I'm sceptical about global warming mostly because simon clark keeps banging on about it like a broken record in every video. If it was real he wouldn't need to keep peddling it like a religion in most of the videos. He used to make interesting content, now it's just climate change from a different angle mixed with his political views. I guess it's the only thing he can do to get views on here. If he made interesting not enough people would watch it to get him any income and his patreon was in steep decline most of 2019. Half of his viewers are A-level students who are self appointed experts who just fangirl but don't really know what are talking about and just want to get a reply :) Maybe that's the choice he faces, clickbait climate politics or get a real job. Could he even get a postdoc or research role now? It's been years since he did any proper science.
@@brazeiar9672 If idiots like you keep yammering on, then yeah, he's clearly not done communicating the importance of recognizing our failure to care for the Earth.
@@marktaylor526 Yes I am a idiot. I have no brain cells. I am totally worthless. But don't worry, I shall commit suicide soon as per the climate mob request, and I shall attribute my death to you guys :)
@@brazeiar9672 This is the stupidest argument ever. So because Simon Clark keeps banging on about it like a broken record in every video, it has to be false? Read the actual literature and the studies! If this is actually your how you make decisions, you are the perfect example of idiotic decision making.
I can understand the confusion of climate and weather for people living in mild climates, but as someone who lives in a place where we used to have ice on lakes and rivers thick enough to drive cars around 20 years ago and now for the past 4 years the ice hasn't been thick enough to walk over by foot, can definitely tell you the climate has warmed up significantly.
Yep. Where I'm at, we had 2 - 3 feet of snow from November to March and year round snow on the peaks 20 years ago. It didn't even snow last winter and the peaks were snowless by june. Blanketed in smoke all summer.
I live in relative mild central european climate. You can easily see the signs if you want to. When I was a kid I remember our villages river freezing completely and adults playing ice hokey. Has never happened since the 2000s. I also remember having a 30 degree summer day as being something special. Now we have 35+ degrees often for weeks without any rainfall in between. The people aren't confused. It's denial. They don't want to hear it. It scares them in many ways. Notice that it's mostly conservative people that deny climate change. They're scared of change, adapting and consequences. That is a whole mindset. You can't convince them with facts. They're completely driven by emotion.
I am living in Finland and every older folk I have talked about this have said that there has been less snow in the winter and the permanent snow cover comes later into the winter. And it's all backed up by historic data.
@T.A. Garcia Nah. Greenland is important in terms of national defense so he probably got lobbied by some generals. Also it has vast untapped natural resources like oil and gold which the super power have been itching to get their companies' hands on. Wuth the ever retreating ice sheets the resources are becoming more and more accessible
In Florida, 20 years ago (I'm 29) it was possible to walk outside in the middle of Summer and not sweat for 5 min. Now, it's the moment you go outside, and temperatures average 97 degrees. God forbid if you have a black car 'cause the inside of that mf will approach 105: I've been having to replace my ac, fan or wires, every two years.
I wanted to write something stupid and wrong about climate change and deny that it exists but I was slightly worried that the ironic nature would be lost on some people and they may have perpetuated whatever bollocks I said. Therefor I wrote this instead, love your work. :D
The term "climate sceptics" gives them more credit than they are due - there's little scepticism on display there, just lots of contrarianism and denialism
usually skeptics are smart but these people are absolute morons and their best arguments are Talking Points they've heard from another moron that's been already debunked.
Even Climate deniers is too good for them It implies stupidity at worst and gives a feeling of "Rejecting a mainstream idea" The best name for them is Fossil fuel industry paid shills
@@gmcjetpilot I was talking about people who Politicize this issue and deny experts who've been studying this for hundreds of years. it's like if I was the best chef in the world and someone who hasn't cooked anything ever came to me and told me how I should change my recipe. you can be skeptical if you have evidence or add something to the study. I'm talking about Science-Deniers who believe Religion over Science and think the Earth is flat because the bible says so. and btw the Government doesn't really give a shit about global warming, they're all bought out by Oil Money, so saying that 'they want us to care about Global Warming' is just false, they've never lifted a finger to solve this problem. and your stop breathing joke wasn't really funny, don't get too emotional.
@@RalphEllisRaplh, you're missing a bit of understanding - adding 1% to a kelvin temperature means a 1% increase in total energy so the scale really means something while a percentage change in a Celsius or Fahrenheit temperature means nothing.
@@bcwbcw7649 More relevantly to this example, the power of thermal radiation coming from an object is proportional to T^4 when you are measuring in Kelvin.
I'm on it. I Will soon release it on Reddit and youtube soon. However, I'm only releasing the template and not a meme. I don't know what I should be using it on.
@@zubayeerahmed3801 just add a caption of the quote and the face on it and we can use it as a response to people who argue only silly things whether it's pineapple on pizza or a debatable topic that could be subjective
I don't understand why common sense things like climate change or vaccines have become "controversial". What's wrong with some people? Best case scenario if you agree to take some action, You end up saving resources and energy for future generations. Worst care scenario, you are able to help future generations from mass extinction
@@thereddeads The reason is easy: mistrust. When a message is coming from primarily one side of the political spectrum, people who are aligned with the other side don't trust the message. Since climate change and covid precautions are coming primarily from the left, and left leaning media, folks who identify with the right have trouble believing they are anything more than a political ploy by the left. To be fair, the left disbelieves scientific facts when the message comes from the right. A good example of this is nuclear power. Most on the left are against nuclear power because of waste disposal, and a general distrust of the word "Nulcear", when scientists are saying that nuclear a good option. Let's also remember that the original antivaxers were leftists who were convinced, against scientific evidence, that vaccines cause autism.
It has become controversial because the solutions proposed for tackling climate change involve people in wealthy industrialised countries reigning in their consumption. Since much of what we do in the Western world which has a high CO2 footprint also contributes significantly towards quality of life, the idea that we have to take a hit is offensive to some and so must be challenged. The tribal nature of humanity and the framing it as political ideology only makes things worse. Ultimately how we tackle anthropogenic climate change is not a scientific decision, it is a moral decision. The science tells you what is happening and what will happen in the future if it continues unabated. The moral decision is do we care and if so, what do we do? Someone could easily say "I don't care about people I have nothing to do with so I am not going to do anything", and they are entitled to that opinion. It has to come down to our collective morals as to whether and what we do in the future.
Because Exxon/Mobil, The Koch Bros, The family who own Walmart, the GOP, US coal cos are running the same methods the cigarette cos did with tobacco. It works. These people back so called Insitututes, Founadations etc that are right wing think tanks, there common charactaristics are, climate denial, christian evangelism, anti abortion, white, racist, male dominated, Republican right, linked heavily via the Republicans with US government esp via people like Trump or the Dem whos blocking stuff now from Virginia (coal). Go onto any one of those casts and fact check the orgs presenting them, eg Canadian Cliamte Realists (they changed from deniers as it was negative), and you will find this. Its lots of $$ and a deliberate tactic.
"What's wrong with some people?" It's more fun to get "science" from entertainment like "Star Wars" or "The Martian" or "Spiderman" than trying to 'think' and ask questions... A "catchy slogan" or "false but simple answer" takes far less effort than powering-on one's grey matter... (btw. Brains consume a disproportionate amount of the body's energy! Gotta conserve energy, dontcha no? Pass me a Red Bull...)
Does the scientific community ever have serious discussions on how to introduce theories/findings to the masses? We see the resistance to Covid reality, Climate Change reality, politicians pretending to be experts cause they have common sense or in some cases taking science to ridiculous levels they don’t understand. How do we restore faith in those with knowledge?
That's a very important question and no they do not, unfortunately. Many scientists are like him and try to communicate with knowledge and facts but some ppl do just like to listen to the most unprobable and wrong things because they already fully believe in them. I mean look at my parents f.e. they are Anthroposophes what is a kind of esoteric sect here in Europe and they full on believe that one man from around 100 years ago who probably had schizophrenics knew everything and they just have to follow his word. Since that guy of course as every sect leader was "critical" of science and said, the people shouldn't think for themselves they just mistrust everything that has something to do with science. It's really sad to look at because as soon as you begin to argue with them they really have no idea, what science actually is, but still refuse to trust anything, that sounds like science... :(
@@jana731 As long as a large portion of the population get their news from Murdoch media (Fox News, Wall Street Journal, NY Post, Sky News Australia and many others), millions will remain ignorant about climate change science. Rupert Murdoch is the world's most notorious climate change denier, which is why ALL of his media outlets downplay or outright ridicule the science. Murdoch is a denier because HE CO-OWNS A FOSSIL FUEL COMPANY, GENIE ENERGY, AND SITS ON THEIR ADVISORY BOARD. His media audience is utterly clueless.
@Roberto Vidal Garcia I agree completely. Let's spend the money and get everyone two years of free college. Ignorance is costing us far more than what that will cost.
@hannah Religion is by definition unfalsifiable. You just have to believe, regardless of the facts presented to you. Basically: you already know the answer and make the world fit to it. Science is the complete opposite. It always follows the facts, even if they might undermine a firmly held belief. (Sometimes that takes a while, because scientists are also just humans, and it's often hard for us to give up beliefs even in the face of overwhelming evidence - hence why religion exists in the first place.) So maybe it's not "religion" per se, but the underlying mindset which is to blame. On the other hand there are lots of sects and faiths that actively denigrate or suppress science (because if people would start to apply critical thinking skills they wouldn't be as religious), so that statement would also stand true IMHO. And yes, I'm blatantly conflating "religion" and "faith" here, but IMO they are just two sides of the same coin.
Sadly, it was probably a believer in the Electric Universe or Plasma Cosmology "theories" (which aren't even decent hypotheses, much less actual theories), which have weird pseudoscience gobbledygook like that in them.
to the difference in climate and weather: you can ask yourself “is traffic becoming worse in my city?”. if you want to answer that question it doesnt help to go out at 2am, count the numbers of cars and then say “traffic seems fine to me” just bc no one in their right mind is awake at 2am. The same is true for the opposite: you cant look at a traffic jam and say “this is solely due to the new traffic laws”. If you want to understand you need to look beyond these short time changes and instead turn to big datasets of measurements over months and years.
I love your answer to the first question , " how much of climate change is caused by humans ? " . " Well we are not sure , but we are guessing its about 100% ! " .
@@wellshit9489 It is a fact that the size of the climate crisis mafia is much larger than the oil companies.. The market size in 2020 was $600 billion and is estimated to grow to $6 trillion annually by 2050. About $100 billion/year is being raised in the name of the fund, but nothing has changed in the climate. Now, who is running the political business? The public is increasingly becoming their puppets.. ignoring even readily available datas, and blindfolding themselves.
As an all year round city cyclist in Munich who lived here for decades, I definitely directly perceive that winters are getting warmer and less snowy. The increased temperature and decreased rain is something every farmer in my country can directly observe.
You mean the experts know what they're doing? Huh....Who knew? Oh, that's right. EVERYONE! We all need to listen and appreciate what these great minds have done [and are doing] for our planet.
I'm always tempted to do the same response as you. I find deniers so stupid my instinct is to tell them to fornicate away but that dies not really help. Sometimes I do Nd find it psychologically satisfying. Depends on my mood.
