We are so excited to have Adam guest host this video! Hopefully we'll see him here again. Go check out his channel ClimateAdam, and let him know you came from Hot Mess th-cam.com/channels/Cu5wtZ5uOWZp_roz7wHPfg.html
He did a great job along with Freddi. They showed level headed reasoning is the most powerful tool in science communication. So much news is purposefully designed to be "inflammatory". This was a great piece, thanks Hot Mess!
Rather than turning this to 'climate election' we should turn this to 'climate race' by giving an objective to every country that is could be ' Whichever country do plant 100 billion tree first than others European Union will build 5 hospital and 5 university to that country' Well Ethiopia did plant more than 350 million trees in 12 hours by themself
@@sahinyasar9119 the label 'climate change' is itself misleading, it's nothing more than a deliberate deception alluding to a supposed anthropogenic effect. Plant trees by all means, beautify the landscape and increase O2 production but don't seriously think you'll alter much else. CO2 not able to alter temperature trend and has never been shown to do so.
@@HotMessPBS I just clicked the bell. I don't recall seeing your videos go by in my feed. Especially this one on which I would of clicked right away. Nor do I recall seeing your latest 3 o4 videos go by, hence why I came to the channel. I thought you were out of business or something. This algorithm is getting creepy, but hey, it does recommend lots of climate denial BS for sure. Keep fighting!
A better question is why is everything now refered to as "climate change"? What happened to "global warming? The climate has always changed, always will, so blaming something on the term "climate change" doesn't narrow down ANYTHING as a causal problem. Thats akin to claiming things that happen at night being caused by darkness.
The gases in our atmosphere keep our planet warm. When sunlight hits the earth it is reflected back into space. That is the reason why earth can be seen from space. Some of the gases in our atmosphere contribute to the greenhouse effect. When light from earth's surface is reflected into space these gases again reflect some part of it (especially the infrared light) back to earth. That is the reason why the planet is not freezing cold on the night side when there is no light arriving from the sun. Without greenhouse gases, the earth's average temperature would be around -18°C instead of around +14°C. Now you can imagine when the CO2 (one of the greenhouse gases) concentration in the atmosphere increases this means that more infrared light is reflected back from the atmosphere to earth. I think so far this is just basic physics and logic. Global warming now describes the increase in temperature due to the higher concentration of greenhouse gases. You can see it as a sickness. Because of the higher temperature and the way thermodynamics works weather patterns change. Climate change describes this change in climate and weather. It is the consequence of global warming. So to say the symptom. The thing is, the climate does not care if it is -18°C, +14°C or +20°C. The climate has no problem. Humans have. Climate crisis describes the consequences under which humans will suffer and suffer already. Climate catastrophe describes the worst consequences when we can not stop global warming before we reach certain tipping points.
Recently, just last year actually, there was a tornado that ripped through my neighbourhood. Tornadoes are very uncommon here, I can only find record of four within the last 100 years, and yet two touched down just last year. So many houses were destroyed, and I find it incredibly unlikely that climate change did not have a hand in making this event more likely to happen. Climate change has impacted my life, and I'm sure it's impacted many others. I'm glad research is being done to show people the very real effects that we are already seeing.
Andriy Predmyrskyy. Well they must have been Gore SupaTorns. Those on the packing of his hoax video were rotating the wrong way and one was on the Equator where they CAN'T form because of the temperature distribution. Any that get over that problem, you're going to be one daddy of a Tornado! Genuine records show an unmistakable decline in number and frequency of American tornados in recent years up to and including NOW. ie If you can your hands get the graphs before NASA an IPCC "tune the figures."
@@CyclopsOct Well take your vacation in Florida, then! Never before? Got figures for 150k years, have you? 1/2 a Million years? Never before is such a long time! What you've got is what you been told to believe and you DO.
Italy, France, Germany, Czech Rep, Holland, Belgium, Australia, California, Pakistan, India, Romania, these have all witnessed records these past years in heat, cold, rain, wind speed.
@@raresmircea Who's dumb now? Physician ..Heal thyself! Small amounts of a variety of weather, tracked, recorded and analysed over a much longer period, MUCH LONGER, define climate. "These past years.." are just a blink in time! "One swallow does not a summer make." Aristotle. No..Not Harry Stottal!
Exactly what is the total number of weather events that can occur and be duly recorded in totality? Is it 1 billion, 100 billion or 22 trillion (one for each dollar of US national debt) ? If it is 22 trillion, then what should be the "normal" number of records broken someplace at sometime in any particular calendar year? Scientific minds would need to know this before they succumb to government inspired panic.
whats incredible is that you think the world was static 200 years ago. Just because these people are saying this, does not make it fact. climate has always Varied.
@@muskrat3291 But we are, we are making it more livable for humans. Some people hate this. They think we should be making it only more livable for them. They worry about things like "overpopulation" but refuse to act on their concerns in doing something to correct it by killing themselves.
By checking termometers I found that the temperature started to drop in 2015. We did not get the Calima in the Canarian Islands, the heat vawe instead went straight north making temperature recordes in France and Germany. CO2 is political and does not affekt our climate, water vaporiseras does. The Sun controlls weather and Climate.
I live in Ontario, Canada. It is Nov 16, 2019 and we have set cold records in the past week. Last winter many cold records were set in the northern USA. 4 of the past 6 years have been colder than usual in Ontario. Fossil fuels came from plants that grew when CO2 levels were much higher. CO2 will not kill us. There is evidence that the 1930s and 1000AD were warmer than now. When the earth was warm people and the biosphere flourished, and when the earth was cold all life on earth suffered. I don't deny global warming, when I drive my wife to work it is always 2 degrees warmer in the city heat island than in the countryside. The earth was almost frozen from pole to pole and CO2 levels were 20X higher than today. I deny that it is a catastrophe. Some are asking to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, to remove plant food from the atmosphere, and this is much more terrifying than climate change. Environmental degradation is a real problem. Climate change is trivial. I listened to this more than once and when she says "vulnerable groups" I cringe. Rich people are rich because of fossil fuel. The "vulnerable people" are those that will be denied the benefits of fossil fuels.
Asked yourself why north america gets strong cold snaps lately? The arctic ocean is rapidly loosing sea ice and the arctic as a whole heats up way faster then the rest of the earth. That weakens the jet stream and moves the "cold pole" - the center of the cold arctic air - towards the regions with more sea and land ice. Which is Greenland and Kanada. And if you end up in a trough of the jetstream, you basicaly sit in artic air, which is still pretty cold. You can also end up in a wave, where warmer air can get far more north then usual, like in Alaska this year. Humans started conquering the world with CO2 concentration of about 280ppm which was around that level for the last 10k years. So you could say there was more then enough plant food around. Now we are at 415ppm CO2, rising faster then ever compared to all we know about earths history and no, not all plants like that over abundance of CO2. Some might actually grow faster, but that lowers their nutrition value per mass, so you would have to eat more of a crop to get the same amount of nutrients. Not very helpfull. A large part of the CO2 ends up in the oceans, making them more acidic (lowering the pH of the ocean water). That could lead to the collapse of the ocean foodweb since the base of that web is often made of plankton with calcium carbonate shells/skeletons, who can't grow properly when the pH gets to low. Not to mention corals, who also suffer from lower pH and higher temperatures. So far I can't see any beneficial effects for human survival on earth linked to higher values of CO2 or other greenhouse gases, but lots of negative ones.
@@chrisholt2502 In your first paragraph, there is evidence that polar ice is returning. It was supposed to be gone 30 years ago, according to a consensus of scientists. It was warmer in Greenland around 1000AD and Vikings farmed barley there and even made beer. In this paragraph you say it gets warmer and colder. I am 60 and it is not getting colder and warmer. We are told the North pole is warmer so where does the cold come from? In the 1970s it was colder than usual and we were told that was why the jet stream was so erratic, and it was pushing cold air down from the arctic. I guess the jet stream is more erratic when it is colder and when it is warmer. Are you implying that we are exactly at the best possible temperature, or maybe you think it is better if it is a bit colder? Geologically it has been shown that it was much worse when it was colder and the biomass of the earth has always been adversely affected when it is colder, such as during the dark ages. We are told nonsense daily, the science advisor on climate change to Obama even wrote a paper on global cooling in the 1970s, and I am fed up being lied to. Second paragraph, I have never heard that plants lose their nutritional value if they grow faster, if this comes up again I guess I will have to research it. Doesn't that mean more fibre if you have to eat more plants which is good for you? I don't know the geological period when the largest explosion of life occurred, however I do know CO2 levels were much higher during that time. Many shell creatures could not have evolved and could not have lived according to what you say, however they did, and they flourished. We are told that birds, insects, and other life forms are dying because of global warming. This is nonsense and any decrease in biomass is due to environmental degradation, a real problem we need to continue to deal with.
A question of interest: Did that model about the heat wave include urbanization into the calculation? Or did it assume the early 20th century's climate and an early 21th century's concrete city, which would say more about the actual impact of the climate on the matter?
snicker...snicker...ya, heat islands what in the Ocean ? Ocean temps are rising exponentially threatening fish stocks, and destroying coral reefs. • so again you talk about heat where ? City heat sinks while ignoring OCEAN ? Agenda disinformation, ya !
and so you need to be careful because its a trend thats associated with global warming for sure. However your "area" isnt the globe. When scientists look at global warming they look at all of the long term weather events across the globe and across a longer period of time.
