This is on of THE best if not THE BEST talks about climate change ever! She didn't "preach" (and that is for those who are reluctant to the issue!) but gave us a beautiful way to move the conversation further! I'm going to follow Corinne's work, she is certainly one to watch!
Great presentation, Corinne, and I recently listened to you on Life Scientific. Absolutely dismayed with the negative comments here and the denialism. I sincerely thank you for all your hard work and bold efforts.
The negative comments prove something. It would be fatal to rely on people's common sense. Too many people understand absolutely nothing. What they think and say is really scary, but also entertaining and funny in a certain way. Some comments were so ridiculous that i actually had to laugh. They are convinced that they are right, but they have neither knowledge nor reason and proudly prove both facts.
Persuasion has become a lost art among many scientists and politicians and she has realized that. She has not given up, she has merely changed her approach.
@@MS-st1zb Your statement doesn't make any logical sense. I agree with Jay M. I didn't see the connection, the science, on how higher greenhouse gases caused 27 inches of rain in Texas.
This video already is 2 years old!! Wow, I really couldn't tell just be watching the video! Why? Well, because almost nothing has changed since then! :(
I live in Australia. not only dose the bitumen on the roads melt, but we have shoreline erosion, and even the gold coast in qweensland is rising. the last king tide people in the higer areas said wow whats going on some water was indenting the higher suburbs around the gold coast. Sea levels are incresing everywehe. 2020 is just around the corner a few months away. My qwestion is what can we ecpect in 2020. One more thing, never trust a policition. you got high hopes that will happen in your lifetime.
Tron Alpha I also live in Australia and NEWS BREAK the bitumen has been melting since i was a boy thats over fifty years and storms have been eroding beaches for that long as well . What has happened in one lifetime is but a blip on the radar , if you live for ten thousand years your observations may be relevant but the observation of one lifetime are insignificant and irrelevant.
Bitumen has been melting here in Aus for a very long time.. This isn't new. Don't know what Gold Coast coast you're living on but the one in Australia is reasonably flat, as in no real mountains/higher suburbs and its literally a city next to the water, so if sea levels were rising, the city would be the first to notice. Just do a goggle image search for 'gold coast'
electric vehicles are very expensive, potentially dangerous and have to be recharged, not to mention the higher pollution during manufacturing. Then you still need the power stations to run them so no it won't happen overnight.
You are right for now. The energy to produce and power electric cars is still creating pollutants in our atmosphere and the cost is still high because the adoption is still too low. It takes time but we are working on it.
Talking about predictions and forecasts is beatiful. "Climatistas" have made a lot of them. And FAILED! Badly failed. Terrible job trying to convince the threat is real.
agreed. & she says we will breathe pure air in cities? & not eat meat? i love animals & the environment, but this woman talks gibberish. science? where? reason goes out the window when forced to defend 'global warming.'
She just showed two data set to stress the differences between what is and it used to be/was expected. No need for anything else than the lines and their colors.
She made a TED talk about that she gave up trying to convince climate denier morons and you complain that the graph has no units on the axes. *facepalm*
18:03 Sadly, I’m not completely agree, I think that humanity will be so slowly to take just one of these changement... I can see that here in Italy most of the people don’t mind a lot about climate change, they still use a lot of plastic, example: I found a single plastic bag in the supermarket for a banana ! Not for 5/6 just for one, it’s crazy , there where 100 bananas each one in a proper plastic bag
20 years ago a group from MC Master university drilled cores in Al the major all of the major dumps in Ontario to prove how we were destroying our environment! But they found no plastic at all! Just large communities of wax worms that eat plastic! So why aren't we landfilling all of our plastic? Or just feeding it to wax worms and harvesting the clean polypropylene glycol?
Josj Guy thanks for enlightening me. I just assumed that talks on Ted are reliable. I should be more cautious and allow myself to fact find before believing. Ill try to watch Dr Moore’s VIDEO.The way she delivered made me imagine what the earth would be if we will not care about motherland thus my being emotional.
@@TaniaHernandez-lr8el did you notice the staccato rising of her voice when she ticked off all of her points , and the emotional huffing and puffing when she presents data, to create a sense of false urgency ? or that she will not try to convince you that climate change is a serious issue.. to make it sound like a forgone conclusion.. so much drama, so much emotion, she's so important, it's theater...."climate change scientist" , even the title assumes one is seeking a forgone conclusion.. It's been politicized by people that want your wealth and your independent....and once they have it , the earth will not get one degree cooler, while the elite continue to on to tackle the next big subject on their private jets.. this is not science it's politics..
I think you were fooled by her entertaining speech. She presented facts and conclusion based on correlation. She didn't show any causation of climate change.
Recycling is not the solution because it is not endless. You cant recycle every kind of plastic + you cant recycle the recyclable plastic to the infinite + paper can be recycled 6-7 times etc... So use other alternatives when it is possible
She says the top climate models work, but only when they plug in human produced CO2. Please show me one model that has been correct in the past 50 years. They’re never correct...
Understand where you live, and the functions of trees, and the function of C02. Both are directly correlated with the weather systems. Until you did this, SHUT UP!
Shane Roper irrelevancy. Respond to the question. Can you name a significant prediction that has come true? If not then we still know nothing. I looked at IPCC data and it looks like temperature has risen .7 degrees since 1979. I don’t think that is significant. This woman is a bit too emotional. I’ve actually attended scientific meetings and presented at some. Odd style.
@@lynnjohnson2371 Yes. Ice sheets melting at a rapid rate. Erratic weather all over the globe as the planet tries too balance out it's temperature. C02 levels globally rising because of deforestation and C02 in addition too the natural occurrences being injected into the system. What goes up, must come down. It's just a matter of time before the planet pushes the reset button. If the gulf stream slows to a stop, or the desalination reaches a critical point.....dress warmly.
Great Story and a human being with something to say worth listening too. the Earth is BURNING ./.. nothing else matters Dream Hard my friend, i needed to hear you speak
@@TheLordPranamya Climate change IS climate change. It doesn't cause climate change. So you're saying it's getting hotter so that's why it's getting cooler?
QUR'AN EXPLICITLY DESCRIBES SOVEREIGNTY BELONG TO ALLAH AND ALLAH ALONE. AND HOW THE END EARTH WILL BE TAKING THE PLACE. ALHAMDULILLAH BEING A MUSLIM. ISLAM IS WAYS OF LIFE.
If you are referring to her anomaly story you missed the point. The anomaly was that the ocean (via the wave)was not taking up as much CO2 as it should. So things were worse. This is usually the case in climate science predictions. They are usually on the conservative side and things turn out to be happening faster, etc. The only uncertainty is how much faster will things happen and how will humans react?
No mention of the effects of volcanic eruptions? Wind power, electric cars will never recover the c02 released to make them, and what about battery disposal? Replacing the battery in a Nissan Leaf costs over thirty thousand dollars at the Nissan dealer in Australia.
Yes indeed. Wind power is not like coal power plants that just pop into existence with the use of no energy whatever. Oh and volcanoes come and go all the time and do not account for current trends. The scientists are way smarter than the average youtube commenter.
@@parrisgjerde9212 hang on I'll go get my slide rule. The point is this was a lecture light on science but of course heavy on alarmism. Waiting for the science still..
Why should we expect climate to be forever pleasant, static and unchanging on a small rock hurtling thru space around a star that converts 5mill tonnes of mass into energy every second? There are some 30 plus, unique finely-tuned parameters that make earth life supporting. That some control freaks think they can micro- manipulate one tiny component of one parameter (CO2) and save the planet, is laughable. When that component is 1 part in 2500, when that one component is the food for all plant food and reason all carbon based lifeforms exist, is beyond belief.
What we have here is an opinion. There are scientsts who will claim the opposite. The problem with such presentations is lack of debate. It's all one sided. That's not science. It's more like religion.
Harry Decker - That's utterly non sense. Surely there's no debate on a Ted talk. But there's plenty debate elsewhere. There's peer review publications, etc. Case is most people don't even bother reading a book. Much less dive deep into a "boring scientific" presentation. But nothing of this is a secret kept hidden from the masses, it's out there and it's open to anyone.
