimum has been modelled eg by Gerald Meehl.
Kate Marvel: ruclips.net/video/Tmk7nAvpMXQ/видео.html
The problem with attribution modeling is that it assumes the models are accurate, and yet not a single public prediction on climate that I can find has ever been close to accurate. When I say close, I mean, did the predicted result get within 2X of the prediction, from my reading, it's never even close! A model that can't make predictions isn't a good model and so any type of attribution study based on a bad model isn't a good study.
? Sure doesn't seem like every model is wrong...
www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right.amp
@je …a peer-reviewed study found that global climate models are even more accurate than previously thought.
Robust comparison of climate models with observations using blended land air and ocean sea surface temperatures
Kevin Cowtan, Zeke Hausfather, Ed Hawkins, Peter Jacobs, Michael E. Mann, Sonya K. Miller, Byron A. Steinman, Martin B. Stolpe, Robert G. Way
agupubs onlinelibrary wiley
"How accurate are scientific predictions about climate?”potholer54 doing what he does, debunking nonsense, this time on models
"Correcting the underestimation in the current IPCC future average global temperature projections…"
.jobone for humanity
"Most Accurate Models Predict Highest Climate Warming"
December 18, 2017 climatecrocks
The difference between scenarios, projections, predictions and (weather) forecasts
climate4impact eu impact portal
The IPCC has underestimated the observed speed and direness of climate effects 20 times more often than it's overestimated or hit it exactly right.
Over and over the most dire scenarios in studies have turned out to be the most accurate, and every aspect of climate catastrophe has moved faster than expected for decades, right up to this week:
The extent of ice floating around the continent has contracted to below 2m sq km for 3 years in a row, indicating an ‘abrupt critical transition’
US National Snow and Ice Data Center, Guardian 24/2/2024
Scientists amazed as Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years early
Reuters, June 18, 2019
"Scientists amazed as..." We've heard phrases like that hundreds of times over the last few decades-almost every time a new study of ice melt anywhere, for example, adds new scientific measurements to the accumulating data, AKA facts.
“Antarctica sea ice reaches alarming low for third year in a row”
How good have climate models been at truly predicting the future?
14 out of the 17 projections statistically indistinguishable from what actually occurred.
In an upcoming paper in Geophysical Research Letters, Zeke Hausfather, Henri Drake, Tristan Abbott and I [Gavin Schmidt] took a look at how well climate models have actually been able to accurately project warming in the years after they were published. This is an extension of the comparisons we have been making on RealClimate for many years, but with a broader scope and a deeper analysis. We gathered all the climate models published between 1970 and the mid-2000s that gave projections of both future warming and future concentrations of CO2 and other climate forcings
"IPCC Reviews Climate Models. Turns Out They’ve Been Spot On"
This Is Not Cool, May 7, 2022
30th anniversary of Hansen’s testimony:
“BBC Spot-on in 1988 - Warming will be Greatest in the Arctic”
This Is Not Cool, June 24, 2018
“What we knew in 82”
This Is Not Cool, 2018/06/24
“James Hansen's 1988 testimony after 30 years. How did he do?” youtube
The first transient climate projections using GCMs are 30 years old this year, and they have stood up remarkably well.
We’ve looked at the skill in the Hansen et al (1988) simulations before (back in 2008), and we said at the time that the simulations were skillful and that differences from observations would be clearer with a decade or two’s more data. Well, another decade has passed!
realclimate
Exxon predicted in 1982 exactly how high global carbon emissions would be today
CO2 in the atmosphere has reached unprecedented levels.
May 14, 2019
(thinkprogress exxon predicted high carbon emissions)
Most things denying delayalists call “predictions" are really projections, parts of multiple sets of mathematical hypotheses in studies. On the other hand, the actual predictions by the denying delayalist industry have turned out to be way off over and over and over. Overwhelmingly. (skeptical science ice age predictions in 1970s)
“Checkmate: how do climate deniers' predictions stack up?”
The Guardian, Dec 19, 2017
David Evans (Jo Nova’s husband) makes a prediction. And another. and another… Oops.
(hotwhopper 2016/02 another cool prediction from force-x)
Climate science has been making remarkably good projections (1) since the 1970s (Nuccitelli 2015) and IPCC projections are on track. (2) Meanwhile even recent “predictions” (3) by Heartland’s denialist friends have failed miserably. (4)
(1) theguardian climate-consensus 97 per-cent 2015/jul/31 climate models are even more accurate than you thought
(2) skeptical science ipcc global warming projections
(3) hotwhopper 2013/12/ denier weirdness crank blog popularity
(4) reuters climate change bets
I'm also very much interested in physics and planning to do undergraduate study in it, after telling about my interest in physics , most of my well wishers asked about employment opportunities. They are worried about it. Can you please tell me about job opportunities for an physics undergrad. It means a lot if you could reply.
