6 19 20 Hey All things Marine, When the pandemic has passed; the first thing to do; visit a reef. The reefs off Cozumel are unbelievable! The south end of the island has gigantic coral heads 2-300 feet high-really, not a fish story-lol. The area can be a bit tricky to dive & get to; very strong currents & the coral heads start @ 60 ft below the surface. The world is so beautiful. Stay safe, keep calm, & be well. v
haha, wow... Ok, I spent about 3 months at uni (MSc course) researching the impacts of climate change (i.a.) on the Great Barrier Reef. Let's just say there's cause for concern.. It turns out corals don't like increased water temperature and acidity, or starfish outbreaks (with the runoff from agriculture contributing here.. not "sunscreen" xD)... I mean, it lost close to 50% of its cover in 3 decades, right...? And many predict it will lose 90% in the next decade...
Just to explain you all about this man’s beard; he is using his beard as a metaphor for the planets deforestation, every hair resembles 1 hectare of forest left. This practice is commonly know as voodoobearding
Classic economist, they will wax and wane about climate action and then endorse neo-liberal political parties that care more about corporate coughers than the climate. Pathetic.
Well, in the U.S. at least, the democrats and liberals both have issues with how they approach climate change. Democrats usually don't go far enough or capitulate too much to the republicans, but then liberals go too far in some areas- they want zero nuclear by 2030, immediately cut natural gas once in office and refuse to implement a carbon tax despite it's potential.
Very happy to see more informational videos about climate change. Would love to see more videos on what people can do to help and videos encouraging more political engagement! Reviews of carbon fee and dividend or reviews of legislation like the USE IT ACT.
3:40 most plant reduction is DIRECTLY human-made - not necessarily indirect as you’ve mentioned!!! Just think of deforestation, herbicides, lawns, grazing, etc.!!!
I would be interested to hear what the viewers of this video are doing about this. For me, I have installed solar off grid for my house. I have planted over 50 Teak and Mahogany trees as well as many more fruit and flowering trees. Planting trees is not plant and forget, each tree planted needs regular watering and soil improvement. Living in Thailand, imported cars are heavily taxed, so a 40 KWH Nissan Leaf is US$65,000, only Singapore is more expensive. So the electric car will have to wait. Anybody else care to share?
My take is that climate change is a problem that can be solved mainly with political solutions. I don’t have a house, so alternative energy isn’t a solution. Electric cars are still not as affordable as I’d like them to be. My biggest contribution has been reading and sharing practical adjustments we can all make.
i suggest to you to watch Kurzgesagt's video: 'Can YOU fix climate change?' Short answer is, even if you change your entire lifestyle and the fossil fuel, agri, and transport industries don't change their wicked ways..it won't help anything. You can make a small impact yes, but the problem is on a global scale and requires immense political will. Unfortunately, most global leaders are baby boomers and will be dead before the younger generations really suffer the true brunt of what's to come. They don't care..and politically, we only have about 10 years left to take drastic action
"key to reversing the damage..." Yeah, we can't reverse it, at least not in human lifetimes. It will take centuries. The best we can do is slow down the warming. This is why people who understand this stuff are freaking out.
To the best of my knowledge, this is the best (simplified) approach to solving climate change: Emissions Reduction: -100% zero emission energy sources, with a majority made up of renewables like wind and solar, and nuclear serving as a reliable back up source of power. -Reduce meat and dairy consumption to around 1/3 to 1/6 of what it currently is, while using measures like better animal feed, silvopasture, etc., to reduce the emissions of the remaining livestock -Promote universal k-12 education, women's rights, access to contraceptives and abortions, and high-quality health care. These measures would give families more autonomy to chose the number of kids they want, reducing population growth -100% zero emission transportation, with most vehicles either being electrical or using carbon neutral fuels from direct air capture -Require all new buildings to be carbon neutral, and retrofit existing buildings to be as well -Either passively or actively restore depleted farmland, so it can produce food again -Replace high emissions materials like steel and concrete with low carbon alternatives, or with organic carbon negative materials, like wood or bamboo -Aggressively halt deforestation Creating New Carbon Sinks: -Trillion tree project -Repopulating the mammoth steppe -Marine Permaculture -Direct Air Capture
@@oldineamiller9007 Okay, well I'm not basing the solutions off of them. Most of the solutions are pretty generic ones, and the ones that are less talked about like gender equality and marine permaculture, I got from Project Drawdown, an organization that is based off of science.
@@curranfrank2854 To say CO2 is the trigger to influence the whole climate is not science. That is simply anti-science aka nonsense. To pretend man could change the climate is megalomaniac.
Last time I was this early trees had evolved but nothing yet had evolved to digest cellulose so all the trees became coal at a rate 600 times that of today.
dear economist team, can you please look into and add Regenerative agriculture and holistic land management to the list. modern industrialized agriculture has been causing massive damage not only to carbon cycle but also in soil degradation and loss of diverse habitat which over time has massive negative consequences. Soil more than anything els is the biggest carbon sequestration footprint, if only we let and intensive soil do it and keep it in the soil. not only that, carbon heavy soil is a richer much more productive soil. so much to talk on this subject. comment section is not enough to explain the complexity and massive potential and need of moving to regenerative ag. please do further research on this. I am subsirber of yours. i have researched your archives and got virtually nothing on this subject. thank you
Burning fire wood is carbon neutral. Assuming the wood your using is replaced with a new tree.. thats the problem. The trees are not being replaced at the same rate there being chopped down. If carbon had a tax value to be spent on replacing trees this method might work. But consequences are not taxed.
Why do these documentaries always show big, HD photos of nuclear power plants when those are precisely the form of large scale energy production that create the least amount of carbon pollution?
@@callmeedaddy Dictatorship is NOT a solution! Democratic sosialism may very well work, but then again, it hasn't been tried yet. What's for sure is that unregulated market driven capitalism and need for "infine growth" doesn't work.
OK, Smartypants what is the hydrological cycle and why is it so hugely important to seasonal and climate regions worldwide? What is the relationship between the Sun and the vastly much greater ocean and atmospheric water vapor content? What are the functions of the frontal systems beginning in the arctic and so on? And oh yeah what are the jet streams and why do they exist? What are sunspots and what are the solar output variations? Now, what are albedo variations caused by changes in landscapes, like deforestation megacities or farming grasslands? Understanding the carbon cycle is the key to climate change? Burning hydrocarbons is an urban health hazard not a climate change problem. The other things mentioned are much higher in the scheme of climate change actuality than hydrocarbons. However, the behavior of certain corporations over the years has created a distaste for them and their business hence the political theater and the accompanying hype.