@@briancrowther3272 plenty of people can't be convinced by logic, reason or evidence. Perhaps if they are called wanker often enough they would be, I'm testing the hypothesis.
@@elliottbolton78 The explanation for the argument is in this same video, not long before this part of the video. People confusing weather and climate. Weather predictions for longer periods have been historically very poor. Short term weather prediction in the past, and now obviously, has been more accurate than people give credit for. But longer term has been difficult for a long time although now massively better than historically and getting better all the time. But as people associate long term weather prediction with being unreliable, and they also conflate weather and climate then there has been a underlying association of climate prediction as unreliable as a result which has just propagated.
Don't forget lying. He's getting into lying as well by omitting data. You can see that in the graph for arctic sea ice extent in this video. The observations in that graph end at around 2010. What happened to the observations after 2010? Why did he scrub them from the graph? I have asked elsewhere but the Doctor gave no answer. What he omitted is that the minimum level of sea ice extent was reached in 2012 and it has been recovering slowly since then. I guess a sudden plunge in arctic sea ice extent looks more impressive to his gullible subscribers than a gradual recovery would look.
@@bcwbcw7649 That data you linked to is for february, numbnuts. So you just did what you accused me of doing. You cherrypicked a month that supported what you say. Simon Clark's graph was showing September because that is when the minimum sea ice extent is reached every year. If i was cherry picking i would have done what you did and chosen another month that suited me better.
@@Skumtomten1 looking at the your source of Arctic sea ice extent there seems to be far too much information that obviously wouldn’t show a trend, this huge timescale would decrease the sensitivity of a 60 year trend which is what has been recorded in the Copenhagen Diagnosis graph. Considering the industrial revolution started around 1760, human change to the climate would’ve only started ramping up then. Not only that but your graph conveniently omits data past 1960 - only 10 years after Arctic sea ice was being measured so this quite drastic decrease in minimum ice level wasn’t even recorded. You’re being a bit hypocritical accusing people of cherry picking whilst ignoring evidence yourself.
And so what. What has that got to do with the issue. Your comment might suggest you are stupid but that does not influence the issue other than excluding you as a credible commentator.
Idk were humanity always like this but was not recorded and now we are more exposed to one another via the internet or it's the trend because of the internet itself that let these assholes meet??! Egg or chicken?
homo sapiens will go extinct. there were more than six seperate species of humans at one point and now there is only one. this points to future extinction.
I'm pretty sure the Australian Prime Minister bought a lump of coal into parliment once to show that it isn't dangerous. Of course It had to be sprayed so no one breathed a healthy lump of carbon dust but you know, swings and roundabouts
My dad and i used to do a simple experiment. Hes an automotive teacher and electronics guru; we used to make tvs into oscilloscopes for fun, hes that kind of nerd. Anyway the experiment routed vehicle exhaust into a clear glass tube. This tube is next to a vacuumed tube with no atmosphere and a third with earth standard atmosphere. You turn out the light and shine a laser into each tube and each one refracts the light to a different degree. The vacuum has no effect, earth atmosphere has some and the exhaust, even at sea level pressure, has an extreme effect. The tube full of exhaust will actually glow slightly in a darkened room, thats how much extra energy its trapping. We dont live in a glass tube but our planet is large enough to hold gasses under pressure without being closed which means heavier, nastier particles will and do tend to cling to the surface. Meaning pollution isnt just not evaporating, it might actually be displacing breathable atmospheric elements into space. The experiment kinda proves that too if you leave the exhaust in the tube, undisturbed, the gasses seperate and settle out pretty quickly. It generally takes something like a volcano to launch material into the stratosphere, and that wouldnt be good either for obvious reasons. Runaway cooling might kill faster than heating if we're not careful and as a species we usually are nothing close to careful. People explode turkeys trying to cook them, accidentally shoot themselves, confuse the gas and brake pedal, forget their kid is in the car and locks them in. We're stupid, as a unit.
I’d love to see Simon comment on some of the videos made by certain media. Sky news Australia is a media that irritates the hell out of me. Some of the stuff on there I can comment on as I do have some knowledge on the topic but unfortunately I don’t know a lot about everything they talk about. I’d love to see you analyse some of the things they say on there like you do with your comments. Would be interesting to see your reaction on some of their own comments too!!
Hey Simon, a small note on hindcasting. This typically does not involve negative timesteps and running the climate model backwards in time, but rather using them with conventional forward integration, however starting from past (e.g. 1850) initial conditions and applying past boundary conditions. As far as I know, the backwards integration you describe requires specialized tools such as backward Lagrangian stochastic models. These are not used to validate our climate models, but rather to trace to origin of air parcels to make statements for example about sources of emissions or weather systems. Cheers, Jan
Well they do that too. They are not stupid, ie the cliamte scientists. Of course they start in the past and work forward as well, I have seen that presented, I cant surce it sorry. I just took it as given,
The first time I heard that "the models don't match reality" argument I had to stop, go away and look things up to make sure I hadn't just imagined everything I'd read. Just a completely baffling argument.
For anyone more interested in the economics and politics of climate change, here are some common myths which people who only look at the scientific side might think 1) We don’t know what to do about climate change/ we haven’t yet found a solution. This is not true. The solution lies not in a mythical invention which goes against the law of conservation of energy. The solution comes from economics. If countries were to implement cap and trade systems or carbon taxes which both reduce incentives for CO2 production, then we would be better off under practically all scenarios as this would reduce climate change in a cost efficient way with a huge net benefit as we would save on future costly damages 2) Nothing has been done about climate change because most politicians don’t think climate change is real/can’t be bothered. This may be true for a certain US president but the consensus on climate change in the political sphere is not much different to the rest of the world. The real reason why politicians have done nothing is a combination of short termism (the costs of climate change will affect us in 30/40 years but politicians only have 4/5 year terms) and the fact that the benefits of climate action are shared across other countries and so there is no incentive for one individual country to participate (Its like prisoners dilema). In fact, the countries which would benefit the most (poorer countries relying more on industry affected by climate like farming, fishing) have the least say on the matter. 3) All climate change reducing policy is good Unfortunately this is not true. A study on early US climate policy found that the net effect on CO2 emissions of all subsidies was zero. There is no point spending a lot of money if the future savings from reduced climate change do not outweigh the cost of the money spent on cliamte reducing policy. Overall, I agree with everything Simon said but I worry that the issue with climate change is no longer about getting people to believe in it but is now trying to figure out a way to convince as many countries as possible to work together on a climate agreement such as a carbon tax or global cap and trade system. At the moment, no politician has any reason to do that and this is the biggest challenge which climate activists (or anyone who doesn’t want huge amounts of money to be wasted on cleaning up the damage caused by climate change) will have to fight against. Hope this makes some sense :)
I feel point 3 is a little redundant. You are basically saying policy that doesn't work, doesn't work. That is true for policy on anything, and I doubt anyone is really confused if you tell them that a policy doesn't work just because the one in question is climate change based. It is probably more of a struggle getting people to believe a policy made by a government is competent and capable of doing anything it claims (not always an unreasonable belief annoyingly), rather than convincing them the opposite is true.
@@AS-ds5zm You didn't say anything that wasn't true, you probably don't need to edit it really. Just giving my thoughts. Also, if you edit the post you will lose the "hearted" status (I can't remember if that is what it's called).
"if countries were to implement cap and trade systems or carbon taxes which both reduce incentives for CO2 production, then we would be better off under practically all scenarios as this would reduce climate change in a cost efficient way..." You say "cost efficient" almost like this is a fact now and there isn't a whole debate over it!
Al As Bill Nordhaus said, “the science is clear, the economics is clear”. It’s just for politicians to actually implement something. Also cap and trade and tax are basically just a different way of doing the same thing if that’s what you’re saying the debate is over.
8:00 This was really interesting. Have you thought about making a video of just good questions? I don't care if they've been asked. I just would love a video filled with facts like this.
Great video! happy to have learned the flaw in the theory about Co2 saturation. In my quest to understand climate skeptics i've seen this argument a lot in video's and articles. It was the only argument that made me doubt a bit because this saturation effect was very well researched but on a macro scale it didn't seem to add up.
Two points: 1. It's not saturated yet. Pierrehumbert has numerous textbooks and articles that mention such in passing. You can confirm by looking up the extinction coefficient of CO2 in the infrared and using Beer's law to calculate. 2. even if saturated, the heat still has to get out by either conduction or convection. More CO2 slows this process by impeding radiation at every sub-stage.
Simon Clark: I found him just thanks to Hbomberguy. I'm gonna be always thankful for just that, so i cant help but be a bit random with my comments and say: Check out Hbomberguy as well as various Science-TH-camr like Sci Show and Sci Man Dan.
I’m a 3rd year environmental studies student about to finish a course on weather and climate, and I appreciate you taking the time to respond to these comments! I will note a relatively small thing I caught: the troposphere AND the mesosphere generally see a decrease in temperature as altitude increases (not just the troposphere). That’s not getting into temperature inversions, which are temporary.
My only proof of climate change I needed was that when I was 5 it was snowing in winter, around half a meter but still. Now...it doesn't snow anymore... and my parents would tell me about the meters of snow it was here when they were little :(
Your patience is remarkable. Still, I very much doubt that any of the smoothbrains behind those posts, actually care about your replies, let alone basic science.
You're right. Those people stop listening as soon as someone else starts talking. Same mindset but different topic, I was watching The Atheist Experience once, and a caller said "what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true and correct?" The host spent 5 minutes explaining that he'd already answered in the chat, then restating how the burden of proof works. The caller just responded "what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true and correct?" When people are so dogmatically certain of their position that anyone saying otherwise is basically just generating white noise, there's nothing you can do to convince them.
@@legrandliseurtri7495 It's actually impossible to prove atheism - it's not the belief there isn't a God, it's the lack of belief in one, and you can't prove a negative. Some religions you could prove as it's a positive assertion that something does exist, but no religion has ever managed it. And the God of Judeo-Christianity and Islam is often regarded by believers to exist outside of time and space, whatever that could even mean, so it's impossible to prove that specific God exists. There's no evidence of something outside of material existence.
Well, most atheism isn't the belief there isn't a god. To be technical, agnostic atheism is the belief there isn't a god due to the lack od any evidence for one. Gnostic atheism is the belief that there isn't a god and you can prove there isn't. This would be more like Dawkins or Hitchens. Gnosticism and agnosticism are about what you know, theism and atheism are about what you believe. So you also have agnostic theists who believe there is a god but don't think it can be proven.
"CO2 saturation", nearly total opaquenes of the atmosphere in far IR and the fact that CO2 molecules release the wast majority of absorbed IR radiation through collisions rather than re-emission deserve a separate video. Those facts are often skimmed over in simplistic descriptions of greenhouse effect and lead to people think they are being "hidden" by climatologist. It is harmful to dumb-down one's explanations too much. Thanks.