Most Engineering is applied Physics. So study in Engineering may sate your Physics urge. And if you choose the science discipline, you'll have many opportunities besides primary research, social media, or teaching; lawyers with science degrees are highly sought after in Intellectual Property Law; medicine careers based on Physics undergrad degrees are great, too. Physics teaches a discipline in rational thought, so is also a great basis for business and management.
You didn't mention which branches of Physics you're most interested in?
I had the DVD in a drawer for many years, until this exceptionally cold winter here. It wasn't utterly useless after all, it generated a little warmth when burned.
"Climate skeptics cherry-pick data and they take findings out of context in order to make statements that fly completely counter to the scientific consensus." Mr. Clark follows that up with a statement about the problem of exaggerated claims made by climate activists that are nevertheless still grounded in fact. *The first quote appears to suggest that no scientist should ever make statements that oppose the scientific consensus.* If that is what he means, it is a highly irresponsible statement for a science educator to make, especially one who recognizes the complexity and nuance associated with some areas of study.
Climate activists cherry pick data and frequently lie and bully people, shaming them if they dare to question their claims.
I watched this in middle school as well. And I fully agree, looking back it's weird how something so obviously politically-driven was shown to kids.
How CB is it weird when most teachers and school administrators are left leaning in most places in the USA, even in red states.
Except the premise of the movie, that man's CO2 and Methane are the CAUSE of global warming was just as true then as it is today. Your attempts to claim otherwise by creating STRAWMAN arguments from things said by non-scientists is sickening and completely anti-science.
@@Heavywall70hahahahahahahahahhaha
It is NOT politically driven. It is science-driven
@@granthurlburt4062 Did you watch the video? There were a lot of errors made, and the problem sensationalized. He wasn't sharing science, he was pushing a problem that his government could solve.
It's a pity Gore didn't have Dr James Hansen on at the end to talk about solutions. Hansen's book "Storms of My Grandchildren" and his Ted talk from around the same time both discussed the need for and co-benefits of federal legislation of Carbon Fee and Dividend. Citizens Climate Lobby is now trying to make that possible as a bipartisan bill in the US, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act. Canada has already done it.
Admirable though Hansen's position and work have been, they -- like Canada's Carbon Dividend Act -- fall far short of real solutions. Perhaps if we'd done as Hansen suggests in 1965 when Revelle's report came out, it might have been enough.
Now? The actions will need to be: 1) curtailing fossil extraction 2% per month down to zero by 2030, 2) avoiding methane emission as much as possible, 3) replacing fossil-emitting activities with fossil-free alternatives and shutting down the fossil activities when replaces instead of letting them go on, 4) drawing down CO2 from air equivalent to planting 60 trillion new trees by 2060, 5) wildlife conservation equivalent to slowing ship traffic 40% at sea and similar levels on land, and 6) increasing energy efficiency at least 8% year over year.
Finance leader of Canada has video on RUclips showing her saying that the climate tax is about increasing government revenues. When it was originally introduced in BC, it was revenue neutral. It just incentivized behavior. Great, but now it's not. Now it's just a money grab. Carbon tax is hurt the most vulnerable the most. Go to your local grocery store. If you want to see why. People who are having trouble making ends meet, can't afford the increase in gas prices, and the increase in groceries. It's cruel and inhumane.
@@jasondashney - 80% of all Canadian families are coming out ahead financially because all the money is being returned in quarterly payments. The fossil fuel industry hates cash-back carbon pricing, because it's very good for everyone except for the fossil fuel billionaires (Koch Network villains). Don't listen to the polluters, listen to the economists. Carbon Fee and Dividend is the most cost-effective, powerful, equitable, and far-reaching way to rapidly reduce climate pollution, and it puts more money in most people's pockets.
There is still no proper understanding of what proportion of global temperature rise is attributable to C02 emissions. The melt back of the ice caps on the planet Mars correspond closely to the meltback of the ice caps on Earth. This can only be explained by variation in solar output, according to the work of Professor Valentina Zharkova. This is only one of many factors that could affect global temperature increase.
I am also wondering why Al Gores graphs do not show the significant temperature rise during the Medieval warm period, and the Roman warm period, long before anthropogenic C02 rise was a factor.
@nig ENOUGH of the lies! (Or at least get some that haven’t been debunked 600,000 times.) Get into psychotherapy for help figuring out why you’re compelled to aid the most criminally psychopathic bunch in history in stopping the solutions to climate catastrophe (with blatantly stupid lies we’ve all got memorized).
People interested in the reality can find it at Skeptical Science.
Also if Nebula wants to communicate science better than media and algorithms then they can add spanish subtitles to everything just to battle the overwhelming amount of misinformation reaching latino america ahead of any attempt to squash it.