@@Eric-ye5yz Thank you. I know how little I know, however, those aren't questions they are facts established over years of research. Politics, on the other hand, requires a certain faith, a disbelief in reality, achieved by willful ignorance.
@@malcolmwatt4866 … Wrong again !! The facts are the ice caps are melting. Those who don't want to believe, won't believe in just the same way Christians prefer nonsense to reality. You are a christian aren't you.
@@Eric-ye5yz I know the ice has been melting. We have photos taken in the late '40s of the Columbia ice fields and knew from the scientists that the glaciers were and would be receding more in the future. Returning in the mid-'60s revealed that they had receded exactly as predicted. They offered solar activity as the primary cause. What worried them was when the warming period ended and how quickly the onset of the cold would affect harvests.
@@malcolmwatt4866 … Well now they are going to know aren't they, because the warming period is here. You do understand it is the warmth (heat) that melts the ice don't you ? What you don't seem to understand is trends don't change with out a cause. It gets hot because of the accumulation of CO2 and it will continue that way till we all die or do something to cause the change.
Humans are predictable. They won't act on environmental issues, UNTIL IT'S LITERALLY AT THEIR FRONT DOOR, the ruling class is DIRECTLY affected or it begins to cost them financially. People dying wont move them. Look at Sandy Hook - no change. COVID-19 deaths- Most states are ignoring masks and social distancing
Despair not. We will get electric cars and trucks because they are better cars and trucks in many ways. The political will to move on transitioning from coal to renewables is also significant. On that one, a lot of it is up to China.
What do you expect from underexposed youngsters that visited school only 4 days a week? They go to the steet, where they wield their card boards with silly slogans on it. Well, that's what they do about it.
Nobody dares to say it. I’ll say it there are too many people on Earth and each of them demands to live like an American: big house, big car and big Mac..
There may be too many people in certain areas. Not all over the Earth. Those countries that are not able to manage their populations should consider long term population numbers reduction. Not all countries on the Earth have this problem.
I simply ADORE! 💕❣️ Your unic very brief, clear and targeted🎯 episodes, especially on Climate-subject 🙏🏻 I try always to share it - THANK YOU for such a useful tools! 🌟
Carbon sink technology whether it be generating carbon bonds (i.e. putting more energy into capture than we get from burning fossil fuels, as per the laws of thermodynamics) or making a liquid (without it just adding to emissions) and than pumping it subterranean (which also costs massive amounts of energy) both seem not feasible or illogical while we are still burning carbon anywhere.
I have moved close to work and shopping which has reduced my carbon footprint on travel. I ride my bike when possible. I live in a condo and that reduces my utilities in comparison to a house, I have outfitted the condo with energy efficient lighting and appliances all the while mindful on how I use them. I also like how condos house more people on a small piece of land. I will definitely be looking at a electric vehicle once we can get the parkade retrofitted for charging stations. I try to recycle as much as possible and even better try to buy what I need rather than a bunch of things I just like. With that I am still looking for ways to do better.
Solution to the Global Warming problem is to forcibly implement the establishment of Carbon Capturing Plants within the vicinty of all fossil fuel emitting industries all across the globe such as Thermal/Coal Gas based Power Projects,Petroleum Mining and Quarying plants,Cement Factories and Iron and Steel Industries.
Did anyone ever think that the earth underneath the seas could just be warming up the water causing the weather changes? Think about it, there has lately been a rise in the vulcano activity which has been parallel to the natural disasters in the world...
No evidence for that activity, even less for any correlation, let alone cause-effect. Even if there was any evidence (but there isn't), the fact remains that we emit 42 bn of Co2 in the air. That must cause some commotion, right? And there is a lot of evidence of correlation and cause effect for that. (For example, it strictly correlates with the increase of concentration of Co2 in the atmosphere, measured by sensors worldwide every day).
This is actually really smart, I am a 3rd year applied geology student, and diving into your question a little, I found these two numbers : The respective mean heat flows of continental and oceanic crust are 70.9 and 105.4 mW/m2." So yeah sure now we could say the heat flux from oceanic crust (dues to its thinner nature of 6-7km) is greater then oceanic, The significant difference when it comes to the whole energy balance equation can be approached similarly to how we are learning it in Hydrology. In that now what is most important is how quickly is tat energy flux being moved away from the generating source. I would assume that you will find the energy flux volume is much greater from the continental crust due to the surface turbidity, roughness, heat gradient differences, etc. You can find more energy balance data by simply putting in "Earth's energy balance"
I found this: "Despite its geological significance, Earth's interior heat contributes only 0.03% of Earth's total energy budget at the surface, which is dominated by 173,000 TW of incoming solar radiation.[7] This external energy source powers most of the planet's atmospheric, oceanic, and biologic processes."
Environmentalists should robustly embrace negative emissions, and get everybody out planting instead of saying "yes, but..." People can be motivated to bring back the forests, and we can research the other solutions in this family. This problem will be fought on multiple fronts. Let's get moving.
In Australia, we are betting on fossils as our future. After all, we can eliminate global warming by opening our windows and turning up our air conditioners.
Geology can also refer to the formations that are below the surface so I think the way that word was used is actually accurate. Or are you simply echoing the implication alluded to by the short film that carbon sequestration in geological formations may or may not be reliable... Particularly in light of the major release of natural Gas in the Aliso canyon disaster in Southern California which may have significantly influenced a major drought.
pollution is bad . we all know that. bad air, bad water, bad health. It’s best to stop the discussion and take action. * July 2020 was the second-hottest month ever recorded on Earth. * June 2020 was the second-hottest June of all time. * May 2020 was the hottest May of all time. * April 2020 was the second-hottest April of all time. * March 2020 was the second-hottest March of all time.
😂😂😂😂 you are a real sucker for that one. CO2 is not pollution,it’s the gaz of life on earth. This all BS ,fear mongering and control. Go listen to Hans Rosling videos
@1 thepackgawd "cause cooler conditions locally especially in europe" Well of course local effects are always possble, but the change in forcing due ti Co2 emissions is much bigger than due to a change in solar irradiance..so the globel temperature will not cool
@1 thepackgawd I know. Sorry english is not my native language so sometimes my responses seem to be aggressive...I try not to be, but i fail sometimes...