I like the analogy to a fog bank - the water droplets don't actually absorb the light but rather scatter it so that at each contact half the light goes forward and half backward. Nonetheless, a dense fogbank or cloud makes it dark because the light gets scattered backward making it darker further from the source. However, when you look down on a cloud from an airplane it's bright white from the light that gets scattered backward from the sunlight above. In the case of CO2, the source of the infrared light is the warm earth. If we could see far infrared light the sky would look bright from the glow reflected down at the warm earth. There is a physics difference in that thermal radiation scattering is quantum mechanical radiation scattering while fog is refraction but that's quibbling and you get into a TLDR discussion.As the density of the air drops with height eventually the mean free path becomes long enough that reradiation dominates black body radiation - his phrase for the height when light leaks into space.
What CO2 is excited by low level infra red wavelengths not ' light' !! CO2 cannot warm surrounding air because they are not excited by the same frequency. Try putting more CO2 in a container and see if the temperature increases.. Stupid people making stupid videos on stuff they don't understand hide the truth and encourage disasterous policies being introduced. As the virus same as the climate alarmists.
@@rob-yt9di IR and light is the same thing - it's just that we happen not to see those wavelengths (unlike, say, bees). Excited CO2 molecules transfer their energy to surrounding air by collisions, "mechanically", but also radiate part of it back down to the ground. How appropriate that you made your idiotic comment to a video devoted to idiotic comments like yours.
@@bazoo513 well, not nice to call a commenter names but I suppose that goes with being incapable of understanding a critique that differs from your pseudo science cult Please explain how CO2 radiates heat back its source, the earth, I would be interested to understand how a hotter body can be heated by a cooler body....
What triggers me more than the laziness of these people to actually fact check things, is their lack of general knowledge?? Dude we learnt about climate and weather from 6th all the way to 10th grade.
Our current problem is semantics, really. Any scientist worth their salt will use a language of doubt and uncertainty, because they know that their findings might be subject to change, while someone who doesn't care about scientific credibility can say whatever they want in any way, to make people believe them. When you don't understand anything scientific, some guy claiming he has all the answers in an understandable way, is very attractive. You really can't combat that by repeating yourself with "scientific jargon".
Simon keep it up! I've been watching your videos since I was in my second year of uni and now I'm on my first year of PhD! Academia is hard and people like you are essential to keep motivating us when we need it!
I don't know how you keep so calm, it's really impressive. My fingers just turn into a blur when when I see these kinds of cretinous arguments online. Keep fighting the good fight, brother!
Could you please do a video on "Planet of the Humans", the recent, controversial documentary? Everyone is really confused and we need an in-depth analysis by it.
I watched it recently here on youtube the commentary below the title is more that the fight against climate change is (in America?? ) according to him now hijacked by banks, capitalists, banks and even the Koch brothers. The fight is not effective because of this and only serves to deliver profits while meanwhile even destroying the environment and many naive greenies don't know or see this. (perhaps all true ) I certainly don't had the impression that he said that climate change isn't real or not man made. The movie contains errors though. It's not true at all that since you need fossil fuel energy to make solar panels or wind mills that they don't win back that energy rather soon. www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg24332461-400-what-is-the-carbon-payback-period-for-a-wind-turbine/
I live in a part of Canada that has harsh winters. I remember the first time there was a thawing in the middle of winter. There was a warm spell in the middle of February. Water was running down the street. I was a young adult and did not remember that happening before. We would have the rare day or two at a time that was spring-like but the warm weather didn't last long enough to melt the snow and was due to chinooks (a warm wind from areas of warmer climates). Now, we think we are having an unusually harsh winter if we don't have these warm spells. We also don't get nearly as much snow as we used to. To those people who think a rise of a few degrees is insignificant, the difference of average global temperature between now and the last ice age is 4 degrees.
It's good that I'm learning new stuff and also get the satisfaction of seeing some mean (sort of, not thinking) people get slapped by actual facts. ✨ Thank you, Dr. Simon! You've done it again!
More like "Simon makes clickbait content and his poorly educated comment section mock people who disagree with them and then conclude that they have made scientific argument".
@@brazeiar9672 You're getting the same response that people get who go on medical channels and say it's not appendicitis it's an imbalance of humours or a channel on space exploration and say they need to put the rocket bases near the corners of the earth to be closer to the celestial dome. Demanding that people give you respect for the imagination behind your ideas rather than the accuracy of them is only going to happen on a literature channel.
@@bcwbcw7649 Simon is hiding the last ten years of observations in that graph he used for arctic sea ice extent. He owes us an explanation of why he hid that data and he should show it in a subsequent video. It's a valid criticism so he should respond to it.
@@dtz1000 wow, what is this the sixth repeat of the same calumny? Go look yourself and stop claiming it shows what it does not. You are lying, ice extent continues to decrease.
@@brazeiar9672 Well laat time I checked a comment sanction was for scientific debate, unless people are discussing specific points. So your argument is also unreasonable
I found a few things I have noticed in my area that noticeably changed over my lifetime(im 33). In winter snowfall is considerably lower and the number of extreme cold days(below -40C) has dropped. In the summer the humidity is higher and as a result the nights are far warmer even though the severity and duration of heat waves(above 30C) is diminished.
Interesting! I have recorded the number of days with ice cover on my local lake in the south-eastern Norway each winter since the mid-1980s. There are of course lots of variations from year to year (also known as weather), but the _linear trend_ over the entire period shows a decrease of 24 days, from 161 days in 1984-85 to 137 days in 2020-21.
The "belching" comes from the stuff not yet inside the black hole. Black holes (or rather their accretion discs) can be quite bright radiation sources :-)
About climat models: 1.Forecasting is extremely difficult, hind casting is easy. I can predict history all day long, you simply adjust the numbers until they match the observations. 2. If climate models were dependable, we wouldn't need >100 models, one good model would be enough. 3. If you compare the climate models to the observations, like you do at 6:11, you will notice that most models are almost always far too warm. The only reason the black line (the observations) seems to be within the range of the models, is because the models are all over the chart. If you compare the observations to the individual models, all models are way off.
I'm interested in the hindcasting you mentioned. This isn't meant to be an argument in favour of scepticism, so much as an interest in the process. So as an example in particle physics (my own specialism): a model is produced (e.g. that gives a cross-section of a certain decay mode) and the means of validating the model are agreed. At this point, data is collected and then processed (or previous data from a collider run that was stored in a "black box" away from the eyes of those developing the model is processed) to determine the fact-ness of the model. The usage of existing "known" data is only for informing us and producing intuitions with which we guide the development of new models, but not the validation of these. Is hindcasting used in the same way as this example? I.e. just as a model tuning and intuition building tool, or if it is also used as a numerical validity metric, how is the effect of knowing historical trends and data in general accounted for? The reason I ask this is from my exposure to these models, they seem to have a lot of degrees of freedom for tuning, and I recently had a conversation with someone who came from this field about the changes in forecasting (to scarily hotter outcomes) with the introduction of dynamic cloud components over the previous baking of this information. Presumably all the models considered before and after this change had satisfactory hindcast accuracy.
Thank you! Any scientifically-based information, and really good explanations (which you are excellent at giving), help my mental health! Yay, science!!
@@rob-yt9di it's been proven, already, with many different tests, and in many different ways. My own garden can prove it, in fact! Over the past 40 years, planting times have changed, overall needs for water and shade have changed, harvest times have changed, and even the planting zone labels have changed (from zone 5, 40 years ago, to 6b, now, a pretty drastic change). This is all testable and demonstrably factual. Denying it doesn't make it go away. Period.
@@MaryAnnNytowl Since when ha the climate been stable? If you are looking for a static condition you will be sorely disappointed whatever the co2 level is because the climate is a chaotic system affected by a myriad of variances in air water oceans sun activity volcanoes tectonics milankovic cycles plus a host of other uncontrollable interactions. Look back in history and you will see that wines were grown in UK by Romans Greenland was ice free and occupied by Vikings ... Etc etc etc. The moon is getting closer to earth there is a possible magnetic pole switch in progress which effects the magnetosphere and amounts of high energy radiation interactions with the ionospdere. Never has the earth been stable for long.and with the added issue of concreting vast areas of once green pleasant lands for suburban living it will only get more unpredictable. It's nothing to do with CO2.
@@baumdf9134 Not quite. 'Terra' is indeed a Latin term. But not one single Latin source uses the word 'Terran' as a descriptor. It's purely a Sci-Fi invention.
The imperial fists called, they said they have your head on a spike inside a freezer and how did you manage to lead your chapter headless ***cough*** omegon ***cogh***
Hi Simon, you are doing a GREAT JOB! You might have covered it but what if there's no meaningful reduction in C02 emissions by 2035, what is likely to happen? And could we face climate breakdown or runaway climate breakdown or positive feedback loops that takes climate management out of our hands? Also I was told that the southern hemisphere is going to hit the worse but now it seems that the northern hemisphere is going to hit hard too. Is that true? What is the scale in both cases? Thanks, keep up the good work.
Coming here much later in this videos life, I just want to pose a question to skeptics: Why is it that the only acceptable answer to the question of climate change is the one that demands no changes on your part? Does it not seem overly convenient that the solution to all problems is “just don’t do anything, it’ll fix itself”?
What do YOU do to stop climate change? Nothing. So just stop being a smarmy "concerned" guy. Go enjoy life. The sky isn't falling, it's stupid religious people who believe that, right? That's what modern Science is, a religion for nerds ran by corporations to make money, duh.
@@logitech4873 Where's the evidence that we are doomed, that the Earth is doomed? There is none. It's a scam, like everything else that's designed to scare us. Are you genuinely worried, scared? No, you're not. Case closed.
Please talk about Holocene climate optimum, a lot of people use Holocene climate change as base of their conclusions. Bonus points for Malenkovič cycles
I came by myself with this more than 100% if the earth would go cooler without us and said it in a lot of comments these last weeks to the new climato sceptics that now say that humans are just contributing to climate change. I did a bit like you, that we are around 100% responsable, maybe less but also maybe more.. than 100% and explained it.
@@gam1471 there are 2 ways this goes down. 1- he meant human caused climate change and you take things too literally. 2- he is really stupid and thinks people deny that the ice age happened and you take thing too literally. 3- we travel to sugondese'
I'm actually wonder what makes people skeptical about climate change when you can clearly observe the impact already. Are you skeptical just because or you've done some research about it?
People think that if they deny the problem loudly enough, they won't have to put forth the effort to fix it. Besides, most people don't give a flying fuck about the long term survival of our species, especially if it inconveniences them.
@@genericyoutubecommenter589 I think your stretching the truth a little in your comment. I don't think humans will be going extinct any time soon. Even if emissions aren't curbed and we see the very worst effects of climate change like idk 20 meter sea level rise and 5°c of warming, etc. Yes many species would go extinct and many people would die in this scenario, but people are ingenious they are adaptable especially with the technology we have today, we can build sea walls, we can regulate our environment, even in the vacuum of space just look at the iss . It's quite likely if emissions aren't curbed we will spray sulfites into the upper atmosphere to try reduce heating instead of giving up and accepting out fate. Just so we're on the same page I'm not at all advocating we not solve climate change in the present on the contrary I'm all for net zero. It just comments like your that make over exaggerated claims that gets on my nerves because it only validates climate skeptics/lukewarmers who argue climate alarmism exists in turn causing people to side with people such as Lomburg or shellenberger. Further stalling any real action.
