Keep the fruit puns coming! If you'd like to support the channel, then one of the most fruitful ways of doing this is on patreon: www.patreon.com/dr_gilbz. My subscribers help me make more, better content... like this.
I have received more replies from my comments on your channel than any channel in 3yrs. Don’t know what it says but just letting you know? I commented on no worms, fly larvae, and crops stop growing after 1-2 nights warmer than days 2yrs in a row. Only early Feb and already feels like April. 🤞 for new year.
On the other hand, Banana Republics aren't circumscribed geographically. Btw, the carbon /toxicity boot print of the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex anybody?
Actually I was waiting until the end of the video to hear this from her and waive the bananas from her basket. I'm quite disappointed she did not do so. ;-)
A Swedish professor, Svante Arrhenius, has evolved a new theory of the extinction of the human race. He holds that the combustion of coal by civilized man is gradually warming the atmosphere so that in the course of a few cycles of 10 000 years the earth will be baked in a temperature close to the boiling point. He bases his theory on the accumulation of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, which acts as a glass in concentrating and refracting the heat of the sun. The Selma Morning Time, 10/15/1902.
Ed Hawkins of Reading University said the same thing in his research paper published the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS) "Estimating Changes in Global Temperature since the Preindustrial Period". This lady is another IPCC, fossil fuel-recuperationist, lummox; that allows the fossil fuel industry to define terms for her.
I've seen quite a few articles and graphs comparing current temps to those of 1950-1970s or even 1990-2010. As we get hotter and surpass the Paris limits, government officials and corpos will keep shifting those goalposts. It seems like a fair baseline for pre-Industrial would be about 1700-1800 or even 1700-1850, since that would give us a good number of years to average and would be around the time the Industrial Revolution started (mid-1700s).
As far as I've known, pre-industrial always meant before 1800. James Watt didn't even invent the steam engine until 1784. So I would add an S to your post. "Pre industrial was the 1700s"
@@macmcleod1188 It is a highly debated subject though the span is between 1760 to 1840 for the industrial revolution boom. And yes that is the time it took for the industry to peak as a coal and steam industry.
Quick side note.... all the "methods" prescribed in the IPCC reports to keep us under 1.5C assume some type of massive carbon capture is put in place. To date this technology is not scalable to the sizes needed to be effective. This means that 1.5C targets are meaningless. To make things more rosey.... now the latest complex climate and oceanic models are showing the collapse of the AMOC will most likely occur. We are now at the lowest flow rate of the AMOC in 1000 years. We know from core samples that the AMOC has collapsed before when too much fresh water (from melting in the ice ages) was introduced in to the northern Atlantic....as is now from melting Greenland and Islandic glaciers. The only question is how soon will it collapse. Some low estimates indicate it could be as soon as in 2025!! When the AMOC stops the UK and northern EU states will start to freeze. Over the subsequent hundred years they estimate the avg temp in places like Finland and Norway could drop by 30 degrees C !!! That is almost unlivable except underground. At the equator the temps will go up additionally (though not reciprocally as much) due to the AMOC shutdown. The heat will be unlivable there. What happens to humanity when you have the equatorial peoples moving North enmasse and the northern EU people moving South enmasse???? The dirty secret about what is coming is mass starvation... even in first world countries. The weather will become so erratic everywhere that there will be massive worldwide crop losses over and over again. The mass migrations of people's will start border wars and this will interrupt food production further. It will not be pretty. To secure food production, massive indoor farms and hydroponics, along with precision fermentation, will have to be implemented.
Unfortunately massive indoor farms require a lot of energy and materials which will simply not be available in the future. We are headed towards a low energy future, not one with artificial heating and humidity.
Honestly the worst social aspect of the AMOC collapsing will be all the climate change deniers in my family thinking they “won”, that they were right, and that global warming was a hoax. I’m not looking forward to that on TOP of a northern hemisphere ice age.
@@EmmaSolomano Actually it might not be low energy... based on Tony Seba's and ReThinkX's work. Tony and ReThinkX are calculating that if we go solar/wind with storage for our power needs that, because of the sizing requirements needed for Winter months, that most of the year it will output more energy than we need. He refers to this as "SuperPower" and predicts utilities will be almost giving power away for free. In fact the State of South Australia, that has achieved large solar installs at a grid and home install level, has already had this happen. They have had instances already during mid summer where they were producing too much power and didn't have enough battery storage to take that added power. Prices went to zero/KW and they asked people to disconnect their individual home solar from putting power into the grid. In subsequent years they will be encouraging people to use power during the middle of summer days at almost zero cost. Things like running dishes, taking hot showers/baths, running laundry. Turning their AC down colder. So maybe we actually will be having a higher energy future?? Check out Tony at ReThinkX... there are a lot of TH-cams out there by them also about various topics and their research findings are available for free download on their website.
There is 0.04% co2 in the atmosphere. At 0.02% plants will die because of too little co2. In greenhouses they pump in extra co2 because plants thrives better when the level is 0.06-0.1% and the yields becomes bigger. There is not enough co2 in the air. There is no evidence of co2 or methane being able to heat anything, and historical the levels have been much higher. There is no correlation historical between warming and increase of co2. Because of the "extra" co2, going from 0.03% to 0.04% the planet has become more green by the size of australia according to nasa.
Every one of these claims, reports and "papers" are using bad data, generated data, and manipulated data. These papers have been debunked a million times, so why should it be true this time? 1930s was hotter by a huge margin. You can look at number of days above 95f/35c and see for yourself. Here I live we have a colder year, record low temperatures and more snow than normal. In the 80s we learned in school that the planet only had 10y left, and all of these claims have never come true once. Not one prediction have come true. You can look up this yourself.
There are a significant proportion of people with the following attitudes: 1) If it's not happening to me it doesn't matter. 2) If it's happening to me it's someone else's fault. 3) My interests are the most important. 4) Intentional collective action that disrupts the status quo is always dangerous. 5) I have the right to own parts of the planet and do whatever I choose with those parts. 6) Because I own part of the planet I am therefore wisest to decide it's use. 7) Human beings are the most important species on the planet. There's more that one could add but these attitudes given the power of democratic choice drive the problem and actively prevent meaningful progress.
I would argue that this attitude is only prevalent in about 20% of the world's population. 80% is focused only on their own day-to-day survival, not in a selfish way but because they are literally on the brink. When I was still living in the Netherlands, my income placed me in the 85th percentile of the world's highest incomes, and I was still struggling so much that I had to sell my home and move to a much cheaper country. I would say that the richest 20% of the world feel like you describe, with the highest 5% actively exacerbating climate change because it increases the amount of wealth they own. It's a significant proportion because these people hold the most power, but it's not everyone by a long margin.
Thank you, just copied your list, to use efor my own argumentation. Hope that is ok. Would ad some crazy arguments like CO2 is plant food, it's all the sun, it's all the water vapor, climate always changes ...
Sigh, we screwed up decades ago honey. We knew back in the 1970s and 80s how bad thing will be and we did absolutely nothing whatsoever to address our actions. Instead we collectively put our foot firmly on the gas pedal. We are now flying off the edge of the cliff to our doom on the rocks below, and still many people don't even realise they are in the car.
I agree. I'm consistently astonished by the number of individuals deeply concerned about climate change, yet so few have transitioned to a plant-based diet, let alone embraced veganism. It's a form of denial on another level. Understanding people's rationalizations and hesitations regarding these dietary shifts leads me to believe that we may never achieve significant progress in mitigating climate change. Just saying.
@@rssemmens1 Going vegan is just one thing. People I know and work with and talk with do as much as they possibly can to damage our environment, from having multiple kids, dogs, cats, more than one car, multiple flights abroad per year, and so much more. Yet they don't even know it. It is exactly all of this behaviour combined, with the sheer staggering number of people on this planet all doing this stuff. We are collectively killing the biosphere with our luxurious indulgent lifestyles and 99.99999% of people don't even understand they are each making a difference. When I ask them about their knowledge of climate change I'd say more than half don't show any idea at all, 5% are awake like we are. The rest are a mix of "I recycle! I'm doing my bit! I can't wait to fly out to to Turkey next week for holidays with the kids." and "Climate change is a hoax" I have zero doubt in my mind we are going extinct. This issue will never be tackled. Never be solved. Because humans don't give a hoot.
I found the data chart at 1:20 rather surprising, showing that the sea surface temperature anomaly for the part of the globe nearer the equator as being 0.5 degrees higher in just about 8.5 years. Eyeballing the gap between later '23 and early '24 with the midpoint of 2015-16, it looks like it has taken just about 8 years for temperatures to jump by a third of the 1.5 degrees that people are talking about. It may be the natural periodic anomaly from El Nino accounts for a big chunk of that, and the anomaly will go down in two or three years to 1.2 or 1.3 degrees; but then El Nino will come back, and we are in for future transient anomalies at the same astonishing scale. This warmer ocean surface is not good for the basal melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, as you reported in an earlier video. I guess it is time to find courage for concerted action, rather than clinging to tenuous hopes that alternate with depression and grief.
What action? Do you think vegans will save the planet while the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex, most criminal ruthless industry is doing record sales? As early as 1902, Svante Arrhenius published a paper about greenhouse effect but greed prevails.