@@arp76 yeah, I didn't want to make any claims about climate, just about unusual weather two years (at least) in a row, because the video is about weather and climate being related. I left out that last year ants (which I have recorded a lot for my channel) trapped out in the hot sunlight were dying quickly as if singed by fire, which is unheard of in my area, if not everywhere. And that this year wild plants normally quite tall and blooming in late autumn were only half as tall and dead on top with no blooming, because it was so dry for so long this year in my area. It is rough seeing things struggling so noticeably two years in a row.
I expect extreme applies to more than just heat waves and record high temps? It would include snow storms out of season, record low temps, excessive tornadoes, extensive drought, super strong hurricanes, and weeks of non-stop rainfall. Thank you for this video. It helps make the connections.
If you don't believe Valerie just look at this: Record Highest Temperatures by State State Temp. °F Temp. °C Date Station Elevation in feet Alabama 112 44 Sept. 5, 1925 Centerville 345 Alaska 100 38 June 27, 1915 Fort Yukon est. 420 Arizona 128 53 June 29, 1994 Lake Havasu City 505 Arkansas 120 49 Aug. 10, 1936 Ozark 396 California 134 57 July 10, 1913 Greenland Ranch -178 Colorado 118 48 July 11, 1888 Bennett 5,484 Connecticut 106 41 July 15, 1995 Danbury 450 Delaware 110 43 July 21, 1930 Millsboro 20 D.C. 106 41 July 20, 1930 Washington 410 Florida 109 43 June 29, 1931 Monticello 207 Georgia 112 44 Aug. 20, 1983 Greenville 860 Hawaii 100 38 Apr. 27, 1931 Pahala 850 Idaho 118 48 July 28, 1934 Orofino 1,027 Illinois 117 47 July 14, 1954 E. St. Louis 410 Indiana 116 47 July 14, 1936 Collegeville 672 Iowa 118 48 July 20, 1934 Keokuk 614 Kansas 121 49 July 24, 19361 Alton (near) 1,651 Kentucky 114 46 July 28, 1930 Greensburg 581 Louisiana 114 46 Aug. 10, 19361 Plain Dealing 268 Maine 105 41 July 10, 19111 North Bridgton 450 Maryland 109 43 July 10, 19361 Cumberland & Frederick 623; 325 Massachusetts 107 42 Aug. 2, 1975 New Bedford & Chester 120; 640 Michigan 112 44 July 13, 1936 Mio 963 Minnesota 114 46 July 6, 19361 Moorhead 904 Mississippi 115 46 July 29, 1930 Holly Springs 600 Missouri 118 48 July 14, 19541 Warsaw & Union 705; 560 Montana 117 47 July 5, 1937 Medicine Lake 1,950 Nebraska 118 48 July 24, 19361 Minden 2,169 Nevada 125 52 June 29, 19941 Laughlin 605 New Hampshire 106 41 July 4, 1911 Nashua 125 New Jersey 110 43 July 10, 1936 Runyon 18 New Mexico 122 50 June 27, 1994 Waste Isolat. Pilot Pit 3,418 New York 108 42 July 22, 1926 Troy 35 North Carolina 110 43 Aug. 21, 1983 Fayetteville 213 North Dakota 121 49 July 6, 1936 Steele 1,857 Ohio 113 45 July 21, 19341 Gallipolis (near) 673 Oklahoma 120 49 June 27, 19941 Tipton 1,350 Oregon 119 48 Aug. 10, 18981 Pendleton 1,074 Pennsylvania 111 44 July 10, 19361 Phoenixville 100 Rhode Island 104 40 Aug. 2, 1975 Providence 51 South Carolina 111 44 June 28, 19541 Camden 170 South Dakota 120 49 July 5, 1936 Gannvalley 1,750 Tennessee 113 45 Aug. 9, 19301 Perryville 377 Texas 120 49 June 28, 19941 Monahans 2,660 Utah 117 47 July 5, 1895 Saint George 2,880 Vermont 105 41 July 4, 1911 Vernon 310 Virginia 110 43 July 15, 1954 Balcony Falls 725 Washington 118 48 Aug. 5, 19611 Ice Harbor Dam 475 West Virginia 112 44 July 10, 19361 Martinsburg 435 Wisconsin 114 46 July 13, 1936 Wisconsin Dells 900 Wyoming 115 46 Aug. 8, 1983 Basin 3,500 Looks Like global warming peaked in 1936. egads the ice is coming the ice is coming
I live in Hurricane Alley, when the water temperature was 87F-NO HURRICANE. When it was 83F Hurricane. I would say extreme cold is getting more common.
@@jennyfisherman Yea, climate change 😝😝😝 As if the climate hasn't change for the last million year 😂😂 To day CO2 is 460/1million down from 2500/1million when on top. And the CO2 is the bad gay😵😵
My observations are simple if CO2 is a problem why isn't there more money allocated to thorium research.. I can be fairly sure that the money our government (Australia) has thrown at multinational solar and wind companies via subsidies we could have an national abundant cheap energy system based on thorium
@@jennyfisherman The climate is now so unstable its no different than the weather. Oh for the good old days when one could tell the difference between boys and girls as well as weather and climate.
yeah maybe there were lower than normal temperatures, but they weren't significantly lower, let alone minimum records. on the other hand the heat wave broke records. heat waves aren't a sign of climate change. breaking records is
The link between 'extreme weather' and 'climate change', is climate change. Really very simple: climate changes, it always has and always will. However, extreme weather has ALSO always happened. It's only now that 'scientists' are being paid to vastly over-inflate such weather, and indeed: ignore the fact that extreme weather has DECLINED over the last 100 years.
It is 15°F in Chicago as I watch this. On November 8th. Average lows for this time of year are 34°F. It also snowed like 3 inches on Halloween. The most snow on that day in nearly a century, and the first time in my life I've ever experienced snow on that day.
@@deepashtray5605 What warming in the Arctic? I just checked and it's 250K, in other words NORMAL. A weak sun and weak magnetosphere causes the jet stream to go from a zonal flow to a meridional flow. As of today, 236 days this year without sun spots.
@Stale Kale Communist here, and those are the biggest issues I've seen with capitalism. I wish it could be reformed, but those problems just seem too central to capitalism for it to be fixed. I'd be happy with any improvement at all, really.
We will be forced to act on climate change. It is effecting so many peoples lives. It's like a world war, there are casualties everywhere. Capitalism is hampering the efforts yes, but they are compatible. We just need to make the solutions profitable. If renewables are more profitable; oil companies will invest in them (they already do). We need more work, and more scientists to find ways to combat the issue with new technology and ways of thinking which are superior to our current methods of sustaining our civilization.
@@jeffmcdonald101 Hi Jeff, when you say "We just need to make the solutions profitable" who you mean by "We"? Are you a capitalist? I mean, do you run an enterprise or something? If not: Why do you want to make the _solutions-for-the-survival-of-mankind_ a way for a selected group of people (bourgeoisie) to make money? And, where do you think that profit will come from? Why we (working class) have to pay for a climate crisis that not only we didn't create, but we suffer the most? Also have in count that in capitalism everything, like the work, research, etcetera, that you mentioned, has to be profitable in order to happen. This matter you bring in your last sentence ("We need [...] new [...] ways [...]") is exactly where -in my opinion- my original post takes relevance.
@@enzoamaya5110 I was referring to "we" as a collective species...all of us. We already are doing it. it's just not fast enough. Profit is not reserved for the elite. That is a defeatist attitude in my belief. Access to the profitability of technology can be participated in by investing in the companies who create solutions. It can be participated in by working for said companies and earning a salary from your work. It can be accessed by getting an education and creating the technologies yourself and then starting a business. We have choices about how and what we consume beyond the very bare necessities. Making smart choices which foster the change you desire is being part of the solution. Creating and voicing opposition to destructive practices is something "we" have always had the opportunity to do. We're just not very good at being a collective. Our inability to come together and decide on the right choices about our resources is something that everyone is guilty of and has participated in. Yes all stages of the process need to be profitable in a capitalist economy, that's how it goes. In each stage value is added and money is earned. I don't think capitalism is going anywhere so we need to direct it towards a brighter future. It is irrelevant if I am a capitalist or if I own a business. What matters is if I am helping or hindering the improvement of our world.
I am hoping that you are able to discuss the heating of the worlds oceans, underwater volcanic activity and the solar activities contributing direct relation impacting our environment. I think the warming oceans would be encouraging various gasses to rise.
How do you know the temperature of the oceans are rising. The oceans are over two miles deep and cover 70% of the Earth and are in a constant churn. How many thermometers does it take ?
Nov. 11th, yesterday, I was in Sacramento, CA and I was running the AC in my truck! But also big cold spell headed for Florida, but that's due to jet stream meandering but people in denial don't understand what's happened to the jet stream. Just keep going folks.
Let us know when it reverses, I can think of a million reasons to get out of California as fast as your "climate changing" truck can carry you, but the local November weather doesn't make the list.