The problem is not carbon dioxide but oxygen that nobody mentioned. We consume the oxygen constantly generated by Forest which is constantly consumed by humans.
Deforestation must also stop. We need fast-growing timber plantations, with a global prohibition on cutting wild forests, with sanctions on COuntries that do not police them, and incentive=s for them to fund Indigenous First Nations for being the entities that do the policing
DAC (Direct Air Capture) is not a working technology as of now. It needs great amounts of energy to work and basically has a very low sinking/emissions ratio. It will take years or decades to make it work and scale it. The main tool we have to limit otherwise catastrophic damage is to slash emissions now (the next 10 year will be crucial). To aid the decarbonization process, other carbon sinks - especially nature-based - might be deployed, but only as a supplement to emissions cuts. A word to editors: 9.5 bn tons of Carbon (as world yearly emissions) is not accurate. In fact, 9.5 bn tons of Carbon = 34 bn tons of Co2, (multiply 9.5 by 44/12, the ratio of molecular weights of Co2 vs C). But we know (for example from the Emissions Gap Report of UNEP) that we emit something in the range of 42 bn tons of Co2, not 34. (Plus there is all the rest of non-Co2 GHGs carbon emissions, such as methane, which brings the total to about 55-59 bn of Co2 equivalents).
How much CO2 has gone into the atmosphere due to unnecessary manufacturing because of planned obsolescence? What do economists or atmospheric scientists say about that?
Why do we still have central means of electricity production? When the solution is already available. Solar panels + Solar Battery (I have this already and in summer my electricity use is 100% solar powered) on every house, building, warehouse, school, rooftop etc. All new cars are Electric cars immediately, the ones with or without solar panel rooftops (already available). Just bring it in, never mind the inconvenience - all new cars must be electric by 2023. All new small trucks must be something like a rivian or tesla cybertruck or equivalent. All new heavy trucks must be hydrogen or electric trucks. That would be a huge help
Hotter temperatures are collapsing water supplies and thus food supplies. At 3 C above historic averages (last 12,000) years, water supplies and food production will collapse, and so will the human population.
Climate changes because climate has always changed, humans have nothing to do with it and even if we did, there’s no reason to believe all the alarmists anyway that it would be as catastrophic as they claim and there are benefits like increasing crop yield.
Dundoril, there are lots of scientists who agree with me including Nobel Laureates and in an event, all the oil in the ground of which we have 50 years left will all be used up. Alarmist arguments don’t affect the reality on the ground , especially with the rise of China and India and growing population. Humanity has no time to change the way they use energy in 50 short years.
@@gregmorris5010 well they have to publish then ... One would think a Nobel price winner knows how science works... But that's the problem.... They have an opinion nothing more... If they had data to back it up, they would publish it... And btw. "Nobel laurelaates" Is just an appeal to authority and not argument in it self.
@@Dundoril They did already publish and they don't publish anymore now, because hardly anyone of them is still alive. Climate science was established already long time before you have been born. Look up Milanković, Suess, De Vries, Hallstatt and Bray. Happy reading! Btw. what the IPCC is publishing, has nothing to do with science at all.
@@oldineamiller9007 "They did already publish and they don't publish anymore now," Then give me these published papers on the topic. " because hardly anyone of them is still alive. " So we are talking about research done 50 years ago? "Look up Milanković, Suess, De Vries, Hallstatt and Bray." NO, give me a specific paper...Sorry but you can not expect me to look through all of their papers to proof YOUR claim...
The human Experience is a 'Story' in the form of a Holographic Simulation, produced by Programs, being played in "The Processing System of LIFE"... What happens in the Earth Program, is solely Controlled by the Program, being played in "The Processing System of LIFE".... Discover and Understand the DIFFERENCE, between "LIFE (The Real Self)", and the human PRIMATE, which Contains DOUBLE LOGIC in its GENOME, adversely affecting ALL human activity, including 'THOUGHT' and 'REASON'.
This guy works for the economist. Can we not get more than one expert on here, I mean, how can I take someone seriously when their sideburns encircle their spectacles. And where do we get the co2 data prior to a time before insreumebtation and co2 record keeping? Asking for a friend
excellent - points to our need for a circular global economy in place of the current linear one - that seems to me to be the elephant in the room that will make or break life on earth - multinational corporations call the shots
why not mention the ocenas wiich contain up to 50x air based carbon Any one want power shortages and 500% higher power bills! why not mention muclear power?
Can someone explain to me why the Earth can't easily make up for the human emissions by absorbing more CO2? I read that Earth is a natural carbon sink, so why shouldn't it be able to absorb the extra amount by, in a sense, feeling that things are out of balance and adjusting for it? By the way, I'm not a climate denier; just want to understand better.
But alternatives that include free energy is stopped by policy so really tell Congress we need all new processes even if it doesn’t profit the Builderberg corporation 🤷♀️ it’s okay 👍
Don't know where you get your claims from, but none are facts. In the Holocene epoch, we are at the low end of CO2 concentrations. In fact, levels more than 10 times as high have been present, even in cool periods. Study geology, study solar cycles, study the Milankovich cycles. Appreciate that earth has been much warmer in the past, and much cooler, and that we are in an interglacial period, with warming starting in the early 19th century after the Little Ice Age. Temperatures 100 years ago were very similar, then we had a cooling period, warming in mid century and then cooling again before the warming of the late century. From 1996 to 2010 there was no warming, despite an increase in CO2. There is no increase in extreme weather or in forest fires. Alarmism keeps on ignoring the fact that every single prediction, since the very first IPCC report, has been proven wrong. A scientific hypothesis that is disproved by actual measurements is WRONG, and that is what has happened. Find something new to spread alarm about huh !
@Stanley Goddard I'm guessing that you get those figures from the "homogenisation" of historic records. It's you that is the denier of properly recorded historic temperatures, preferring instead those plucked out of thin air by a laughably inaccurate computer model. I hope you are young Stanley, and that you have plenty of years to observe actual temperature fluctuations, one likely one is a cooling phase for earth, which will bring crop reductions to northern latitudes. Carry on Alarming though, it looks more and more like a sitcom with each corruption of historic records.
