Climate Change: The Evidence and Our Options - Perspectives on Ocean Science
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 окт 2024
- In this Second Annual Keeling Lecture from Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego, Lonnie G. Thompson, distinguished professor of earth sciences at Ohio State University and recipient of both the National Medal of Science and the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement, provides insight into the convincing evidence of climate change provided by glaciers and polar ice-caps, and the implications that inaction in the face of this rapid change will have on societies on a global scale. [6/2011] [Show ID: 20913]
More from: Jeffrey B. Graham Perspectives on Ocean Science Lecture Series
(www.uctv.tv/oc...)
Explore More Science & Technology on UCTV
(www.uctv.tv/sc...)
Science and technology continue to change our lives. University of California scientists are tackling the important questions like climate change, evolution, oceanography, neuroscience and the potential of stem cells.
UCTV is the broadcast and online media platform of the University of California, featuring programming from its ten campuses, three national labs and affiliated research institutions. UCTV explores a broad spectrum of subjects for a general audience, including science, health and medicine, public affairs, humanities, arts and music, business, education, and agriculture. Launched in January 2000, UCTV embraces the core missions of the University of California -- teaching, research, and public service - by providing quality, in-depth television far beyond the campus borders to inquisitive viewers around the world.
(www.uctv.tv)
Pictorial 4:29 shows more warming in the upper and middle troposphere than in the lower troposphere but measurements plots at 5:02 to 5:20 show more warming in the lower troposphere than in the upper troposphere. This should be explained in this talk.
The melting from underneath the ice in east antarctica is also decelerated due to more snowfall which disrupts the circulation of warmer water from below.
So ice in west antarctica is decreasing, east is probably increasing but nobody really knows the net effect on the ice in antarctica. And that the east is increasing is due to warmer temperatures.
Lonnie Thompson - you make Ohio proud! Great video.
Eight years later we're still having the same debates. Last 5 years have all been warmest on record. Pleiocene bearing down on us, faster and faster. We're now at 410 ppm, still accelerating. Won't be long now.. Bye!
Robert Poen why don’t you present proper evidence before you get governments to waste trillions of dollars so you can feel important and right.
There has been extensive studies of how much crop yields will increase with higher CO2 levels and the consensus is that, the yield will increase, but very very marginally and it will absolutly not balance out the atropogenic CO2. CO2 does not increase rain, it will increase in some places and decrease in some places, unfortunately the decrease will mainly be in places where there today is extensive agricultural land and the increase will mainly be in places where you can't grow anything anyway.
Where did you get that bit? It was not the Met office they give no such findings.
question? how did CO2 come into the equation before the conclusion ... asking to understand
Not sure what you are asking. The greenhouse effect is easy to research and not debated. It is the reason we are all alive. Our massive, recent release of CO2 into the atmosphere has put it out of equilibrium causing global warming.
@@kuruptlive8874It all depends on the temperature of the saltwater. The warmer it is, the more melt you get. Global warming is warming the saltwater.
@@kuruptlive8874 Try going to reputable scientific organizations for your information. It will help you avoid a lot of the politicalization of the issue. I am glad you are searching for real data. Keep it up!
Both sides can present evidence that it is changing or its not changing, the debate will never end until the changes become really bad.
Much of Einsteins theory of special relativity was not physically tested. For example the idea that relative time changes for a body traveling at close to light speed. As far as I know there was no spaceship built that could travel that fast to test this back in the 1920's. Maybe you know otherwise. The majority of his theory was based on abstract calculation and the extrapolation of observable phenomena.
Rather than just doing your propaganda bit and posting a link to a denier site, why not watch this video and actually comment on what the scientist says? Too much trouble? Might learn something?
I thought so.
I vote for you. People like 1000frolly should just stop this denial nonsense. The science is very clear on this now. It would also probably make his life easier too - as admitting ones own faults is the first step to enlightenment. There really is no time to argue on the physical facts of CO2 and its heat trapping properties - we really should focus on finding solutions to avoid complete disaster.