Imagine if other professions were talked down to the way people talk down to climate scientists. "Oh, you're a plumber? I bet you've never even heard of water pressure." "Oh, you're a pilot? Have you ever actually landed a plane?" "Oh, you're a dentist? I can just pull my own teeth for free."
@@yaimavol It's only a political debate at this point. The scientific debate really is over and there's nothing arrogant about plainly acknowledging reality. There are political hacks who deny evolution too. Should scientists pretend that there's some sort of serious ongoing debate about evolution in order to appease the denialists? No.
Climate has high priests and believers, it is a religion, anyone who dares raise an opposing point is an evil blasphemer to be damned, a non-believer, an apostate. Climate alarmists spend more time blasting heretics and enjoy it far more than discussing actual science. Ad hominem is their area of expertise. Observe. Here's a doctor saying the other doctors are wrong. Watch them attack, not what he says (except to say it's bad, omg very bad, not orange but still bad), instead the man himself: edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/you-are-not-causing-global-warming/
CO2 emitted by all the volcanoes in the world: 200 million tons per year (US Geological Survey). By human technology: 40 billion tons per year (US Dept. of Commerce Energy Information Adminstration). Divide A by B. Discuss.
....yeah.... so.... the 40bil rides ATOP the UNSTOPPABLE 200bil.... AND while shutting off the Utilities may NOT stop the fire that is Burning Down YOUR House.... (on the ONE hand).... On the other.... it MIGHT.... and IF by so doing you can simultaneously INCREASE both your income AND standard of living.... maybe it's Time to make some changes....
Over the last 40 years I personally have seen the steady change in the amount of lying snow in the Scottish highlands and mountains. Predictable late spring snow (first weekend in May for Nordic skiing in the 'snow' corrie) and a Mid-summer ski tour (Ben Macdui) was a regular occurrence in the 1980s. Now that's all long gone, and full cover skiing is rather rare and over a much narrow couple of months.
We love you Professor Dr. Mr. Clark. I hope to be going to University to do an environmental science BSc in September and your videos have helped keep me inspired to keep working through the ups and downs of the last year. Thank you.
Hey Simon, love your content, just a question from someone who has literally no idea where to find climate data (?). So you said that the predictions for the arctic ice were understating its loss in predictions, how/does that correlate with the growth in Antarctica? Are they following the scientific predictions? Just curious and unsure of how to find this information out for myself. Also, this might be harder to explain, but why are they growing (pretty sure I heard on youtube they are growing as a net, not just in specific areas), should they not also be losing ice? If anyone else could explain this I would be deeply grateful. For context, I am a staunch believer in climate change just slightly confused by this one point, I think the climate skeptics bring it up a lot(?).
I beleive that when they say some areas are growing they mean the seasonal ice that freezes and melts on cycle. The permanent ice is shrinking and that plays a huge role in rising sea levels.
@@chriskshaw7601 So the reason the "net gain" isn't publicized is because while it is true that the Antarctic has a net gain of ice, the entire world has a net loss of ice. This is because Greenland is losing much more ice much quicker than expected. If you'll go back to which ever source you heard about the net gain in Antarctica, you'll likely notice they conviently leave out Greenland. Hope this clears something up
It is completely true that overall, the Antarctic is gaining ice, however Greenland is losing lots of ice very quickly which greatly offsets the ice gained in the freezing if the Antarctic making the world have a net loss of ice
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Wow, I'm pretty blown away by this response, thank you so much, the explanation seems very detailed and I think hopefully it will give me a good insight into the topic. Just again, thank you, I'm really interested in sustainability and I'm actually hoping to do environmental science in Uni hopefully this helps. I'll check it out now. :)
At 10:00 you're talking about how an increase in height lowers the temperature of the outer layer making less heat escape to space. But how does this relate to the increase in surface area increasing the radiation into space? After all, surface area of a sphere increases by the square of the radius.
the difference in surface area is small as the radius of Earth (6,371 km) is way bigger than the "height" (~90 km) of the atmosphere. The troposphere specifically is up to 20 km high. So as the radius of the radiating sphere is increased at most by just around a third of a percent, the surface area is just increased by two thirds of a percent. Comparing this to the change in radiation, which changes by temperature to the power of 4. So a temperature difference between 255 and 250 (2%) becomes a radiation difference of 8%.
I just stumbled upon this guy and I've really loved the videos so far. An actual climate scientist who doesn't use overly academic jargon to isolate those less educated on the subject is very helpful and well needed.
I think that downvotes and hate watching still count for the algorithm. I must say you are remaining quite reasonable in the face of all this hate-watching.
This is quite possibly Simon's (sorry, Dr Clark's) most savage video. Thanks Simon for doing your best to get the truth of the matter out there, we can't force people to accept it, the best we can do is try to convince them.
Climate vs weather for dummies: Just because you saw someone win the million dollar jackpot on slots, it DOESN’T NECESSARILY MEAN that the casino is going broke! In fact, it usually means the opposite.
I understand very little of this... my approach to life is just "yeah it's bad, but it's not *that* bad" like not as bad as the crazy people on the street are crying about, but probably a lot worse than the climate deniers. I kinda try to take this approach with everything. Is this a fair approach to take with climate change?
It is. I like it actually, because it is a positive way. If you like reading get the book "Factfulness". It is a, somehow, different view of the world we live in. You'll be surprised how right you are. :)
No. If scientists say 1 and random ppl say 0, u can't say 0,5 is better. It's better to try to understand, but if u can't, dude scientists have invested more time studying it. Random ppl has invested 0 time thinking, they just talk. No brain, no gain.
Simon I highly suspect that deep inside your flawed brain you realise just how full of shit you are. We, the discerning minds of this planet,, now know without equivocation that ALL of the planets within the terran system have the shit beaten out of them.. This is sue to the Suns solar minimum opening the door to galactic radiation as well as waves of energy from belching black holes. The region of space we are now in,, contains areas of highly charged energy and in some instances radiates temperatures of over 10,000 degrees F.. My Friends, when you pass a rocky snowball through an oven, the top and bottom melt first.
This video NEEDS to get spread and shared! Your tone and approach to the comments is perfect, it isn't patronizing and shows where the breakdown in logic occurs and provides an alternate path that is reinforced by research.
"this is an interesting argument because it is completely wrong"
I am using this.
I'm sceptical about global warming mostly because simon clark keeps banging on about it like a broken record in every video. If it was real he wouldn't need to keep peddling it like a religion in most of the videos. He used to make interesting content, now it's just climate change from a different angle mixed with his political views. I guess it's the only thing he can do to get views on here. If he made interesting not enough people would watch it to get him any income and his patreon was in steep decline most of 2019. Half of his viewers are A-level students who are self appointed experts who just fangirl but don't really know what are talking about and just want to get a reply :) Maybe that's the choice he faces, clickbait climate politics or get a real job. Could he even get a postdoc or research role now? It's been years since he did any proper science.
@@brazeiar9672 If idiots like you keep yammering on, then yeah, he's clearly not done communicating the importance of recognizing our failure to care for the Earth.
@@marktaylor526 Yes I am a idiot. I have no brain cells. I am totally worthless. But don't worry, I shall commit suicide soon as per the climate mob request, and I shall attribute my death to you guys :)
@@brazeiar9672 This is the stupidest argument ever. So because Simon Clark keeps banging on about it like a broken record in every video, it has to be false? Read the actual literature and the studies! If this is actually your how you make decisions, you are the perfect example of idiotic decision making.
@@brazeiar9672 Agreed.
I can understand the confusion of climate and weather for people living in mild climates, but as someone who lives in a place where we used to have ice on lakes and rivers thick enough to drive cars around 20 years ago and now for the past 4 years the ice hasn't been thick enough to walk over by foot, can definitely tell you the climate has warmed up significantly.
Yep.
Where I'm at, we had 2 - 3 feet of snow from November to March and year round snow on the peaks 20 years ago.
It didn't even snow last winter and the peaks were snowless by june.
Blanketed in smoke all summer.
I live in relative mild central european climate. You can easily see the signs if you want to. When I was a kid I remember our villages river freezing completely and adults playing ice hokey. Has never happened since the 2000s.
I also remember having a 30 degree summer day as being something special. Now we have 35+ degrees often for weeks without any rainfall in between.
The people aren't confused. It's denial. They don't want to hear it. It scares them in many ways. Notice that it's mostly conservative people that deny climate change. They're scared of change, adapting and consequences. That is a whole mindset. You can't convince them with facts. They're completely driven by emotion.
I am living in Finland and every older folk I have talked about this have said that there has been less snow in the winter and the permanent snow cover comes later into the winter. And it's all backed up by historic data.
@T.A. Garcia Nah. Greenland is important in terms of national defense so he probably got lobbied by some generals. Also it has vast untapped natural resources like oil and gold which the super power have been itching to get their companies' hands on. Wuth the ever retreating ice sheets the resources are becoming more and more accessible
In Florida, 20 years ago (I'm 29) it was possible to walk outside in the middle of Summer and not sweat for 5 min. Now, it's the moment you go outside, and temperatures average 97 degrees. God forbid if you have a black car 'cause the inside of that mf will approach 105: I've been having to replace my ac, fan or wires, every two years.
it's actually pretty impressive how confident people are in their ignorance
Good old Dunning-Kreuger effect
@@cognitiveTrifurcation exactly
This staement is not clear, what people do you mean, what ignorance gives some egs.
@@briancrowther3272 wat?
@@neerkum5428 say something that makes sense or you do not warrant considering. Which you don't in this instance. Don't reply I won't read it.
“Generally wet and depressing”
Yeah that’s the UK
Tbf the weather's been phenomenal the past few weeks
Shoriful Haque for the UK yeah, pretty damn good.
Chieftain10 if I'm being honest it doesn't actually rain very much in the uk does it? We have such a reputation for it but it's really not even true
Kit Ockham yeah, it’s not usually always rainy but there can be grey skies for days on end
@@TheMarshalMurat I was just thinking to myself the other day, it doesn't seem to rain all too often. At least here in London. It's weird.
I was at the grocery store and saw there was a FROZEN section. So much for global warming.
😂
IMPOSSIBLE
What?????? Just seems a really dumb comment. Sorry.
@@briancrowther3272 it's a joke
@@coachreenasharma thanks
I wanted to write something stupid and wrong about climate change and deny that it exists but I was slightly worried that the ironic nature would be lost on some people and they may have perpetuated whatever bollocks I said. Therefor I wrote this instead, love your work. :D
Yeah I'm always worried when I post a joke that no one gets my irony
@@skinnypeed Poe's law.
Yes. That may have been a wise decision. Well done.
Relatable AF
So many people on social media seem to not sense irony or sarcasm, it’s concerning(lately especially lol)
The term "climate sceptics" gives them more credit than they are due - there's little scepticism on display there, just lots of contrarianism and denialism
Yup, just call them climate deniers instead.
usually skeptics are smart but these people are absolute morons and their best arguments are Talking Points they've heard from another moron that's been already debunked.
Even Climate deniers is too good for them
It implies stupidity at worst and gives a feeling of "Rejecting a mainstream idea"
The best name for them is
Fossil fuel industry paid shills
@@Ar1AnX1x nah, skeptics are distributed exactly as normal people are.