I enjoy listening to and reading climate scientist James Hansen formerly head of NASA. He recently said that the 1.5 degree benchmark is essentially dead as we have passed through it. He has hypothesized that one reason we have been seeing an acceleration in aggregate surface temperatures is due to the reduction of aerosol emissions from global shipping (due to recent regulations) and some reduction in Chinese emissions of these aerosols. The question that has yet to be answered is how much impact in terms of cooling do these emissions account for. If you listen to the paleo climate scientist Andrew Glikson he has asserted that we have already passed the 2 c degree mark if you account for the cooling impact of the aerosols. I believe that Dr. Gilbz represents the more settled science point of view (thanks for your videos!).
Finally, Somebody quoting Glickson who is the real deal and I too believe he is correct, people thought Mcpherson was crazy but now he seems to be pretty right on maybe even a bit conservative.
Pre-industrial was initially set in 1700-1750, so the spong data falls within that time periord. It was later that they moved the goal post to 1850. Who moved the goal posts, the ipcc. The ipcc is infested with oil interests and has been watering down findings for years. The last meeting held in an oil producing country underscored this.
Great video. What's also worth mentioning are two papers in the last couple of years by Tim Palmer and James Hansen respectively concerning the climate sensitivity number: the number that predicts the global average temperature rise following a doubling of CO2 since pre-industrial times. It would seem that previous modelling used by the IPCC has significantly understated this number, and current data supports the new model estimating the number to be 4.8°C +/- 1.24°C. This gives a worst case scenario of a 6.04 °C increase in average global temperatures following a doubling of CO2. It's now around 420 ppm compared to the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, and currently climbing about 2.5 ppm every year - still accelerating incrementally. You don't have to be good at maths to understand how perilous our current situation is.
As early as 1902, physicist and chemist Svante Arrhenius published an article warning about greenhouse effect due to burning coal, but ....... GREED prevails as always. Btw, the carbon /toxicity boot print of the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex anybody?
@@edgein8632 It wasn't much warmer globally during the Medieval Warm Period. That was only a regional warming in Europe. We are running hotter now globally than at any point in the history of civilization. This climate is one that hasn't existed for over 100,000 years.
Imagine that. They raise the sensitivity number and their models show more warming. Regardless if they are correct or not, it gives the appearance of rigging the results. That doesn’t help the argument. Also, in order to achieve the raise, CO2 has to double again to 840ppm, then 1680ppm. There are no realistic solutions offered by those panicking over the models’ results. If one really cares about this issue, then please offer realistic solutions.
There's a video of Rosa Salazar and director Robert Rodriguez in an interview show, doing just that, as Rosa did while playing in "Alita, Battle Angel" in 2019.
We had one city in northern Michigan who broke their temperature record by thirteen degrees while a lot of others obviously shattered records also. I think the discussion of tipping points is mute,it's time to hope for the best and plan for the worst. We need a plan B!
The averages are not even the main issue, just the easiest part to point at. It's the extreme outliers (that are becoming more and more frequent) that will be the end of us. As far as I can tell, most current climate models does not say much about the extremes and their impact on humanity.
more recent / sophisticated models (esp regional models, not v coarse global ones) are much better at capturing extremes. In fact, this is one of my main areas of research at the moment..!
@@DrGilbz Great to hear! Hopefully the mainstream discussions will move towards extremes, feedback mechanisms and immediate action, before it is too late. Thank you for your effort :)
What happens when a body gets a virus? It runs a fever (global warming) to stimulate the immune system (extreme weather, sea level rise, crop failute) to eradicate the virus (humans).
I am 66. I have been concerned about airborne contamination my whole life. All I have ever witnessed from governments and industry is how to kick the can further down the road.
Your powers of deduction are flawed. Even the climate cult embraces the idea that clearer skies (as a result of legislation) may have increased radiation to the surface. Keep up.
I'm consistently astonished by the number of individuals deeply concerned about climate change, yet so few have transitioned to a plant-based diet, let alone embraced veganism. It's a form of denial on another level. Understanding people's rationalizations and hesitations regarding these dietary shifts leads me to believe that we may never achieve significant progress in mitigating climate change. Just saying.
it was predictable that it would not be possible to keep the heat under control. Humanity cannot stop its activities completely, as required by climate change.
The more we delay action on climate change: the more urgent action becomes. The reason is that our "carbon budget" (to hold the line a 1.5C or 1/3 of an XKCD ice age unit) remains fixed. When the Kyoto protocol was signed in 1997: we had about 50 years to phase out fossil fuels (2050 deadline). After 25 years of inaction: we have about 7 years to phase out fossil fuels (2030 deadline) If Conservatives get elected: we will have 4 more years of inaction, and negative 1 years to phase out fossil fuels (2027 deadline, plus minus a few years).j
It doesn't matter who gets elected because.... "politics is the entertainment division of the military industrial complex ~ Frank Zappa. While we're pointing fingers in all directions, the elephant in the room (MIC) is doing record sales. But that's fine, batman, superman and the vegans will save the planet. Yeah!!!
I'll tell you what, you get the guy in Africa to stop burning dung to heat his home, the Japanese guy to stop pouring radioactive waste into the ocean, the guy in China to stop burning garbage and bulldozing it into the sea, the guy in India with the textile ink pouring into the creeks, and the American guy with all the planes and bombs to stop using them and I will think about using paper straws. Until then none of this will ever work no matter how much you raise taxes or glue yourself to the road.
Goal 1.5 (we remember - the G7 wanted 2.0 in Paris!!) was not set arbitrarily. This is an assessment of what ecosystems can withstand in terms of warming. From the perspective of 1750, we have just passed that. 1750 is a useful point of comparison - the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. WHY 1850-1900 as baseline...?
well, this is a very valid question - but unfortunately the target has been set with the baseline it has been set with, so that's what we have to work with. It was mostly for practical reasons (we have relatively poor measurements of temperature from pre-1850).
Why not start in the middle of the Younger Dryas? 1750 was nowhere near the global Industrial Revolution, during 1750-1800 it was mainly in Britain, negligible coal use, but it was the start of the end of the Little Ice Age. These acrobatics make more cynics. Completely counterproductive.
"1750 was nowhere near the global Industrial Revolution" This is exactly the point we are looking for: Right before the start. Thank you Mr Superproductive :) @@vih-qq9pm
I always found the discussion about 'shifting the baseline' a bit petty. It's about 0.2 - 0.3K "W"T"F" So What? And of course there comes a point where the 1,750 fans can say we are beyond. This My comment simply says that when we calculate the risk x times the complexity of jump here -> :) an entire system made up of highly complex systems such as climate & weather & biology, social affairs, politics, geopolitics, economics, science,.... go on :)-> ....we have planned for a *zero_point_three safety margin* Politicians decided that. (...science has provided the Monte Carlo simulation...) *The error bar around "1.5 is safe" is GIANT* This is [Physics x Biology under X_tons of pressure] Thresholds of any subsystem largely unknown If family people even begin to suspect what that could possibly mean.... Try to quantify the risk of even this simple reaction... We can't stop it with 'encouragement'.@@DrGilbz
All I know is we just went through the warmest December and January on record here in Toronto. Feb 9th hit a record high +16C. We gotta do something, and fast! Great video!
Toronto is not the center of the earth also if northern europe is really cold then it's always warmer than average over eastern canada, it was much hotter in 2010 over canada when europe had it's coldest winter since the 80's.
@Cyberpunk_Radio_PBS it's hard to know which way to go. One minute I'm against it and the next I'm thinking I should be producing humans to try to help the cause.
@@abody499 I have two grand son but the fact that I have not taken a plane in 35 years, ride my bicycle daily, buy second hand.... (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Repair....) has 0 impact considering the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex is doing record sales each year.
Excellent science communication; alas, I can't share the optimism. If I sit in a deep pit, realizing that a ladder could get me out is essential. However, I'm still stuck without the material and skill to build one. First, even if we stopped all greenhouse-relevant emissions today, the system's inertia will push us past 1.5 ° C. CO2 levels will stay high for quite some time because of the lowered efficacy of the natural carbon cycle. Further, processes causing increased natural CO2 emission have been triggered, such as thawing permafrost. I'm sure you know all about that. For me, realizing the magnitude of the involved energy was sobering. Second, I'm afraid raising awareness will not help. The issue is not an information problem like knowing when to take an umbrella because it will rain. We don't know how to act cooperatively on a planetary scale. CO2 emissions are highly correlated with consumption. Currently, consuming less is the only effective way to reduce CO2 levels. However, I do not see that those who already agree with the need for action deliver what they can contribute: consuming less. Some do, but most do not. I'm afraid I don't know a solution either. As a personal preference, I'd just rather be realistic about it.
Sadly that's my impression as well. Even young people seem to be quite ignorant about it, making multiple holiday trips a year across the globe, as if the problem of anthropogenic climate change did not exist. And then there's the aunts and uncles and grandmas that want all the best for the family offspring, shower them with presents, but don't acknowledge that they need to protect their future as well. Climate protection seems to be a topic most people don't want to be bothered with. There's so much hedonistic consumerism, and so little sense of responsibility.
We need to do more: we need to not only stop putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, but also to take out some of the excess we've already put in. The current CO2 level is not harmless. Even if it were, we can't instantaneously stop all emissions. We need large net negative emissions, not just net zero. The cheapest way to get to an acceptable state of the atmosphere includes a high priority on reducing emissions, and doing it much faster than we're going to. But just reducing emissions means making it worse more slowly. No problem was ever solved by making it worse, at any speed.