@Father Dougal When you were a teenager a few scientists were interested in the question if and when the next glaziation would happen. While MANY already leaned towards CO2 caused warming. But that was a very abstract concept (Nixon was informed about it). Even scientists treated that as an interesting if not tangible issue. so they too squandered energy like the next consumer. Media reported on the studies - with headlines Is there an ice age coming. or Are we in for a cooling. As usual they didn't get it right, and did the equivalent of klick baiting - but the audience was intrigued and interested. btw: the medevieval warm and cold period was NOT global. (it was extensive think 30 - 40 % of the globe, the regions that were most affected changed over the centuries - but it was not a global warming or cooling). So those "pop-science" articles and a few TV reports were made. I guess some pop science books were written as well, so people made money off an issue that caught the imagination of readers. Mind you: no peer review, no definitve statement from the more serious outlets. They hyped it up a little bit - the more respectable outlets less, and others more. The TIME cover that is circulated on the internet is allegedly photoshopped. anyway: BBC, Time Magazien are NOT peer reviewed scientific magazines, in which scientists publish their findings - so that other experts (their peers) on the globe review it. That is the way to build your rep in the scientific community: by publishing - or by finding a flaw in a paper (or supporting information from another field) and pointing it out (or writing a rebuttal paper). you have the swarm intelligence of the experts. And hype does not get you anywhere. The scientists that had dealt with that interesting questions (cooling ? an ice age even ? and when will the next cyclic glaziation come ?) came to the conclusion: Well not soon (meaning not in the next few thousand years). Certainly no cooling was imminent - so they moved on after having published that. Which is usual, not every study leads to groundbreaking discoveries. Not even close. Laypersons never read those vey specialized papers: NOW that has become easier, you could assess them on the internet, the abstracts are always free to read, many of the studies are behind pay walls. (and reading the abstract is not enough). Even though some scientists have wisened up. After having been misrepresented by denial blogs and right wing outlets they now often write explicitely in the abstract what conclusion NOT to draw from their paper. That wasn't necessary in the old days before the bloggersphere put the Dunning-Kruger effect on display.
Oh my goodness I didn't realise extreme weather events were being influenced quite that much by climate change already! I have been thinking that the increase in these events has been much greater than I would have thought for 1 degree of warming.
weather events HAVE NOT become more extreme. In fact, tornados are fewer, forest fires are fewer, and there has been a 13-15% increase in "greening" of the planet in the last 30 years. The only reason hurricanes seem more frquent and stronger intensity is because of the fact that more people populate the coastal areas, and unprecedented News coverage. This is not my opinion, it is supported by NOAA, and NASA record keeping/ charts. The fact that people can narrate this video and lie is unreal.
@@user-dq7ms8ir4c Yep. People don't endure anymore. Young people are pampered. They grow up in an air conditioned house, go to work in an air conditioned car, bus, train, get to work in an air conditioned building, then go outside on a hot summer day and freak out.
The methodology is too complex for a layperson to grasp unfortunately. This is part of the problem with communicating between experts and laypersons. There is so much knowledge needed to do the science...not much less needed to understand it. We need to learn to trust people who have dedicated their lives to learning these things. We need to find a way for laypersons to agree on how to decide who to trust. We do it in so many other areas but people seem to think that there is a way they can understand something incredibly complex quickly or simply. It is not the case. We need trust in our experts, they cannot sit you down and tell you everything. For that, you must dedicate years to learning about all the factors involved.
I'm all for that in some contexts and I do understand some of the basics of climate change but I also remember politicians holding out snow as proof that global warming is a hoax. Even a dumbed down explanation with an example beats none. I'm no expert on a lot of subjects but I understand words and if I'm gonna ask questions about stuff I don't know I expect to have to learn a little to understand the responses. Asking someone to change their lives should require some support they can understand. Lacking that, resistance to change gets tough to criticize ("take our word on it" can be stale) - "(blindly) trusting the experts who have spent their lives doing this" opens doors for Dr Oz, Gillian McKeith, the Food Babe and a host of other self-enriching woo-mongers; that's kinda what I meant.
@@DaBlondDude If you want to understand you will have to reach beyond being a layperson and seek more knowledge. Otherwise, you will have to learn to trust those who have spent the time and energy to become experts. You deserve an explanation, most certainly. But there are very few people qualified to give you the correct one. The answers can be found through learning. You can't give or expect a short explanation to an immensely complicated question. A dumbed down explanation or handful of snow is only good for appeasing or swaying "dumb" people. If you want the real answers it will take energy and time to learn about many complex systems, scientific principles etc. We're talking years of study. Reject dumbed down information. Nothing is simple and trying to make it so is not possible. Complex things are complex. If you don't have access to a teacher who is willing to dedicate a LOT of time to you, you will need to seek the answers for yourself using critical thinking and rationality....and a lot of text books and scholarly articles. I think the best option for the masses is to learn who to trust and who not to trust. It's much faster and leaves you to get on with something else (hopefully constructive).
@@DaBlondDude Dr Oz, Gillian McKeith, the Food Babe...These are perfect examples of people who are most certainly not experts and you should reject their dumbed down, biased, non peer reviewed BS before it comes out of their mouth. This is what I mean about learning who to trust.
*shrug* Agreed, but it's the danger of merely accepting unexplained conclusions from any 'expert'. Too many don't look stuff up (it's what I'll be doing this weekend to make sense of those hypotheses, for example). Merely accepting an expert opinion opens doors to 'expert' quacks like that; Oz, for example IS technically a doctor, "nutritionist" is a certified title (despite its actual value) and they've have spent 20+ years 'devoting their lives to this specialized field" (their explanations fall apart the moment one thinks them through which is how I learn who to trust, hence my point). I don't envy science communicators their jobs - I AM thankful they're around to help folks like me see through the BS and learn. They also help folks learn to spot BS and distinguish it from science. A recent critique of gravitational wave detection comes to mind, by Sabine Hossenfelder. It's not common lingo but she dumbs it down well enough. Ben Goldacre also comes to mind, among others
Not so ......The hottest days ever recorded for this time of year in both New south wales and Queensland with over a million and a half hectares burnt out in last weeks fires
@@267BISMARK yes this meteorological events have been going on for thousands of years, but we've never seen that intense extremes. btw coldest ever spring could also be a sign of climate change, due to changing atmospheric circulation patterns.
10,000 scientists including professor mickey mouse just confirmed we are having a climate emergency. That's why I'm never leaving my room again, unless i have to go to the loo. Mum says i don't have to go to school anymore as well.
For rich Europeans, the "quality of life" will be affected. It's having to use air conditioning. It's being inconvenienced. For hundreds of millions in the global south, it's the difference between life and death.
I always like to paraphrase the historians Will and Ariel Durant in their book on world history -"Human civilisation depends on geological consent subject to change without notice" -I would alter that to "human civilisation depends on geological and METEOROLOGICAL consent subject to change without notice!Anybody with even a modicum of historical knowledge would realize that there have been much more extreme weather events in the past -for example in Australia in the 1200's9by the Gregorian calendar) there was a drought that lasted 37 years.(dendrochronology)And just check the absolutely massive cyclone that hit western Europe in the early 1700's -the English fleet ended up in Sweden!Also check the absolutely massive cyclone that hit the West Indies in the late 1700's -there has been nothing of this dimension since.
I think so too. Probabilities are something that most people understand to some extent. It may be a good way to communicate the changes taking place in real time.
Duh, that is what climate change hysteria is. A demand for the lefties to strong arm political control. And nothing less. Same reason why America is all of a sudden racist. Scare yourself children and lie to them so you can have them vote for your current faith based idealism. No different than being molested by your local pastor.
@@mforgetteable Well said....they were saving "God" and if they need to molest children in order to "save God" that's just a little thing we should be able to endure. Sort of like tens of thousands of of enviros in their private jets constantly circling the globe to attend countless "climate conferences" to get the message out: "To do what we do is a sin against nature that we must punish"
Here in middle Europe we have a lot of people who don’t care, for example in Bavaria with a lot of traditional thinking. It’s because climate change impacts are barely or not felt at all. Sure, there was a heat wave, but that’s just the sun, right? How can you make those people understand?
So, the snow we experienced here in Norway should not happen then? It snowed in July. Go figure. The heat wave that swept over Europe was hot air brought from Sahara by the jet stream, same for us up north that got the cold air from the north pole. This happens time to time. The heat was for a week, we later got the same thing up here in north, making the temperature to like 30 degrees. Now if you looked at the weather reports from south europe it was not hotter than normal. They are been over 30 degrees since I can remember. Here north we are actually experience the coldest year now. Never had to put on winter tires in the beginning of oktober before. That don't agree with the it's getting hotter quote. But details and this was a opportunity to spread the scare. Because in a summit they did real science, get real they just made numbers up. The temperature isn't over 1 degree yet and they are screaming about 4. And cold kills more people that hot weather. That's a real fact.
Where are you getting that "fact" from? I believe that cold kills more than heat in Norway, lol. Do you know how many diseases flourish in overly heated regions which don't spread prolifically through cooler ones?