@@crpth1 If there's such debate, why does one side fear, and feel the need to pummel the other? There is no debate, either you believe, or you will be punished in whatever form that comes in.
@@dmannevada5981 Show me the evidence. There is overwhelming evidence for ACC and hardly any (if any) that counters it. That is why it is getting harder and harder to find a credible scientist to debate the subject. Go back to watching Fox News....and come back when you have some real science to reference. BTW, science doesn't care what people believe. It is either supported by evidence or not. So, if you disagree with science, go back to living in the dark ages.
There has never been a time in history when the powerfull have not manipulated us plebs with the fear of death from above if we don't do what they wish.... Ignore them use your common sense and live in harmony not fear.
Did she explain her anomaly? (lack of sea rise?) Quite likely, what she saw as an "anomaly" is actually normal. And what her and her colleagues are trying to pick through to prove their point are statistical flukes. She has the mind of a convert and well beyond any redemption.
The anomaly was that the southern oceans are not taking up CO2 as quickly as they are supposed to according to climate change theory, leaving more CO2 in the atmosphere.
@@fredneecher1746 Nobody talks anymore about the saturation of the CO2 absorption bands. Additional CO2 has very little direct warming effect but a huge beneficial effect on the greening of the planet. The greening effect is much better measurable from satellites and it is easy to attribute to CO2.
If you believe in religion you are a large part of humanity, no matter which religious beliefs you have. I do not believe that there's any kind of God which puts me in the minority. My point is that if part of your argument could be that there has to be a religious God because the majority believe it is so than based on that thinking, you would be in the minority about climate change since something like 97% of scientist believe in climate change. Actually, man-made climate change. Or there is a world-wide conspiracy. GOOD THINKING!!!
I watched this to see what she had to say. It was difficult to actually figure out where she stood on "climate change" since she was all over the map in terms of content. She talked about literature; she talked about 100,000 year old ice, her kids, gin & tonic; she imitated penguins; she made witty comments then laughed at her own witticisms; talked about electric cars, engineers; and she talked about the fact she was not going to try to change your mind. What she didn't talk about was actual facts about what is really going on with our climate. If you ARE interested watch on TH-cam a number of lectures and interviews given by scientists who DO give you the facts about climate change, carbon dioxide and where our planet may be headed e.g. Dr. William Happer physicist (Princeton), Dr. Willie Soon Astro physicist (Harvard Smithsonian); Dr. Freeman Dyson theoretical physicist ( Princeton); Dr. Tim Ball PhD in Climatology MIT; and Dr. Patrick Moore PhD in Ecology...........watch Dr. Moore's Lecture entitled "Climate Realism" and the brief follow up to it called " What's the End Game of the Climate Scare".
Inside the mind of a climate scientist " how can I create a proposal for a new study to get funding from the ipcc? " " how can I exaggerate the findings and data to appease the mandate of the ipcc a second and third time? " I really need to keep my job, maybe I should vote socialist"
Why does the graph always start at the end of the little ice age? which killed millions. We are then told that the temperature has risen since a horrendous 1 degree and that this was caused by industrialisation which initially started in only a few countries. Therefore we must destroy the economies of the industrialised nations in order to return to the utopian climate of the little ice age.
This never-ending parade of idiots, patting themselves on the back for knowing the future when all their forecasts of the past have proven false, has exposed the "scientific community" as a pack of lying frauds.
Think of Climate Alarmism in two parts. TO DATE and FUTURE. 1. Temperature increase of 1 degree from 150 years ago TO DATE is not unusual or an amount of concern, and in fact has largely been beneficial to humans. 2. Temperature FUTURE predictions are unscientific and will almost all be proven wrong, as are almost all predictions humans make about the future.
Don't forget that 1850 was one of the coldest years of the last 10 000 years and we have not even reached 15 degrees C global mean surface temperature and the approx. 1 degree C warming since 1850 is most welcome. We are supposed to reach hopefully soon 15 degrees C based on the IPCC natural greenhouse gas effect. Only a modest sea level rise of 1.5 mm per year as per the very reliable global tide gauge measurements. No acceleration whatsoever. Where does the dramatic ice shields melts go? For how long more do we have to hear these Ted talks of pseudo scientists funded with our tax money. In Austria are more and more people fed up with these people scaring our kids. Enough is enough. Not funny.
@@matthauslill4577 Thank you! Great comment. btw, as you may know when Ice in water melts there is no rise in water level, as the Ice has a mass greater than that of liquid water. Sadly Greta doesn't know this as she doesn't go to school...
70 billion Us$ spent already on this IPCC pseudo science. Enough is enough and more and more Austrians are fed up with this scaring of our kids using our tax money. I am not amused.
If someone found there is a mistake in the physics, such that it overturns greenhouse theory, would they be a hero/ heroen .... ? How would they be seen?
Well obviously they’d be seen as gold dust by the fossil fuel moguls. But it would leave the scientific community with the headache of then working out what really is causing global warming.
We live in an interglacial ice age the Holocene. The current interglacial period is older than other similar periods. If there is a trend we are due for more cooling. 20th century rates of warming: 1910-1940 - 0.5° per 30 yrs 1940 to 1980 there was cooling 1980-2000 - 0.4° per 30 yrs (lower rate) Previous rates were much higher: 1326 bc global warming rate: 1.4° per century 6440 bc global warming rate: 1.9° per century 9620 bc global warming rate 100° per century. This is the start of the Holocene interglacial. The rate was more than 111x that of late 20th century rate. 1817 bc 50° per century Medieval Global Warm Period 1100's to 1300's The MGWP was 0.25° warmer than today Vikings grew crops in Greenland and had settlements on the coast of northern Canada.
@Robbert James Could you show me some of this mythical 'real science' deniers always talk about? So far none of them have been able to come up with the goods.
It's curious so many claim there's no climate change, there's no warming, etc. etc. But one thing that's undeniable. Several countries are working and investing to get a grip on the conveniences of warming! Norway, Russia, etc. are sharpening their teeth to have a working and fully functional "North passage". US, Canada are not oblivion to the situation and try to get a piece of the pie. Maybe they're all investing blindly... LOL 😂
"Professor Corinne Le Quéré FRS is the Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and a Professor of Climate Change Science and Policy at the University of East Anglia. In 2017, she chaired the International Panel of the ‘Make the Planet Great Again’ campaign led by French President Emmanuel Macron, which awarded grants to outstanding climate scientists around the world" (Where did the grant money come from?) "....A member of the UK Committee on Climate Change and author of the 3rd, 4th and 5th Assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Corinne has contributed to advances in the quantification of the causes and trends of atmospheric carbon dioxide." Yes of course she has, the IPCC was set up especially to investigate man -made climate change and has focused on carbon dioxide. Not a bad spoof and some genuine comic moments.
This IPCC show has already cost about 70 billion $. This money should have been spent on important projects and not on producing more and more pseudo science. All climate models have been falsified and sea level is rising since 300 years with about 1.5 mm per year ss per global tide gauge measurements. No acceleration whatsoever. I don't trust one second the sealevel satellite altimetry which is completely IPCC controled. This altimetry shows a 2mm higher sea level rise than the tide gauges. The gap is widening! When will this strange situation be visible for everybody?
@@matthauslill4577 When the words 'climate change' are put together with the word 'scientist' the meaning of the word scientist is lost. In the same way the IPCC is simply a political body set up to implement policy about an assumption made about climate (i.e. that the earth is warming and this is almost entirely due to human activity related to the emissions of carbon dioxide. The only 'science' they are interested in is that which appears to confirm their painfully wrong bias.