What do you even mean by 10 times cooler?
There is no consensus on the ice on Antarctica. It is very hard to measure the amount of ice and different studies have used different methods and arrived at different results, some that the ice is increasing, some that the ice is decreasing. The ice of west antarctica is for sure decreasing and the east is probably growing somewhat because of increased snowfall due to higher moister content in the air due to higher temperatures.
Furthermore we can also clearly measure a rise in acidity in the oceans that was not there before GHG emissions rose. We also know that the rate of acidity is 10 times of previous mass extinction levels by looking at fossil records. Clearly the massive CO2 emissions already have an impact even though you cant see it in your backyard yet. Do we have to wait until it becomes an all out extinction event before you are convinced? Do you wear a helmet when riding a bike, just in case of an accident?
Really good lecture, lots of info in there.
But you are convinced that the CO2 forcing is not of significance to the earths total energy balance? Why is it we measure increased temperatures in the oceans and can measure this energy imbalance with satellites? Why is it that the rise in temperatures correspond so well with a rise in GHG emissions? No doubt scientists over the years learned that the cooling effect of aerosols were stronger than they thought, but that has not diminished the warming effect that CO2 had, and continue to have.
Great lecture!
37:24 ~ "...FWG (Furtwangler Glacier) glacier should disappear before 2018." I'm happy to report it's 2020 and you can clearly see FWG on google maps with an imagery date of @2020. It is slightly smaller but doesn't appear to be disappearing in the next few years. I'm glad you can recalculate your models now for a slower warming for this climate change. Please post results so people will stop using this old data.
38:07 ~ based on the full picture of Kilimonjaro, the current photo in 2020 actually shows more snow and ice that this one. Although FWG has receded some have others not grown?
It is now 2019 and nothing like the sea level rise Dr Thompson has foreshadowed has occurred, therefore less than 2% of the world's terrestrial ice has been lost, even with the loss of glacial ice that has been shown in this video. So is a readjustment rather than a net melting occurring?
We are just starting to loose Greenland, that is all land based ice, which is much more then in the Glaciers.
Yes, now Greenland is producing its own energy from the melting water, year around. Which was not possible before.
I did. Liua, Judith Curry, Wangb, Songb & Hortonc say that "the Arctic region has been warming strongly in recent decades" and that's "played a critical role in recent cold and snowy winters". They say AGW is causing some snowier winters some places.
I have. Which is why I know that the Met office did not say that nor could from their data.
Who said it was tiny? We have added 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere since pre industrial times. Now thats a substantial amount! Now do us all a favour. Go to a university or somewhere you can do the experiment - fill a container with 40% more CO2 than another one and measure how much faster the one with more CO2 heats up the air over the other one. Its plain physics. Why do you still refute simple physics? Do you also deny the existence of gravity?
This video is out of date, 2012 was warmest.
It's all about the oceans. If ocean surface warms from present 16.1 to 18.9 over next hundred years or so, there's no reason why the deep ocean wouldn't keep grabbing that and warm from its present 4 degrees to 7 degrees, and 7 is way more above the water melt point than 4 and it all laps Antarctic & Greenland over the centuries.
There are several factors that have caused the "shift" and to be fair most are natural. Regardless, the facts that the climate is changing are irrefutable. I will view your vids and look into the Wegman report.
Nothing would make me happier than for you to be right and me wrong. I just don't think that that is going to be the way that it is. Please research the Permian extinction then tell me how we are not headed that way.
Seems like we have to agree to disagree.
Cheers,
Ed the alarmist
We've sent men to the moon and brought them back, and we can't figure out ways to get ice cylinders back any other way than on the back of yaks? Says pretty much everything about how much we really care about climate change as a whole.
If you believe in the moon landings then you are gullible enough to believe in climate change. Ask yourself why there isn't any empirical evidence of climate change or the moon landings???
David Joyce god ur iq is so low, get tf out of here u conspirary theorist.