@@ExistenceUniversity normal cold due to the winter season isn't the issue but extreme cold is a symptom of climate change as well. As the temperature gradient shrinks, the polar vortex becomes unstable and we have large polar flows of air into the temperate regions. While the polls are warmer than they used to be, this cold is enough to destroy power generation systems, plumbing, and kill people. It has happened in the past but it's happening more often now. The average temperatures of seasons are increasing and the number of extreme polar blasts is increasing. Rather than attempting to continue normal life during a polar blast, people should just hunker down and they should learn to turn off their plumbing and plumbing should be hardened for the fact that you may see below zero temperatures in new areas and Below -30 temperatures in areas that have only seen minus 20 in the past.
Thanks Dr.! We are in profound ecological overshoot and the collective mindset, sometimes called paradigm, is unable to process anything except the business as usual way of making civilization work. This paradigm is more insidious than a myth because it has had a measurable improvement on the human enterprise and comfort level. It is time for a mindset shift, and we will do it by cooperation or brutal negative feedback. It seems as if we have the intelligence to control it, but that may not be the reality.
What I mean is the climate is already in runaway. The scary data from Antarctica means we have already passed the point of no return. I am not a climate scientist but I read fear in climate scientists eyes and that makes me scared. Problem is climate change is not linear it is exponential. What comes next is multiples of what we experience now. It is an exciting time to be alive. Rooted = fucked = damned. Sometimes a tree dies but sometimes the whole forest goes. Its as it should be. It is an incredible time to be alive.@@alanhat5252
This is the one place we should have been using Fahrenheit to communicate the magnitude of the issue properly. We should also be using the 1750 baseline. It’s not a conspiracy but it is a choice to use the 1900 baseline. And that choice ignores at least .25 degrees C of warming, and based upon this study it looks like more. Using the 1750 baseline means we have ALREADY increased global temperatures by 3.06 degrees over pre-industrial levels. This is what we should be communicating instead of “hey, don’t worry, we’re still under 1.5 degrees of warming.” At least for a few months.
Thanks for being here. It's so hard to find people who care about climate change on TH-cam. I feel like we've reached the "slow motion train wreck" stage where it's too late to stop the melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice and all we can do is watch in horror while the deniers keep denying and most other people just keep acting like everything is normal.
Three things 1. The Paris Agreement is a completely arbitrary baseline based on the availability of data 2. It’s an El Niño years - when temps are blow 1% (va 1.26) what the climate change deniers come out in force 3. Nature may be starting its own efforts to cool down the planet as me may be moving into a more active volcanic period (last 100 years have been very quiet) Do we know how much sulphuric is needed? Do climate models estimate the historical impact of volcanic activity on cloud behavior accurately ?
I don't know about where everyone live but where I live there are not many trees left. When I was a kid (1870s) living in the same area there were lots and lots of trees and you would have to travel to go shopping. Fastforward to now and there are very few trees compared to the 70s and tons of abandoned or near abandoned shopping centers. So much so peoples homes are flooded even during mild rains because the sewer system can't handle the amount of water. (More parking lots means more water that used to go in the ground must now be handled by the sewer system. They are still building more. If the rest of the country is doing the same thing, I can see why there is too much co2 in the air.
I think there's not really an 'ideal temperature'. The temperature itself is not the biggest problem. The speed of change is the problem, as most plants and animals (incl humans) cannot adapt this ridiculously fast.
@@eyesofthecervino3366 estimated? 'insanely,' hardly a scientific or even a comparitive term is it? How about some real data? Then, of course, the cause of the change is not known, rather it is surmised, much based on computer modelling. What is insane is the vast amounts of money being squandered to try and alter that which may be natural anyway. Man's arrogance and belief in what it is capable of doing is beyond belief.
True but, it's also true that the choice of the 1850-1900 baseline already factored in a bit of anthropogenic climate warming and does not represent a truly pre-industrial baseline.
Going into spring beware nights warmer than days. The less difference between day/night temps the less vegetables crops will grow. If nights warmer than days then vegetable crops will stop completely. Happened last 2 of 3 yrs in Rome, GA. Talk to research horticulturists
Great video, thank you, Dr Gilbz, you explain things very well. The majority of people are still not awake to the urgency of this Climate Crisis, and the current swings to political popularism haven’t helped at all, because popularism is largely based on refusing to deal with realities, and instead, pandering to people’s selfish desires - but this is, in the long run, a stupid, destructive ideology, and in the end, reality comes back to bite really hard! Perhaps, this Climate Crisis is the best example of this, where ignoring it, just means that humanity pays an increasingly heavy price for sticking its collective heads in the sand! Let’s hope that all this changes very soon, and people become far more aware. I certainly think that education for youngsters should focus on the sciences, and I think your own videos would be a brilliant aid for youngsters studying climate science in a school environment.
Thank you to keep the good humour! But it's important to highlight that as long US & Western governments heavily susidise the oil, gas & coal industry, the 1.5 ° threshold will remain a pipe dream. Bluntly put, in Australia, it's the Higher Education debts paid by former Uni students which subsidise the Oil & Gas export companies.
We're headed towards desert planet of +4°C, mass starvation and sooner, mass economic upheaval and collapse. The military of various nations including the biggest in the US is the worst polouter, and untouched by any limiting accords, and we're still ramping up our dependency on fossil fuels.
Thanks Doc. Don't worry, we'll just make the requirement for 1.5 average over a ten year span! Job done.... You are still the most incorrigible optimist, i'll give you that...!
I felt this too in NC. Only 2 nights where it was 19 F. Otherwise it's been like spring. I'm wondering if my orchard has enough chill hours to produce fruits in the upcoming seasons...
Looking at the sea surface temperature anomaly data, I suspect what we now have is a whole new paradigm of warming, where a hitherto unseen pace of warming is witnessed. Too early to tell for sure, but I'd bet my house on it. El Ninho alone cannot explain what we saw last year and what we're seeing thus far this year. Scary stuff.
🎉 Guys it's a race a human race we are almost at the finish all we have to do is keep doing what we are doing mass extinction is something to be proud of. I believe the dinosaurs cheated with a astroid and how we are getting it done will really impress god. Woo
Unless we can experience Existential Dread, it's all over. We need all the fear and dread we can Instill in ourselves, our governments, voters, corporations, voters......
If global temperatures are .5 degrees centigrade higher in 10 years from now, the worst climate models are correct and Earth will be 4 to 6 degrees warmer by 2100. It’s likely half the Greenland ice sheet and most of the West Antarctica ice sheet will be melting in 100 years.
The good news is that the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex is making record sales. The super good news is that Taylor Swift and the vegans will save the planet. Yeah!!!
Fighting climate change is just as realistic as creating world peace. Not ever going to happen. Too many (economic) interests at stake here. Either just ignore the problem, pretend it isn’t there or just think…not my problem let future generations deal with it. Anything to continue my luxurious and selfish lifestyle. Don’t get me wrong I am all for fighting climate change and hope we will achieve it. But like world peace haven’t seen it materialize…and highly doubt I ever will.
A key target for me is when we hit a temperature that results in full melt of the cryosphere (1.8 or 2 degree rise?). Sea level rise is a matter of when and not if. How much rise is the question. I don't think the general public really understands that we are sacrificing our coastline or how much it will cost us in terms of land, lost cities and economic impact. Global trade will be greatly reduced since large container ships are not really an option without massive port installations that will be flooded. Most of the public also seems to think we can just move to areas that are now permafrost. Carbon capture is just too expensive other than non-mechanical methods like no till farming, planting trees, etc. It seems we just gave up on the fight before we even realized what will be lost due to short term vision.
Best bet is we've already baked in about 6 metres of sea level rise over the next couple of centuries. That's how much higher the oceans were the last time CO2 was over 400ppm. It's not going to happen overnight, though, even ports can be moved on decadal time frames.
@@tradeprosper5002 66 would include the bulk of east antarctica. I don't think we're quite there yet, although since we're still burning all the hydrocarbons we can get our hands on, we may very well accomplish even that.
Except that, in this case, we'll take the entire habitat with us. Our "terraforming" is gradually turning this place into a sterile dust ball ie Mars. Not that it matters much since we're all be dead long before that process is complete.
I'm just a novice who enjoys reviewing climate data. That said I don't understand why everyone is stuck solely on reducing our green house gas emissions when the problem has become so much larger than us. Yes, we've caused the problem, and yes, we still need to change our ways, but everyone seems to be glossing over mounting dire evidence. We have already blown through tipping points. Check out methane levels from wetlands and the arctic, a dramatic rise in methane is noticeable, beginning around 2018-19 and is continuing to rise. Methane, as a greenhouse gas, is far worse than CO2 and there is virtually nothing we can do to stop its uncontrolled release into the atmosphere when it is from a natural source. The forest fires all over the world release uncontrolled amounts of C02 into the atmosphere and destroy/severely damage carbon sinks, further adding to the problem. Sea temperatures are rising rapidly, likely from the aerosol masking effects, or lack thereof from removing Sulphur dioxide from shipping fuel. Admittedly this is a strange one, it appears a form of pollution was inadvertently acting as an artificial breaking mechanism on global warming. Now that SO2 has been removed from shipping fuel, warming has shot up noticeably in the last several years. SO2 is a known climate modifier because when large volcanic eruptions occur they emit large quantities of SO2 which can cause significant global cooling. For those who think putting the SO2 back into the shipping fuel will solve the problem, it will only delay the inevitable. With our collective foot off the break and firmly planted on the gas, we are careening off a cliff. There are more lines we have crossed, and more tipping points are on the way. Look for an ice free arctic ocean in an upcoming summer, which will allow solar energy to be absorbed into the ocean instead of reflecting back out into space which will further drive arctic warming. There is no reversing any of the tipping points. One thing I can say with certainty is people don't want their lives to change. That is the single biggest factor preventing us from tackling this problem with logic and common sense. We will not keep our lives as we have known them, if we keep them at all.