Doesn't sound like you know what is actually involved with a changing climate. Here's the simple version: The Arctic is warming which lowers the temperature gradient between the high and low latitudes which then causes the Jet Stream to lose strength and go haywire. And that once relatively stable blob of bitter cold air hovering over the North Pole is squeezed out of its normal pattern by warm air moving up from the Pacific.
I am amazed how many "experts" have no clue what climate is: Climate is the presence and action of *a solar energy driven atmospheric cell* over the surface of a terrestrial planet. Earth has 6 cells by the way, which drives the climate correlated with ocean oscillations. Oceans have warming and cooling trends in ~100 and ~60 year cycles, absorbing solar energy and creating the El Nino and La Nina phenomena. CO2 does not warm the oceans or cause the oceans to warm. The arctic and Greenland warmed in the 1920s and are warming now...wow that sounds like a cycle to me.
Arabian sea never had any cyclones , except these 3,4 years with increasing frequency. As Matter of fact,cold water is not a suitable place for cyclones to produce but temperature of Arabian sea is increasing. And that extreme rainy season hit the state I live. Farmers are crying coz of heavy rain. Maharashtra,India.
Wow, I love this video! I'm an academic (graduated from a master's degree in marine bio.) and I want to say that this is the first? video that gets into the complexities underlying climate change. I feel the videos before were just only "scratching the surface" of it. But, at the same time I feel that not everyone wants to hear all that "complexity" and just want the answers (that's where you guys come in). Keep up the great work!
The Saliology ; complexities!? What are you talking about.? There is zero cited studies enclosed here. None. And there giving you a master degree. Geez, I hoe we don’t end up having to pay for your college tuition debt. Dis you hear the violins and cellos. They were swooning you dear.
Galo Aguirre, this is not your awful sounding fender strat., the feedback concepts have never been proved or reproduced in a lab. Stick to your guitar chops and maybe one day you’ll impress a woman and then actually have purpose in life.
@@mforgetteable, alrighty. Meant, like the video pointed out, if we reflect early on the effects of climate change on weather, we'd be more willing to correlate our actions as a society with what's happening. Appreciate the input, have a good one.
What a typical example of one sided reporting. No mention of use of theoretical models in this comparison vs reality to determine impact. No mention of the fact that the one degree rise is the result of ipcc cherry-picking the start preindustrial average temperature point at a lower than normal ( for the two thousand year average was actually one degree lower) using 1850-1900 period. That’s like saying our starting weather is what the fridge is internally vs our weather outside today. It’s stacks the deck for climate warming outcomes. If they used a more reasonable starting point they would see almost zero rise in average global temperatures. Political organisation pushing a political outcome. If no climate change then no funding for ipcc and no funding for all their studies. There are 120 climate models because the true climate is so complex no one system has yet even been remotely successful in predicting anything resulting in a range so broad you can say anything you like and “prove” it using some combination of these many models. Models are not facts and so this whole exercise is irrelevant- just another attempt to make hypothetical futures and pasts into some form of true science. Please show us the true methods and data used to come to these conclusions and I will listen with an open mind. Some of us still know how to reason and appreciate that the scientific method is based on sceptical and rational thinking and debate.
Honestly, I do not trust this calculations. There are a lot of models with a lot of interests and one uses the model that benefits his/her hipothesis. Its more complicated in my opinion
@@antzerobooks If you are genuinely curious I think it would be better to look for reputable scholarly articles than to ask on TH-cam. This is not where you get answers like that. There is no short answer to your vague question that I or anyone else can give you here. Go to Google Scholar and search for the answers you seek. read all points of view and use critical thinking and rationality to find the truth.
@@jeffmcdonald101 most of them are not free, but from what i've found so far. Overpopulation only have little affect to climate change, it does cause problem with waste but that's a different beast all together. Thanks for pointing google scholar, i didn't know we have those. I guess it's not too futile to ask around on youtube 😁
A few questions; What occurs between every ice-age in regards to weather and climate? Why? What is the likelihood of something happening twice in a season where it only occurred once, and something happening 300 times normally now occurring 600 times? Difference? What is the current sea level compared to what it was 25/50/100 years ago? And why am I still able to breathe without gills given it was predicted to rise so very much (I live on an island and am very close to sea level)? I am all for clean air, water, soil, food, etc. I don't want life poisoned on this planet. Involving climate scientists in more aspects of society would be like having fortune-tellers (diviners, astrologists, haruspex, etc) to advise on battle tactics. The only talk we need now is in the area of how we are going to fix the issues, so we can actually fix them, and how we can adapt to what we cant fix. Anything else is just more hot air added to an atmosphere that has too much already - now that really would be a Hot Mess.
They're trying to say correlation equals causation. I disagree with the hypothesis that carbon per se facilitates climate. People overthink the basics which is astronomy, meteorology, geology, & oceanography are the subjects that provide the concepts that govern climate.
Climate change all the time, when you travel in particularly south north directions large distance . If you are on the same spot, then it is called whether change not a climate.
@@TheInselaffen They are related, but not the same thing. The fact they are not the same thing cannot be changed. Deniers will grab hold of whatever they can.
All sin and wrong doing has to be payed for, the thing with Christ though is that he has already payed for it. You just have to accept and then don't do wrong anymore, God said that when HE FORGIVES IT IS LIKE THE SIN NEVER HAPPENED. All you have to do is repent and he will not count anything against you
im sick of hearing about this subject, ye central europe may be warm in summer, but all i can say is its not like this in all europe, west europe is getting nothing but north winds summer and winter, , and look at america where,s the golbal warming there too
We are so excited to have Adam guest host this video! Hopefully we'll see him here again. Go check out his channel ClimateAdam, and let him know you came from Hot Mess th-cam.com/channels/Cu5wtZ5uOWZp_roz7wHPfg.html
He did great on this video, thank you for inviting him
He did a great job along with Freddi. They showed level headed reasoning is the most powerful tool in science communication. So much news is purposefully designed to be "inflammatory". This was a great piece, thanks Hot Mess!
Rather than turning this to 'climate election' we should turn this to 'climate race' by giving an objective to every country that is could be ' Whichever country do plant 100 billion tree first than others European Union will build 5 hospital and 5 university to that country'
Well Ethiopia did plant more than 350 million trees in 12 hours by themself
@@sahinyasar9119 the label 'climate change' is itself misleading, it's nothing more than a deliberate deception alluding to a supposed anthropogenic effect. Plant trees by all means, beautify the landscape and increase O2 production but don't seriously think you'll alter much else. CO2 not able to alter temperature trend and has never been shown to do so.
A common sense video on climate change , good job .
Awesome to be on the channel, Hot Mess! Really great to be able to present Fredi's work and perspective.
Thanks, Adam! Great having you on, hopefully it won't be the last time
Great work Adam! Thank you for this piece, it was very well presented.
@@HotMessPBS Hey, guys. Can't wait for another episode! Climate seems to be changing faster than your uploads. Australian barbie? Any topic?
@@HotMessPBS I just clicked the bell. I don't recall seeing your videos go by in my feed. Especially this one on which I would of clicked right away. Nor do I recall seeing your latest 3 o4 videos go by, hence why I came to the channel. I thought you were out of business or something.
This algorithm is getting creepy, but hey, it does recommend lots of climate denial BS for sure.
Keep fighting!
@@HotMessPBS
I am Depressed
Will you help me
I have emailed you from
Mail address
qsqss15488 gmail
A better question is why is everything now refered to as "climate change"? What happened to "global warming? The climate has always changed, always will, so blaming something on the term "climate change" doesn't narrow down ANYTHING as a causal problem. Thats akin to claiming things that happen at night being caused by darkness.
The gases in our atmosphere keep our planet warm. When sunlight hits the earth it is reflected back into space. That is the reason why earth can be seen from space. Some of the gases in our atmosphere contribute to the greenhouse effect. When light from earth's surface is reflected into space these gases again reflect some part of it (especially the infrared light) back to earth. That is the reason why the planet is not freezing cold on the night side when there is no light arriving from the sun. Without greenhouse gases, the earth's average temperature would be around -18°C instead of around +14°C. Now you can imagine when the CO2 (one of the greenhouse gases) concentration in the atmosphere increases this means that more infrared light is reflected back from the atmosphere to earth. I think so far this is just basic physics and logic.
Global warming now describes the increase in temperature due to the higher concentration of greenhouse gases. You can see it as a sickness.
Because of the higher temperature and the way thermodynamics works weather patterns change. Climate change describes this change in climate and weather. It is the consequence of global warming. So to say the symptom.
The thing is, the climate does not care if it is -18°C, +14°C or +20°C. The climate has no problem. Humans have. Climate crisis describes the consequences under which humans will suffer and suffer already. Climate catastrophe describes the worst consequences when we can not stop global warming before we reach certain tipping points.
Colorado Hiker.
They had to change it to Climate Change out of embarrassment when they realised that Global Warming wasn't happening!
Recently, just last year actually, there was a tornado that ripped through my neighbourhood.
Tornadoes are very uncommon here, I can only find record of four within the last 100 years, and yet two touched down just last year. So many houses were destroyed, and I find it incredibly unlikely that climate change did not have a hand in making this event more likely to happen. Climate change has impacted my life, and I'm sure it's impacted many others. I'm glad research is being done to show people the very real effects that we are already seeing.