Intelligence and skepticism are not related.
@@gmcjetpilot I was talking about people who Politicize this issue and deny experts who've been studying this for hundreds of years.
it's like if I was the best chef in the world and someone who hasn't cooked anything ever came to me and told me how I should change my recipe.
you can be skeptical if you have evidence or add something to the study.
I'm talking about Science-Deniers who believe Religion over Science and think the Earth is flat because the bible says so.
and btw the Government doesn't really give a shit about global warming, they're all bought out by Oil Money, so saying that 'they want us to care about Global Warming' is just false, they've never lifted a finger to solve this problem.
and your stop breathing joke wasn't really funny, don't get too emotional.
This guy uses Kelvin in his videos as temperature measurement unit. Now that's professional.
@@RalphEllisRaplh, you're missing a bit of understanding - adding 1% to a kelvin temperature means a 1% increase in total energy so the scale really means something while a percentage change in a Celsius or Fahrenheit temperature means nothing.
@@bcwbcw7649 More relevantly to this example, the power of thermal radiation coming from an object is proportional to T^4 when you are measuring in Kelvin.
@@IamGrimalkin One could measure in Rankine, another absolute temperature scale.
@@DonMeaker Yep that works.
@@DonMeaker this is the most intelligent conversation i've ever fucking read in any youtube comment section
3:58 I SENSE THE BIRTH OF A MEME
Make it...MAKE IT!
Whos conna make a clip out of this
somebody make it
I'm on it. I Will soon release it on Reddit and youtube soon.
However, I'm only releasing the template and not a meme.
I don't know what I should be using it on.
@@zubayeerahmed3801 just add a caption of the quote and the face on it and we can use it as a response to people who argue only silly things whether it's pineapple on pizza or a debatable topic that could be subjective
I don't understand why common sense things like climate change or vaccines have become "controversial". What's wrong with some people? Best case scenario if you agree to take some action, You end up saving resources and energy for future generations. Worst care scenario, you are able to help future generations from mass extinction
Because some people made it into politics for some godforsaken reasons
@@thereddeads The reason is easy: mistrust. When a message is coming from primarily one side of the political spectrum, people who are aligned with the other side don't trust the message. Since climate change and covid precautions are coming primarily from the left, and left leaning media, folks who identify with the right have trouble believing they are anything more than a political ploy by the left.
To be fair, the left disbelieves scientific facts when the message comes from the right. A good example of this is nuclear power. Most on the left are against nuclear power because of waste disposal, and a general distrust of the word "Nulcear", when scientists are saying that nuclear a good option. Let's also remember that the original antivaxers were leftists who were convinced, against scientific evidence, that vaccines cause autism.
It has become controversial because the solutions proposed for tackling climate change involve people in wealthy industrialised countries reigning in their consumption. Since much of what we do in the Western world which has a high CO2 footprint also contributes significantly towards quality of life, the idea that we have to take a hit is offensive to some and so must be challenged. The tribal nature of humanity and the framing it as political ideology only makes things worse.
Ultimately how we tackle anthropogenic climate change is not a scientific decision, it is a moral decision. The science tells you what is happening and what will happen in the future if it continues unabated. The moral decision is do we care and if so, what do we do? Someone could easily say "I don't care about people I have nothing to do with so I am not going to do anything", and they are entitled to that opinion. It has to come down to our collective morals as to whether and what we do in the future.
Because Exxon/Mobil, The Koch Bros, The family who own Walmart, the GOP, US coal cos are running the same methods the cigarette cos did with tobacco. It works. These people back so called Insitututes, Founadations etc that are right wing think tanks, there common charactaristics are, climate denial, christian evangelism, anti abortion, white, racist, male dominated, Republican right, linked heavily via the Republicans with US government esp via people like Trump or the Dem whos blocking stuff now from Virginia (coal). Go onto any one of those casts and fact check the orgs presenting them, eg Canadian Cliamte Realists (they changed from deniers as it was negative), and you will find this. Its lots of $$ and a deliberate tactic.
"What's wrong with some people?"
It's more fun to get "science" from entertainment like "Star Wars" or "The Martian" or "Spiderman" than trying to 'think' and ask questions...
A "catchy slogan" or "false but simple answer" takes far less effort than powering-on one's grey matter...
(btw. Brains consume a disproportionate amount of the body's energy! Gotta conserve energy, dontcha no? Pass me a Red Bull...)
Does the scientific community ever have serious discussions on how to introduce theories/findings to the masses? We see the resistance to Covid reality, Climate Change reality, politicians pretending to be experts cause they have common sense or in some cases taking science to ridiculous levels they don’t understand. How do we restore faith in those with knowledge?
That's a very important question and no they do not, unfortunately. Many scientists are like him and try to communicate with knowledge and facts but some ppl do just like to listen to the most unprobable and wrong things because they already fully believe in them. I mean look at my parents f.e. they are Anthroposophes what is a kind of esoteric sect here in Europe and they full on believe that one man from around 100 years ago who probably had schizophrenics knew everything and they just have to follow his word. Since that guy of course as every sect leader was "critical" of science and said, the people shouldn't think for themselves they just mistrust everything that has something to do with science. It's really sad to look at because as soon as you begin to argue with them they really have no idea, what science actually is, but still refuse to trust anything, that sounds like science... :(
@@jana731 As long as a large portion of the population get their news from Murdoch media (Fox News, Wall Street Journal, NY Post, Sky News Australia and many others), millions will remain ignorant about climate change science. Rupert Murdoch is the world's most notorious climate change denier, which is why ALL of his media outlets downplay or outright ridicule the science. Murdoch is a denier because HE CO-OWNS A FOSSIL FUEL COMPANY, GENIE ENERGY, AND SITS ON THEIR ADVISORY BOARD. His media audience is utterly clueless.
religion is the main culprit of all these madness and stupidity
@Roberto Vidal Garcia I agree completely. Let's spend the money and get everyone two years of free college. Ignorance is costing us far more than what that will cost.
@hannah Religion is by definition unfalsifiable. You just have to believe, regardless of the facts presented to you. Basically: you already know the answer and make the world fit to it.
Science is the complete opposite. It always follows the facts, even if they might undermine a firmly held belief. (Sometimes that takes a while, because scientists are also just humans, and it's often hard for us to give up beliefs even in the face of overwhelming evidence - hence why religion exists in the first place.)
So maybe it's not "religion" per se, but the underlying mindset which is to blame. On the other hand there are lots of sects and faiths that actively denigrate or suppress science (because if people would start to apply critical thinking skills they wouldn't be as religious), so that statement would also stand true IMHO. And yes, I'm blatantly conflating "religion" and "faith" here, but IMO they are just two sides of the same coin.
That “Galactic Radiation” comment reads like a troll who was writing a sci-fi technobabble creative writing prompt
Sadly, it was probably a believer in the Electric Universe or Plasma Cosmology "theories" (which aren't even decent hypotheses, much less actual theories), which have weird pseudoscience gobbledygook like that in them.
to the difference in climate and weather:
you can ask yourself “is traffic becoming worse in my city?”. if you want to answer that question it doesnt help to go out at 2am, count the numbers of cars and then say “traffic seems fine to me” just bc no one in their right mind is awake at 2am. The same is true for the opposite: you cant look at a traffic jam and say “this is solely due to the new traffic laws”.
If you want to understand you need to look beyond these short time changes and instead turn to big datasets of measurements over months and years.
people are really really bad at looking at scale and long term.
@@minderbart1 I bet 90% of the climate change deniers don't even know how to read a graph
I'm often awake at that time, and traffic is perfectly fine. Can't deny it pretty hard to develop some tan, however
@@abisgamer4825 They might, but statistics can easily be used to skew to further one's personal agenda.
I love your answer to the first question , " how much of climate change is caused by humans ? " . " Well we are not sure , but we are guessing its about 100% ! " .
But that's not science...It's just politics.
@@Littlewings_P Explain
@@Littlewings_P If anything it's a scientificly demonstrable statement which has turned political
@@Littlewings_P it's a scientific fact that's turned political by oil companies bribing politicians*
@@wellshit9489 It is a fact that the size of the climate crisis mafia is much larger than the oil companies..
The market size in 2020 was $600 billion and is estimated to grow to $6 trillion annually by 2050. About $100 billion/year is being raised in the name of the fund, but nothing has changed in the climate. Now, who is running the political business?
The public is increasingly becoming their puppets.. ignoring even readily available datas, and blindfolding themselves.
As an all year round city cyclist in Munich who lived here for decades, I definitely directly perceive that winters are getting warmer and less snowy. The increased temperature and decreased rain is something every farmer in my country can directly observe.
You mean the experts know what they're doing?
Huh....Who knew?
Oh, that's right.
EVERYONE!
We all need to listen and appreciate what these great minds have done [and are doing] for our planet.
YOur comment is not clear.
but i can google so im obviously smaerter.
right right right, because "experts" have never been wrong.........
I'm impressed how you actually debunked their comments, as opposed to just getting angry and calling them wankers like I do
Tbf, it's hard not to call them wankers.
I mean, you can always do both (out of earshot).
I'm always tempted to do the same response as you. I find deniers so stupid my instinct is to tell them to fornicate away but that dies not really help. Sometimes I do Nd find it psychologically satisfying. Depends on my mood.
@@briancrowther3272 plenty of people can't be convinced by logic, reason or evidence. Perhaps if they are called wanker often enough they would be, I'm testing the hypothesis.
I love the calm rage vibe this man gives me
_"This is an interesting argument because it's completely wrong"_ Not my definition of an interesting argument!
Interesting = stupid
I guess it's interesting that so many people use it as an argument despite it being completely wrong?
Your definition is flawed
Sarcasm
@@elliottbolton78 The explanation for the argument is in this same video, not long before this part of the video. People confusing weather and climate.
Weather predictions for longer periods have been historically very poor. Short term weather prediction in the past, and now obviously, has been more accurate than people give credit for. But longer term has been difficult for a long time although now massively better than historically and getting better all the time.
But as people associate long term weather prediction with being unreliable, and they also conflate weather and climate then there has been a underlying association of climate prediction as unreliable as a result which has just propagated.
I see Dr. Simon Clark has decided to get into masochism during quarantine
Don't forget lying. He's getting into lying as well by omitting data. You can see that in the graph for arctic sea ice extent in this video. The observations in that graph end at around 2010. What happened to the observations after 2010? Why did he scrub them from the graph? I have asked elsewhere but the Doctor gave no answer.
What he omitted is that the minimum level of sea ice extent was reached in 2012 and it has been recovering slowly since then. I guess a sudden plunge in arctic sea ice extent looks more impressive to his gullible subscribers than a gradual recovery would look.
@@bcwbcw7649 That data you linked to is for february, numbnuts. So you just did what you accused me of doing. You cherrypicked a month that supported what you say. Simon Clark's graph was showing September because that is when the minimum sea ice extent is reached every year. If i was cherry picking i would have done what you did and chosen another month that suited me better.