Here to give you thumbs up and a comment to promote the video in the YT algo. Sadly, people in the climate change denial information bubble will still not see it but appreciate your efforts.
Thanks. I'd really appreciate some thoughts on safety margins in the climate discussion. Every mechanical structure where people's life or health is at risk, has a safety margin, to be on the safer side. Bridges, aeroplanes (of which systems are sometimes multiple times built in), you name it. What is the safety margin in the climate debate?
Thanks alot for the clarification. We got ourselves some trouble with the term "pre-industrial" here, right? What I don´t really understand is wether the 1850 to1900 baseline actually was defined in the Paris Agreement or simply developed to be the usually used one later on. I like the talk by Myles Allen at Gresham College alot : th-cam.com/video/jaOsJv0lvq4/w-d-xo.html The other thing I´m scared about is physics, biology, (melting ice and vanishing toad populations, You get the point) may simply not care for the difference between baselines, our definition of averages, etc. I may be alarmist. But we just (re)flooded an old pond yesterday. That at least may help the toads.
People dont wanna give up flying, people dont wanna give up bying a new phone every year, people dont want to build more windfarms, people dont want to drive less, people dont want to live a car free life, people cant stop bying new clothes every year (shoes, jackets, jeans and so on). We are too comfortable with how it is and it's hard to go over to a sustainable society, and we are too lazy ro change.
So, the official Paris baseline agreed at the time of signing was 1850-1900? I've heard so many different baselines in research in the intervening years, I just wish they would pick one and stick to it across all climate science!
If the UK disappeared over night it would only drop things by 2%. I totally agree we need to get control of the climate right now BUT it can't be done by a country the amounts to 2% of all emissions without looking at Central Asia, the Far East and South America
Yeah, i wasn't saying the UK matters at all in an absolute emissions context - just providing some of my own personal context about the pathetically short-term thinking of our inept political leaders!
In 1969, a Nixon advisor (Daniel Patrick Moynihan) claimed NYC would be under water by 2000 … See below. I’m going to post it separately because ole TH-cam too-often likes to censor such quotes.
Moynihan: “Over the years the hypothesis has been refined, and more evidence has come along to support it. It is now pretty clearly agreed that the C02 content will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth‘ s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter. We have no data on Seattle.”
One of the big problems is that 99.9% of futuristic predictions never come true - there are books out now documenting this phenomenon. 1970s the first Earth Day - scientists made alarmist predictions about the Earth and what would happen - none came true - one was that in the 1980s pollution in the world would be so bad we would all need to wear respirators - well here we are 50+ years later...
No, we have not just blown past our climate target. We did that several years ago 😢 No worries though,we can just move the baseline again. Problem solved, right? 😅
I haven’t found talking about it, nor not talking about it makes any difference…at all. I suspect what will is actuaries. Every event now is foreshadowing worse to come. Price that in, and eventually,insurance will break and with it lots for wealth. There is a city that exists today, that will not exist soon. Which it is, I have no idea. Nature will do the speaking, and the actuaries will communicate it in a way human people understand….sadly, the only way likely to move the needle
Almost all freeway off ramp are full of rocks or art and sometimes none native needs lots of water trees. Like can we just fill them with native plants flowers trees or in deserts cactus and we'll yes native trees. Also do it all from seed get maintenance trees out of your head don't top it don't cut it and it will likely never self destruct. When you cut or top a tree it becomes a maintenance tree as now a cut brach will have multiple on 1 brach overloading it topping a tree meaning cutting its top will make it produce multiple main trunks wich overloads the treeover time. Why do I say this well just only filling the empty off ramp patches well can reduce flooding and air and ground pollution oh it also reduces noise. You know the sound walls yep it's required 100 feet before homes can be built so fill that 100 feet with natives then when they get big enough remove the sound wall. Ps I live next to a freeway before and the sound wall actually makes it louder so replacing it with plants and trees will reduce noise a lot. I'm sure the people are wondering on the desert yep they have native trees in the desert area too and cactus helps as well. Just 1 mile of freeway on 1 side if filled the 100 feet to the homes and road will reduce over 90 tons of co2 just from cactus now imagine hundreds of miles of native stuff replacing empty land or removing none native thirsty plants and trees and replacing it with natives. Like imagine the amount of water saved the amount of co2 now being removed and the air being cleaner and reduced noise and it can help with mental health as concrete jungles and repetitive planting of the same trees and flowers in Almost all 50 states make people go mad or at least it does me. Thoughts.
With EEI (Earth Energy Imbalance) at roughly +2 watts per square meter in the 2020s, more twice as high as EEI was about 20 years ago, the acceleration process of sea level rise will continue. Also, the vast majority of the Sun's heat that Earth receives is received in the 50% of Earth within 1,800 nautical miles of the Equator. It is 5,400 nautical miles from the Equator to the poles. For various reasons, heat tranport from equatorial regions to polar regions is more effective at higher temperatures. Ice near atmopheric pressure is "metastable" on up to a temperature of +0.01 degrees Celsius, the "triple point temperature" of water. Above +0.01 degrees Celsius, ice melts. As heat transport from tropical regions to polar regions becomes more effective, the decade by decade rate of change in the July snowline altitude in the Northern Hemisphere and in the January snowline altitude in the Southern Hemisphere will increase. It does not have to be above +0.01 degrees Celsius in all 12 months of the year for glacial ice eventually to melt away. An average of 2 or more such months per year above +5 degrees Celsius will do the job at almost any location outside of the tropics.
Always appreciate seeing these videos. Open mindedness ought to bring one to a conclusion that the predicament of so many humans having such a high standard of living is not sustainable on this spinning ball. I can see why it is a difficult idea to wrap ones head around though. I like my conveniences, entertainment, security and longevity. I have mine, you have yours and we are all happy, right? Not so much in the very near future so it appears. What will I do and what will everyone do about it constantly gets posited. I don't think there is much chance I or anyone else will jump off a moving train especially one that is picking up speed and careening around a corner on a cliff during a conflagration. That would be suicide. So choose ecocide! Much more popular, ya think?
Excellent video. Could you discuss the recent paper "Physics-based early warning signal shows that AMOC is on tipping course" by Van Westen et al? Thank you, Dr.
Keep the fruit puns coming! If you'd like to support the channel, then one of the most fruitful ways of doing this is on patreon: www.patreon.com/dr_gilbz. My subscribers help me make more, better content... like this.
I have received more replies from my comments on your channel than any channel in 3yrs. Don’t know what it says but just letting you know? I commented on no worms, fly larvae, and crops stop growing after 1-2 nights warmer than days 2yrs in a row. Only early Feb and already feels like April. 🤞 for new year.
it's... bananananaaasss
I'm a smoothy criminal.. and I did the Patreon thing!
wahoo! thanks :)
I've clearly got a lively audience...
Apples and oranges? The climate's gone bananas!
Let's hope we still have bananas in a couple of years.
Mr. B. Cavendish isn't feeling too well already.
On the other hand, Banana Republics aren't circumscribed geographically.
Btw, the carbon /toxicity boot print of the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex anybody?
How much does it cost to run 1 aircraft carrier for 1 day not in a foreign country? Just to keep the water and lights on ?
@@JamesPilkenton-se5cx Too much.
Actually I was waiting until the end of the video to hear this from her and waive the bananas from her basket.
I'm quite disappointed she did not do so.
;-)
When I started with my interest in climate in the early 1990s, 'pre-industrial' meant 1700. Someone DID move the goalposts!
A Swedish professor, Svante Arrhenius, has evolved a new theory of the extinction of the human race. He holds that the combustion of coal by civilized man is gradually warming the atmosphere so that in the course of a few cycles of 10 000 years the earth will be baked in a temperature close to the boiling point. He bases his theory on the accumulation of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, which acts as a glass in concentrating and refracting the heat of the sun.
The Selma Morning Time, 10/15/1902.
Ed Hawkins of Reading University said the same thing in his research paper published the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS) "Estimating Changes in Global Temperature since the Preindustrial Period". This lady is another IPCC, fossil fuel-recuperationist, lummox; that allows the fossil fuel industry to define terms for her.
I've seen quite a few articles and graphs comparing current temps to those of 1950-1970s or even 1990-2010. As we get hotter and surpass the Paris limits, government officials and corpos will keep shifting those goalposts.
It seems like a fair baseline for pre-Industrial would be about 1700-1800 or even 1700-1850, since that would give us a good number of years to average and would be around the time the Industrial Revolution started (mid-1700s).
As far as I've known, pre-industrial always meant before 1800.
James Watt didn't even invent the steam engine until 1784.
So I would add an S to your post.
"Pre industrial was the 1700s"
@@macmcleod1188 It is a highly debated subject though the span is between 1760 to 1840 for the industrial revolution boom. And yes that is the time it took for the industry to peak as a coal and steam industry.
Quick side note.... all the "methods" prescribed in the IPCC reports to keep us under 1.5C assume some type of massive carbon capture is put in place. To date this technology is not scalable to the sizes needed to be effective. This means that 1.5C targets are meaningless.
To make things more rosey.... now the latest complex climate and oceanic models are showing the collapse of the AMOC will most likely occur. We are now at the lowest flow rate of the AMOC in 1000 years. We know from core samples that the AMOC has collapsed before when too much fresh water (from melting in the ice ages) was introduced in to the northern Atlantic....as is now from melting Greenland and Islandic glaciers.