Well yeah, cyclones on Indian coast have become more frequent, like never before.
We've had two in two years here, unheard of before that
Andriy Predmyrskyy.
Well they must have been Gore SupaTorns. Those on the packing of his hoax video were rotating the wrong way and one was on the Equator where they CAN'T form because of the temperature distribution. Any that get over that problem, you're going to be one daddy of a Tornado!
Genuine records show an unmistakable decline in number and frequency of American tornados in recent years up to and including NOW. ie If you can your hands get the graphs before NASA an IPCC
"tune the figures."
@@CyclopsOct
Well take your vacation in Florida, then!
Never before? Got figures for 150k years, have you?
1/2 a Million years? Never before is such a long time!
What you've got is what you been told to believe and you DO.
@@DaBlondDude
Unheard of by whom?
You? The Political propagandists seeking your money now that they've got your mind?
Italy, France, Germany, Czech Rep, Holland, Belgium, Australia, California, Pakistan, India, Romania, these have all witnessed records these past years in heat, cold, rain, wind speed.
Rares mircea
Definition of CLIMATE is not possible over recent years. It's just weather.
Talk about gullible.
MauriatOttolink :)) Ok, sorry but that’s dumb. Weather has MUCH to do with climate. And, off course, they’re not the same thing.
@@raresmircea
Who's dumb now?
Physician ..Heal thyself!
Small amounts of a variety of weather, tracked, recorded and analysed over a much longer period, MUCH LONGER, define climate.
"These past years.." are just a blink in time!
"One swallow does not a summer make." Aristotle. No..Not Harry Stottal!
Exactly what is the total number of weather events that can occur and be duly recorded in totality?
Is it 1 billion, 100 billion or 22 trillion (one for each dollar of US national debt) ?
If it is 22 trillion, then what should be the "normal" number of records broken someplace at sometime in any particular calendar year?
Scientific minds would need to know this before they succumb to government inspired panic.
The NFL and NBA set all kinds of records here in the USA. Must be "climate change"
It's incredible that in just few years (~200) we changed our planet so much.
whats incredible is that you think the world was static 200 years ago. Just because these people are saying this, does not make it fact. climate has always Varied.
Have you ever heard of sun cycles?
@@muskrat3291 yeah, why?
@@user-dq7ms8ir4c My reply wasn't to you, it was to Monteiro who seems to think humans are changing the planet.
@@muskrat3291 But we are, we are making it more livable for humans. Some people hate this. They think we should be making it only more livable for them. They worry about things like "overpopulation" but refuse to act on their concerns in doing something to correct it by killing themselves.
By checking termometers I found that the temperature started to drop in 2015. We did not get the Calima in the Canarian Islands, the heat vawe instead went straight north making temperature recordes in France and Germany. CO2 is political and does not affekt our climate, water vaporiseras does. The Sun controlls weather and Climate.
I live in Ontario, Canada.
It is Nov 16, 2019 and we have set cold records in the past week.
Last winter many cold records were set in the northern USA.
4 of the past 6 years have been colder than usual in Ontario.
Fossil fuels came from plants that grew when CO2 levels were much higher. CO2 will not kill us.
There is evidence that the 1930s and 1000AD were warmer than now.
When the earth was warm people and the biosphere flourished, and when the earth was cold all life on earth suffered.
I don't deny global warming, when I drive my wife to work it is always 2 degrees warmer in the city heat island than in the countryside.
The earth was almost frozen from pole to pole and CO2 levels were 20X higher than today.
I deny that it is a catastrophe.
Some are asking to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, to remove plant food from the atmosphere, and this is much more terrifying than climate change.
Environmental degradation is a real problem. Climate change is trivial.
I listened to this more than once and when she says "vulnerable groups" I cringe. Rich people are rich because of fossil fuel. The "vulnerable people" are those that will be denied the benefits of fossil fuels.
Asked yourself why north america gets strong cold snaps lately? The arctic ocean is rapidly loosing sea ice and the arctic as a whole heats up way faster then the rest of the earth. That weakens the jet stream and moves the "cold pole" - the center of the cold arctic air - towards the regions with more sea and land ice. Which is Greenland and Kanada. And if you end up in a trough of the jetstream, you basicaly sit in artic air, which is still pretty cold. You can also end up in a wave, where warmer air can get far more north then usual, like in Alaska this year.
Humans started conquering the world with CO2 concentration of about 280ppm which was around that level for the last 10k years. So you could say there was more then enough plant food around. Now we are at 415ppm CO2, rising faster then ever compared to all we know about earths history and no, not all plants like that over abundance of CO2. Some might actually grow faster, but that lowers their nutrition value per mass, so you would have to eat more of a crop to get the same amount of nutrients. Not very helpfull.
A large part of the CO2 ends up in the oceans, making them more acidic (lowering the pH of the ocean water). That could lead to the collapse of the ocean foodweb since the base of that web is often made of plankton with calcium carbonate shells/skeletons, who can't grow properly when the pH gets to low. Not to mention corals, who also suffer from lower pH and higher temperatures.
So far I can't see any beneficial effects for human survival on earth linked to higher values of CO2 or other greenhouse gases, but lots of negative ones.
If you post your "facts" at least try to give some source or would this discredit your argument?
@@0815michik
I listen to Tony Heller who uses historical facts to support what he says.
@@chrisholt2502
In your first paragraph, there is evidence that polar ice is returning. It was supposed to be gone 30 years ago, according to a consensus of scientists. It was warmer in Greenland around 1000AD and Vikings farmed barley there and even made beer. In this paragraph you say it gets warmer and colder. I am 60 and it is not getting colder and warmer. We are told the North pole is warmer so where does the cold come from? In the 1970s it was colder than usual and we were told that was why the jet stream was so erratic, and it was pushing cold air down from the arctic. I guess the jet stream is more erratic when it is colder and when it is warmer. Are you implying that we are exactly at the best possible temperature, or maybe you think it is better if it is a bit colder? Geologically it has been shown that it was much worse when it was colder and the biomass of the earth has always been adversely affected when it is colder, such as during the dark ages. We are told nonsense daily, the science advisor on climate change to Obama even wrote a paper on global cooling in the 1970s, and I am fed up being lied to.
Second paragraph, I have never heard that plants lose their nutritional value if they grow faster, if this comes up again I guess I will have to research it. Doesn't that mean more fibre if you have to eat more plants which is good for you?
I don't know the geological period when the largest explosion of life occurred, however I do know CO2 levels were much higher during that time. Many shell creatures could not have evolved and could not have lived according to what you say, however they did, and they flourished.
We are told that birds, insects, and other life forms are dying because of global warming. This is nonsense and any decrease in biomass is due to environmental degradation, a real problem we need to continue to deal with.
@@0815michik
There are many "facts" online also.
A question of interest: Did that model about the heat wave include urbanization into the calculation? Or did it assume the early 20th century's climate and an early 21th century's concrete city, which would say more about the actual impact of the climate on the matter?
Iwer Sonsch Ruben heat island effect
@@mforgetteable That's… why I'm asking
snicker...snicker...ya, heat islands what in the Ocean ? Ocean temps are rising exponentially threatening fish stocks, and destroying coral reefs.
• so again you talk about heat where ? City heat sinks while ignoring OCEAN ? Agenda disinformation, ya !
@@AcmePotatoPackingPocatello I'm asking, not claiming. I'm asking for your sources that the ocean is warming
@@iwersonsch5131
NASA
NOAA
American Meteorological Society
Any number of University studies here and abroad.
Fredi's earrings are so cool.
In my area, the weather last year was very unusually hot and dry all summer, this year it was very unusually dry all summer.
and so you need to be careful because its a trend thats associated with global warming for sure. However your "area" isnt the globe. When scientists look at global warming they look at all of the long term weather events across the globe and across a longer period of time.
@@arp76 yeah, I didn't want to make any claims about climate, just about unusual weather two years (at least) in a row, because the video is about weather and climate being related.
I left out that last year ants (which I have recorded a lot for my channel) trapped out in the hot sunlight were dying quickly as if singed by fire, which is unheard of in my area, if not everywhere.
And that this year wild plants normally quite tall and blooming in late autumn were only half as tall and dead on top with no blooming, because it was so dry for so long this year in my area. It is rough seeing things struggling so noticeably two years in a row.
I expect extreme applies to more than just heat waves and record high temps? It would include snow storms out of season, record low temps, excessive tornadoes, extensive drought, super strong hurricanes, and weeks of non-stop rainfall. Thank you for this video. It helps make the connections.
Exactly, the ice caps are melting, causing sea levels to rise, which means more water to evaporate,what goes up WILL come down. It's a domino effect.
If you don't believe Valerie just look at this:
Record Highest Temperatures by State
State Temp.
°F Temp.