What is the scale on the graph you showed? It is clearly the years on the horizontal but there is no indication as to the vertical axis! It looks very similar to the one Micheal Mann uses where it is 0.01 degrees C at the bottom and 0.05 degrees C at the top! The thought of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere is only a recipe for disaster as it is the lifeblood of all plant life on earth. Even humans breathe out CO2 at a level 10 times the ambient current air level of ppm! Submariners live in an atmosphere of 4000ppm for months on end without any harmful effects! You should be reading and listening to Dr. Patrick Moore, Prof. William Happer, Prof. Ian Plimer, and others that have studied the climate and all aspects of how the planet has behaved over millions of years, rather than just the events of the last century and try and blame it all on the human race! That is just misplaced arrogance and is more a political point of view than a scientific one!
hehe, No one said that CO2 is poisonous. You can live in a 1000000ppm CO2 environment if you have enough oxygen for your lungs to process. . . .but. .. . .who said that CO2 is poisoning us? CO2 is dangerous because it traps heat. I want you to say that CO2 and Methane dont do that and make yourself a look like an utterrr moron, LOL. Do you have a star shining inside the submarine trapping all its heat radiated inside thus warming the atmo inside, causing drought and hurricanes and stuffs? So. . . . whats your point in pointing out submarine CO2 level? NO ONE is saying this is poison, lol. And reducing CO2 is a recipe for disaster. . . .how? Hundreds of years ago you did not have a thousandth of CO2 emission that we have today so, hundreds of years ago the Earth was ecologically unstable or something? Were there less trees than today? Did rise of CO2 cause any increase in number of trees? If you are increasing CO2 level while conducting deforestation everywhere. . . .what is the point of having soooo much lifeblood juice ? XDDD. And do tell us what is causing alll these warmings, LOL. Solar cycles? Axial configurations? your mom's fart? XDDD And Asking "what is the scale on the graph" is a reallllyyyyyyyy moronic thing to ask in this context cz, she is not here to sell data, this is not a science conference and you are not a scientist who can read data and more importantly, YOU ARE NOT ASSUMED TO BE SOMEONE WHO UNDERSTANDS DATA AND STATISTICS when they make these tedtalks for you. This is a person sharing their experience, their views. This is not a debate this is not a science convention for data. If you have problem with that then, well, GO AND READ REAL DATA LOL. She is a well known figure you can find alllll her data allll her research and satisfy the "hunger for knowledge" u are faking, lol. The graph is a prop, its meant to be give u some visual direction to understand her story. NOT TO SHOW U DATA CZ, SHE HAS HER PUBLISHED WORK FOR THAT. Do you think everythinggggg just exist in a goddamn vaccum? moron
Are planet earth average temperatures rising? I accept with reserves. How critical CO2 is in the planet temperature equation? Don’t know. Are there other non-CO2 factors? Don’t know. Is human contribution to global warming high/medium/low? Don’t know. Are 50- year temperature projections correct? Don’t know. ...... keep asking questions and maybe one day we will find the truth.
We will find the truth also without spending more money on IPCC pseudo science. These funny people like Corinne who works in the climategate East Anglia University have already created costs of $ 70 billions. We a Austrians are less and less amused.
Scotty Bolton Eyes wide open and it’s easy to see the effects of what’s going on. People are living and dying on the front line. No need for conspiracy or left theories, just solid, provable and repeatable evidence from numerous sources. But if you think otherwise OK, on your head be it.
It is a good talk. It should reach more people. I wanted to contribute a little with a community translation into my language. TedxTalks doesn't have it enabled.
Did I miss some of this scientist’s data? Why was that 100000+ year old ice ‘popping’ when it melted? When her family breathed 100000+ year old air out of that thermos, did she not know about the much higher than today CO2 content?
Global Warming is one of the great Hoaxes of modern times! Are you sure it's true? Do you even look beyond the comfortable confirmation biases, ever staying with your echo chamber of self-imposed convictions like a mind-incestuous herd of SJW brainwashed sheep?
Mike Ferrigan I agree Mike - I liked her talk in the sense of the urgency and reality of the problem (although the usual freakish deniers have sprung up with the geoengineering bs), but was surprised that she had hope of it being fixed. We’re 30 years too late for that!
Good entertainment, I enjoyed it. Unfortunately, she didn't say anything new. We all know the climate is changing but we don't know, what portion of it is due to human activity. We also don't know whether warming is a problem at all, after all Earth is in an Ice age and a warmer Earth would be much more fertile.
Let's hope they have this data in their minds: Globally the ACE index (accumulated cyclone energy) 1980-2021 shows no increasing trend. Global Hurricane Landfalls 1970-2021 (updated from Weinkle et al, 2012) shows no trend. Satellite data since 1980 shows a slight downward global trend for total hurricaine numbers with 2021 being a record low year. The IPCC reports in AR6, chapter 11, "The total global frequency of TC [tropical cyclone] formation will decrease or remain unchanged with increasing global warming (medium confidence)." Not that I really care about what the IPCC says. Multidecadal variability in Atlantic hurricaines is most probably related to the AMO (Vecchi et al, 2021). NOAA data 1851-2021 shows no trend in number of hurricaine landfalls with the record high being 1886. What the data from NOAA SPC shows about tornados: EF1-EF5 (1954-2022) no trend; EF3-EF5 (most destructive) (1954-2022) 50% decline. No EF5s in US since 2013 (a record absence). The Global Land Precipitation Anomaly from AR5 will disappoint with deviations from the average increasing by 0.2% per decade, but if you look at the actual data, it's just very variable over the decades. Drought appears to be decreasing globally (Watts et al, 2018) measured by SPI 1901-2017. For every million people on earth, annual deaths from climate-related causes (extreme temperature, drought, flood, storms, wildfires) declined 98%--from an average of 247 per year during the 1920s to 2.5 in per year during the 2010s. Data on disaster deaths come from (EM-DAT, CRED / UCLouvain, Brussels,Belgium. ) Globally 2000-2019 there was a large decrease in cold-related deaths and a moderate increase in heat-related deaths (Zhao, 2021, Lancet). However, coldwaves are over 9 times more likely to kill than heatwaves, so the overall result is very beneficial. What else? Oh, deserts like the Sahara have shrunk considerably and the Earth has greened by 15% or more in a human lifetime (NASA). The Great Barrier Reef's coral cover has reached the greatest extent ever recorded. On extinction the rate is very low: 900 known lost species for 2.1 million known species in 500 years. At that frequency it will take over 930,000 years to reach 80% extinction of species experienced at the K-T boundary that saw the extinction of the dinosaurs. There is no climate crisis.
she references the floods in Houston, but she obviously knows nothing about this. The cause was 2 high pressure systems which trapped a tropical storm and prevented it from moving for days. This has NOTHING to do with atmosphere warmth or water it can hold.....She just doesn't get it at all.
I suspect that the mountain of data she has sitting on her shoulders has been shared elsewhere in a fashion that does more than the unlabeled axes and unscaled corresponding plots she shared briefly to represent anything like evidence. She has conveyed her passion and I can appreciate that, but there was nothing of climate science here. I will dig further into her published work, that is where I will likely find the crux of why she feels the way she does. I do love the story about the ancient ice based G&T's.
a system as complex as climate of the planet can not be dependent on a single factor co2 that is 0.04% of atmosphere gases. what caused the Greenland to be habitable from 900 to 1300 when vikings farmed there? the clouds are clearly more effective at reflecting sun light in the day time and trapping heat at night time. if its a cloudy day is colder if its a cloudy night is warmer. what happens when it gets warmer? how did we come to the conclusion that is gonna be bad? more co2 is good for plants and we cannot stop the way we live to emit less co2 because that may cost us more then the climate problems if there are any.
Eclectic cars no pollution? Mining lithium batteries...this is good for the environment? What about the greening of the earth, the Sahel? If we remove all the co2 what happens to our planet? Plant life needs co2!
6000 years ago during the holocene optimum was warmer . medieval warm period , agriculture in greenland . the 1930's warmer . early twentieth century was equal to present warming . sea level rate of rise unchanged according to tide gauges . people believe what they want to believe not what best data says . argo buoys ; adjusted . lnstrumental temps ; adjusted . satellite sea level data ; adjusted . computer models all over the place . ECS between 1.5 and 4.5 C . in other words they don't have a clue .
We always knew the human race was not going to survive forever. I hope you can achieve your goals. Technology has allowed us to become the most successful animal ever. It has saved more lives and fed more people. But we are destructive and we will have to leave soon we are all getting old together the planet will be OK unless a meteorite hits it or can we stop that too
D c by ‘saved more lives...’ i assume you mean human lives. Animals and the rest of the natural has suffered terribly and catastrophically at human hands. Humans are successful at destroying the natural world and creating such huge gaps of inequality that you would only consider it good if you were on the right side of the wealth gap.