The only question is how soon will it collapse. Some low estimates indicate it could be as soon as in 2025!! When the AMOC stops the UK and northern EU states will start to freeze. Over the subsequent hundred years they estimate the avg temp in places like Finland and Norway could drop by 30 degrees C !!!
That is almost unlivable except underground. At the equator the temps will go up additionally (though not reciprocally as much) due to the AMOC shutdown. The heat will be unlivable there.
What happens to humanity when you have the equatorial peoples moving North enmasse and the northern EU people moving South enmasse????
The dirty secret about what is coming is mass starvation... even in first world countries. The weather will become so erratic everywhere that there will be massive worldwide crop losses over and over again.
The mass migrations of people's will start border wars and this will interrupt food production further. It will not be pretty.
To secure food production, massive indoor farms and hydroponics, along with precision fermentation, will have to be implemented.
Unfortunately massive indoor farms require a lot of energy and materials which will simply not be available in the future. We are headed towards a low energy future, not one with artificial heating and humidity.
Honestly the worst social aspect of the AMOC collapsing will be all the climate change deniers in my family thinking they “won”, that they were right, and that global warming was a hoax. I’m not looking forward to that on TOP of a northern hemisphere ice age.
@@EmmaSolomano Actually it might not be low energy... based on Tony Seba's and ReThinkX's work.
Tony and ReThinkX are calculating that if we go solar/wind with storage for our power needs that, because of the sizing requirements needed for Winter months, that most of the year it will output more energy than we need. He refers to this as "SuperPower" and predicts utilities will be almost giving power away for free.
In fact the State of South Australia, that has achieved large solar installs at a grid and home install level, has already had this happen. They have had instances already during mid summer where they were producing too much power and didn't have enough battery storage to take that added power. Prices went to zero/KW and they asked people to disconnect their individual home solar from putting power into the grid. In subsequent years they will be encouraging people to use power during the middle of summer days at almost zero cost. Things like running dishes, taking hot showers/baths, running laundry. Turning their AC down colder.
So maybe we actually will be having a higher energy future?? Check out Tony at ReThinkX... there are a lot of TH-cams out there by them also about various topics and their research findings are available for free download on their website.
There is 0.04% co2 in the atmosphere. At 0.02% plants will die because of too little co2. In greenhouses they pump in extra co2 because plants thrives better when the level is 0.06-0.1% and the yields becomes bigger. There is not enough co2 in the air. There is no evidence of co2 or methane being able to heat anything, and historical the levels have been much higher. There is no correlation historical between warming and increase of co2. Because of the "extra" co2, going from 0.03% to 0.04% the planet has become more green by the size of australia according to nasa.
Untrue. Like most of the climate scare this recent AMOC 'theory' is based on flawed models. Rest easy.
This scientist is absolutely fantastic! Excellent video! ❤🎉😊
Yo, but she has tattoos and too many ear rings.
yeah, respect she is a real person with style and brains. Not the holy trinity but not far off.
@@rollling7523
Every one of these claims, reports and "papers" are using bad data, generated data, and manipulated data. These papers have been debunked a million times, so why should it be true this time? 1930s was hotter by a huge margin. You can look at number of days above 95f/35c and see for yourself. Here I live we have a colder year, record low temperatures and more snow than normal. In the 80s we learned in school that the planet only had 10y left, and all of these claims have never come true once. Not one prediction have come true. You can look up this yourself.
There are a significant proportion of people with the following attitudes:
1) If it's not happening to me it doesn't matter.
2) If it's happening to me it's someone else's fault.
3) My interests are the most important.
4) Intentional collective action that disrupts the status quo is always dangerous.
5) I have the right to own parts of the planet and do whatever I choose with those parts.
6) Because I own part of the planet I am therefore wisest to decide it's use.
7) Human beings are the most important species on the planet.
There's more that one could add but these attitudes given the power of democratic choice drive the problem and actively prevent meaningful progress.
I would argue that this attitude is only prevalent in about 20% of the world's population. 80% is focused only on their own day-to-day survival, not in a selfish way but because they are literally on the brink. When I was still living in the Netherlands, my income placed me in the 85th percentile of the world's highest incomes, and I was still struggling so much that I had to sell my home and move to a much cheaper country. I would say that the richest 20% of the world feel like you describe, with the highest 5% actively exacerbating climate change because it increases the amount of wealth they own. It's a significant proportion because these people hold the most power, but it's not everyone by a long margin.
Yes 💯%% and this needs to change..or else it will change for us..Mother Nature doesn't show or know pity..it will do what it wants..We can't stop it!
Thank you, just copied your list, to use efor my own argumentation. Hope that is ok. Would ad some crazy arguments like CO2 is plant food, it's all the sun, it's all the water vapor, climate always changes ...
@@michaelschiessl8357agree¿ it always seems the WEALTHY FEW set the agenda,.We use to hunt whales for 🪔now we have solar.☮️🔵💨
Excellent comment @kokopelli314 👍
Sigh, we screwed up decades ago honey. We knew back in the 1970s and 80s how bad thing will be and we did absolutely nothing whatsoever to address our actions. Instead we collectively put our foot firmly on the gas pedal. We are now flying off the edge of the cliff to our doom on the rocks below, and still many people don't even realise they are in the car.
I agree. I'm consistently astonished by the number of individuals deeply concerned about climate change, yet so few have transitioned to a plant-based diet, let alone embraced veganism. It's a form of denial on another level. Understanding people's rationalizations and hesitations regarding these dietary shifts leads me to believe that we may never achieve significant progress in mitigating climate change. Just saying.
@@rssemmens1 Going vegan is just one thing. People I know and work with and talk with do as much as they possibly can to damage our environment, from having multiple kids, dogs, cats, more than one car, multiple flights abroad per year, and so much more. Yet they don't even know it.
It is exactly all of this behaviour combined, with the sheer staggering number of people on this planet all doing this stuff. We are collectively killing the biosphere with our luxurious indulgent lifestyles and 99.99999% of people don't even understand they are each making a difference.
When I ask them about their knowledge of climate change I'd say more than half don't show any idea at all, 5% are awake like we are. The rest are a mix of "I recycle! I'm doing my bit! I can't wait to fly out to to Turkey next week for holidays with the kids." and "Climate change is a hoax"
I have zero doubt in my mind we are going extinct. This issue will never be tackled. Never be solved. Because humans don't give a hoot.
You're out of your mind. Increasing atmospheric CO2 is nothing but beneficial.
@@mikeb.7068 I think you're watching the wrong videos lol.
@@mikeb.7068 LOL, read some actual science or ask the crab industry in California and Alaska.
Good, clear communication. Nice to see someone with passion(fruit) for their work.
I found the data chart at 1:20 rather surprising, showing that the sea surface temperature anomaly for the part of the globe nearer the equator as being 0.5 degrees higher in just about 8.5 years. Eyeballing the gap between later '23 and early '24 with the midpoint of 2015-16, it looks like it has taken just about 8 years for temperatures to jump by a third of the 1.5 degrees that people are talking about.
It may be the natural periodic anomaly from El Nino accounts for a big chunk of that, and the anomaly will go down in two or three years to 1.2 or 1.3 degrees; but then El Nino will come back, and we are in for future transient anomalies at the same astonishing scale. This warmer ocean surface is not good for the basal melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, as you reported in an earlier video. I guess it is time to find courage for concerted action, rather than clinging to tenuous hopes that alternate with depression and grief.
What action? Do you think vegans will save the planet while the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex, most criminal ruthless industry is doing record sales?
As early as 1902, Svante Arrhenius published a paper about greenhouse effect but greed prevails.
I enjoy listening to and reading climate scientist James Hansen formerly head of NASA. He recently said that the 1.5 degree benchmark is essentially dead as we have passed through it. He has hypothesized that one reason we have been seeing an acceleration in aggregate surface temperatures is due to the reduction of aerosol emissions from global shipping (due to recent regulations) and some reduction in Chinese emissions of these aerosols. The question that has yet to be answered is how much impact in terms of cooling do these emissions account for. If you listen to the paleo climate scientist Andrew Glikson he has asserted that we have already passed the 2 c degree mark if you account for the cooling impact of the aerosols. I believe that Dr. Gilbz represents the more settled science point of view (thanks for your videos!).
Finally, Somebody quoting Glickson who is the real deal and I too believe he is correct, people thought Mcpherson was crazy but now he seems to be pretty right on maybe even a bit conservative.
Pre-industrial was initially set in 1700-1750, so the spong data falls within that time periord. It was later that they moved the goal post to 1850. Who moved the goal posts, the ipcc. The ipcc is infested with oil interests and has been watering down findings for years. The last meeting held in an oil producing country underscored this.
@@darkwingscooter9637 The baseline has to do with industrialization.
Great video. What's also worth mentioning are two papers in the last couple of years by Tim Palmer and James Hansen respectively concerning the climate sensitivity number: the number that predicts the global average temperature rise following a doubling of CO2 since pre-industrial times. It would seem that previous modelling used by the IPCC has significantly understated this number, and current data supports the new model estimating the number to be 4.8°C +/- 1.24°C. This gives a worst case scenario of a 6.04 °C increase in average global temperatures following a doubling of CO2. It's now around 420 ppm compared to the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, and currently climbing about 2.5 ppm every year - still accelerating incrementally. You don't have to be good at maths to understand how perilous our current situation is.
As early as 1902, physicist and chemist Svante Arrhenius published an article warning about greenhouse effect due to burning coal, but ....... GREED prevails as always.