Baekin lolz again resorting to ad hom. Why won't you present any evidence to back up the claims you believe in? Is it because there isn't any evidence? Yes that's right, you have no evidence so resort to ad hominem attacks. 😂😂😂
Very good
Throwing up dozens of graphs for a few seconds without explaining them is not convincing. Feel like I just watched an infomercial for a time share in Florida.
Very interesting.
What's your theory ? No need to give exact data +/-20% should be fine.
Now, I may be among the laymen but I think we know the fate of these glaciers and global temperatures is swayed by the rudder of the oceans (as the title "Climate Change: The Evidence and Our Options - Perspectives on Ocean Science" seems to agree). Yet this video seems lacking in its explanation of the ways and places in which the oceans exchange heat with the atmosphere and the nature of these processes, like the PDO and AMO--especially in terms of the oceans' relation to cloud cover and our solar energy source.
Clouds affect precisely the same regions of the atmosphere as the greenhouse gasses and aerosols shown at the 4:17 mark of this video, and so often regulate their effect, because they act as barriers or greenhouses to solar and planetary irradiance depending their qualities and where irradiance is coming from. The average span, altitude, thickness, and latitude of cloud cover alone can serve as a marker for how far global warming is pushing up into the atmosphere and, along with precipitation levels, how it manages incoming and outgoing heat, whether amplifying or nullifying. Compare the average global low, mid, and high level cloud cover record to the atmospheric warming and cooling trends (shown at the 5:02 mark). Despite the all-too-recent advent of cloud data collection, you will see that low clouds (which cool the surface on average by blocking sunlight) diminish hand-in-hand with increasing tropospheric temperatures; pushing cloud cover higher (into the mid-level) as it forces any evaporation into thinner atmosphere, where its clouds are much more likely to hold heat on average: an important amplification.
Ultimately, clouds strongly regulate the amount of energy that oceans absorb and release, even wielding greenhouse gasses which lay between: and clouds matter most over ocean because of the ocean's inherent global influence. This effect has most certainly played a role in amplifying or diminishing the increasing solar activity observed. But all of this begs the question: if clouds have this effect on climate and climate affects cloud cover, what tips the balance to diminish or increase cloud cover qualities? Which is the chicken and which is the egg?
Considering that all energy in the ocean, no matter how its amplified, originally comes from the sun, I think the answer lays within the combination of the increasing solar activity observed and its management of cloud cover, notably through ultraviolet light and cosmic ray flux--not to mention the way ocean oscillations change surface temperatures and express its containment of solar energy. For instance, the warming of the Arctic Ocean has been notable in global warming discussion, with its associated growing warming season, and yet here I think you can find one of the largest solar influences. At high latitudes like these, colder temperatures (which increase the likelihood of low clouds formation) are more present in Winter, combining with higher clouds in Summer to serve as a greenhouse for irradiance: where low clouds hold heat underneath more effectively as they thicken during Winter and solar minimums (increasing with cosmic rays during solar minimums). Sound like an amplifying effect which might aid significant northern warming? Consider how high latitudes interact with the PDO and AMO...
Do CO2 quantities matter? Yes, but is it a coincidence that just about every area of "Recent and rapid melting of glaciers around the world", shown at the 53:27 mark of the video, lay near portions of atmosphere said to have over 90% cloud/cosmic ray/UV correlation?
"the combination of the increasing solar activity observed and its management of cloud cover" has some possibility of being logical for many periods, but since 1970 solar activity has been almost flat, very slightly down, while GMST has been rising considerably, so no correlation at all for 1970 -2016. Something different and large has been happening 1970 -2016. Somebody somewhere might have some idea(s) of what it is.
More than two years, and hardly another click on this video or a post. All of these thoughts I ranted about here years ago, and since then, I've had to research it myself. I wish people were more interested in their setting.
Anyway, since I last posted here, I've found no reason to conclude that cosmic rays are exemplified in the various solar signatures among temperature or cloud data. Yet, being wrong about the arm is not being wrong about the hammer. The questions of climate sensitivity that I raised, concerning the influence of clouds on the climate and climate's influence on clouds, remains the single largest question in climatology.