°C Date Station Elevation
in feet
Alabama 112 44 Sept. 5, 1925 Centerville 345
Alaska 100 38 June 27, 1915 Fort Yukon est. 420
Arizona 128 53 June 29, 1994 Lake Havasu City 505
Arkansas 120 49 Aug. 10, 1936 Ozark 396
California 134 57 July 10, 1913 Greenland Ranch -178
Colorado 118 48 July 11, 1888 Bennett 5,484
Connecticut 106 41 July 15, 1995 Danbury 450
Delaware 110 43 July 21, 1930 Millsboro 20
D.C. 106 41 July 20, 1930 Washington 410
Florida 109 43 June 29, 1931 Monticello 207
Georgia 112 44 Aug. 20, 1983 Greenville 860
Hawaii 100 38 Apr. 27, 1931 Pahala 850
Idaho 118 48 July 28, 1934 Orofino 1,027
Illinois 117 47 July 14, 1954 E. St. Louis 410
Indiana 116 47 July 14, 1936 Collegeville 672
Iowa 118 48 July 20, 1934 Keokuk 614
Kansas 121 49 July 24, 19361 Alton (near) 1,651
Kentucky 114 46 July 28, 1930 Greensburg 581
Louisiana 114 46 Aug. 10, 19361 Plain Dealing 268
Maine 105 41 July 10, 19111 North Bridgton 450
Maryland 109 43 July 10, 19361 Cumberland & Frederick 623; 325
Massachusetts 107 42 Aug. 2, 1975 New Bedford & Chester 120; 640
Michigan 112 44 July 13, 1936 Mio 963
Minnesota 114 46 July 6, 19361 Moorhead 904
Mississippi 115 46 July 29, 1930 Holly Springs 600
Missouri 118 48 July 14, 19541 Warsaw & Union 705; 560
Montana 117 47 July 5, 1937 Medicine Lake 1,950
Nebraska 118 48 July 24, 19361 Minden 2,169
Nevada 125 52 June 29, 19941 Laughlin 605
New Hampshire 106 41 July 4, 1911 Nashua 125
New Jersey 110 43 July 10, 1936 Runyon 18
New Mexico 122 50 June 27, 1994 Waste Isolat. Pilot Pit 3,418
New York 108 42 July 22, 1926 Troy 35
North Carolina 110 43 Aug. 21, 1983 Fayetteville 213
North Dakota 121 49 July 6, 1936 Steele 1,857
Ohio 113 45 July 21, 19341 Gallipolis (near) 673
Oklahoma 120 49 June 27, 19941 Tipton 1,350
Oregon 119 48 Aug. 10, 18981 Pendleton 1,074
Pennsylvania 111 44 July 10, 19361 Phoenixville 100
Rhode Island 104 40 Aug. 2, 1975 Providence 51
South Carolina 111 44 June 28, 19541 Camden 170
South Dakota 120 49 July 5, 1936 Gannvalley 1,750
Tennessee 113 45 Aug. 9, 19301 Perryville 377
Texas 120 49 June 28, 19941 Monahans 2,660
Utah 117 47 July 5, 1895 Saint George 2,880
Vermont 105 41 July 4, 1911 Vernon 310
Virginia 110 43 July 15, 1954 Balcony Falls 725
Washington 118 48 Aug. 5, 19611 Ice Harbor Dam 475
West Virginia 112 44 July 10, 19361 Martinsburg 435
Wisconsin 114 46 July 13, 1936 Wisconsin Dells 900
Wyoming 115 46 Aug. 8, 1983 Basin 3,500
Looks Like global warming peaked in 1936. egads the ice is coming the ice is coming
It helps advance superstition, the opposite of actual science. Science deals with quantifiable things, not emotional things.
What scale do we measure "extreminess" on.?
Wow, it was cool to put a face to the voice on the Nature Podcast.
haha - good to come across a Nature Pod listener here!
I live in Hurricane Alley, when the water temperature was 87F-NO HURRICANE. When it was 83F Hurricane. I would say extreme cold is getting more common.
So that Northern Norway this month have more could and snow than in hundred year is of global warming?
They are flexible it is now called climate change.... We used to call it weather... They are having a bet each way
@@jennyfisherman
Yea, climate change 😝😝😝
As if the climate hasn't change for the last million year 😂😂
To day CO2 is 460/1million down from 2500/1million when on top.
And the CO2 is the bad gay😵😵
My observations are simple if CO2 is a problem why isn't there more money allocated to thorium research.. I can be fairly sure that the money our government (Australia) has thrown at multinational solar and wind companies via subsidies we could have an national abundant cheap energy system based on thorium
@@jennyfisherman The climate is now so unstable its no different than the weather. Oh for the good old days when one could tell the difference between boys and girls as well as weather and climate.
@@jennyfisherman I'm doing a lot of americium research, could you spare me a million or two?
They don't mention that Europe also had lower than normal summer temperatures for weeks after the short heat wave. Oh well.
This far-left scientific method is known as "cherry picking".
yeah maybe there were lower than normal temperatures, but they weren't significantly lower, let alone minimum records.
on the other hand the heat wave broke records. heat waves aren't a sign of climate change. breaking records is
The link between 'extreme weather' and 'climate change', is climate change. Really very simple: climate changes, it always has and always will. However, extreme weather has ALSO always happened. It's only now that 'scientists' are being paid to vastly over-inflate such weather, and indeed: ignore the fact that extreme weather has DECLINED over the last 100 years.
could you please prove (study, statistic) that extreme weather has declined?
OK boomer.
Where did Hot Mess go?
Rapid feedback certainly helps to communicate the problem. Even on the basic psychological layer.
It is 15°F in Chicago as I watch this. On November 8th. Average lows for this time of year are 34°F.
It also snowed like 3 inches on Halloween. The most snow on that day in nearly a century, and the first time in my life I've ever experienced snow on that day.
meanwhile we on the gulf coast of florida can't get a "feels like" temp under 90.....
Yup. A warming Arctic has caused the jet stream to go bonkers.
Yeah, it’s been like that since I was a kid, 39 years ago in Chicago. Nothing has changed., get a jacket or move to communist California.
Sounds extreme.
@@deepashtray5605 What warming in the Arctic? I just checked and it's 250K, in other words NORMAL. A weak sun and weak magnetosphere causes the jet stream to go from a zonal flow to a meridional flow. As of today, 236 days this year without sun spots.
Can we end climate change without ending capitalism?
@Stale Kale Communist here, and those are the biggest issues I've seen with capitalism. I wish it could be reformed, but those problems just seem too central to capitalism for it to be fixed. I'd be happy with any improvement at all, really.
We will be forced to act on climate change. It is effecting so many peoples lives. It's like a world war, there are casualties everywhere. Capitalism is hampering the efforts yes, but they are compatible. We just need to make the solutions profitable. If renewables are more profitable; oil companies will invest in them (they already do). We need more work, and more scientists to find ways to combat the issue with new technology and ways of thinking which are superior to our current methods of sustaining our civilization.
@@jeffmcdonald101 Hi Jeff, when you say "We just need to make the solutions profitable" who you mean by "We"? Are you a capitalist? I mean, do you run an enterprise or something? If not: Why do you want to make the _solutions-for-the-survival-of-mankind_ a way for a selected group of people (bourgeoisie) to make money?
And, where do you think that profit will come from? Why we (working class) have to pay for a climate crisis that not only we didn't create, but we suffer the most?
Also have in count that in capitalism everything, like the work, research, etcetera, that you mentioned, has to be profitable in order to happen.
This matter you bring in your last sentence ("We need [...] new [...] ways [...]") is exactly where -in my opinion- my original post takes relevance.
Good question
@@enzoamaya5110 I was referring to "we" as a collective species...all of us. We already are doing it. it's just not fast enough.
Profit is not reserved for the elite. That is a defeatist attitude in my belief. Access to the profitability of technology can be participated in by investing in the companies who create solutions. It can be participated in by working for said companies and earning a salary from your work. It can be accessed by getting an education and creating the technologies yourself and then starting a business.
We have choices about how and what we consume beyond the very bare necessities. Making smart choices which foster the change you desire is being part of the solution. Creating and voicing opposition to destructive practices is something "we" have always had the opportunity to do. We're just not very good at being a collective. Our inability to come together and decide on the right choices about our resources is something that everyone is guilty of and has participated in.
Yes all stages of the process need to be profitable in a capitalist economy, that's how it goes. In each stage value is added and money is earned. I don't think capitalism is going anywhere so we need to direct it towards a brighter future.
It is irrelevant if I am a capitalist or if I own a business. What matters is if I am helping or hindering the improvement of our world.
I am hoping that you are able to discuss the heating of the worlds oceans, underwater volcanic activity and the solar activities contributing direct relation impacting our environment. I think the warming oceans would be encouraging various gasses to rise.
How do you know the temperature of the oceans are rising. The oceans are over two miles deep and cover 70% of the Earth and are in a constant churn. How many thermometers does it take ?
Nov. 11th, yesterday, I was in Sacramento, CA and I was running the AC in my truck! But also big cold spell headed for Florida, but that's due to jet stream meandering but people in denial don't understand what's happened to the jet stream. Just keep going folks.
@Father Dougal It's like the sun doesn't factor into the climate conversation. Can't tax a Grand Solar Minimum!!!
GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL AND HAPPENING FASTER THAN PREDICTED, also THE EARTH IS NOT FLAT.
Let us know when it reverses, I can think of a million reasons to get out of California as fast as your "climate changing" truck can carry you, but the local November weather doesn't make the list.
We need to stop streaming jets. I say lets go back to propellers.