@@Dundoril Many, many studies, it's a fascination. Trying to understand the complexity if the subject is so interesting. The vast majority of atmospheric carbon dioxide is emitted by earth itself, humans only account for a small percentage. Volcanic eruptions are very frequent, especially sub ocean where the crust is thinner, and tectonic movement is constant. Just one decent size release can equate to the whole amount released by human activity. The sun's activity, the gravitational effect of the moon and planets, the wobbly axis of earth, the elliptical orbit, the absorption effect of plant life and marine animals, and on and on. The claim at the start of this video that earth was in perfect balance is misguided. I'll never stop learning, mainly because I don't allow my mind to be constrained by glib headlines, but go in search of the big picture. A 4.5 billion year history is the biggest of pictures.
@@Dundoril Or, you could study it yourself, as I did. We are all individuals, my information has been gathered over many hours of study, but I am not a lecturer, so I feel no obligation to educate anyone else, except to say this. Over a fairly long life to date, I have seen so many claims by journalists and pseudo scientists, and the witnessed the next generation of the same refuting those claims and replacing them with another set.. This particular video is no exception, it appears to be written by someone with an agenda. RUclips is valuable because there is much more information on the WHOLE subject, rather than the narrow climate alarmist speciality. Do carry on your study, with an open mind. All the best
Why there is an underlying tone of hatred to human development and progress. When they put the first clip of the industrial revolution, they put that scary sound effect along with it. Why I feel like there is an ungrateful sentiment in this whole video. I mean, it is complicated. Yes, climate change is happening, and yes humans have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but at least we stopped dying at the age of 4! Also, we've only been aware of our impact on the climate since the 1960s. That's not a long time ago, and we aren't doing very bad for people who just woke up to the problem. The world is not going to end from climate change, and we will be okay, as is the earth and the ecosystems will be. Technological development, and reduced poverty will be the most important aspects when it comes to battling climate change. Not stopping fossil fuels. Fossil fuels will be abandoned if renewables are more attractive. Therefore we need to make renewables more attractive and not just demand that fossil fuels be banned, and demonize humans and human development. Read Bjørn Lomborg if you want to know more about what I'm talking about.
Being an engineer, I love tech but there are consequences. Lomborg is a tech utopian. Increased development will not fix climate change. Our greenhouse gas emissions go up every year so we have effectively done nothing substantial. No one will pay to sequester CO2 in any meaningful amount (billions of tons every year). The water is coming so don't buy any property below 3 meters. Our current path will lead to a sea level rise of 70 meters (230 feet) although it will take several hundred years to complete. No sure our current civilization will survive that.
@@tradeprosper5002 Also being an Engineer I seriously disagree with that. Technological development is powerful if we invest enough in R&D instead of wasting huge amounts of money to not solve the problem. Even if I agree with you that Lomborg is a tech utopian, he still makes a strong argument for the lack of effectiveness of the proposed climate change solutions such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. Most of the emission reductions so far have been the result of technology, not policy. I'm not even gonna go into the 70 meters sea level rise and other apocalyptic scenarios, which are the result of lacking and inaccurate models that ignore a lot of complex and interacting variables.
@@oldineamiller9007 "So, people stand aside, while Dundoril will explain to you the climate cycles." Do you have an argument or actually somethine to say?
Al Gore claimed the 'Seas are literally boiling.' Where exactly is this happening? Boiling point is 100°c. Like in my kettle.... can anyone show me where the sea is doing this?
Sorry but can't get over mr Morton's beard
fax
Makes it hard to focus on what he's saying
He has a degree in the history and philosophy of science from Cambridge University. It shows.
lol idk if beard is the right word for it- probably more like chastity fuzz. “Tell me you’re single without telling me you’re single”😂🤣
When you were shaving your beard at 8:00 but you forgot you had an online interview at 8:05
Climate change affected his beard.
@@S2Tubes
There is much more than that affected in him...
If you can change your beard we can focus on your talks on climate change.
I hope one day I can see the Great Barrier Reef before it’s gone :( I’m a marine biology student who has never seen a coral reef
@@KB-uy3lv they're getting bleached because of high water temperatures
You have plenty of time, the Great Barrier Reef isn’t king away anytime soon.
6 19 20 Hey All things Marine, When the pandemic has passed; the first thing to do; visit a reef. The reefs off Cozumel are unbelievable! The south end of the island has gigantic coral heads 2-300 feet high-really, not a fish story-lol. The area can be a bit tricky to dive & get to; very strong currents & the coral heads start @ 60 ft below the surface. The world is so beautiful. Stay safe, keep calm, & be well. v
haha, wow... Ok, I spent about 3 months at uni (MSc course) researching the impacts of climate change (i.a.) on the Great Barrier Reef. Let's just say there's cause for concern.. It turns out corals don't like increased water temperature and acidity, or starfish outbreaks (with the runoff from agriculture contributing here.. not "sunscreen" xD)... I mean, it lost close to 50% of its cover in 3 decades, right...? And many predict it will lose 90% in the next decade...
Dimitar Nachev it’s scary stuff I’ve researched some of it , the crown of thorns starfish is a major problem along with ocean acidification
“... pump it back down into geology”. Now there’s a sentence.
Just to explain you all about this man’s beard; he is using his beard as a metaphor for the planets deforestation, every hair resembles 1 hectare of forest left. This practice is commonly know as voodoobearding
Hahaha
I hate your profile pic
@@thuhavu4953 ikr, i almost punched my laptop's screen >_>
Everytime I get serious watching this , the guy’s face cracks me up !
Classic economist, they will wax and wane about climate action and then endorse neo-liberal political parties that care more about corporate coughers than the climate. Pathetic.
Well, in the U.S. at least, the democrats and liberals both have issues with how they approach climate change. Democrats usually don't go far enough or capitulate too much to the republicans, but then liberals go too far in some areas- they want zero nuclear by 2030, immediately cut natural gas once in office and refuse to implement a carbon tax despite it's potential.
5:37: direct air capture, why not put direct air capture on smoke stacks and capture the carbon dioxide before it gets into the air, makes more sense
My right ear enjoyed this video
Very happy to see more informational videos about climate change. Would love to see more videos on what people can do to help and videos encouraging more political engagement! Reviews of carbon fee and dividend or reviews of legislation like the USE IT ACT.
😂
3:40 most plant reduction is DIRECTLY human-made - not necessarily indirect as you’ve mentioned!!! Just think of deforestation, herbicides, lawns, grazing, etc.!!!
I would be interested to hear what the viewers of this video are doing about this. For me, I have installed solar off grid for my house. I have planted over 50 Teak and Mahogany trees as well as many more fruit and flowering trees. Planting trees is not plant and forget, each tree planted needs regular watering and soil improvement. Living in Thailand, imported cars are heavily taxed, so a 40 KWH Nissan Leaf is US$65,000, only Singapore is more expensive. So the electric car will have to wait. Anybody else care to share?