I just don't understand why this woman is obsessed with CO2. So the planet has warmed a little since 1880 (0.8%K), most of that is down to the spread of agriculture into forests and the spread of suburban concrete into agriculture not to mention the additional 4 billion people and the associated domestic animals required to feed them. It is unlikely that any of it is down to a stronger greenhouse effect, but if any of it is, the amount down to CO2 is so small that it can be safely ignored. What causes the greenhouse effect? During the day, it is all caused by the ozone layer and during the night, 98%+ of it is caused by clouds. Not only is the heat reflectivness of clouds stronger than that of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, but the cloud cover is really substantial. Google "Earth from Space" and see how much cloud cover there is. Most days it's between 20 and 40%. Now compare that with CO2 cover at 0.04%. Yes folks that is one twenty fifth of one percent. Corinne Le Quéré seems to think that this minuscule amount of CO2 is responsible for the entire 0.8%K rise in temperature. What does she have between her ears?
With the religion of climate change(formally global warming), let’s hear more about solutions. Maybe humans can’t fix it. Because maybe humans didn’t cause it. Blasphemy.
@@danzel1157 Why does it matter to you? You'll just say they are on the payroll of the oil companies who are owned by the same banking oligarchs who are behind the global warming/CO2 scare.
Seen the oceans of tailing left over from the Oilpatch in Canada? Outlawing child labor in cobalt mines will be easier than cleaning up the tar-sands in Canada.
You asked what you might have missed. You might have missed... The change from diverse forestry to crop land causes warming The change from cropland to concrete causes warming Non explosive vulcanism causes warming Depletion of the ozone layer by chlorine causes warming Five billion extra human beings cause warming Tell me, please, how could something so insignificant as the current low levels of CO2 be driving you to your dement. Have you NEVER considered the miriad of other factors at play here?
Two theories that can account for the warming are: 1) solar magnetic increase affecting total cloud cover (she doesn't mention this, only irradiance), and 2) deep ocean currents and deep ocean turbulence.
She says I eat meat free today, it is good for me and it is good for the planet. I tolerated this video up to this point but this comment shows how narrow minded a lot of scientists of all kinds are. It is a few farmers who are leading the way to educate the public about how to combat global warming. (Do a TH-cam search on Joel Salatin, Gabe Brown, Will Harris, carbon cowboys etc to see what I am talking about.) The climate scientists never talk about the atmospheric carbon that came from the soil. Nature left to its own resources produces grassland soils with around 7-8% carbon. Modern industrial agriculture has produced soils in the 1% range. Where did the carbon, that was in the soil, go? Can we put the carbon back into the soil? Yes we can! By practicing regenerative agriculture. However, one extremely important part of the process of restoring carbon in the soil is the use of ruminants (cattle, sheep, goats etc) managed in such a way that they intensely graze very small areas for very short periods of time. This method called mob grazing mimics the way that around 60 million bison, always in a huge herd and always on the move due to predators, helped to create the rich soils of the plains of North America by grazing and fertilizing. So eat meat free today is not good for the planet if the meat is produced by regenerative agriculture. So, in order to combat global warming, in addition to cutting back on fossil fuel emissions, which cannot remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, we need to actually remove gigatons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in the soil via regenerative agriculture, in the process restoring fertility to the soil, which also helps to restore the water cycle resulting in increasing the amount of fresh water.
It seems that the data in her drawers must be wery selective data. Yes there is global warming but she is completely owerlooking parts of historic climate that are not explained. Yet another scientist has become a politician. And She after all Professor of Climate Change Science and Policy - commenly known as professor of scare tactics. PS the air bubbles are a very unaccurate proxy for temperature - but happy that she can use it for a reason for drinking.....
If you want zero carbon, there is a path. NH3 and new engine can get you there ASAP. Grid and EV cars won't get you there to well after 2050. CO2 is entirely beneficial, but we won't get off oil by force but by better and cheaper technology.
This is on of THE best if not THE BEST talks about climate change ever! She didn't "preach" (and that is for those who are reluctant to the issue!) but gave us a beautiful way to move the conversation further! I'm going to follow Corinne's work, she is certainly one to watch!
mad proffessor...she should research sun cycles
Great presentation, Corinne, and I recently listened to you on Life Scientific. Absolutely dismayed with the negative comments here and the denialism. I sincerely thank you for all your hard work and bold efforts.
Denialist comments mark this video as tremendously powerful. She is made worthy by her enemies.
The negative comments prove something. It would be fatal to rely on people's common sense. Too many people understand absolutely nothing. What they think and say is really scary, but also entertaining and funny in a certain way. Some comments were so ridiculous that i actually had to laugh. They are convinced that they are right, but they have neither knowledge nor reason and proudly prove both facts.
@@metulski737 Yep, people are just clueless! I've just accepted our fate.
@@tyfode224 Initially i thought your answer was verbal irony, but it is not i guess...what will be our fate is still the question...
@-GinΠΓ Τάο Yeah,well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Who cares about your opinion on this subject?
Wow what an amazing Ted Talk. This lady is phenomenal. A very comical, serious and emotional speech. Hats off 👏👏👏
Persuasion has become a lost art among many scientists and politicians and she has realized that. She has not given up, she has merely changed her approach.
I kept waiting for the science. Never saw it. I did see an entertaining sermon though.
Science does not lie is probably why you seen none, truth would alter their fundraising project.
@@MS-st1zb Your statement doesn't make any logical sense. I agree with Jay M. I didn't see the connection, the science, on how higher greenhouse gases caused 27 inches of rain in Texas.
Virtue signaling at it's finest... Grab the best gin you can find
She nailed it at the end.
Bravo Corinne, belle présentation afin de nous faire prendre conscience du respect de notre terre.
Simpleton!!!!!!!!!!!!
This video already is 2 years old!! Wow, I really couldn't tell just be watching the video! Why? Well, because almost nothing has changed since then! :(
we'll do our best.
Unfortunately, judging from the comments here, many people won't.
One of the best talks ever! Warmest (oops, pardon, coldest...) compliments!
I live in Australia. not only dose the bitumen on the roads melt, but we have shoreline erosion, and even the gold coast in qweensland is rising. the last king tide people in the higer areas said wow whats going on some water was indenting the higher suburbs around the gold coast.
Sea levels are incresing everywehe.
2020 is just around the corner a few months away. My qwestion is what can we ecpect in 2020.
One more thing, never trust a policition. you got high hopes that will happen in your lifetime.
I guess the developers building seaside homes and the investors don't believe the same thing
Tron Alpha
I also live in Australia and NEWS BREAK the bitumen has been melting since i was a boy thats over fifty years and storms have been eroding beaches for that long as well . What has happened in one lifetime is but a blip on the radar , if you live for ten thousand years your observations may be relevant but the observation of one lifetime are insignificant and irrelevant.
Bitumen has been melting here in Aus for a very long time.. This isn't new.
Don't know what Gold Coast coast you're living on but the one in Australia is reasonably flat, as in no real mountains/higher suburbs and its literally a city next to the water, so if sea levels were rising, the city would be the first to notice. Just do a goggle image search for 'gold coast'
electric vehicles are very expensive, potentially dangerous and have to be recharged, not to mention the higher pollution during manufacturing. Then you still need the power stations to run them so no it won't happen overnight.
You are right for now. The energy to produce and power electric cars is still creating pollutants in our atmosphere and the cost is still high because the adoption is still too low. It takes time but we are working on it.
This is the best climate change presentation I've seen
Excellent presentation.
In the 1880s 26 hurricanes slammed into the US when CO2 was much lower. Do you even remember the last hurricane?
Have you heard of co2 related climate lag?
@@moodySnoopy explain why this isn't the Special Pleading fallacy?
Where are NY hurricanes?
@@NotAnAngryLesbian
No, because there is no climate crisis.
Yes
Talking about predictions and forecasts is beatiful. "Climatistas" have made a lot of them. And FAILED! Badly failed. Terrible job trying to convince the threat is real.
You are so right!
yep, until the food supply collapsed.
"I m looking at the science" ... then up pops THE GRAPH with no units on the axes.
agreed. & she says we will breathe pure air in cities? & not eat meat? i love animals & the environment, but this woman talks gibberish. science? where? reason goes out the window when forced to defend 'global warming.'