The global warming scam is all disinformation.
And maybe we could speak about what a pointless exercise recycling plastic is when only 5% of it gets reused, and the rest goes in the landfill or into the ocean. That’s a far more important question than global warming.
Both are important and the plastic problem needs solving.
The only thing that increased with our new
Al Gore Rhythms is Al Gore's bank accounts
and the amount of jet fuel he has expelled.
"Was opposed by a group of people who claims [it] contained a multitude of scientific errors. [The justice] ruled that [the film] was 'substantially founded upon scientific research and fact' "
Way to bury the lead! Opposed by some unspecified group of people. By any chance did monies from a similar people-group assist in providing the jacks necessary to tilt your coverage so impressively?
The movie's four main scientific hypotheses are very well supported by the latest research in respected journals... So let's ignore all that and focus this entire video on nine inconsequential errors that you admit are the exception rather than the norm. But we can make hay with em!
And then that FUD threat of the secret evil 10th!! Which turns out to be a nothing burger smuggled inside another nothing burger. So much so that you even apologize for it.
But I must admit, props for the nicely clipped British accent which might help people confuse you with Potholer54.
A mile of ice above my head just 12,000 years ago. And able to walk to Germany.
I'm not really bothered by 0.05C
Thanks perfesser.
The difference between people of my generation and people of Simon Clarke's generation is that my generation wasn't indoctrinated to the extent that Mr Clarke's generation was. When I was at school we were told about the dangers of nuclear power and the ozone layer, in later years the 'global treat' was global warming, in the 1970 kids were told the global crisis was global cooling. At some point the politicians wanted the alarmism to be more easily transferable, so they settled on climate change. Fun fact, the same people who are telling us that the answer to the problem is "renewable energy" also bought shares in renewable energy companies when their stock was virtually worthless, it's now a multi-billion dollar industry. However that renewable energy isn't very renewable, wind turbines break down and literally fall apart too regularly, solar panels are far from environmentally friendly, and the system is driving the cost of living through the roof. It's very politicised.
Perhaps if people like you acknowledged the fact that climate change is real, we could work on finding better solutions to climate change than wind turbines and solar panels (like Nuclear energy, which we've had for decades but has been fear mongered to death). But that's not the case. And broken systems offer broken solutions.
Wind turbines are powered by fossil fuels. They have to be in constant motion, otherwise the arms would shear off. If there is not enough wind, then they are powered electrically.
@@cjshakesyou guys just want enemies.
It doesn't matter if I don't believe in anthropological climate change, nor the OP, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT POLICY MAKERS.
Do you really think that people not agreeing with you is an existential problem?
On the UC DAVIS website, there have been web pages up for many years about nitrogen and boreal forests. You have to read their long explanations for at least a couple pages to understand what they are talking about! If you do so you will learn they are talking about nitrogen in the mountain ⛰️ waters of boreal forests feeding the forest trees 🌲 and causing HUGE growth blooms of those forests when there are excess levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. They say this needs to be more studied because the trees are obviously using the nitrogen directly from the mountain waters without mycorrhiza in those soils to make the nitrogen available to the trees 🌲. AND IN THE PAST, MANY TIMES THESE FOREST BLOOMS HAVE REVERSED RAPID RISES IN CO2 IN THE EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE, ABSORBING MASIVE AMOUNTS OF CO2! If you really have some understanding how nature works, like I do, you would KNOW that once in history nature has corrected some adversity in the Earth’s biome, it will happen again and again from then on rapidly and automatically. Therefore, your global warming is a LIE that should NOT be feared and ALL OF YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, AT ALL! 😅
The earth is becoming measurably greener. Since the 1980s, 29% of human CO2 emissions were cancelled out by the CO2-induced greening of the Earth. The post-2000 vegetative greening expansion has been so massive (5.4 million km²) its net area increase is equivalent to a region the size of the Amazon rainforest. This is an unquestionable fact and wasn't what was assumed in the past.
Source: 'Characteristics, drivers and feedbacks of global greening' Nature reviews earth & environment Dec 2019.
Crop yields per acre are 30% higher than in 1980, this is largely down to the CO2 rise. In the past the Sahara desert has flipped over to tropical forest when CO2 has risen and this may well happen again bringing CO2 back down. Timber standards have had to be revised as timber is growing far more rapidly than in the past, sub Arctic pine forests in particular. There is enough evidence now to suggest that there are powerful feedback mechanisms to limit CO2 rise - though they may take a few decades to kick in.
@Za Misleading cherry picking where it’s not outright lies.
Crop yields are higher because of increased fertilizer, obviously, which has disastrous effects like poisoning water, ocean dead zones, climate catastrophe...