So you are living in the tropics. Then this may work, since it will never be winter.
My take is that climate change is a problem that can be solved mainly with political solutions. I don’t have a house, so alternative energy isn’t a solution. Electric cars are still not as affordable as I’d like them to be. My biggest contribution has been reading and sharing practical adjustments we can all make.
@@ACTHdan
The climate change is a natural happening and not a problem. Therefore we don't need to solve it.
Oldinea Miller Am I being “Punk’d?”
i suggest to you to watch Kurzgesagt's video: 'Can YOU fix climate change?' Short answer is, even if you change your entire lifestyle and the fossil fuel, agri, and transport industries don't change their wicked ways..it won't help anything. You can make a small impact yes, but the problem is on a global scale and requires immense political will.
Unfortunately, most global leaders are baby boomers and will be dead before the younger generations really suffer the true brunt of what's to come. They don't care..and politically, we only have about 10 years left to take drastic action
I'm just here for the beard comments
"key to reversing the damage..." Yeah, we can't reverse it, at least not in human lifetimes. It will take centuries. The best we can do is slow down the warming. This is why people who understand this stuff are freaking out.
To the best of my knowledge, this is the best (simplified) approach to solving climate change:
Emissions Reduction:
-100% zero emission energy sources, with a majority made up of renewables like wind and solar, and nuclear serving as a reliable back up source of power.
-Reduce meat and dairy consumption to around 1/3 to 1/6 of what it currently is, while using measures like better animal feed, silvopasture, etc., to reduce the emissions of the remaining livestock
-Promote universal k-12 education, women's rights, access to contraceptives and abortions, and high-quality health care. These measures would give families more autonomy to chose the number of kids they want, reducing population growth
-100% zero emission transportation, with most vehicles either being electrical or using carbon neutral fuels from direct air capture
-Require all new buildings to be carbon neutral, and retrofit existing buildings to be as well
-Either passively or actively restore depleted farmland, so it can produce food again
-Replace high emissions materials like steel and concrete with low carbon alternatives, or with organic carbon negative materials, like wood or bamboo
-Aggressively halt deforestation
Creating New Carbon Sinks:
-Trillion tree project
-Repopulating the mammoth steppe
-Marine Permaculture
-Direct Air Capture
Oh noo! Another IPCC adept!
@@oldineamiller9007 Can you explain what you mean? I know what the IPCC is, but that's about it
@@curranfrank2854
It is a political organisation. Their aim is not science.
@@oldineamiller9007 Okay, well I'm not basing the solutions off of them. Most of the solutions are pretty generic ones, and the ones that are less talked about like gender equality and marine permaculture, I got from Project Drawdown, an organization that is based off of science.
@@curranfrank2854
To say CO2 is the trigger to influence the whole climate is not science. That is simply anti-science aka nonsense.
To pretend man could change the climate is megalomaniac.
you can't change climate untill you change your beard.
I am guessing those over grown side burns are meant to function as amplified sinks
Last time I was this early trees had evolved but nothing yet had evolved to digest cellulose so all the trees became coal at a rate 600 times that of today.
Your poor attempt at being funny just might be the idea to save the world.
Blah - blah - blah.
dear economist team, can you please look into and add Regenerative agriculture and holistic land management to the list. modern industrialized agriculture has been causing massive damage not only to carbon cycle but also in soil degradation and loss of diverse habitat which over time has massive negative consequences. Soil more than anything els is the biggest carbon sequestration footprint, if only we let and intensive soil do it and keep it in the soil. not only that, carbon heavy soil is a richer much more productive soil. so much to talk on this subject. comment section is not enough to explain the complexity and massive potential and need of moving to regenerative ag. please do further research on this. I am subsirber of yours. i have researched your archives and got virtually nothing on this subject. thank you
Burning fire wood is carbon neutral. Assuming the wood your using is replaced with a new tree.. thats the problem. The trees are not being replaced at the same rate there being chopped down. If carbon had a tax value to be spent on replacing trees this method might work. But consequences are not taxed.
A city won't use that excess co2
Every intellectual in the world needs to see this video.
😂😂😂
Why do these documentaries always show big, HD photos of nuclear power plants when those are precisely the form of large scale energy production that create the least amount of carbon pollution?
You can't change system without changing economics of it.
@@callmeedaddy Dictatorship is NOT a solution! Democratic sosialism may very well work, but then again, it hasn't been tried yet. What's for sure is that unregulated market driven capitalism and need for "infine growth" doesn't work.
is incredible how the system lead directly to the mass to do whatever the system wants
OK, Smartypants what is the hydrological cycle and why is it so hugely important to seasonal and climate regions worldwide? What is the relationship between the Sun and the vastly much greater ocean and atmospheric water vapor content? What are the functions of the frontal systems beginning in the arctic and so on? And oh yeah what are the jet streams and why do they exist? What are sunspots and what are the solar output variations? Now, what are albedo variations caused by changes in landscapes, like deforestation megacities or farming grasslands? Understanding the carbon cycle is the key to climate change? Burning hydrocarbons is an urban health hazard not a climate change problem. The other things mentioned are much higher in the scheme of climate change actuality than hydrocarbons. However, the behavior of certain corporations over the years has created a distaste for them and their business hence the political theater and the accompanying hype.
You have said nothing of value Malcolm, just questions and disagreement.
@@Eric-ye5yz Thank you. I know how little I know, however, those aren't questions they are facts established over years of research. Politics, on the other hand, requires a certain faith, a disbelief in reality, achieved by willful ignorance.
@@malcolmwatt4866 … Wrong again !! The facts are the ice caps are melting. Those who don't want to believe, won't believe in just the same way Christians prefer nonsense to reality. You are a christian aren't you.
@@Eric-ye5yz I know the ice has been melting. We have photos taken in the late '40s of the Columbia ice fields and knew from the scientists that the glaciers were and would be receding more in the future. Returning in the mid-'60s revealed that they had receded exactly as predicted. They offered solar activity as the primary cause. What worried them was when the warming period ended and how quickly the onset of the cold would affect harvests.
@@malcolmwatt4866 … Well now they are going to know aren't they, because the warming period is here. You do understand it is the warmth (heat) that melts the ice don't you ?
What you don't seem to understand is trends don't change with out a cause. It gets hot because of the accumulation of CO2 and it will continue that way till we all die or do something to cause the change.