Usually their graphs show a steep scary rise in temperature, but when you look at the numbers, it’s 1/10 degree over a decade, within testing error.
Would you know what the science is, I suspect not.
She just showed two data set to stress the differences between what is and it used to be/was expected. No need for anything else than the lines and their colors.
She made a TED talk about that she gave up trying to convince climate denier morons and you complain that the graph has no units on the axes. *facepalm*
18:03 Sadly, I’m not completely agree, I think that humanity will be so slowly to take just one of these changement... I can see that here in Italy most of the people don’t mind a lot about climate change, they still use a lot of plastic, example: I found a single plastic bag in the supermarket for a banana ! Not for 5/6 just for one, it’s crazy , there where 100 bananas each one in a proper plastic bag
20 years ago a group from MC Master university drilled cores in Al the major all of the major dumps in Ontario to prove how we were destroying our environment! But they found no plastic at all! Just large communities of wax worms that eat plastic! So why aren't we landfilling all of our plastic? Or just feeding it to wax worms and harvesting the clean polypropylene glycol?
8:11 she was giving this talk at Warwick - this was pretty funny, but I don't think many people there got it.
Germans should not do humor, it doesn't suit them.
Most dramatic Ted talk that I almost cried
Josj Guy thanks for enlightening me. I just assumed that talks on Ted are reliable. I should be more cautious and allow myself to fact find before believing. Ill try to watch Dr Moore’s VIDEO.The way she delivered made me imagine what the earth would be if we will not care about motherland thus my being emotional.
Josj Guy thanks. Take care too
@@TaniaHernandez-lr8el did you notice the staccato rising of her voice when she ticked off all of her points , and the emotional huffing and puffing when she presents data, to create a sense of false urgency ? or that she will not try to convince you that climate change is a serious issue.. to make it sound like a forgone conclusion.. so much drama, so much emotion, she's so important, it's theater...."climate change scientist" , even the title assumes one is seeking a forgone conclusion.. It's been politicized by people that want your wealth and your independent....and once they have it , the earth will not get one degree cooler, while the elite continue to on to tackle the next big subject on their private jets.. this is not science it's politics..
Absolutely the best explanation regarding climate change. Superb
I think you were fooled by her entertaining speech. She presented facts and conclusion based on correlation. She didn't show any causation of climate change.
@@tyronekim3506 And this why I have no doubt we are doomed......
she is brainwashed
@@steve-r-colliernope that's you. She's educated unlike you lmao. No self awareness at all.
Co2 is good for the environment. Those that would have you believe otherwise want something from you. TED is a propaganda platform now.
she wasn't trying to scare the audience... did you guys not listen or...
Is that what passes for "discussing the science"?
I guess it's ok for her to cry "wolf" and at the same time BE the "Wolf in sheep's clothing.""
She's apparently a stand-up comedienne - her routine is about feeling outraged by her own brilliance.
I am surprised that climate scientists have a mind that you can go inside...
Amazing talk!
What's pure air ?
What's the biggest polluter in the transportation industry ?
What exactly is the end of the world ?
Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.
Recycling is not the solution because it is not endless. You cant recycle every kind of plastic + you cant recycle the recyclable plastic to the infinite + paper can be recycled 6-7 times etc...
So use other alternatives when it is possible
She says the top climate models work, but only when they plug in human produced CO2. Please show me one model that has been correct in the past 50 years. They’re never correct...
Understand where you live, and the functions of trees, and the function of C02. Both are directly correlated with the weather systems. Until you did this, SHUT UP!
Shane Roper, was your reply directed at me?
@@roberts3889 Depends on what you trust. The real world, planet Earth and her reactions, or "climate modeling".
Shane Roper irrelevancy. Respond to the question. Can you name a significant prediction that has come true? If not then we still know nothing.
I looked at IPCC data and it looks like temperature has risen .7 degrees since 1979. I don’t think that is significant.
This woman is a bit too emotional. I’ve actually attended scientific meetings and presented at some. Odd style.
@@lynnjohnson2371 Yes. Ice sheets melting at a rapid rate. Erratic weather all over the globe as the planet tries too balance out it's temperature. C02 levels globally rising because of deforestation and C02 in addition too the natural occurrences being injected into the system. What goes up, must come down. It's just a matter of time before the planet pushes the reset button. If the gulf stream slows to a stop, or the desalination reaches a critical point.....dress warmly.
Great Story and a human being with something to say worth listening too.
the Earth is BURNING ./.. nothing else matters
Dream Hard my friend, i needed to hear you speak
@Eyes wide open it's happening because of climate change. It's kinda like how we sweat when we're hot to make us a little cooler
@@TheLordPranamya Climate change IS climate change. It doesn't cause climate change. So you're saying it's getting hotter so that's why it's getting cooler?
Dude, seriously... We need special scientists to measure the temperature of the planet, as if that means anything ...
@Eyes wide open
any comment on the coming "ice age"???
@@fredneecher1746
climate change definitely triggers feedbackloops my friend
Wait a second. She's predicting catastrophe and when the evidence doesn't support it she gets anxiety?
QUR'AN EXPLICITLY DESCRIBES SOVEREIGNTY BELONG TO ALLAH AND ALLAH ALONE. AND HOW THE
END EARTH WILL BE TAKING THE PLACE. ALHAMDULILLAH BEING A MUSLIM. ISLAM IS WAYS OF LIFE.
If you are referring to her anomaly story you missed the point. The anomaly was that the ocean (via the wave)was not taking up as much CO2 as it should. So things were worse. This is usually the case in climate science predictions. They are usually on the conservative side and things turn out to be happening faster, etc. The only uncertainty is how much faster will things happen and how will humans react?
@@ElazarusWills apology accepted. That being said, I dont think you got my point buckaroo.
Yeah, no research bias here.
@@ericoliver5124 …… I don't think you get any point,
No mention of the effects of volcanic eruptions?
Wind power, electric cars will never recover the c02 released to make them, and what about battery disposal?
Replacing the battery in a Nissan Leaf costs over thirty thousand dollars at the Nissan dealer in Australia.
Yes indeed. Wind power is not like coal power plants that just pop into existence with the use of no energy whatever. Oh and volcanoes come and go all the time and do not account for current trends. The scientists are way smarter than the average youtube commenter.
And what are the affects of volcanic eruptions?
@@parrisgjerde9212 Global dimming, cooling and massive c02 release.
@@axeman6560 a better question: what % of the CO2 emissions does volcanic activity comprise? My understanding is it’s insignificant.
@@parrisgjerde9212 hang on I'll go get my slide rule.
The point is this was a lecture light on science but of course heavy on alarmism. Waiting for the science still..
WHAT A PERFORMANCE!!!!
Why should we expect climate to be forever pleasant, static and unchanging on a small rock hurtling thru space around a star that converts 5mill tonnes of mass into energy every second? There are some 30 plus, unique finely-tuned parameters that make earth life supporting. That some control freaks think they can micro- manipulate one tiny component of one parameter (CO2) and save the planet, is laughable. When that component is 1 part in 2500, when that one component is the food for all plant food and reason all carbon based lifeforms exist, is beyond belief.
What we have here is an opinion. There are scientsts who will claim the opposite. The problem with such presentations is lack of debate. It's all one sided. That's not science. It's more like religion.
Harry Decker
- That's utterly non sense. Surely there's no debate on a Ted talk.
But there's plenty debate elsewhere. There's peer review publications, etc. Case is most people don't even bother reading a book. Much less dive deep into a "boring scientific" presentation.
But nothing of this is a secret kept hidden from the masses, it's out there and it's open to anyone.
I am agreeing with you, passively connecting the data by the audience, is really letting the people off the hook.
@@crpth1 If there's such debate, why does one side fear, and feel the need to pummel the other? There is no debate, either you believe, or you will be punished in whatever form that comes in.
@@dmannevada5981 Show me the evidence. There is overwhelming evidence for ACC and hardly any (if any) that counters it. That is why it is getting harder and harder to find a credible scientist to debate the subject. Go back to watching Fox News....and come back when you have some real science to reference. BTW, science doesn't care what people believe. It is either supported by evidence or not. So, if you disagree with science, go back to living in the dark ages.