@Father Dougal When you were a teenager a few scientists were interested in the question if and when the next glaziation would happen. While MANY already leaned towards CO2 caused warming. But that was a very abstract concept (Nixon was informed about it).
Even scientists treated that as an interesting if not tangible issue. so they too squandered energy like the next consumer.
Media reported on the studies - with headlines Is there an ice age coming. or Are we in for a cooling. As usual they didn't get it right, and did the equivalent of klick baiting - but the audience was intrigued and interested.
btw: the medevieval warm and cold period was NOT global. (it was extensive think 30 - 40 % of the globe, the regions that were most affected changed over the centuries - but it was not a global warming or cooling).
So those "pop-science" articles and a few TV reports were made. I guess some pop science books were written as well, so people made money off an issue that caught the imagination of readers.
Mind you: no peer review, no definitve statement from the more serious outlets. They hyped it up a little bit - the more respectable outlets less, and others more. The TIME cover that is circulated on the internet is allegedly photoshopped.
anyway: BBC, Time Magazien are NOT peer reviewed scientific magazines, in which scientists publish their findings - so that other experts (their peers) on the globe review it. That is the way to build your rep in the scientific community: by publishing - or by finding a flaw in a paper (or supporting information from another field) and pointing it out (or writing a rebuttal paper).
you have the swarm intelligence of the experts. And hype does not get you anywhere.
The scientists that had dealt with that interesting questions (cooling ? an ice age even ? and when will the next cyclic glaziation come ?) came to the conclusion: Well not soon (meaning not in the next few thousand years).
Certainly no cooling was imminent - so they moved on after having published that.
Which is usual, not every study leads to groundbreaking discoveries. Not even close.
Laypersons never read those vey specialized papers: NOW that has become easier, you could assess them on the internet, the abstracts are always free to read, many of the studies are behind pay walls. (and reading the abstract is not enough).
Even though some scientists have wisened up. After having been misrepresented by denial blogs and right wing outlets they now often write explicitely in the abstract what conclusion NOT to draw from their paper. That wasn't necessary in the old days before the bloggersphere put the Dunning-Kruger effect on display.
Oh my goodness I didn't realise extreme weather events were being influenced quite that much by climate change already! I have been thinking that the increase in these events has been much greater than I would have thought for 1 degree of warming.
weather events HAVE NOT become more extreme. In fact, tornados are fewer, forest fires are fewer, and there has been a 13-15% increase in "greening" of the planet in the last 30 years. The only reason hurricanes seem more frquent and stronger intensity is because of the fact that more people populate the coastal areas, and unprecedented News coverage. This is not my opinion, it is supported by NOAA, and NASA record keeping/ charts. The fact that people can narrate this video and lie is unreal.
ted thank you for being an adult here in a sea of crying children
Mark Forgette Well, you're welcome. Its sometimes very frustrating.
@@user-dq7ms8ir4c Yep. People don't endure anymore. Young people are pampered. They grow up in an air conditioned house, go to work in an air conditioned car, bus, train, get to work in an air conditioned building, then go outside on a hot summer day and freak out.
Welcome to the new improved climate change
How can laymen understand the hypothetical beat guessing well enough to not dismiss it as wild guesswork ?
I didn't hear the methodology covered
The methodology is too complex for a layperson to grasp unfortunately. This is part of the problem with communicating between experts and laypersons. There is so much knowledge needed to do the science...not much less needed to understand it. We need to learn to trust people who have dedicated their lives to learning these things. We need to find a way for laypersons to agree on how to decide who to trust. We do it in so many other areas but people seem to think that there is a way they can understand something incredibly complex quickly or simply. It is not the case. We need trust in our experts, they cannot sit you down and tell you everything. For that, you must dedicate years to learning about all the factors involved.
I'm all for that in some contexts and I do understand some of the basics of climate change but I also remember politicians holding out snow as proof that global warming is a hoax. Even a dumbed down explanation with an example beats none. I'm no expert on a lot of subjects but I understand words and if I'm gonna ask questions about stuff I don't know I expect to have to learn a little to understand the responses.
Asking someone to change their lives should require some support they can understand. Lacking that, resistance to change gets tough to criticize ("take our word on it" can be stale) - "(blindly) trusting the experts who have spent their lives doing this" opens doors for Dr Oz, Gillian McKeith, the Food Babe and a host of other self-enriching woo-mongers; that's kinda what I meant.
@@DaBlondDude If you want to understand you will have to reach beyond being a layperson and seek more knowledge. Otherwise, you will have to learn to trust those who have spent the time and energy to become experts.
You deserve an explanation, most certainly. But there are very few people qualified to give you the correct one. The answers can be found through learning. You can't give or expect a short explanation to an immensely complicated question. A dumbed down explanation or handful of snow is only good for appeasing or swaying "dumb" people. If you want the real answers it will take energy and time to learn about many complex systems, scientific principles etc. We're talking years of study.
Reject dumbed down information. Nothing is simple and trying to make it so is not possible. Complex things are complex. If you don't have access to a teacher who is willing to dedicate a LOT of time to you, you will need to seek the answers for yourself using critical thinking and rationality....and a lot of text books and scholarly articles.
I think the best option for the masses is to learn who to trust and who not to trust. It's much faster and leaves you to get on with something else (hopefully constructive).
@@DaBlondDude Dr Oz, Gillian McKeith, the Food Babe...These are perfect examples of people who are most certainly not experts and you should reject their dumbed down, biased, non peer reviewed BS before it comes out of their mouth. This is what I mean about learning who to trust.
*shrug* Agreed, but it's the danger of merely accepting unexplained conclusions from any 'expert'. Too many don't look stuff up (it's what I'll be doing this weekend to make sense of those hypotheses, for example).
Merely accepting an expert opinion opens doors to 'expert' quacks like that; Oz, for example IS technically a doctor, "nutritionist" is a certified title (despite its actual value) and they've have spent 20+ years 'devoting their lives to this specialized field" (their explanations fall apart the moment one thinks them through which is how I learn who to trust, hence my point).
I don't envy science communicators their jobs - I AM thankful they're around to help folks like me see through the BS and learn. They also help folks learn to spot BS and distinguish it from science. A recent critique of gravitational wave detection comes to mind, by Sabine Hossenfelder. It's not common lingo but she dumbs it down well enough. Ben Goldacre also comes to mind, among others
What happened, why no uploads lately? You are one of the best channels on youtube!
North Dakota's record low -60 F and record high 121F were set in 1936.
coldest ever start to spring in australia. Oh sorry that doesnt fit the story
Not so ......The hottest days ever recorded for this time of year in both New south wales and Queensland with over a million and a half hectares burnt out in last weeks fires
@@trevdavies6453 big southerly fronts bring cold to the south and heat to the north. its quite normal it been going on for thousands of years
@@267BISMARK yes this meteorological events have been going on for thousands of years, but we've never seen that intense extremes.
btw coldest ever spring could also be a sign of climate change, due to changing atmospheric circulation patterns.
@@BorankHD you need to look up the records
@@267BISMARK what records
10,000 scientists including professor mickey mouse just confirmed we are having a climate emergency. That's why I'm never leaving my room again, unless i have to go to the loo. Mum says i don't have to go to school anymore as well.
Hot mess needs to do a vidioe about ecosia they are a search engine that plants trees.
For rich Europeans, the "quality of life" will be affected. It's having to use air conditioning. It's being inconvenienced. For hundreds of millions in the global south, it's the difference between life and death.
I always like to paraphrase the historians Will and Ariel Durant in their book on world history -"Human civilisation depends on geological consent subject to change without notice" -I would alter that to "human civilisation depends on geological and METEOROLOGICAL consent subject to change without notice!Anybody with even a modicum of historical knowledge would realize that there have been much more extreme weather events in the past -for example in Australia in the 1200's9by the Gregorian calendar) there was a drought that lasted 37 years.(dendrochronology)And just check the absolutely massive cyclone that hit western Europe in the early 1700's -the English fleet ended up in Sweden!Also check the absolutely massive cyclone that hit the West Indies in the late 1700's -there has been nothing of this dimension since.
Linking weather events to climate change will be a useful tool to sway political action.
I think so too. Probabilities are something that most people understand to some extent. It may be a good way to communicate the changes taking place in real time.
Duh, that is what climate change hysteria is. A demand for the lefties to strong arm political control. And nothing less. Same reason why America is all of a sudden racist. Scare yourself children and lie to them so you can have them vote for your current faith based idealism. No different than being molested by your local pastor.
@@mforgetteable Well said....they were saving "God" and if they need to molest children in order to "save God" that's just a little thing we should be able to endure.
Sort of like tens of thousands of of enviros in their private jets constantly circling the globe to attend countless "climate conferences" to get the message out: "To do what we do is a sin against nature that we must punish"
Here in middle Europe we have a lot of people who don’t care, for example in Bavaria with a lot of traditional thinking. It’s because climate change impacts are barely or not felt at all. Sure, there was a heat wave, but that’s just the sun, right? How can you make those people understand?
Tell them their beer source is under threat.
Pretty basic thermodynamics. Put more energy into the system thru increased CO2 and the probability of higher energy events increases.
So, the snow we experienced here in Norway should not happen then?