Humans are predictable. They won't act on environmental issues, UNTIL IT'S LITERALLY AT THEIR FRONT DOOR, the ruling class is DIRECTLY affected or it begins to cost them financially. People dying wont move them. Look at Sandy Hook - no change. COVID-19 deaths- Most states are ignoring masks and social distancing
Unfortunately, I agree with you ABSOLUTELY!!!
Despair not. We will get electric cars and trucks because they are better cars and trucks in many ways. The political will to move on transitioning from coal to renewables is also significant. On that one, a lot of it is up to China.
What do you expect from underexposed youngsters that visited school only 4 days a week?
They go to the steet, where they wield their card boards with silly slogans on it.
Well, that's what they do about it.
Nobody dares to say it. I’ll say it there are too many people on Earth and each of them demands to live like an American: big house, big car and big Mac..
There may be too many people in certain areas. Not all over the Earth.
Those countries that are not able to manage their populations should consider long term population numbers reduction. Not all countries on the Earth have this problem.
I simply ADORE! 💕❣️ Your unic very brief, clear and targeted🎯 episodes, especially on Climate-subject 🙏🏻
I try always to share it - THANK YOU for such a useful tools! 🌟
So you like to hear lies?
Oldinea Miller pure lies, even the people pay for listening lies .
Put your money where your mouth is
@@sucubo28
Right!👍
When they call you for an interview and you didnt get the time to finish shaving your beard.
Amazing Documentary ❤️❤️❤️. (Please save the Earth🙏🙏🙏) (कृपया पृथ्वी को बचाएं🙏🙏🙏).
Very comprehensive coverage.
Thank you..
I feel like we will live in one of the apocalypse films sometime in the future
No. We jlare actually living in the prequel.
You should not watch so much Netflix.
Carbon sink technology whether it be generating carbon bonds (i.e. putting more energy into capture than we get from burning fossil fuels, as per the laws of thermodynamics) or making a liquid (without it just adding to emissions) and than pumping it subterranean (which also costs massive amounts of energy) both seem not feasible or illogical while we are still burning carbon anywhere.
3:58 That's why we need strict action!
I have moved close to work and shopping which has reduced my carbon footprint on travel. I ride my bike when possible. I live in a condo and that reduces my utilities in comparison to a house, I have outfitted the condo with energy efficient lighting and appliances all the while mindful on how I use them. I also like how condos house more people on a small piece of land. I will definitely be looking at a electric vehicle once we can get the parkade retrofitted for charging stations. I try to recycle as much as possible and even better try to buy what I need rather than a bunch of things I just like. With that I am still looking for ways to do better.
😂😂😂
Totally love this.thank you♥
I wonder what cost of one of those negative carbon facilities
Lucid explanation. Enlightening.
Lucid? Totally false thought
4:40 link
it is incredible that we have destroyed a balance that had stayed for a very long time in 100 years. I hope that it will change!
Humans won't fix this.
Highly informative
Great video, but as a professional media company, why not use higher quality microphones and cameras for this? On the TV this looks and sounds awful.
wow this guy's eyebrows go AROUND the eyes... impressive
A case of sideburns overreach
Thanks, nice video.
Solution to the Global Warming problem is to forcibly implement the establishment of Carbon Capturing Plants within the vicinty of all fossil fuel emitting industries all across the globe such as Thermal/Coal Gas based Power Projects,Petroleum Mining and Quarying plants,Cement Factories and Iron and Steel Industries.
why not show the graph of carbon dioxide parts per million back 700 million years hmmmmm
I bet our childrens life we will change our habit by force and not by choice. The addiction to fossil fuel is too strong.
Did anyone ever think that the earth underneath the seas could just be warming up the water causing the weather changes?
Think about it, there has lately been a rise in the vulcano activity which has been parallel to the natural disasters in the world...
No evidence for that activity, even less for any correlation, let alone cause-effect. Even if there was any evidence (but there isn't), the fact remains that we emit 42 bn of Co2 in the air. That must cause some commotion, right? And there is a lot of evidence of correlation and cause effect for that. (For example, it strictly correlates with the increase of concentration of Co2 in the atmosphere, measured by sensors worldwide every day).
This is actually really smart,
I am a 3rd year applied geology student, and diving into your question a little, I found these two numbers
: The respective mean heat flows of continental and oceanic crust are 70.9 and 105.4 mW/m2."
So yeah sure now we could say the heat flux from oceanic crust (dues to its thinner nature of 6-7km) is greater then oceanic,
The significant difference when it comes to the whole energy balance equation can be approached similarly to how we are learning it in Hydrology. In that now what is most important is how quickly is tat energy flux being moved away from the generating source. I would assume that you will find the energy flux volume is much greater from the continental crust due to the surface turbidity, roughness, heat gradient differences, etc.
You can find more energy balance data by simply putting in "Earth's energy balance"
I found this:
"Despite its geological significance, Earth's interior heat contributes only 0.03% of Earth's total energy budget at the surface, which is dominated by 173,000 TW of incoming solar radiation.[7] This external energy source powers most of the planet's atmospheric, oceanic, and biologic processes."
Environmentalists should robustly embrace negative emissions, and get everybody out planting instead of saying "yes, but..."
People can be motivated to bring back the forests, and we can research the other solutions in this family.
This problem will be fought on multiple fronts. Let's get moving.
Great job Economist
Bad job non scientist!
Thanks for explanation!
Interesting
In Australia, we are betting on fossils as our future. After all, we can eliminate global warming by opening our windows and turning up our air conditioners.
Love it.🤣😆😁
At least your summers are cool and winters are hot.
soon we'll have koalas and wallabies applying for refugee status elsewhere as they've nowhere left to live. o well
5:29 I did not know that the field of science known as Geology had any in situ carbon absorption qualities.
Geology can also refer to the formations that are below the surface so I think the way that word was used is actually accurate. Or are you simply echoing the implication alluded to by the short film that carbon sequestration in geological formations may or may not be reliable... Particularly in light of the major release of natural Gas in the Aliso canyon disaster in Southern California which may have significantly influenced a major drought.
pollution is bad . we all know that. bad air, bad water, bad health. It’s best to stop the discussion and take action.
*
July 2020 was the second-hottest month ever recorded on Earth.
* June 2020 was the second-hottest June of all time.
* May 2020 was the hottest May of all time.
* April 2020 was the second-hottest April of all time.