If climate change is caused by natural changes not man made effects and I think natural causes are far more likely given
the minute effect of man made pollution and also the fact that man made pollution is still miniscule and was almost non existent before the 20th century, then we shall simple have to adapt as they did in the mini ice age of the 14-18 centuries.
Why should I believe the 3% - when 97% say otherwise? Sure if you are a gambler then please do - but I place my bets at the real concensus and not the science funded by oil companies.
@jjtruman "its a hoax" Evidence for that?
Which predictions have been wrong?
Potholer has very good videos debunking a lot of the nonsense from this Mockton clown by actually looking up and reading the papers that Mockton likes to bring up (and constantly misquoting). So look up the potholer54 videos all - they are very good!
Einstein once said that there are only two things that are infinite. Human stupidity and the Universe and I'm not so sure about the Universe. I'm guessing that he knew you personally.
I've seen your attempts at supposedly debunking Potholer. I think people should go and watch it to see just how woefully pathetic it is. It's so bad it's actually quite funny.
Here's the link for anyone who enjoys a good laugh:-
watch?v=AVd076LeOKY
Testing hypothesis is basic science protocol....
please refrain from swearing. you are polluting a public forum.
There you go again, confusing politics and science. Science would never resort to the method of Occam to untie the knot.
Great news...I've been feeling down a bit lately and could use a good laugh. ....I'm wondering, on a personal note, just what it is that motivates you to troll all of the video's on global warming. The effects are being seen today and you can't convince anyone with your lame denials. Email me when you get your first vid up..Thanks
Thor Heydahl!!
How about doing something like this professor, invest some time into doing actual science? You might learn something? If you have bothered to study this video you might have learned something too.
Potholer drills Monckton a new hole. Quite humorously I think. Of course, being the buffoon that Monckton is it's not too hard. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for Frolly as he just doesn't seem to understand the science that he claims to have studied so diligently. The evidence of climate disruption, due to just a small warming, is irrefutable and to see guys like Frolly with their head in the sand is sad. He's aware of Potholer but sticks to his denialist guns. Confirmation bias at work.
@watercup123456 Co2 forcing is immeasurable. So stop with the lies. The variables are to vast to obtain any measurable data to support such nonessential statements. You need to read unfunded studies. Try joannenova to begin with.
Starting to rankle the boy are we? Problem is dude, YOUR WRONG, not climate scientists. Just where are you getting your inaccurate info? Do you dream it up yourself? And kindly tell me what your degree is in? Or do you even have one?
Well the climate changes all the time
Yes, but the important thing is identifying why it changes.
@@traceurjay and we know what it is.
Any new hypothesis MUST be DISPROVABLE... that's the dumbest statement that I've ever heard. AGW is here and now...there is no man so blind as he who will not see. Good luck to you my blind friend. You're going to need it. no reply please
Very old
About 10:30, and I'm already having to call bullshit. Not a good sign. Those night maps of illumination. The second one is so lit up as to suggest a 3X to 4X increase in total energy consumption. But that's only about 20 years from the time of that talk (2011). You could realistically expect about a 50% increase in energy with BAU. (I know, illumination doesn't necessarily track total energy use, but come on, it's not going to diverge that much in 20 years.)
I hope the rest of the talk is more credible than that. Geez.
You know when the presentation was done?
They have
You apparently lack the scientific background on atmospheric chemistry needed to understand the issue. While CO2 is necessary for life and makes the planet liveable, too much as a negative effect on the global temperature. If you did some objective research you would see that to be the truth. The problem is more complex than space here allows to address. Believe what you like but shortly the truth of CC will be obvious to all. You've fallen prey to the denials machine. sorry bout your luck...
He is a very active anti-science denial troll which is all over serious climate science videos and lectures spewing nonsense. Unsubscribe 1000frolly.
Hey he's a cyclist just like me because he has a fractured left wrist (like me).