I absolutely love this. Still terrified of the consequences of climate change, but live this presentation!
Don't be scared.
These people are lying to you. The climate is just fine.
There has never been a time in history when the powerfull have not manipulated us plebs with the fear of death from above if we don't do what they wish.... Ignore them use your common sense and live in harmony not fear.
Holy f*** this is pretty relevant
Did she explain her anomaly? (lack of sea rise?)
Quite likely, what she saw as an "anomaly" is actually normal. And what her and her colleagues are trying to pick through to prove their point are statistical flukes.
She has the mind of a convert and well beyond any redemption.
The anomaly was that the southern oceans are not taking up CO2 as quickly as they are supposed to according to climate change theory, leaving more CO2 in the atmosphere.
@@fredneecher1746 Nobody talks anymore about the saturation of the CO2 absorption bands. Additional CO2 has very little direct warming effect but a huge beneficial effect on the greening of the planet. The greening effect is much better measurable from satellites and it is easy to attribute to CO2.
I'm amazed at the complete lack of critical thinking apparent in the comments here.
If you believe in religion you are a large part of humanity, no matter which religious beliefs you have. I do not believe that there's any kind of God which puts me in the minority. My point is that if part of your argument could be that there has to be a religious God because the majority believe it is so than based on that thinking, you would be in the minority about climate change since something like 97% of scientist believe in climate change. Actually, man-made climate change. Or there is a world-wide conspiracy. GOOD THINKING!!!
James McGinn - I think you mean a complete lack of agreement with your point of view.
Study the peer reviewed science! Study the peer reviewed science!
@@geminipablo1049 In climatology the peer review science is mostly propaganda.
@@jamesmcginn6291 science doesn't care what you think!
I watched this to see what she had to say. It was difficult to actually figure out where she stood on "climate change" since she was all over the map in terms of content. She talked about literature; she talked about 100,000 year old ice, her kids, gin & tonic; she imitated penguins; she made witty comments then laughed at her own witticisms; talked about electric cars, engineers; and she talked about the fact she was not going to try to change your mind. What she didn't talk about was actual facts about what is really going on with our climate. If you ARE interested watch on TH-cam a number of lectures and interviews given by scientists who DO give you the facts about climate change, carbon dioxide and where our planet may be headed e.g. Dr. William Happer physicist (Princeton), Dr. Willie Soon Astro physicist (Harvard Smithsonian); Dr. Freeman Dyson theoretical physicist ( Princeton); Dr. Tim Ball PhD in Climatology MIT; and Dr. Patrick Moore PhD in Ecology...........watch Dr. Moore's Lecture entitled "Climate Realism" and the brief follow up to it called " What's the End Game of the Climate Scare".
Ted talk is mostly not about facts and proofs. You can watch some videos where climate change explained.
Inside the mind of a climate scientist " how can I create a proposal for a new study to get funding from the ipcc? " " how can I exaggerate the findings and data to appease the mandate of the ipcc a second and third time? " I really need to keep my job, maybe I should vote socialist"
Why does the graph always start at the end of the little ice age? which killed millions. We are then told that the temperature has risen since a horrendous 1 degree and that this was caused by industrialisation which initially started in only a few countries. Therefore we must destroy the economies of the industrialised nations in order to return to the utopian climate of the little ice age.
The insanity of "climate scientists" is exposed. The insanity of the "scientific community" is also exposed.
You are right.
This never-ending parade of idiots, patting themselves on the back for knowing the future when all their forecasts of the past have proven false, has exposed the "scientific community" as a pack of lying frauds.
Or we can just carry on like normal and HOPE these folks, " who study this for a living " are wrong.🤪
She's giving a recipe on how to talk to people who don't understand how serious climate change is. Great talk.
She is living in a dream world
Think of Climate Alarmism in two parts. TO DATE and FUTURE.
1. Temperature increase of 1 degree from 150 years ago TO DATE is not unusual or an amount of concern, and in fact has largely been beneficial to humans.
2. Temperature FUTURE predictions are unscientific and will almost all be proven wrong, as are almost all predictions humans make about the future.
Don't forget that 1850 was one of the coldest years of the last 10 000 years and we have not even reached 15 degrees C global mean surface temperature and the approx. 1 degree C warming since 1850 is most welcome.
We are supposed to reach hopefully soon 15 degrees C based on the IPCC natural greenhouse gas effect.
Only a modest sea level rise of 1.5 mm per year as per the very reliable global tide gauge measurements. No acceleration whatsoever. Where does the dramatic ice shields melts go?
For how long more do we have to hear these Ted talks of pseudo scientists funded with our tax money.
In Austria are more and more people fed up with these people scaring our kids.
Enough is enough.
Not funny.
@@matthauslill4577 Thank you! Great comment. btw, as you may know when Ice in water melts there is no rise in water level, as the Ice has a mass greater than that of liquid water. Sadly Greta doesn't know this as she doesn't go to school...
Thank you.
I watch further and I really like her. Force of her words and ideas are addictive.
Oh brother... she is insecure and brings zero facts to bear on the subject.
70 billion Us$ spent already on this IPCC pseudo science.
Enough is enough and more and more Austrians are fed up with this scaring of our kids using our tax money.
I am not amused.
Heh, I never knew she was so funny. Nicely done talk. Now just needs a few million more people to see it.
If someone found there is a mistake in the physics, such that it overturns greenhouse theory, would they be a hero/ heroen .... ? How would they be seen?
They would be vilified and sacked.
Well obviously they’d be seen as gold dust by the fossil fuel moguls. But it would leave the scientific community with the headache of then working out what really is causing global warming.
It always amazes me how people know claim to know so much about technology and what it can do, tend NOT to be actual engineers....
Excellent talk on climate change and its causes - namely us. Too bad to see all the climate denial trolls in the comments section
too bad, so sad to see that global warmists would stifle those who question the official narrative.
We live in an interglacial ice age the Holocene. The current interglacial period is older than other similar periods. If there is a trend we are due for more cooling.
20th century rates of warming:
1910-1940 - 0.5° per 30 yrs
1940 to 1980 there was cooling
1980-2000 - 0.4° per 30 yrs (lower rate)
Previous rates were much higher:
1326 bc global warming rate: 1.4° per century
6440 bc global warming rate: 1.9° per century
9620 bc global warming rate 100° per century. This is the start of the Holocene interglacial. The rate was more than 111x that of late 20th century rate.
1817 bc 50° per century
Medieval Global Warm Period
1100's to 1300's
The MGWP was 0.25° warmer than today
Vikings grew crops in Greenland and had settlements on the coast of northern Canada.
@@morganpypher No one is suggesting that you be stifled. Maybe that you read up on the science, but not be stifled.
@Robbert James Could you show me some of this mythical 'real science' deniers always talk about? So far none of them have been able to come up with the goods.
It's curious so many claim there's no climate change, there's no warming, etc. etc.
But one thing that's undeniable. Several countries are working and investing to get a grip on the conveniences of warming!
Norway, Russia, etc. are sharpening their teeth to have a working and fully functional "North passage". US, Canada are not oblivion to the situation and try to get a piece of the pie. Maybe they're all investing blindly... LOL 😂
"Professor Corinne Le Quéré FRS is the Director of the Tyndall Centre for
Climate Change Research and a Professor of Climate Change Science and
Policy at the University of East Anglia. In 2017, she chaired the
International Panel of the ‘Make the Planet Great Again’ campaign led by
French President Emmanuel Macron, which awarded grants to outstanding
climate scientists around the world"
(Where did the grant money come from?)
"....A member of the UK Committee on Climate Change and author of the 3rd, 4th and 5th Assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, Corinne has contributed to advances in the quantification of the causes and trends of atmospheric carbon dioxide."
Yes of course she has, the IPCC was set up especially to investigate man -made climate change and has focused on carbon dioxide. Not a bad spoof and some genuine comic moments.
This IPCC show has already cost about 70 billion $.
This money should have been spent on important projects and not on producing more and more pseudo science.
All climate models have been falsified and sea level is rising since 300 years with about 1.5 mm per year ss per global tide gauge measurements. No acceleration whatsoever.
I don't trust one second the sealevel satellite altimetry which is completely IPCC controled. This altimetry shows a 2mm higher sea level rise than the tide gauges. The gap is widening! When will this strange situation be visible for everybody?