It snowed in July. Go figure.
The heat wave that swept over Europe was hot air brought from Sahara by the jet stream, same for us up north that got the cold air from the north pole. This happens time to time. The heat was for a week, we later got the same thing up here in north, making the temperature to like 30 degrees.
Now if you looked at the weather reports from south europe it was not hotter than normal. They are been over 30 degrees since I can remember.
Here north we are actually experience the coldest year now. Never had to put on winter tires in the beginning of oktober before.
That don't agree with the it's getting hotter quote. But details and this was a opportunity to spread the scare.
Because in a summit they did real science, get real they just made numbers up. The temperature isn't over 1 degree yet and they are screaming about 4.
And cold kills more people that hot weather. That's a real fact.
Where are you getting that "fact" from?
I believe that cold kills more than heat in Norway, lol.
Do you know how many diseases flourish in overly heated regions which don't spread prolifically through cooler ones?
Doesn't sound like you know what is actually involved with a changing climate. Here's the simple version: The Arctic is warming which lowers the temperature gradient between the high and low latitudes which then causes the Jet Stream to lose strength and go haywire. And that once relatively stable blob of bitter cold air hovering over the North Pole is squeezed out of its normal pattern by warm air moving up from the Pacific.
@@broomemike1 cold kills more people than heat, look it up.
I never typed only in Norway, learn to read.
@@deepashtray5605 so what it have done over centuries is now haywire, I aplaude you sir.
Mike Broome yeah 4 degrees is a lie. Swallow it
Heat wave bullshit artist.
The only thing extreme is our youth cultures stupidity.
I am amazed how many "experts" have no clue what climate is:
Climate is the presence and action of *a solar energy driven atmospheric cell* over the surface of a terrestrial planet. Earth has 6 cells by the way, which drives the climate correlated with ocean oscillations. Oceans have warming and cooling trends in ~100 and ~60 year cycles, absorbing solar energy and creating the El Nino and La Nina phenomena. CO2 does not warm the oceans or cause the oceans to warm. The arctic and Greenland warmed in the 1920s and are warming now...wow that sounds like a cycle to me.
Well said.
Is El Nino still going? I can't tell because that thing takes years
ur wlcume
No statistics.
Arabian sea never had any cyclones , except these 3,4 years with increasing frequency. As Matter of fact,cold water is not a suitable place for cyclones to produce but temperature of Arabian sea is increasing. And that extreme rainy season hit the state I live. Farmers are crying coz of heavy rain. Maharashtra,India.
Wow, I love this video! I'm an academic (graduated from a master's degree in marine bio.) and I want to say that this is the first? video that gets into the complexities underlying climate change. I feel the videos before were just only "scratching the surface" of it. But, at the same time I feel that not everyone wants to hear all that "complexity" and just want the answers (that's where you guys come in).
Keep up the great work!
The Saliology ; complexities!?
What are you talking about.?
There is zero cited studies enclosed here.
None.
And there giving you a master degree.
Geez, I hoe we don’t end up having to pay for your college tuition debt.
Dis you hear the violins and cellos. They were swooning you dear.
Listen to the scientists: th-cam.com/video/iaOr3E_qr8o/w-d-xo.html
feedback loops with shorter delays, great!
Galo Aguirre, this is not your awful sounding fender strat., the feedback concepts have never been proved or reproduced in a lab. Stick to your guitar chops and maybe one day you’ll impress a woman and then actually have purpose in life.
@@mforgetteable, alrighty.
Meant, like the video pointed out, if we reflect early on the effects of climate change on weather, we'd be more willing to correlate our actions as a society with what's happening.
Appreciate the input, have a good one.
What a typical example of one sided reporting. No mention of use of theoretical models in this comparison vs reality to determine impact. No mention of the fact that the one degree rise is the result of ipcc cherry-picking the start preindustrial average temperature point at a lower than normal ( for the two thousand year average was actually one degree lower) using 1850-1900 period. That’s like saying our starting weather is what the fridge is internally vs our weather outside today. It’s stacks the deck for climate warming outcomes. If they used a more reasonable starting point they would see almost zero rise in average global temperatures. Political organisation pushing a political outcome. If no climate change then no funding for ipcc and no funding for all their studies. There are 120 climate models because the true climate is so complex no one system has yet even been remotely successful in predicting anything resulting in a range so broad you can say anything you like and “prove” it using some combination of these many models. Models are not facts and so this whole exercise is irrelevant- just another attempt to make hypothetical futures and pasts into some form of true science. Please show us the true methods and data used to come to these conclusions and I will listen with an open mind. Some of us still know how to reason and appreciate that the scientific method is based on sceptical and rational thinking and debate.
FAKE ,ITS A SCAM
Honestly, I do not trust this calculations. There are a lot of models with a lot of interests and one uses the model that benefits his/her hipothesis. Its more complicated in my opinion
That's why so many different models are averaged to find the trend.
The models predicted years ago things that didnt happen, this mass scale science isnt easy
@@kike_villa It also predicted a lot of things that did happen, and a lot that is happening decades before they predicted it would.
I wonder how much will overpopulation contribute to climate change
@Dar Castro sorry if that offended you, i'm just genuinely curious. If you have any study on those information that i can read i'd appreciate it.
I mean. More People = more ressources needed -> more Energie use
@@antzerobooks If you are genuinely curious I think it would be better to look for reputable scholarly articles than to ask on TH-cam. This is not where you get answers like that. There is no short answer to your vague question that I or anyone else can give you here. Go to Google Scholar and search for the answers you seek. read all points of view and use critical thinking and rationality to find the truth.
@@holyravioli5564 It's not that easy. Your assumption is overly simplified. Overly simplified reasoning like this is not helpful or constructive.
@@jeffmcdonald101 most of them are not free, but from what i've found so far. Overpopulation only have little affect to climate change, it does cause problem with waste but that's a different beast all together. Thanks for pointing google scholar, i didn't know we have those. I guess it's not too futile to ask around on youtube 😁
'Rapid Attribution Studies'? ....hmmmm 🤔
A few questions;
What occurs between every ice-age in regards to weather and climate? Why?
What is the likelihood of something happening twice in a season where it only occurred once, and something happening 300 times normally now occurring 600 times? Difference?
What is the current sea level compared to what it was 25/50/100 years ago? And why am I still able to breathe without gills given it was predicted to rise so very much (I live on an island and am very close to sea level)?
I am all for clean air, water, soil, food, etc. I don't want life poisoned on this planet.
Involving climate scientists in more aspects of society would be like having fortune-tellers (diviners, astrologists, haruspex, etc) to advise on battle tactics.
The only talk we need now is in the area of how we are going to fix the issues, so we can actually fix them, and how we can adapt to what we cant fix. Anything else is just more hot air added to an atmosphere that has too much already - now that really would be a Hot Mess.
All your questions are easily answered on Google.
They're trying to say correlation equals causation. I disagree with the hypothesis that carbon per se facilitates climate. People overthink the basics which is astronomy, meteorology, geology, & oceanography are the subjects that provide the concepts that govern climate.
WASF 🔥🌎🔥
1
Climate change all the time, when you travel in particularly south north directions large distance . If you are on the same spot, then it is called whether change not a climate.
The definition of climate is how the weather has been for a period over 30 years
@@leFoodeater No
@@anabelcamacho6584 I just have a master's degree in earth science, but what do I know
@@leFoodeater No, you are lying shill
it's not climate change, it's geoengineering
What a load of utter garbage
All i heard was a bunch of bullsbit with no accual exsplaination.....
Show me the math......so i can pick it apart.......i really need to k ow how solar forcing is a human activity.....
Good luck in overcoming your ideologically induced dyscalculia.
@@0815michik n use u real name u gutless swine!!!!
!!!!
Climate is weather; controversial I know.
Not controversial, just wrong. One arises from the other, they are not the same thing. Please don't spread the misunderstanding.
@@jeffmcdonald101 Not equating weather and climate had allowed Climate Change deniers to flourish; there is only physics.
@@TheInselaffen They are related, but not the same thing. The fact they are not the same thing cannot be changed. Deniers will grab hold of whatever they can.
Controversial? No. Wrong? Yes.
@@deepashtray5605 not wrong. The Universe doesn't care about your semantics.
U people allready have the weather chanel pumping out disinfo to the public.....
All sin and wrong doing has to be payed for, the thing with Christ though is that he has already payed for it.
You just have to accept and then don't do wrong anymore, God said that when HE FORGIVES IT IS LIKE THE SIN NEVER HAPPENED.
All you have to do is repent and he will not count anything against you
Y would it have been 4 degrees cooler 100 years ago???lolol..please exsplain
im sick of hearing about this subject, ye central europe may be warm in summer, but all i can say is its not like this in all europe, west europe is getting nothing but north winds summer and winter, , and look at america where,s the golbal warming there too
BS
Is it just me who, the more I hear about climate change the less believable it seems?
How so?
Misha K So the more information you have on it, the less you believe it? Interesting
Are you just “hearing” about it, or are you “understanding” it? Also choosing to or not to “believe” in scientific info seems problematic.
You might like this: th-cam.com/video/iaOr3E_qr8o/w-d-xo.html
Misha K ok boomer