@@bcwbcw7649 Yes, I also don't think the ice is recovering. Further 2012 seems to have been a unusual record year. nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
@@Skumtomten1 looking at the your source of Arctic sea ice extent there seems to be far too much information that obviously wouldn’t show a trend, this huge timescale would decrease the sensitivity of a 60 year trend which is what has been recorded in the Copenhagen Diagnosis graph. Considering the industrial revolution started around 1760, human change to the climate would’ve only started ramping up then. Not only that but your graph conveniently omits data past 1960 - only 10 years after Arctic sea ice was being measured so this quite drastic decrease in minimum ice level wasn’t even recorded.
You’re being a bit hypocritical accusing people of cherry picking whilst ignoring evidence yourself.
And so what. What has that got to do with the issue. Your comment might suggest you are stupid but that does not influence the issue other than excluding you as a credible commentator.
Some of these comments make me lose my faith in humanity
You had (have?) faith in "humanity"?
Crawford Sawyer just Learn to dance and enjoy yourself in life and ignore the ignorance. & if it aggresses on you give em hell
Idk were humanity always like this but was not recorded and now we are more exposed to one another via the internet or it's the trend because of the internet itself that let these assholes meet??!
Egg or chicken?
homo sapiens will go extinct. there were more than six seperate species of humans at one point and now there is only one. this points to future extinction.
Bruh, when I went into flat earth channels, the faith in humanity was eradicated.
Serious question, how do you stay sane when reading these comments? I find it upsetting
Upsetting only? I go on a murderous rampage.
@@howardlam6181 mood
@@howardlam6181 I also like to go on a homicidal spree after reading the comments section
@David Miorgan
They're joking...
Somethings wrong with you all lmao
Your sponsorship insertion has amused me, thank you, what a lovely twist of events!
Im from india ,and our prime minister believes that earth is not getting warmer but our ability to tolerate heat has decreased. Next level science!
Ohh no🤦🏻♀️😂
GG modi.
Dr. Narendra Moody
He must have discussed the topic with Donald.
I'm pretty sure the Australian Prime Minister bought a lump of coal into parliment once to show that it isn't dangerous. Of course It had to be sprayed so no one breathed a healthy lump of carbon dust but you know, swings and roundabouts
My dad and i used to do a simple experiment. Hes an automotive teacher and electronics guru; we used to make tvs into oscilloscopes for fun, hes that kind of nerd. Anyway the experiment routed vehicle exhaust into a clear glass tube. This tube is next to a vacuumed tube with no atmosphere and a third with earth standard atmosphere. You turn out the light and shine a laser into each tube and each one refracts the light to a different degree. The vacuum has no effect, earth atmosphere has some and the exhaust, even at sea level pressure, has an extreme effect. The tube full of exhaust will actually glow slightly in a darkened room, thats how much extra energy its trapping. We dont live in a glass tube but our planet is large enough to hold gasses under pressure without being closed which means heavier, nastier particles will and do tend to cling to the surface. Meaning pollution isnt just not evaporating, it might actually be displacing breathable atmospheric elements into space. The experiment kinda proves that too if you leave the exhaust in the tube, undisturbed, the gasses seperate and settle out pretty quickly. It generally takes something like a volcano to launch material into the stratosphere, and that wouldnt be good either for obvious reasons. Runaway cooling might kill faster than heating if we're not careful and as a species we usually are nothing close to careful. People explode turkeys trying to cook them, accidentally shoot themselves, confuse the gas and brake pedal, forget their kid is in the car and locks them in. We're stupid, as a unit.
obsessed with the way Simon didn't even reply to the Elon Musk comment. he just laughed lmaoo
I’d love to see Simon comment on some of the videos made by certain media. Sky news Australia is a media that irritates the hell out of me. Some of the stuff on there I can comment on as I do have some knowledge on the topic but unfortunately I don’t know a lot about everything they talk about. I’d love to see you analyse some of the things they say on there like you do with your comments. Would be interesting to see your reaction on some of their own comments too!!
For the real news about Australia, check out the honest government ads. Great stuff !
@@reuireuiop0 knowing who owns Sky News, the government sources may actually be much more accurate and much less likely to use lies.
Hey Simon, a small note on hindcasting. This typically does not involve negative timesteps and running the climate model backwards in time, but rather using them with conventional forward integration, however starting from past (e.g. 1850) initial conditions and applying past boundary conditions.
As far as I know, the backwards integration you describe requires specialized tools such as backward Lagrangian stochastic models. These are not used to validate our climate models, but rather to trace to origin of air parcels to make statements for example about sources of emissions or weather systems.
Cheers, Jan
Bro he knows
Well they do that too. They are not stupid, ie the cliamte scientists. Of course they start in the past and work forward as well, I have seen that presented, I cant surce it sorry. I just took it as given,
Solid contribution Jan!
The first time I heard that "the models don't match reality" argument I had to stop, go away and look things up to make sure I hadn't just imagined everything I'd read. Just a completely baffling argument.
For anyone more interested in the economics and politics of climate change, here are some common myths which people who only look at the scientific side might think
1) We don’t know what to do about climate change/ we haven’t yet found a solution.
This is not true. The solution lies not in a mythical invention which goes against the law of conservation of energy. The solution comes from economics. If countries were to implement cap and trade systems or carbon taxes which both reduce incentives for CO2 production, then we would be better off under practically all scenarios as this would reduce climate change in a cost efficient way with a huge net benefit as we would save on future costly damages
2) Nothing has been done about climate change because most politicians don’t think climate change is real/can’t be bothered.
This may be true for a certain US president but the consensus on climate change in the political sphere is not much different to the rest of the world. The real reason why politicians have done nothing is a combination of short termism (the costs of climate change will affect us in 30/40 years but politicians only have 4/5 year terms) and the fact that the benefits of climate action are shared across other countries and so there is no incentive for one individual country to participate (Its like prisoners dilema). In fact, the countries which would benefit the most (poorer countries relying more on industry affected by climate like farming, fishing) have the least say on the matter.
3) All climate change reducing policy is good
Unfortunately this is not true. A study on early US climate policy found that the net effect on CO2 emissions of all subsidies was zero. There is no point spending a lot of money if the future savings from reduced climate change do not outweigh the cost of the money spent on cliamte reducing policy.
Overall, I agree with everything Simon said but I worry that the issue with climate change is no longer about getting people to believe in it but is now trying to figure out a way to convince as many countries as possible to work together on a climate agreement such as a carbon tax or global cap and trade system. At the moment, no politician has any reason to do that and this is the biggest challenge which climate activists (or anyone who doesn’t want huge amounts of money to be wasted on cleaning up the damage caused by climate change) will have to fight against. Hope this makes some sense :)
I feel point 3 is a little redundant. You are basically saying policy that doesn't work, doesn't work. That is true for policy on anything, and I doubt anyone is really confused if you tell them that a policy doesn't work just because the one in question is climate change based.
It is probably more of a struggle getting people to believe a policy made by a government is competent and capable of doing anything it claims (not always an unreasonable belief annoyingly), rather than convincing them the opposite is true.
wyterabitt Very good point. I might edit that to make it a bit clearer :)
@@AS-ds5zm You didn't say anything that wasn't true, you probably don't need to edit it really. Just giving my thoughts.
Also, if you edit the post you will lose the "hearted" status (I can't remember if that is what it's called).
"if countries were to implement cap and trade systems or carbon taxes which both reduce incentives for CO2 production, then we would be better off under practically all scenarios as this would reduce climate change in a cost efficient way..."
You say "cost efficient" almost like this is a fact now and there isn't a whole debate over it!
Al As Bill Nordhaus said, “the science is clear, the economics is clear”. It’s just for politicians to actually implement something. Also cap and trade and tax are basically just a different way of doing the same thing if that’s what you’re saying the debate is over.
8:00
This was really interesting. Have you thought about making a video of just good questions?
I don't care if they've been asked. I just would love a video filled with facts like this.
Great video! happy to have learned the flaw in the theory about Co2 saturation. In my quest to understand climate skeptics i've seen this argument a lot in video's and articles. It was the only argument that made me doubt a bit because this saturation effect was very well researched but on a macro scale it didn't seem to add up.
@@RalphEllis And your understanding is so confused it hard to say where to begin.
Two points:
1. It's not saturated yet. Pierrehumbert has numerous textbooks and articles that mention such in passing.
You can confirm by looking up the extinction coefficient of CO2 in the infrared and using Beer's law to calculate.
2. even if saturated, the heat still has to get out by either conduction or convection. More CO2 slows this process by impeding radiation at every sub-stage.
Every argument: "This is why I shouldn't have to change".
Simon Clark: I found him just thanks to Hbomberguy. I'm gonna be always thankful for just that, so i cant help but be a bit random with my comments and say: Check out
Hbomberguy as well as various Science-TH-camr like Sci Show and Sci Man Dan.
I’m a 3rd year environmental studies student about to finish a course on weather and climate, and I appreciate you taking the time to respond to these comments!
I will note a relatively small thing I caught: the troposphere AND the mesosphere generally see a decrease in temperature as altitude increases (not just the troposphere). That’s not getting into temperature inversions, which are temporary.
That transition into the sponsered section was perfect!
My only proof of climate change I needed was that when I was 5 it was snowing in winter, around half a meter but still. Now...it doesn't snow anymore... and my parents would tell me about the meters of snow it was here when they were little :(
Where do you live?
@@garyoleary7901 I ain't telling a random internet stranger that - just know it's not an English speaking country
These videos are fabulous - I love how you react to these comments. Thank you, Simon :)
Can’t wait for the next one! Dispelling doubts (and just outright false statements) about climate change always makes my day.
Excellent video. Best use of the comments I’ve seen on YT in dealing with explaining reality and actual science.
Your patience is remarkable. Still, I very much doubt that any of the smoothbrains behind those posts, actually care about your replies, let alone basic science.
You're right. Those people stop listening as soon as someone else starts talking.
Same mindset but different topic, I was watching The Atheist Experience once, and a caller said "what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true and correct?" The host spent 5 minutes explaining that he'd already answered in the chat, then restating how the burden of proof works. The caller just responded "what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true and correct?"
When people are so dogmatically certain of their position that anyone saying otherwise is basically just generating white noise, there's nothing you can do to convince them.
@@Pro_Butcher_Amateur_Human You can't ''prove'' atheism anymore than you can prove your religion.
@@legrandliseurtri7495 It's actually impossible to prove atheism - it's not the belief there isn't a God, it's the lack of belief in one, and you can't prove a negative.
Some religions you could prove as it's a positive assertion that something does exist, but no religion has ever managed it. And the God of Judeo-Christianity and Islam is often regarded by believers to exist outside of time and space, whatever that could even mean, so it's impossible to prove that specific God exists. There's no evidence of something outside of material existence.
Well, most atheism isn't the belief there isn't a god.
To be technical, agnostic atheism is the belief there isn't a god due to the lack od any evidence for one.
Gnostic atheism is the belief that there isn't a god and you can prove there isn't. This would be more like Dawkins or Hitchens.
Gnosticism and agnosticism are about what you know, theism and atheism are about what you believe.
So you also have agnostic theists who believe there is a god but don't think it can be proven.