@@matthauslill4577 When the words 'climate change' are put together with the word 'scientist' the meaning of the word scientist is lost. In the same way the IPCC is simply a political body set up to implement policy about an assumption made about climate (i.e. that the earth is warming and this is almost entirely due to human activity related to the emissions of carbon dioxide. The only 'science' they are interested in is that which appears to confirm their painfully wrong bias.
What is the scale on the graph you showed? It is clearly the years on the horizontal but there is no indication as to the vertical axis! It looks very similar to the one Micheal Mann uses where it is 0.01 degrees C at the bottom and 0.05 degrees C at the top!
The thought of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere is only a recipe for disaster as it is the lifeblood of all plant life on earth. Even humans breathe out CO2 at a level 10 times the ambient current air level of ppm! Submariners live in an atmosphere of 4000ppm for months on end without any harmful effects! You should be reading and listening to Dr. Patrick Moore, Prof. William Happer, Prof. Ian Plimer, and others that have studied the climate and all aspects of how the planet has behaved over millions of years, rather than just the events of the last century and try and blame it all on the human race! That is just misplaced arrogance and is more a political point of view than a scientific one!
hehe, No one said that CO2 is poisonous. You can live in a 1000000ppm CO2 environment if you have enough oxygen for your lungs to process. . . .but. .. . .who said that CO2 is poisoning us? CO2 is dangerous because it traps heat. I want you to say that CO2 and Methane dont do that and make yourself a look like an utterrr moron, LOL. Do you have a star shining inside the submarine trapping all its heat radiated inside thus warming the atmo inside, causing drought and hurricanes and stuffs? So. . . . whats your point in pointing out submarine CO2 level? NO ONE is saying this is poison, lol. And reducing CO2 is a recipe for disaster. . . .how? Hundreds of years ago you did not have a thousandth of CO2 emission that we have today so, hundreds of years ago the Earth was ecologically unstable or something? Were there less trees than today? Did rise of CO2 cause any increase in number of trees? If you are increasing CO2 level while conducting deforestation everywhere. . . .what is the point of having soooo much lifeblood juice ? XDDD. And do tell us what is causing alll these warmings, LOL. Solar cycles? Axial configurations? your mom's fart? XDDD
And Asking "what is the scale on the graph" is a reallllyyyyyyyy moronic thing to ask in this context cz, she is not here to sell data, this is not a science conference and you are not a scientist who can read data and more importantly, YOU ARE NOT ASSUMED TO BE SOMEONE WHO UNDERSTANDS DATA AND STATISTICS when they make these tedtalks for you. This is a person sharing their experience, their views. This is not a debate this is not a science convention for data. If you have problem with that then, well, GO AND READ REAL DATA LOL. She is a well known figure you can find alllll her data allll her research and satisfy the "hunger for knowledge" u are faking, lol. The graph is a prop, its meant to be give u some visual direction to understand her story. NOT TO SHOW U DATA CZ, SHE HAS HER PUBLISHED WORK FOR THAT. Do you think everythinggggg just exist in a goddamn vaccum? moron
Climate will be chaotic until all the parameters are discovered. We are halfway there.
Are planet earth average temperatures rising? I accept with reserves. How critical CO2 is in the planet temperature equation? Don’t know. Are there other non-CO2 factors? Don’t know. Is human contribution to global warming high/medium/low? Don’t know. Are 50- year temperature projections correct? Don’t know. ...... keep asking questions and maybe one day we will find the truth.
We will find the truth also without spending more money on IPCC pseudo science.
These funny people like Corinne who works in the climategate East Anglia University have already created costs of $ 70 billions.
We a Austrians are less and less amused.
Thank God for Nerds.
Why do all these climate change scaremongers "perform" there lectures ? quik editing (cut to crowd laughing) etc etc......my word..
you'd rather a droning, boring version? it's the bit of levity she shares that helps people remember and relate to her words.
“Climate change scaremongers” - you mean ‘leading scientists’.
@@MartinDoyle no, open your eyes martin.
Scotty Bolton Eyes wide open and it’s easy to see the effects of what’s going on. People are living and dying on the front line. No need for conspiracy or left theories, just solid, provable and repeatable evidence from numerous sources. But if you think otherwise OK, on your head be it.
@@MartinDoyle "people are living and dying in the front line".. can u elaborate plz
It is a good talk. It should reach more people. I wanted to contribute a little with a community translation into my language. TedxTalks doesn't have it enabled.
Did I miss some of this scientist’s data? Why was that 100000+ year old ice ‘popping’ when it melted? When her family breathed 100000+ year old air out of that thermos, did she not know about the much higher than today CO2 content?
Entertaining talk but sadly full of misplaced hope that we can avoid our own extinction. Too late.
Global Warming is one of the great Hoaxes of modern times! Are you sure it's true? Do you even look beyond the comfortable confirmation biases, ever staying with your echo chamber of self-imposed convictions like a mind-incestuous herd of SJW brainwashed sheep?
Mike Ferrigan I agree Mike - I liked her talk in the sense of the urgency and reality of the problem (although the usual freakish deniers have sprung up with the geoengineering bs), but was surprised that she had hope of it being fixed. We’re 30 years too late for that!
Good entertainment, I enjoyed it. Unfortunately, she didn't say anything new. We all know the climate is changing but we don't know, what portion of it is due to human activity. We also don't know whether warming is a problem at all, after all Earth is in an Ice age and a warmer Earth would be much more fertile.
Does she own stock in Tesla? Or windmill farms?
Grow up
@@moodySnoopy hi old man
Let's hope they have this data in their minds: Globally the ACE index (accumulated cyclone energy) 1980-2021 shows no increasing trend. Global Hurricane Landfalls 1970-2021 (updated from Weinkle et al, 2012) shows no trend. Satellite data since 1980 shows a slight downward global trend for total hurricaine numbers with 2021 being a record low year. The IPCC reports in AR6, chapter 11, "The total global frequency of TC [tropical cyclone] formation will decrease or remain unchanged with increasing global warming (medium confidence)." Not that I really care about what the IPCC says. Multidecadal variability in Atlantic hurricaines is most probably related to the AMO (Vecchi et al, 2021). NOAA data 1851-2021 shows no trend in number of hurricaine landfalls with the record high being 1886. What the data from NOAA SPC shows about tornados: EF1-EF5 (1954-2022) no trend; EF3-EF5 (most destructive) (1954-2022) 50% decline. No EF5s in US since 2013 (a record absence).
The Global Land Precipitation Anomaly from AR5 will disappoint with deviations from the average increasing by 0.2% per decade, but if you look at the actual data, it's just very variable over the decades.
Drought appears to be decreasing globally (Watts et al, 2018) measured by SPI 1901-2017.
For every million people on earth, annual deaths from climate-related causes (extreme temperature, drought, flood, storms, wildfires) declined 98%--from an average of 247 per year during the 1920s to 2.5 in per year during the 2010s.
Data on disaster deaths come from (EM-DAT, CRED / UCLouvain, Brussels,Belgium. )
Globally 2000-2019 there was a large decrease in cold-related deaths and a moderate increase in heat-related deaths (Zhao, 2021, Lancet). However, coldwaves are over 9 times more likely to kill than heatwaves, so the overall result is very beneficial.
What else? Oh, deserts like the Sahara have shrunk considerably and the Earth has greened by 15% or more in a human lifetime (NASA).
The Great Barrier Reef's coral cover has reached the greatest extent ever recorded.
On extinction the rate is very low: 900 known lost species for 2.1 million known species in 500 years. At that frequency it will take over 930,000 years to reach 80% extinction of species experienced at the K-T boundary that saw the extinction of the dinosaurs.
There is no climate crisis.
The secret to eternal life.....keep waiting....thats what I got out of this.
excellent presentation
she references the floods in Houston, but she obviously knows nothing about this. The cause was 2 high pressure systems which trapped a tropical storm and prevented it from moving for days. This has NOTHING to do with atmosphere warmth or water it can hold.....She just doesn't get it at all.
The oceans absorb and release CO2 all the time. How are you going to make the ocean hold it's CO2 and not release it into the air?