* March 2020 was the second-hottest March of all time.
😂😂😂😂 you are a real sucker for that one. CO2 is not pollution,it’s the gaz of life on earth. This all BS ,fear mongering and control. Go listen to Hans Rosling videos
What about the upcoming solar minimum?
Nothing. This happens every 11 years..
@1 thepackgawd
"cause cooler conditions locally especially in europe"
Well of course local effects are always possble, but the change in forcing due ti Co2 emissions is much bigger than due to a change in solar irradiance..so the globel temperature will not cool
@1 thepackgawd I know. Sorry english is not my native language so sometimes my responses seem to be aggressive...I try not to be, but i fail sometimes...
It's not upcoming. We are in it now.
@@Dundoril
If you are not informed about it, you should not make a fool out of yourself by stating nonsense.
The problem is not carbon dioxide but oxygen that nobody mentioned. We consume the oxygen constantly generated by Forest which is constantly consumed by humans.
The voiceover in this video is kind of unsettling
Deforestation must also stop. We need fast-growing timber plantations, with a global prohibition on cutting wild forests, with sanctions on COuntries that do not police them, and incentive=s for them to fund Indigenous First Nations for being the entities that do the policing
DAC (Direct Air Capture) is not a working technology as of now. It needs great amounts of energy to work and basically has a very low sinking/emissions ratio. It will take years or decades to make it work and scale it. The main tool we have to limit otherwise catastrophic damage is to slash emissions now (the next 10 year will be crucial). To aid the decarbonization process, other carbon sinks - especially nature-based - might be deployed, but only as a supplement to emissions cuts. A word to editors: 9.5 bn tons of Carbon (as world yearly emissions) is not accurate. In fact, 9.5 bn tons of Carbon = 34 bn tons of Co2, (multiply 9.5 by 44/12, the ratio of molecular weights of Co2 vs C). But we know (for example from the Emissions Gap Report of UNEP) that we emit something in the range of 42 bn tons of Co2, not 34. (Plus there is all the rest of non-Co2 GHGs carbon emissions, such as methane, which brings the total to about 55-59 bn of Co2 equivalents).
Save Our Planet
How much CO2 has gone into the atmosphere due to unnecessary manufacturing because of planned obsolescence? What do economists or atmospheric scientists say about that?
Why do we still have central means of electricity production? When the solution is already available. Solar panels + Solar Battery (I have this already and in summer my electricity use is 100% solar powered) on every house, building, warehouse, school, rooftop etc. All new cars are Electric cars immediately, the ones with or without solar panel rooftops (already available). Just bring it in, never mind the inconvenience - all new cars must be electric by 2023. All new small trucks must be something like a rivian or tesla cybertruck or equivalent. All new heavy trucks must be hydrogen or electric trucks. That would be a huge help
So basically it has increased from 0.03% to 0.04%. A 1/10,000 increase. Ok......
this man’s beard. xD
More plant food= more plants
Hotter temperatures are collapsing water supplies and thus food supplies. At 3 C above historic averages (last 12,000) years, water supplies and food production will collapse, and so will the human population.
His sideburns are definitely making an impact on the world.
Why he looks like this? How I am supposed to trust your documentary?
You should look up a (rather longer but awesome) video on here with Irving Finkel. 👌😍
‘No but climate change doesn’t exist’
- cognitive dissonance
ty for sharing
im sure WSJ and CNBC can do a better explanation
What's up wit that beard
N V carbon changed it
One expert said the gulf stream would slow and cool the ocean and no hurricanes.
That's why you have to read papers not "what expert say"
Plant trees.
Climate changes because climate has always changed, humans have nothing to do with it and even if we did, there’s no reason to believe all the alarmists anyway that it would be as catastrophic as they claim and there are benefits like increasing crop yield.
Well I will stay with the results of the scientific research on the topic and not your sad excuse of an argument
Dundoril, there are lots of scientists who agree with me including Nobel Laureates and in an event, all the oil in the ground of which we have 50 years left will all be used up. Alarmist arguments don’t affect the reality on the ground , especially with the rise of China and India and growing population. Humanity has no time to change the way they use energy in 50 short years.
@@gregmorris5010 well they have to publish then ... One would think a Nobel price winner knows how science works... But that's the problem.... They have an opinion nothing more... If they had data to back it up, they would publish it... And btw. "Nobel laurelaates" Is just an appeal to authority and not argument in it self.
@@Dundoril
They did already publish and they don't publish anymore now, because hardly anyone of them is still alive.
Climate science was established already long time before you have been born.
Look up Milanković, Suess, De Vries, Hallstatt and Bray.
Happy reading!
Btw. what the IPCC is publishing, has nothing to do with science at all.
@@oldineamiller9007 "They did already publish and they don't publish anymore now,"
Then give me these published papers on the topic.
" because hardly anyone of them is still alive. "
So we are talking about research done 50 years ago?
"Look up Milanković, Suess, De Vries, Hallstatt and Bray."
NO, give me a specific paper...Sorry but you can not expect me to look through all of their papers to proof YOUR claim...
The human Experience is a 'Story' in the form of a Holographic Simulation, produced by Programs, being played in "The Processing System of LIFE"... What happens in the Earth Program, is solely Controlled by the Program, being played in "The Processing System of LIFE".... Discover and Understand the DIFFERENCE, between "LIFE (The Real Self)", and the human PRIMATE, which Contains DOUBLE LOGIC in its GENOME, adversely affecting ALL human activity, including 'THOUGHT' and 'REASON'.
1000 years is a very short period here. There was over 1400 parts per million of co2 in the air when humanity started
It was also much warmer... Almost like co2 has an influence on the temperature..
@@Dundorilit’s the contrary poor brainwashed
@@jean-marclamothe8859 "it’s the contrary poor brainwashed"
There is not even any argument in your comment
Best way, send 5% sea water to space to expose more land for planting greenery
This guy works for the economist. Can we not get more than one expert on here, I mean, how can I take someone seriously when their sideburns encircle their spectacles. And where do we get the co2 data prior to a time before insreumebtation and co2 record keeping? Asking for a friend
Thanks
Here is your climate change; Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall. Real simple.
excellent - points to our need for a circular global economy in place of the current linear one - that seems to me to be the elephant in the room that will make or break life on earth - multinational corporations call the shots
😂😂😂
why not mention the ocenas wiich contain up to 50x air based carbon
Any one want power shortages and 500% higher power bills!
why not mention muclear power?