Btw, the carbon /toxicity boot print of the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex anybody?
@@edgein8632 I wish I could share your denial...
@@edgein8632 It wasn't much warmer globally during the Medieval Warm Period. That was only a regional warming in Europe. We are running hotter now globally than at any point in the history of civilization. This climate is one that hasn't existed for over 100,000 years.
Imagine that. They raise the sensitivity number and their models show more warming. Regardless if they are correct or not, it gives the appearance of rigging the results. That doesn’t help the argument.
Also, in order to achieve the raise, CO2 has to double again to 840ppm, then 1680ppm.
There are no realistic solutions offered by those panicking over the models’ results. If one really cares about this issue, then please offer realistic solutions.
@@stephenkneller6435 we have plenty solutions.... But most of all, we have GREED.
We achieved our target way ahead of schedule🎉
I'd just like to say that I don't want to take personal credit for this; we all did it together!
@@AdrianJamesEllis
Everyone gets a cobalt medal.
America hits all the targets, legally or otherwise, lol
Ooohhh do we get a cookie
@@Toastcat890 Well, we will be getting our just desserts, if that helps.
4:15 For a second I thought you were gonna also take a bite out of that orange
I haven't been pushed that far towards the edge... yet
I also wondered if she was going to take a bite out of the orange just for the video.
There's a video of Rosa Salazar and director Robert Rodriguez in an interview show, doing just that, as Rosa did while playing in "Alita, Battle Angel" in 2019.
Thank you for keeping up the good work getting people to talk about climate change, organize, etc. Respect and Appreciation!
The Paris agreement is garbage considering the elephant in the room aka military industrial complex being excluded from any debate
We had one city in northern Michigan who broke their temperature record by thirteen degrees while a lot of others obviously shattered records also. I think the discussion of tipping points is mute,it's time to hope for the best and plan for the worst. We need a plan B!
This video would have been a great place to address the few days that were over 3C from the apples baseline 😁
The averages are not even the main issue, just the easiest part to point at. It's the extreme outliers (that are becoming more and more frequent) that will be the end of us. As far as I can tell, most current climate models does not say much about the extremes and their impact on humanity.
more recent / sophisticated models (esp regional models, not v coarse global ones) are much better at capturing extremes. In fact, this is one of my main areas of research at the moment..!
@@DrGilbz Great to hear! Hopefully the mainstream discussions will move towards extremes, feedback mechanisms and immediate action, before it is too late. Thank you for your effort :)
@@DrGilbzWhile very exciting, also very scary 😐
What happens when a body gets a virus? It runs a fever (global warming) to stimulate the immune system (extreme weather, sea level rise, crop failute) to eradicate the virus (humans).
I am 66. I have been concerned about airborne contamination my whole life. All I have ever witnessed from governments and industry is how to kick the can further down the road.
Your powers of deduction are flawed. Even the climate cult embraces the idea that clearer skies (as a result of legislation) may have increased radiation to the surface. Keep up.
I'm consistently astonished by the number of individuals deeply concerned about climate change, yet so few have transitioned to a plant-based diet, let alone embraced veganism. It's a form of denial on another level. Understanding people's rationalizations and hesitations regarding these dietary shifts leads me to believe that we may never achieve significant progress in mitigating climate change. Just saying.
it was predictable that it would not be possible to keep the heat under control. Humanity cannot stop its activities completely, as required by climate change.
The more we delay action on climate change: the more urgent action becomes. The reason is that our "carbon budget" (to hold the line a 1.5C or 1/3 of an XKCD ice age unit) remains fixed.
When the Kyoto protocol was signed in 1997: we had about 50 years to phase out fossil fuels (2050 deadline).
After 25 years of inaction: we have about 7 years to phase out fossil fuels (2030 deadline)
If Conservatives get elected: we will have 4 more years of inaction, and negative 1 years to phase out fossil fuels (2027 deadline, plus minus a few years).j
Vote 3rd party candidates, Vote your conscience, not for lesser of evils, as they're just a corporate captured duopoly.
It doesn't matter who gets elected because....
"politics is the entertainment division of the military industrial complex ~ Frank Zappa.
While we're pointing fingers in all directions, the elephant in the room (MIC) is doing record sales. But that's fine, batman, superman and the vegans will save the planet. Yeah!!!
Politics is the entertainment division of the military industrial complex ~ Frank Zappa.
You could have used the plus or minus symbol. It's this one: ±
If you're using a phone you can get it by holding down on +
@@helenhenthorn4948 totally agree.
I'll tell you what, you get the guy in Africa to stop burning dung to heat his home, the Japanese guy to stop pouring radioactive waste into the ocean, the guy in China to stop burning garbage and bulldozing it into the sea, the guy in India with the textile ink pouring into the creeks, and the American guy with all the planes and bombs to stop using them and I will think about using paper straws. Until then none of this will ever work no matter how much you raise taxes or glue yourself to the road.
Goal 1.5 (we remember - the G7 wanted 2.0 in Paris!!) was not set arbitrarily.
This is an assessment of what ecosystems can withstand in terms of warming.
From the perspective of 1750, we have just passed that.
1750 is a useful point of comparison - the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
WHY 1850-1900 as baseline...?
well, this is a very valid question - but unfortunately the target has been set with the baseline it has been set with, so that's what we have to work with. It was mostly for practical reasons (we have relatively poor measurements of temperature from pre-1850).
@@DrGilbzyet as early as 1902, Svante Arrhenius made some predictions...
Why not start in the middle of the Younger Dryas? 1750 was nowhere near the global Industrial Revolution, during 1750-1800 it was mainly in Britain, negligible coal use, but it was the start of the end of the Little Ice Age. These acrobatics make more cynics. Completely counterproductive.
"1750 was nowhere near the global Industrial Revolution"
This is exactly the point we are looking for: Right before the start. Thank you Mr Superproductive :)
@@vih-qq9pm
I always found the discussion about 'shifting the baseline' a bit petty.
It's about 0.2 - 0.3K "W"T"F" So What?
And of course there comes a point where the 1,750 fans can say we are beyond. This
My comment simply says that when we calculate the risk x times the complexity of
jump here -> :)
an entire system made up of highly complex systems such as climate & weather & biology, social affairs, politics, geopolitics, economics, science,....
go on :)-> ....we have planned for a *zero_point_three safety margin*
Politicians decided that.
(...science has provided the Monte Carlo simulation...)
*The error bar around "1.5 is safe" is GIANT*
This is [Physics x Biology under X_tons of pressure] Thresholds of any subsystem largely unknown
If family people even begin to suspect what that could possibly mean....
Try to quantify the risk of even this simple reaction...
We can't stop it with 'encouragement'.@@DrGilbz
Thank you for doing videos on this. Can’t be easy but appreciate all your efforts.
I'm just a little numb these past few days at the onrush of existentially-terrifying news.
Which news?
Don't be silly.
Like what? May God forgive us and may we forgive one another.
All I know is we just went through the warmest December and January on record here in Toronto. Feb 9th hit a record high +16C. We gotta do something, and fast! Great video!
Always look at the bright side of the life! I am sure you never got that low heating bills for January.
Toronto is not the center of the earth also if northern europe is really cold then it's always warmer than average over eastern canada, it was much hotter in 2010 over canada when europe had it's coldest winter since the 80's.
@@edgein8632 The Vikings weren't even in Greenland for 700 years...
@@SouthCom1917 Yes, you are right, it was "only" 400 or so, says googleing for "vikings on greenland"
Great video! You're so good at putting things in perspective. Please keep speaking out!
So were screwed?
Yeah but I'm here to learn how badly, how fast, and what I need to do to continue the human race 😅😅 unless I am discouraged from doing that
@Cyberpunk_Radio_PBS it's hard to know which way to go. One minute I'm against it and the next I'm thinking I should be producing humans to try to help the cause.
@@abody499 I have two grand son but the fact that I have not taken a plane in 35 years, ride my bicycle daily, buy second hand.... (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Repair....) has 0 impact considering the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex is doing record sales each year.
No, they have been wrong for 150 years. They have never been right once. Even this video is actually about a failed prediction
Don't worry, you'll be just fine in a post-apocalyptic society since you've already got all them guns.
Enjoy the after-civ life.
My dad was a toddler when scientists first knew about global warming. This was over 50 years ago. We had all this time to stop this but…. 😞
Scientists had a hint about global warming with Svante Arrhenius in the late 1800s, we certainly knew something was actually up in the 30s and 40s.
In that case.... Nevermind 😳
Excellent science communication; alas, I can't share the optimism. If I sit in a deep pit, realizing that a ladder could get me out is essential. However, I'm still stuck without the material and skill to build one.
First, even if we stopped all greenhouse-relevant emissions today, the system's inertia will push us past 1.5 ° C. CO2 levels will stay high for quite some time because of the lowered efficacy of the natural carbon cycle. Further, processes causing increased natural CO2 emission have been triggered, such as thawing permafrost. I'm sure you know all about that. For me, realizing the magnitude of the involved energy was sobering.
Second, I'm afraid raising awareness will not help. The issue is not an information problem like knowing when to take an umbrella because it will rain. We don't know how to act cooperatively on a planetary scale. CO2 emissions are highly correlated with consumption. Currently, consuming less is the only effective way to reduce CO2 levels. However, I do not see that those who already agree with the need for action deliver what they can contribute: consuming less. Some do, but most do not.
I'm afraid I don't know a solution either. As a personal preference, I'd just rather be realistic about it.