If we manage to reduce the ppm of carbon dioxide in the air then the ocean will release some of its stored carbon dioxide - Le Chatellier's Principle
@@nivram4491 "we" ? No tell that to the elites
In warm water there is lower co2, In cold will be more.
Hahaha this scientist is very funny, never watch climate change lecture like this one.
I suspect that the mountain of data she has sitting on her shoulders has been shared elsewhere in a fashion that does more than the unlabeled axes and unscaled corresponding plots she shared briefly to represent anything like evidence. She has conveyed her passion and I can appreciate that, but there was nothing of climate science here. I will dig further into her published work, that is where I will likely find the crux of why she feels the way she does. I do love the story about the ancient ice based G&T's.
Once again the statement that the Science is settled no alternative view, no discussion , I see the Hokey stick is still doing the rounds,
i didnt realize ted-x has switched to a comedy venue, where is jimmy dore on here?
Oh please save me. Make all the decisions for me oh great one
Climate changes over years for as long Earth exists? Wow, im blown away
yeah, you and you and you
1936 was the hottest year ever, the 1930s was by far the most destructive decade on record, weatherwise.
I don't think you're a scientist
a system as complex as climate of the planet can not be dependent on a single factor co2 that is 0.04% of atmosphere gases. what caused the Greenland to be habitable from 900 to 1300 when vikings farmed there? the clouds are clearly more effective at reflecting sun light in the day time and trapping heat at night time. if its a cloudy day is colder if its a cloudy night is warmer. what happens when it gets warmer? how did we come to the conclusion that is gonna be bad? more co2 is good for plants and we cannot stop the way we live to emit less co2 because that may cost us more then the climate problems if there are any.
Eclectic cars no pollution? Mining lithium batteries...this is good for the environment? What about the greening of the earth, the Sahel? If we remove all the co2 what happens to our planet? Plant life needs co2!
6000 years ago during the holocene optimum was warmer . medieval warm period , agriculture in greenland . the 1930's warmer . early twentieth century was equal to present warming . sea level rate of rise unchanged according to tide gauges . people believe what they want to believe not what best data says . argo buoys ; adjusted . lnstrumental temps ; adjusted . satellite sea level data ; adjusted . computer models all over the place . ECS between 1.5 and 4.5 C . in other words they don't have a clue .
Correct. This IPCC climate religion has cost already about 70 billion US$.
We pay them for scaring our kids.
Not do funny.
And you have too many clues. Unfortunately the wrong ones.
We always knew the human race was not going to survive forever. I hope you can achieve your goals. Technology has allowed us to become the most successful animal ever. It has saved more lives and fed more people. But we are destructive and we will have to leave soon we are all getting old together the planet will be OK unless a meteorite hits it or can we stop that too
D c by ‘saved more lives...’ i assume you mean human lives. Animals and the rest of the natural has suffered terribly and catastrophically at human hands. Humans are successful at destroying the natural world and creating such huge gaps of inequality that you would only consider it good if you were on the right side of the wealth gap.
Yaaaaaaaaawwwwwn
I have reached 1:33
the name 'Climate change scientist' already explains the video
nothing to see here better skip
I am surprised that she even allows comments on this video. Too many flaws in the models.
Inside the mind of a raving fundamentalist.
The number of tornadoes is down from decades ago.
That's right particularly over the last 80 years.
I just don't understand why this woman is obsessed with CO2. So the planet has warmed a little since 1880 (0.8%K), most of that is down to the spread of agriculture into forests and the spread of suburban concrete into agriculture not to mention the additional 4 billion people and the associated domestic animals required to feed them. It is unlikely that any of it is down to a stronger greenhouse effect, but if any of it is, the amount down to CO2 is so small that it can be safely ignored. What causes the greenhouse effect? During the day, it is all caused by the ozone layer and during the night, 98%+ of it is caused by clouds. Not only is the heat reflectivness of clouds stronger than that of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, but the cloud cover is really substantial. Google "Earth from Space" and see how much cloud cover there is. Most days it's between 20 and 40%. Now compare that with CO2 cover at 0.04%. Yes folks that is one twenty fifth of one percent. Corinne Le Quéré seems to think that this minuscule amount of CO2 is responsible for the entire 0.8%K rise in temperature. What does she have between her ears?
A fun speaker, a poor scientist. Not responsible behavior.
Comedy takes some strange forms.
What a load of rubbish! No self respecting scientist would present a graph without labelling the axes!
With the religion of climate change(formally global warming), let’s hear more about solutions.
Maybe humans can’t fix it. Because maybe humans didn’t cause it.
Blasphemy.
❤😢
PhD climatologists from Princeton and MIT are of the opinion that the recent warming and increase in CO2 is not a problem.
Kroban. Okay, who are these climatologists you're talking about?
@@danzel1157
Why does it matter to you? You'll just say they are on the payroll of the oil companies who are owned by the same banking oligarchs who are behind the global warming/CO2 scare.
@@ThekiBoran If this 'real science' was any good it was stand up to scrutiny. That's the whole point of science.
@@danzel1157
Climate science is being corrupted by money. Biology is another area where money talks.
@@ThekiBoran And you base that on... what, exactly?
It's full of Helium
This is not science...
Who will save us: check out the small children working the cobalt mines for electricity. For Tesla.
Seen the oceans of tailing left over from the Oilpatch in Canada? Outlawing child labor in cobalt mines will be easier than cleaning up the tar-sands in Canada.
You asked what you might have missed. You might have missed...
The change from diverse forestry to crop land causes warming
The change from cropland to concrete causes warming
Non explosive vulcanism causes warming
Depletion of the ozone layer by chlorine causes warming
Five billion extra human beings cause warming
Tell me, please, how could something so insignificant as the current low levels of CO2 be driving you to your dement.
Have you NEVER considered the miriad of other factors at play here?
Two theories that can account for the warming are: 1) solar magnetic increase affecting total cloud cover (she doesn't mention this, only irradiance), and 2) deep ocean currents and deep ocean turbulence.
She says I eat meat free today, it is good for me and it is good for the planet. I tolerated this video up to this point but this comment shows how narrow minded a lot of scientists of all kinds are. It is a few farmers who are leading the way to educate the public about how to combat global warming. (Do a TH-cam search on Joel Salatin, Gabe Brown, Will Harris, carbon cowboys etc to see what I am talking about.)
The climate scientists never talk about the atmospheric carbon that came from the soil. Nature left to its own resources produces grassland soils with around 7-8% carbon. Modern industrial agriculture has produced soils in the 1% range. Where did the carbon, that was in the soil, go?
Can we put the carbon back into the soil? Yes we can! By practicing regenerative agriculture. However, one extremely important part of the process of restoring carbon in the soil is the use of ruminants (cattle, sheep, goats etc) managed in such a way that they intensely graze very small areas for very short periods of time. This method called mob grazing mimics the way that around 60 million bison, always in a huge herd and always on the move due to predators, helped to create the rich soils of the plains of North America by grazing and fertilizing.
So eat meat free today is not good for the planet if the meat is produced by regenerative agriculture.
So, in order to combat global warming, in addition to cutting back on fossil fuel emissions, which cannot remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, we need to actually remove gigatons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in the soil via regenerative agriculture, in the process restoring fertility to the soil, which also helps to restore the water cycle resulting in increasing the amount of fresh water.
I wasn't expecting a climate scientist to state their scientific case, so I wasn't disappointed. Great performance, though.
Hey scientist, remember all those dire warnings we were pelted with in the 1970s? Whatever happened to those?
It seems that the data in her drawers must be wery selective data. Yes there is global warming but she is completely owerlooking parts of historic climate that are not explained. Yet another scientist has become a politician. And She after all Professor of Climate Change Science and Policy - commenly known as professor of scare tactics. PS the air bubbles are a very unaccurate proxy for temperature - but happy that she can use it for a reason for drinking.....
If you want zero carbon, there is a path. NH3 and new engine can get you there ASAP. Grid and EV cars won't get you there to well after 2050. CO2 is entirely beneficial, but we won't get off oil by force but by better and cheaper technology.
So much talking with many premature conclusions. She is not as wise nor as scientific as she believes herself. Lacks scientific humility.
I thought this was a comedy sketch