"CO2 saturation", nearly total opaquenes of the atmosphere in far IR and the fact that CO2 molecules release the wast majority of absorbed IR radiation through collisions rather than re-emission deserve a separate video. Those facts are often skimmed over in simplistic descriptions of greenhouse effect and lead to people think they are being "hidden" by climatologist. It is harmful to dumb-down one's explanations too much.
Thanks.
I like the analogy to a fog bank - the water droplets don't actually absorb the light but rather scatter it so that at each contact half the light goes forward and half backward. Nonetheless, a dense fogbank or cloud makes it dark because the light gets scattered backward making it darker further from the source. However, when you look down on a cloud from an airplane it's bright white from the light that gets scattered backward from the sunlight above. In the case of CO2, the source of the infrared light is the warm earth. If we could see far infrared light the sky would look bright from the glow reflected down at the warm earth. There is a physics difference in that thermal radiation scattering is quantum mechanical radiation scattering while fog is refraction but that's quibbling and you get into a TLDR discussion.As the density of the air drops with height eventually the mean free path becomes long enough that reradiation dominates black body radiation - his phrase for the height when light leaks into space.
What CO2 is excited by low level infra red wavelengths not ' light' !! CO2 cannot warm surrounding air because they are not excited by the same frequency. Try putting more CO2 in a container and see if the temperature increases.. Stupid people making stupid videos on stuff they don't understand hide the truth and encourage disasterous policies being introduced. As the virus same as the climate alarmists.
@@rob-yt9di IR and light is the same thing - it's just that we happen not to see those wavelengths (unlike, say, bees). Excited CO2 molecules transfer their energy to surrounding air by collisions, "mechanically", but also radiate part of it back down to the ground.
How appropriate that you made your idiotic comment to a video devoted to idiotic comments like yours.
No light is the complete continuum of frequencies, IR is a small low energy part of that continuum. Infra red is not visible light.
@@bazoo513 well, not nice to call a commenter names but I suppose that goes with being incapable of understanding a critique that differs from your pseudo science cult Please explain how CO2 radiates heat back its source, the earth, I would be interested to understand how a hotter body can be heated by a cooler body....
charged energy
yes. just yes.
whatever this man is on, i want it.
What triggers me more than the laziness of these people to actually fact check things, is their lack of general knowledge?? Dude we learnt about climate and weather from 6th all the way to 10th grade.
On climate change video's, comments generally scare me more than the instruction given!
Our current problem is semantics, really.
Any scientist worth their salt will use a language of doubt and uncertainty, because they know that their findings might be subject to change, while someone who doesn't care about scientific credibility can say whatever they want in any way, to make people believe them.
When you don't understand anything scientific, some guy claiming he has all the answers in an understandable way, is very attractive.
You really can't combat that by repeating yourself with "scientific jargon".
So, what is your point?
We understand greenhouse warming by several mechanisms, and we know denialists to be wrong.
Simon keep it up! I've been watching your videos since I was in my second year of uni and now I'm on my first year of PhD! Academia is hard and people like you are essential to keep motivating us when we need it!
I don't know how you keep so calm, it's really impressive. My fingers just turn into a blur when when I see these kinds of cretinous arguments online. Keep fighting the good fight, brother!
Could you please do a video on "Planet of the Humans", the recent, controversial documentary? Everyone is really confused and we need an in-depth analysis by it.
I watched it recently here on youtube the commentary below the title is more that the fight against climate change is (in America?? ) according to him now hijacked by banks, capitalists, banks and even the Koch brothers. The fight is not effective because of this and only serves to deliver profits while meanwhile even destroying the environment and many naive greenies don't know or see this. (perhaps all true ) I certainly don't had the impression that he said that climate change isn't real or not man made. The movie contains errors though. It's not true at all that since you need fossil fuel energy to make solar panels or wind mills that they don't win back that energy rather soon. www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg24332461-400-what-is-the-carbon-payback-period-for-a-wind-turbine/
I live in a part of Canada that has harsh winters. I remember the first time there was a thawing in the middle of winter. There was a warm spell in the middle of February. Water was running down the street. I was a young adult and did not remember that happening before. We would have the rare day or two at a time that was spring-like but the warm weather didn't last long enough to melt the snow and was due to chinooks (a warm wind from areas of warmer climates). Now, we think we are having an unusually harsh winter if we don't have these warm spells. We also don't get nearly as much snow as we used to.
To those people who think a rise of a few degrees is insignificant, the difference of average global temperature between now and the last ice age is 4 degrees.
Thank you so much for doing these videos!
It's good that I'm learning new stuff and also get the satisfaction of seeing some mean (sort of, not thinking) people get slapped by actual facts. ✨
Thank you, Dr. Simon! You've done it again!
Yay another episode of "Simon slowly loses his mind"
More like "Simon makes clickbait content and his poorly educated comment section mock people who disagree with them and then conclude that they have made scientific argument".
@@brazeiar9672 You're getting the same response that people get who go on medical channels and say it's not appendicitis it's an imbalance of humours or a channel on space exploration and say they need to put the rocket bases near the corners of the earth to be closer to the celestial dome. Demanding that people give you respect for the imagination behind your ideas rather than the accuracy of them is only going to happen on a literature channel.
@@bcwbcw7649 Simon is hiding the last ten years of observations in that graph he used for arctic sea ice extent. He owes us an explanation of why he hid that data and he should show it in a subsequent video. It's a valid criticism so he should respond to it.
@@dtz1000 wow, what is this the sixth repeat of the same calumny? Go look yourself and stop claiming it shows what it does not. You are lying, ice extent continues to decrease.
@@brazeiar9672
Well laat time I checked a comment sanction was for scientific debate, unless people are discussing specific points. So your argument is also unreasonable
The climate models used to be incorrect and that is what has stuck in most peoples head.
All models can't predict the past, as all models don't predict the future. That's got to be telling you something.
My favourite quote of this video
“My friends, when you pass a Rocky snowball through an oven, the top and bottom melt first”
Good explanation of CO2 saturation. It's so rare to hear that explained correctly.
I found a few things I have noticed in my area that noticeably changed over my lifetime(im 33). In winter snowfall is considerably lower and the number of extreme cold days(below -40C) has dropped. In the summer the humidity is higher and as a result the nights are far warmer even though the severity and duration of heat waves(above 30C) is diminished.
Interesting!
I have recorded the number of days with ice cover on my local lake in the south-eastern Norway each winter since the mid-1980s. There are of course lots of variations from year to year (also known as weather), but the _linear trend_ over the entire period shows a decrease of 24 days, from 161 days in 1984-85 to 137 days in 2020-21.
Where I live all the fish have disappeared and we no longer get frozen puddles in winter
Probably in the top 5 for TH-cam ad segue of all time.
I don't normally go in for segues, but I just couldn't resist this one haha
@@SimonClark What was the answer, though? Do we have to go look it up ourselves?
Wait a second, this comment was posted 14 hours before the video had been published
@@justinasbenikasas2380 Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
Justinas Benikasas Patreon subscribers get access to the video a day early!
"Belching black holes"..... do... Do they even know what a black hole is? lmao. Literally nothing can escape a black hole, that's the point
The "belching" comes from the stuff not yet inside the black hole. Black holes (or rather their accretion discs) can be quite bright radiation sources :-)
I was uncertain at the "I am Alpharius" then I saw the weather forecast for Isstvan III
About climat models:
1.Forecasting is extremely difficult, hind casting is easy. I can predict history all day long, you simply adjust the numbers until they match the observations.
2. If climate models were dependable, we wouldn't need >100 models, one good model would be enough.
3. If you compare the climate models to the observations, like you do at 6:11, you will notice that most models are almost always far too warm. The only reason the black line (the observations) seems to be within the range of the models, is because the models are all over the chart. If you compare the observations to the individual models, all models are way off.
What's controversial? The facts are already in.
The arctic permafrost has been thawing like crazy.
The thing is Satan, The fact of Antarctic ice is increasing.😉
6:47 sounds like he was quoting Warhammer 40K fluff
comment on co2 saturation is a clear example of a student who only go through the textbook night before exam
Climate sceptics: Im gonna act like i didn't see that.
I'm interested in the hindcasting you mentioned. This isn't meant to be an argument in favour of scepticism, so much as an interest in the process.
So as an example in particle physics (my own specialism): a model is produced (e.g. that gives a cross-section of a certain decay mode) and the means of validating the model are agreed. At this point, data is collected and then processed (or previous data from a collider run that was stored in a "black box" away from the eyes of those developing the model is processed) to determine the fact-ness of the model. The usage of existing "known" data is only for informing us and producing intuitions with which we guide the development of new models, but not the validation of these.
Is hindcasting used in the same way as this example? I.e. just as a model tuning and intuition building tool, or if it is also used as a numerical validity metric, how is the effect of knowing historical trends and data in general accounted for? The reason I ask this is from my exposure to these models, they seem to have a lot of degrees of freedom for tuning, and I recently had a conversation with someone who came from this field about the changes in forecasting (to scarily hotter outcomes) with the introduction of dynamic cloud components over the previous baking of this information. Presumably all the models considered before and after this change had satisfactory hindcast accuracy.
Thank you! Any scientifically-based information, and really good explanations (which you are excellent at giving), help my mental health! Yay, science!!
This ain't science it's a base theory without facts. First prove the cause then you can progress.
@@rob-yt9di it's been proven, already, with many different tests, and in many different ways. My own garden can prove it, in fact! Over the past 40 years, planting times have changed, overall needs for water and shade have changed, harvest times have changed, and even the planting zone labels have changed (from zone 5, 40 years ago, to 6b, now, a pretty drastic change). This is all testable and demonstrably factual. Denying it doesn't make it go away. Period.
@@MaryAnnNytowl Since when ha the climate been stable? If you are looking for a static condition you will be sorely disappointed whatever the co2 level is because the climate is a chaotic system affected by a myriad of variances in air water oceans sun activity volcanoes tectonics milankovic cycles plus a host of other uncontrollable interactions. Look back in history and you will see that wines were grown in UK by Romans Greenland was ice free and occupied by Vikings ... Etc etc etc. The moon is getting closer to earth there is a possible magnetic pole switch in progress which effects the magnetosphere and amounts of high energy radiation interactions with the ionospdere. Never has the earth been stable for long.and with the added issue of concreting vast areas of once green pleasant lands for suburban living it will only get more unpredictable. It's nothing to do with CO2.
6:58 It's funny because Terran is a science fiction term for Earth, originating from... Star Trek.
Well technically it's just Latin.
@@baumdf9134 Not quite. 'Terra' is indeed a Latin term. But not one single Latin source uses the word 'Terran' as a descriptor. It's purely a Sci-Fi invention.
"Hello, my name is Alpharius" - ah yes, Hydra Dominatus to you, too!
The imperial fists called, they said they have your head on a spike inside a freezer and how did you manage to lead your chapter headless ***cough*** omegon ***cogh***
Oh boy, the worst thing in this video was Simon saying a commenter stated education was overfunded. That really drove me up the wall
I for one found this to be both educational and entertaining
Hi Simon, you are doing a GREAT JOB! You might have covered it but what if there's no meaningful reduction in C02 emissions by 2035, what is likely to happen? And could we face climate breakdown or runaway climate breakdown or positive feedback loops that takes climate management out of our hands? Also I was told that the southern hemisphere is going to hit the worse but now it seems that the northern hemisphere is going to hit hard too. Is that true? What is the scale in both cases? Thanks, keep up the good work.