Sadly that's my impression as well. Even young people seem to be quite ignorant about it, making multiple holiday trips a year across the globe, as if the problem of anthropogenic climate change did not exist. And then there's the aunts and uncles and grandmas that want all the best for the family offspring, shower them with presents, but don't acknowledge that they need to protect their future as well.
Climate protection seems to be a topic most people don't want to be bothered with. There's so much hedonistic consumerism, and so little sense of responsibility.
We need to do more: we need to not only stop putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, but also to take out some of the excess we've already put in. The current CO2 level is not harmless. Even if it were, we can't instantaneously stop all emissions. We need large net negative emissions, not just net zero. The cheapest way to get to an acceptable state of the atmosphere includes a high priority on reducing emissions, and doing it much faster than we're going to. But just reducing emissions means making it worse more slowly. No problem was ever solved by making it worse, at any speed.
How will you convince the volcanoes?
Yeah ,,,agree-_-_-maybe stewardship & use methods that are proven to work♻️🗿
thankyou, its hot out here today
Weather is not climate. It's cold here.
@@ExistenceUniversity normal cold due to the winter season isn't the issue but extreme cold is a symptom of climate change as well. As the temperature gradient shrinks, the polar vortex becomes unstable and we have large polar flows of air into the temperate regions. While the polls are warmer than they used to be, this cold is enough to destroy power generation systems, plumbing, and kill people.
It has happened in the past but it's happening more often now. The average temperatures of seasons are increasing and the number of extreme polar blasts is increasing.
Rather than attempting to continue normal life during a polar blast, people should just hunker down and they should learn to turn off their plumbing and plumbing should be hardened for the fact that you may see below zero temperatures in new areas and Below -30 temperatures in areas that have only seen minus 20 in the past.
@@macmcleod1188 What you said is literally impossible and silly
@@ExistenceUniversity what I said is actually history. So as silly as you may think it is, it's already happened.
@@macmcleod1188 Show the evidence
Thanks Dr.! We are in profound ecological overshoot and the collective mindset, sometimes called paradigm, is unable to process anything except the business as usual way of making civilization work. This paradigm is more insidious than a myth because it has had a measurable improvement on the human enterprise and comfort level. It is time for a mindset shift, and we will do it by cooperation or brutal negative feedback. It seems as if we have the intelligence to control it, but that may not be the reality.
You have it exact.
I'm totally with you
We're screwing it up!
Yeah... I never had any doubts that we would.
This doctor is the best. She knows we are rooted but still talks positive. We live in a fishtank and its sealed and its warming and its too late.
Rooted??
yeah the past tense of root@@Cyberpunk_Radio_PBS
@@Insideoutieok, but what do _you_ mean by it?
What I mean is the climate is already in runaway. The scary data from Antarctica means we have already passed the point of no return. I am not a climate scientist but I read fear in climate scientists eyes and that makes me scared. Problem is climate change is not linear it is exponential. What comes next is multiples of what we experience now. It is an exciting time to be alive. Rooted = fucked = damned. Sometimes a tree dies but sometimes the whole forest goes. Its as it should be. It is an incredible time to be alive.@@alanhat5252
@@alanhat5252 "root" is Aussie slang for intercourse.
This is the one place we should have been using Fahrenheit to communicate the magnitude of the issue properly. We should also be using the 1750 baseline. It’s not a conspiracy but it is a choice to use the 1900 baseline. And that choice ignores at least .25 degrees C of warming, and based upon this study it looks like more.
Using the 1750 baseline means we have ALREADY increased global temperatures by 3.06 degrees over pre-industrial levels. This is what we should be communicating instead of “hey, don’t worry, we’re still under 1.5 degrees of warming.” At least for a few months.
Thanks for being here. It's so hard to find people who care about climate change on TH-cam. I feel like we've reached the "slow motion train wreck" stage where it's too late to stop the melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice and all we can do is watch in horror while the deniers keep denying and most other people just keep acting like everything is normal.
Three things
1. The Paris Agreement is a completely arbitrary baseline based on the availability of data
2. It’s an El Niño years - when temps are blow 1% (va 1.26) what the climate change deniers come out in force
3. Nature may be starting its own efforts to cool down the planet as me may be moving into a more active volcanic period (last 100 years have been very quiet)
Do we know how much sulphuric is needed? Do climate models estimate the historical impact of volcanic activity on cloud behavior accurately ?
The January global sea surface temperature for 2024 was hotter than the winter sea surface temperature of 2023. We are fucked.
I don't know about where everyone live but where I live there are not many trees left. When I was a kid (1870s) living in the same area there were lots and lots of trees and you would have to travel to go shopping. Fastforward to now and there are very few trees compared to the 70s and tons of abandoned or near abandoned shopping centers. So much so peoples homes are flooded even during mild rains because the sewer system can't handle the amount of water. (More parking lots means more water that used to go in the ground must now be handled by the sewer system. They are still building more. If the rest of the country is doing the same thing, I can see why there is too much co2 in the air.
Why is pre industrial times the base line and what is the ideal tempertaure?
I think there's not really an 'ideal temperature'. The temperature itself is not the biggest problem.
The speed of change is the problem, as most plants and animals (incl humans) cannot adapt this ridiculously fast.
Simon,
is this a fast variation? On what do you base this claim?
@@iareid8255
Compared to previous estimated temperature changes it's insanely fast.
It is estimated 1750 was the first metal lathe : all modern industrial production is based around the development of high precision metal parts.
@@eyesofthecervino3366
estimated?
'insanely,' hardly a scientific or even a comparitive term is it?
How about some real data?
Then, of course, the cause of the change is not known, rather it is surmised, much based on computer modelling.
What is insane is the vast amounts of money being squandered to try and alter that which may be natural anyway. Man's arrogance and belief in what it is capable of doing is beyond belief.
All this climate stuff has left me feeling meloncholy, It's hard to not dispear.
The climate stuff is a 150 year old lie. Nothing happens, every prediction fails like a Christian waiting for the apocalypse
You see why people stick their heads in the sand. We'll all probably be dead anyway before shit really hits the fan, hope that helps
"On records" and "pre-industrial" is deceptive. Who says the earth's normal temperature was between 1750 and 1900? Before that, no records.
the bananas say that we're already over 3 and that we have been geoengineering since the 1950's
True but, it's also true that the choice of the 1850-1900 baseline already factored in a bit of anthropogenic climate warming and does not represent a truly pre-industrial baseline.
WASF!
There's no problem. There are teams of scientists working on how to get the toothpaste back in the tube.
Going into spring beware nights warmer than days. The less difference between day/night temps the less vegetables crops will grow. If nights warmer than days then vegetable crops will stop completely. Happened last 2 of 3 yrs in Rome, GA.
Talk to research horticulturists
Great video, thank you, Dr Gilbz, you explain things very well. The majority of people are still not awake to the urgency of this Climate Crisis, and the current swings to political popularism haven’t helped at all, because popularism is largely based on refusing to deal with realities, and instead, pandering to people’s selfish desires - but this is, in the long run, a stupid, destructive ideology, and in the end, reality comes back to bite really hard! Perhaps, this Climate Crisis is the best example of this, where ignoring it, just means that humanity pays an increasingly heavy price for sticking its collective heads in the sand! Let’s hope that all this changes very soon, and people become far more aware. I certainly think that education for youngsters should focus on the sciences, and I think your own videos would be a brilliant aid for youngsters studying climate science in a school environment.
Yep. I'm convinced we'll have reliably passed the 1.5 C target year in year out, El Nino or La Nina, in a few years' time.
Rolling back is exactly what we need!
Yet another fantastic video with extremely well explained! Keep up the good information drops Ella!
Thank you to keep the good humour! But it's important to highlight that as long US & Western governments heavily susidise the oil, gas & coal industry, the 1.5 ° threshold will remain a pipe dream.
Bluntly put, in Australia, it's the Higher Education debts paid by former Uni students which subsidise the Oil & Gas export companies.
You forgot to mention the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex.
No biggie. We'll just move the starting point to a later DATE again. Aerosol masking effect?
We're headed towards desert planet of +4°C, mass starvation and sooner, mass economic upheaval and collapse.
The military of various nations including the biggest in the US is the worst polouter, and untouched by any limiting accords, and we're still ramping up our dependency on fossil fuels.
I would totally bet global chaos will be well underway by 2030.
Ahh.... some days I really don't like being smart enough to know how dumb we are
Interesting to see what this channel will look like in 15 years
Thanks Doc. Don't worry, we'll just make the requirement for 1.5 average over a ten year span! Job done.... You are still the most incorrigible optimist, i'll give you that...!
I felt this too in NC. Only 2 nights where it was 19 F. Otherwise it's been like spring.
I'm wondering if my orchard has enough chill hours to produce fruits in the upcoming seasons...
Pretty sure we are screwed
Like totally..
Unfortunately, it does appear to be the case.
Looking at the sea surface temperature anomaly data, I suspect what we now have is a whole new paradigm of warming, where a hitherto unseen pace of warming is witnessed. Too early to tell for sure, but I'd bet my house on it. El Ninho alone cannot explain what we saw last year and what we're seeing thus far this year. Scary stuff.
This doctor's cool as fuck
🎉 Guys it's a race a human race we are almost at the finish all we have to do is keep doing what we are doing mass extinction is something to be proud of. I believe the dinosaurs cheated with a astroid and how we are getting it done will really impress god. Woo
We just broke the pairs agreement
Unless we can experience Existential Dread, it's all over. We need all the fear and dread we can Instill in ourselves, our governments, voters, corporations, voters......