Can someone explain to me why the Earth can't easily make up for the human emissions by absorbing more CO2? I read that Earth is a natural carbon sink, so why shouldn't it be able to absorb the extra amount by, in a sense, feeling that things are out of balance and adjusting for it?
By the way, I'm not a climate denier; just want to understand better.
Because everything has a limit so does the Earth..
Love The Economist.
bro half shaved 💀
we burn wood, no problem, coal is black wood.
I asked the climate scientist, why has not shaved completely, said: because of the power use of the razor. Real climate scientist dude.
During dinosaur more than 1% of air was carbon dioxide.
Relevant....
No thats just a lie....
@ Shilpan👍👍👍
Nobody clearly knows what millions of years ago air was like
But alternatives that include free energy is stopped by policy so really tell Congress we need all new processes even if it doesn’t profit the Builderberg corporation 🤷♀️ it’s okay 👍
Don't know where you get your claims from, but none are facts. In the Holocene epoch, we are at the low end of CO2 concentrations. In fact, levels more than 10 times as high have been present, even in cool periods. Study geology, study solar cycles, study the Milankovich cycles. Appreciate that earth has been much warmer in the past, and much cooler, and that we are in an interglacial period, with warming starting in the early 19th century after the Little Ice Age. Temperatures 100 years ago were very similar, then we had a cooling period, warming in mid century and then cooling again before the warming of the late century. From 1996 to 2010 there was no warming, despite an increase in CO2. There is no increase in extreme weather or in forest fires. Alarmism keeps on ignoring the fact that every single prediction, since the very first IPCC report, has been proven wrong. A scientific hypothesis that is disproved by actual measurements is WRONG, and that is what has happened. Find something new to spread alarm about huh !
@Stanley Goddard I'm guessing that you get those figures from the "homogenisation" of historic records. It's you that is the denier of properly recorded historic temperatures, preferring instead those plucked out of thin air by a laughably inaccurate computer model. I hope you are young Stanley, and that you have plenty of years to observe actual temperature fluctuations, one likely one is a cooling phase for earth, which will bring crop reductions to northern latitudes. Carry on Alarming though, it looks more and more like a sitcom with each corruption of historic records.
@@gpresley4652 did you ever read any paper on the subject?
@@Dundoril Many, many studies, it's a fascination. Trying to understand the complexity if the subject is so interesting. The vast majority of atmospheric carbon dioxide is emitted by earth itself, humans only account for a small percentage. Volcanic eruptions are very frequent, especially sub ocean where the crust is thinner, and tectonic movement is constant. Just one decent size release can equate to the whole amount released by human activity. The sun's activity, the gravitational effect of the moon and planets, the wobbly axis of earth, the elliptical orbit, the absorption effect of plant life and marine animals, and on and on. The claim at the start of this video that earth was in perfect balance is misguided. I'll never stop learning, mainly because I don't allow my mind to be constrained by glib headlines, but go in search of the big picture. A 4.5 billion year history is the biggest of pictures.
@@gpresley4652 "many many studies"
Well that's wonderful because then you can give a source for all your claims .
@@Dundoril Or, you could study it yourself, as I did. We are all individuals, my information has been gathered over many hours of study, but I am not a lecturer, so I feel no obligation to educate anyone else, except to say this. Over a fairly long life to date, I have seen so many claims by journalists and pseudo scientists, and the witnessed the next generation of the same refuting those claims and replacing them with another set.. This particular video is no exception, it appears to be written by someone with an agenda.
RUclips is valuable because there is much more information on the WHOLE subject, rather than the narrow climate alarmist speciality. Do carry on your study, with an open mind. All the best
Why there is an underlying tone of hatred to human development and progress. When they put the first clip of the industrial revolution, they put that scary sound effect along with it. Why I feel like there is an ungrateful sentiment in this whole video. I mean, it is complicated. Yes, climate change is happening, and yes humans have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but at least we stopped dying at the age of 4! Also, we've only been aware of our impact on the climate since the 1960s. That's not a long time ago, and we aren't doing very bad for people who just woke up to the problem. The world is not going to end from climate change, and we will be okay, as is the earth and the ecosystems will be. Technological development, and reduced poverty will be the most important aspects when it comes to battling climate change. Not stopping fossil fuels. Fossil fuels will be abandoned if renewables are more attractive. Therefore we need to make renewables more attractive and not just demand that fossil fuels be banned, and demonize humans and human development. Read Bjørn Lomborg if you want to know more about what I'm talking about.
Being an engineer, I love tech but there are consequences. Lomborg is a tech utopian. Increased development will not fix climate change. Our greenhouse gas emissions go up every year so we have effectively done nothing substantial. No one will pay to sequester CO2 in any meaningful amount (billions of tons every year). The water is coming so don't buy any property below 3 meters. Our current path will lead to a sea level rise of 70 meters (230 feet) although it will take several hundred years to complete. No sure our current civilization will survive that.
@@tradeprosper5002 Also being an Engineer I seriously disagree with that. Technological development is powerful if we invest enough in R&D instead of wasting huge amounts of money to not solve the problem. Even if I agree with you that Lomborg is a tech utopian, he still makes a strong argument for the lack of effectiveness of the proposed climate change solutions such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. Most of the emission reductions so far have been the result of technology, not policy.
I'm not even gonna go into the 70 meters sea level rise and other apocalyptic scenarios, which are the result of lacking and inaccurate models that ignore a lot of complex and interacting variables.
The topic that every Republican failed to understand in science class.
No I am sure some of them understand it... They lie about it for political reason.
@@Dundoril
So, people stand aside, while Dundoril will explain to you the climate cycles.
Ok Dundoril, spread your wisdom!
@@oldineamiller9007 "So, people stand aside, while Dundoril will explain to you the climate cycles."
Do you have an argument or actually somethine to say?
Did anyone got scared at very first line? While putting hand set on 🥴
jees, watch "inside bill's brain"
That was so easy to understand, why do deniers have so much difficulty understanding?
They don't want to...
@@Dundoril … Yes fear of reality makes some deny reality. Even to their detriment, as if they are expecting magic or divine intervention.
@@Eric-ye5yz also I don't think it's fear... It somehow does no align with their political view of the world and that the main reason for their denial
Al Gore claimed the 'Seas are literally boiling.' Where exactly is this happening? Boiling point is 100°c. Like in my kettle.... can anyone show me where the sea is doing this?
It doesn’t matter what Al Gore said.
What matters is what climate scientists report.