Coming here much later in this videos life, I just want to pose a question to skeptics:
Why is it that the only acceptable answer to the question of climate change is the one that demands no changes on your part? Does it not seem overly convenient that the solution to all problems is “just don’t do anything, it’ll fix itself”?
What do YOU do to stop climate change? Nothing. So just stop being a smarmy "concerned" guy. Go enjoy life. The sky isn't falling, it's stupid religious people who believe that, right? That's what modern Science is, a religion for nerds ran by corporations to make money, duh.
@@GordonCaledonia I don't think you got the point.
@@logitech4873 Where's the evidence that we are doomed, that the Earth is doomed? There is none. It's a scam, like everything else that's designed to scare us. Are you genuinely worried, scared? No, you're not. Case closed.
Please talk about Holocene climate optimum, a lot of people use Holocene climate change as base of their conclusions.
Bonus points for Malenkovič cycles
Sometimes it's spelled Milankovitch for some reason
@@muhilan8540 Autocorrect
7:20
I was completely on board with this comment. But then he measured astronomical temperatures in Fahrenheit. Scepticism overload.
I came by myself with this more than 100% if the earth would go cooler without us and said it in a lot of comments these last weeks to the new climato sceptics that now say that humans are just contributing to climate change. I did a bit like you, that we are around 100% responsable, maybe less but also maybe more.. than 100% and explained it.
6:48 Climate change deniers will literally write intergalactic fiction just to avoid admiting that fossil fuels are our death
Who denies that climate changes occur over time? It's a historical fact.
@@gam1471 there are 2 ways this goes down.
1- he meant human caused climate change and you take things too literally.
2- he is really stupid and thinks people deny that the ice age happened and you take thing too literally.
3- we travel to sugondese'
@@gam1471 You know very well what I meant
the CO2 levels were so low before people started using fossil fuels that it was 30ppm before the death of plants.
If you think that you can use Elon Musk name in thumbnail to get more views,
you are right.
If Elon Musk would get a quarter every time his name or likeness is (ab)used to generate clicks, he would be a rich man.
Oh wait...
I'm actually wonder what makes people skeptical about climate change when you can clearly observe the impact already. Are you skeptical just because or you've done some research about it?
Political affiliation most of the time.
People think that if they deny the problem loudly enough, they won't have to put forth the effort to fix it. Besides, most people don't give a flying fuck about the long term survival of our species, especially if it inconveniences them.
@@genericyoutubecommenter589 I think your stretching the truth a little in your comment. I don't think humans will be going extinct any time soon. Even if emissions aren't curbed and we see the very worst effects of climate change like idk 20 meter sea level rise and 5°c of warming, etc. Yes many species would go extinct and many people would die in this scenario, but people are ingenious they are adaptable especially with the technology we have today, we can build sea walls, we can regulate our environment, even in the vacuum of space just look at the iss . It's quite likely if emissions aren't curbed we will spray sulfites into the upper atmosphere to try reduce heating instead of giving up and accepting out fate. Just so we're on the same page I'm not at all advocating we not solve climate change in the present on the contrary I'm all for net zero. It just comments like your that make over exaggerated claims that gets on my nerves because it only validates climate skeptics/lukewarmers who argue climate alarmism exists in turn causing people to side with people such as Lomburg or shellenberger. Further stalling any real action.
How do people not understand the difference between climate and weather? I learned this information in Grade School!
Your work is so important. Thanks for educating about climate change.
And what it is...
Imagine if other professions were talked down to the way people talk down to climate scientists.
"Oh, you're a plumber? I bet you've never even heard of water pressure."
"Oh, you're a pilot? Have you ever actually landed a plane?"
"Oh, you're a dentist? I can just pull my own teeth for free."
Well, when they stand up and say the debate is over, they sort of bring it on themselves. That is very arrogant.
@@yaimavol It's only a political debate at this point. The scientific debate really is over and there's nothing arrogant about plainly acknowledging reality.
There are political hacks who deny evolution too. Should scientists pretend that there's some sort of serious ongoing debate about evolution in order to appease the denialists? No.
Climate has high priests and believers, it is a religion, anyone who dares raise an opposing point is an evil blasphemer to be damned, a non-believer, an apostate.
Climate alarmists spend more time blasting heretics and enjoy it far more than discussing actual science. Ad hominem is their area of expertise.
Observe. Here's a doctor saying the other doctors are wrong. Watch them attack, not what he says (except to say it's bad, omg very bad, not orange but still bad), instead the man himself: edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/you-are-not-causing-global-warming/
Weather and Climate aren’t the same thing?! What’s next, you’re gonna tell me if it’s raining in the forest it’s not a rainforest!? (Sarcasm)
Lol
CO2 emitted by all the volcanoes in the world: 200 million tons per year (US Geological Survey). By human technology: 40 billion tons per year (US Dept. of Commerce Energy Information Adminstration). Divide A by B. Discuss.
For the lazy among us, that is human activities cause 200 times (200,000%) more CO2 emissions than volcanoes.
@@TheCzarsoham 200 times is 20 000% ... 1 time is 100%, not 1 000%. A bit less laziness next time you try to educate others, please.
....yeah.... so.... the 40bil rides ATOP the UNSTOPPABLE 200bil.... AND while shutting off the Utilities may NOT stop the fire that is Burning Down YOUR House.... (on the ONE hand).... On the other.... it MIGHT.... and IF by so doing you can simultaneously INCREASE both your income AND standard of living.... maybe it's Time to make some changes....
@@nealtauss1715 200 MILLION. Not 200 BILLION. Read carefully.
Over the last 40 years I personally have seen the steady change in the amount of lying snow in the Scottish highlands and mountains. Predictable late spring snow (first weekend in May for Nordic skiing in the 'snow' corrie) and a Mid-summer ski tour (Ben Macdui) was a regular occurrence in the 1980s. Now that's all long gone, and full cover skiing is rather rare and over a much narrow couple of months.
We love you Professor Dr. Mr. Clark.
I hope to be going to University to do an environmental science BSc in September and your videos have helped keep me inspired to keep working through the ups and downs of the last year. Thank you.
Hey Simon, love your content, just a question from someone who has literally no idea where to find climate data (?). So you said that the predictions for the arctic ice were understating its loss in predictions, how/does that correlate with the growth in Antarctica? Are they following the scientific predictions? Just curious and unsure of how to find this information out for myself. Also, this might be harder to explain, but why are they growing (pretty sure I heard on youtube they are growing as a net, not just in specific areas), should they not also be losing ice? If anyone else could explain this I would be deeply grateful. For context, I am a staunch believer in climate change just slightly confused by this one point, I think the climate skeptics bring it up a lot(?).
I beleive that when they say some areas are growing they mean the seasonal ice that freezes and melts on cycle. The permanent ice is shrinking and that plays a huge role in rising sea levels.
@@chriskshaw7601 So the reason the "net gain" isn't publicized is because while it is true that the Antarctic has a net gain of ice, the entire world has a net loss of ice. This is because Greenland is losing much more ice much quicker than expected. If you'll go back to which ever source you heard about the net gain in Antarctica, you'll likely notice they conviently leave out Greenland. Hope this clears something up
It is completely true that overall, the Antarctic is gaining ice, however Greenland is losing lots of ice very quickly which greatly offsets the ice gained in the freezing if the Antarctic making the world have a net loss of ice
skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Wow, I'm pretty blown away by this response, thank you so much, the explanation seems very detailed and I think hopefully it will give me a good insight into the topic. Just again, thank you, I'm really interested in sustainability and I'm actually hoping to do environmental science in Uni hopefully this helps. I'll check it out now. :)
The CO2 saturation was something interesting I learnt today. Thank you Simon!
At 10:00 you're talking about how an increase in height lowers the temperature of the outer layer making less heat escape to space. But how does this relate to the increase in surface area increasing the radiation into space?
After all, surface area of a sphere increases by the square of the radius.
the difference in surface area is small as the radius of Earth (6,371 km) is way bigger than the "height" (~90 km) of the atmosphere. The troposphere specifically is up to 20 km high. So as the radius of the radiating sphere is increased at most by just around a third of a percent, the surface area is just increased by two thirds of a percent. Comparing this to the change in radiation, which changes by temperature to the power of 4. So a temperature difference between 255 and 250 (2%) becomes a radiation difference of 8%.
Very well done. Great information and most useful.
I love the galaxy mind background slideshow as you play back the hateful nonsense comment. Truly a work of art.
I just stumbled upon this guy and I've really loved the videos so far. An actual climate scientist who doesn't use overly academic jargon to isolate those less educated on the subject is very helpful and well needed.
I think that downvotes and hate watching still count for the algorithm. I must say you are remaining quite reasonable in the face of all this hate-watching.
This is quite possibly Simon's (sorry, Dr Clark's) most savage video. Thanks Simon for doing your best to get the truth of the matter out there, we can't force people to accept it, the best we can do is try to convince them.
I just need to say I really liked the weary little "for some reason" chipped in. Felt that moment really summarised, so many "controversial" issues
Climate vs weather for dummies:
Just because you saw someone win the million dollar jackpot on slots, it DOESN’T NECESSARILY MEAN that the casino is going broke! In fact, it usually means the opposite.
I understand very little of this... my approach to life is just "yeah it's bad, but it's not *that* bad" like not as bad as the crazy people on the street are crying about, but probably a lot worse than the climate deniers. I kinda try to take this approach with everything. Is this a fair approach to take with climate change?
It is. I like it actually, because it is a positive way. If you like reading get the book "Factfulness". It is a, somehow, different view of the world we live in. You'll be surprised how right you are. :)
No. If scientists say 1 and random ppl say 0, u can't say 0,5 is better. It's better to try to understand, but if u can't, dude scientists have invested more time studying it. Random ppl has invested 0 time thinking, they just talk. No brain, no gain.
if 6:47 isnt already a copy pasta it has to become one
Simon I highly suspect that deep inside your flawed brain you realise just how full of shit you are. We, the discerning minds of this planet,, now know without equivocation that ALL of the planets within the terran system have the shit beaten out of them.. This is sue to the Suns solar minimum opening the door to galactic radiation as well as waves of energy from belching black holes. The region of space we are now in,, contains areas of highly charged energy and in some instances radiates temperatures of over 10,000 degrees F.. My Friends, when you pass a rocky snowball through an oven, the top and bottom melt first.
As close as I could get it. Couldn't find the comment so I transcribed it, so it's only the parts that simon showed in the video
And of course they use fahrenheit.
@@LeDoctorBones Freedom units
@@abijo5052 MVP
This video NEEDS to get spread and shared! Your tone and approach to the comments is perfect, it isn't patronizing and shows where the breakdown in logic occurs and provides an alternate path that is reinforced by research.
Great job thank you so much. Comment for algorythm 😉
Oh please, we all knew that the comment at around 10:30 was not a TH-cam comment. It was suspiciously coherent.