Increased CO2 has hundreds of other catastrophic effects: ocean acidification is wiping out many thousands of species; global warming is wiping out millions of species, spreading deadly diseases, decreasing yields of hundreds of crops, making them & others less nutritious, ice melt, sea level rise, ecological disruption & collapse,
"Humans are greening the planet, but the implications are complicated"
Skeptical Science, 15 July 2016
"New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’"
Skeptical Science, 19 September 2016
"More CO2 in the atmosphere hurts key plants and crops more than it helps"
Skeptical Science, 21 December 2020
This is an inconvenient truth about An Inconvenient Truth
It was more true than we knew at the time.
Whoa, that's meta.
Well done. I recall being impressed at the time An Inconvenient Truth was released that, despite what was likely a very important message to the world, it was more about the messenger than it was the message. And I strongly suspect that today there are many - a significant percentage - of reputable scientists who are more moderate in their views of climate change and its consequences. Unfortunately, because we've allowed the issue to become political (in no small part due to this film), they aren't at liberty to freely express their views and conclusions, at the risk of appearing to be on side with irrational deniers. Some objectivity is certainly lost because of the politics.
@du The film was entirely about climate catastrophe, except for a few seconds about Gore, & a few minutes about his family, a very important part of getting the story across. The issue HAS been politicized-entirely by the far right, in service of their & the corporate oligarchs’; personal gain.
Scientists are perfectly free to express their opinions, but science is done by presenting evidence, & the evidence is OVERWHELMINGLY in support of the scientific consensus; that’s the only reason there is a scientific consensus. Any scientist who could disprove warming WITH EVIDENCE (the only thing that matters) would be a millionaire, & respected by all scientists.
Those very few scientists still denying the science are either believers in extreme right wing dogma, or being paid by fossil fuel corporations & the far right, or both. No one in the scientific community has the slightest respect for them, because they, above all, are using bad science, pretend science, or no science at all, for political & personal gain.
When he says lying by omission he nailed it. With the 24/7 news cycle they only present one side because if they present the other side their argument falls apart. Most important to the climate scientist the money goes away. Follow the money folks...
@I Astounding that you criticize people whose chosen profession limits almost every one of them to at most a middle class income, while ignoring the tens of millions going to denying delayalist policy makers like oil executives & PR/lobbying bigwigs.
Any scientist disproving global warming would also be paid many millions by the insane right wing, as Wei-Hock Soon & others already have been despite their utter ineffectiveness disproving anything.
The science, evidence, & scientists are completely clear: 99.9% of papers (Cornell, 2021) & scientists, & every single major & national scientific organization in the world agree now:
Earth is warming.
It’s caused by humans.
It’s a dire threat to civilization & nature.
Is it just me, or did the graph of CO2 v Temp indicate that temperature rose BEFORE CO2? That being the case, one must re-examine the causes of the temp increases first, before blaming the innocent compound. ...and what is the cyclical nature of the graph reflective of? What is the wave crest to crest and trough to trough times? Do they relate to vulcanism? Plate techtonics?Asteroid impact epochs related to the Solar System cycling through the galactic plane?
Aliens dumping radioactive waste on a regular basis?
^ lead poisoning comment
No, it's not just you.
A very pedantic presentation with no real point.
More so than al gore's pedantic presentation?😂
And the hockey stick curve in the movie is wrong and cant be recreated.
Nope, it has actually been updated several times with more accurate data, is "recreated" over and over again, and YOU are a LIAR.
correction islands in the western pacific are sinking except TANNA of Vanuatu which is rising it is called plate tectonics and the undulation of the earth's crust,
@gra It’s called sea level rise; it's caused by global warming.
I was one of those kids in school here in NYC. I believed it until I was like 18
The biggest hole is the complete lack of correlation between atmospheric co2 and mean average surface temperature.
You mean a clear correlation? Look at graphs of global temperature and the Keeling curve of CO2 levels. Perhaps you do not understand correlations?
Actually the correlation between CO2 gases and climate change does exist, although not exactly as it's sold by the climate change folks; as it turns out, the correlation is that as the mean average temperature of oceans rises, co2 amounts rise.
In fact, this is the source of over 80% of all CO2 gas in our atmosphere.
What this means is that the warming occurs FIRST and THEN CO2 is released into the atmosphere.
So, as it turns out, CO2 is an EFFECT of warming climates, NOT the CAUSE.
THE SINGLE GREATEST CONTRIBUTOR to warming global temperatures (by a VERY wide margin) is solar activity (the Sun), NOT CO2.
@@ClimateScepticSceptic-ub2rg Yes - now take a look at the CO2 scale. Tell me what the maximum CO2 level was that supposedly 'caused' the warming event more than 5degC hotter than today. Correlation is not causation.