If global temperatures are .5 degrees centigrade higher in 10 years from now, the worst climate models are correct and Earth will be 4 to 6 degrees warmer by 2100. It’s likely half the Greenland ice sheet and most of the West Antarctica ice sheet will be melting in 100 years.
I suppose its fruitless to ask if there is any good news?
The good news is that the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex is making record sales. The super good news is that Taylor Swift and the vegans will save the planet. Yeah!!!
@@lorenzoblum868 You've brightened my day...I was hoping some mythical super hero would appear. Maybe now's a good time for the second coming?
@@BenMitro yes. The entire Marvel crew is also joining along but make sure to subscribe so you won't miss out any episodes.
Aha fruitless. Good show!
Btw No good news. Want more bad stuff; then just watch telly. It's their livelihood.
@@JZsBFF you misspelled "want PROPAGANDA"
Fighting climate change is just as realistic as creating world peace. Not ever going to happen. Too many (economic) interests at stake here. Either just ignore the problem, pretend it isn’t there or just think…not my problem let future generations deal with it. Anything to continue my luxurious and selfish lifestyle.
Don’t get me wrong I am all for fighting climate change and hope we will achieve it. But like world peace haven’t seen it materialize…and highly doubt I ever will.
A key target for me is when we hit a temperature that results in full melt of the cryosphere (1.8 or 2 degree rise?). Sea level rise is a matter of when and not if. How much rise is the question. I don't think the general public really understands that we are sacrificing our coastline or how much it will cost us in terms of land, lost cities and economic impact. Global trade will be greatly reduced since large container ships are not really an option without massive port installations that will be flooded. Most of the public also seems to think we can just move to areas that are now permafrost. Carbon capture is just too expensive other than non-mechanical methods like no till farming, planting trees, etc. It seems we just gave up on the fight before we even realized what will be lost due to short term vision.
Best bet is we've already baked in about 6 metres of sea level rise over the next couple of centuries. That's how much higher the oceans were the last time CO2 was over 400ppm. It's not going to happen overnight, though, even ports can be moved on decadal time frames.
@@alanj9978 My bet is more pessimistic than yours. I expect 6 meters by 2120. Total melt estimates will put us at 66 meters several centuries out.
@@tradeprosper5002 66 would include the bulk of east antarctica. I don't think we're quite there yet, although since we're still burning all the hydrocarbons we can get our hands on, we may very well accomplish even that.
It is only humans.
Except that, in this case, we'll take the entire habitat with us.
Our "terraforming" is gradually turning this place into a sterile dust ball ie Mars.
Not that it matters much since we're all be dead long before that process is complete.
Fruit? Yeah, we didn't give climate the Top Shelf treatment.
I'm more in the running for what's on the bottom shelf.
Nice video and concise. Do you have an estimate of the average temperature difference between the 1700-1750 and the 1850-1900 baselines?
as far as I understand it's something like 0.2-0.4 degrees C.
@@DrGilbz Thank you 🙂
I’ll go with James Hansen! We ain’t getting out of this one alive.
@@mrunning10 The possibility of extinction is definitely on the table.
Hansen was quoted on Sabine's video too
It’ not often I come to this channel for a positive spin on things.
Or, at least, less bleak.
I'm just a novice who enjoys reviewing climate data.
That said I don't understand why everyone is stuck solely on reducing our green house gas emissions when the problem has become so much larger than us.
Yes, we've caused the problem, and yes, we still need to change our ways, but everyone seems to be glossing over mounting dire evidence.
We have already blown through tipping points. Check out methane levels from wetlands and the arctic, a dramatic rise in methane is noticeable, beginning around 2018-19 and is continuing to rise. Methane, as a greenhouse gas, is far worse than CO2 and there is virtually nothing we can do to stop its uncontrolled release into the atmosphere when it is from a natural source.
The forest fires all over the world release uncontrolled amounts of C02 into the atmosphere and destroy/severely damage carbon sinks, further adding to the problem.
Sea temperatures are rising rapidly, likely from the aerosol masking effects, or lack thereof from removing Sulphur dioxide from shipping fuel. Admittedly this is a strange one, it appears a form of pollution was inadvertently acting as an artificial breaking mechanism on global warming. Now that SO2 has been removed from shipping fuel, warming has shot up noticeably in the last several years. SO2 is a known climate modifier because when large volcanic eruptions occur they emit large quantities of SO2 which can cause significant global cooling. For those who think putting the SO2 back into the shipping fuel will solve the problem, it will only delay the inevitable.
With our collective foot off the break and firmly planted on the gas, we are careening off a cliff.
There are more lines we have crossed, and more tipping points are on the way. Look for an ice free arctic ocean in an upcoming summer, which will allow solar energy to be absorbed into the ocean instead of reflecting back out into space which will further drive arctic warming. There is no reversing any of the tipping points.
One thing I can say with certainty is people don't want their lives to change. That is the single biggest factor preventing us from tackling this problem with logic and common sense.
We will not keep our lives as we have known them, if we keep them at all.
Here to give you thumbs up and a comment to promote the video in the YT algo.
Sadly, people in the climate change denial information bubble will still not see it but appreciate your efforts.
should have millions of views, awesome work
Thanks.
I'd really appreciate some thoughts on safety margins in the climate discussion. Every mechanical structure where people's life or health is at risk, has a safety margin, to be on the safer side. Bridges, aeroplanes (of which systems are sometimes multiple times built in), you name it. What is the safety margin in the climate debate?
Don't worry, paying more taxes while ignoring the big polluters like China and India will fix it 😂😂
Thanks alot for the clarification. We got ourselves some trouble with the term "pre-industrial" here, right? What I don´t really understand is wether the 1850 to1900 baseline actually was defined in the Paris Agreement or simply developed to be the usually used one later on.
I like the talk by Myles Allen at Gresham College alot :
th-cam.com/video/jaOsJv0lvq4/w-d-xo.html
The other thing I´m scared about is physics, biology, (melting ice and vanishing toad populations, You get the point) may simply not care for the difference between baselines, our definition of averages, etc.
I may be alarmist. But we just (re)flooded an old pond yesterday. That at least may help the toads.
People dont wanna give up flying, people dont wanna give up bying a new phone every year, people dont want to build more windfarms, people dont want to drive less, people dont want to live a car free life, people cant stop bying new clothes every year (shoes, jackets, jeans and so on). We are too comfortable with how it is and it's hard to go over to a sustainable society, and we are too lazy ro change.
So, the official Paris baseline agreed at the time of signing was 1850-1900? I've heard so many different baselines in research in the intervening years, I just wish they would pick one and stick to it across all climate science!
If the UK disappeared over night it would only drop things by 2%.
I totally agree we need to get control of the climate right now BUT it can't be done by a country the amounts to 2% of all emissions without looking at Central Asia, the Far East and South America
Yeah, i wasn't saying the UK matters at all in an absolute emissions context - just providing some of my own personal context about the pathetically short-term thinking of our inept political leaders!
I thought Manhattan was supposed to be under water in 2014 :-)
In 1969, a Nixon advisor (Daniel Patrick Moynihan) claimed NYC would be under water by 2000 … See below. I’m going to post it separately because ole TH-cam too-often likes to censor such quotes.
Moynihan: “Over the years the hypothesis has been refined, and more evidence has come along to support it. It is now pretty clearly agreed that the C02 content will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth‘ s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter. We have no data on Seattle.”
One of the big problems is that 99.9% of futuristic predictions never come true - there are books out now documenting this phenomenon. 1970s the first Earth Day - scientists made alarmist predictions about the Earth and what would happen - none came true - one was that in the 1980s pollution in the world would be so bad we would all need to wear respirators - well here we are 50+ years later...
No, we have not just blown past our climate target. We did that several years ago 😢
No worries though,we can just move the baseline again. Problem solved, right? 😅
I haven’t found talking about it, nor not talking about it makes any difference…at all.
I suspect what will is actuaries.
Every event now is foreshadowing worse to come. Price that in, and eventually,insurance will break and with it lots for wealth.
There is a city that exists today, that will not exist soon. Which it is, I have no idea. Nature will do the speaking, and the actuaries will communicate it in a way human people understand….sadly, the only way likely to move the needle
its ok. life is miserable for so many anyway.
Almost all freeway off ramp are full of rocks or art and sometimes none native needs lots of water trees.
Like can we just fill them with native plants flowers trees or in deserts cactus and we'll yes native trees.
Also do it all from seed get maintenance trees out of your head don't top it don't cut it and it will likely never self destruct.
When you cut or top a tree it becomes a maintenance tree as now a cut brach will have multiple on 1 brach overloading it topping a tree meaning cutting its top will make it produce multiple main trunks wich overloads the treeover time.
Why do I say this well just only filling the empty off ramp patches well can reduce flooding and air and ground pollution oh it also reduces noise.
You know the sound walls yep it's required 100 feet before homes can be built so fill that 100 feet with natives then when they get big enough remove the sound wall.
Ps I live next to a freeway before and the sound wall actually makes it louder so replacing it with plants and trees will reduce noise a lot.
I'm sure the people are wondering on the desert yep they have native trees in the desert area too and cactus helps as well.
Just 1 mile of freeway on 1 side if filled the 100 feet to the homes and road will reduce over 90 tons of co2 just from cactus now imagine hundreds of miles of native stuff replacing empty land or removing none native thirsty plants and trees and replacing it with natives.
Like imagine the amount of water saved the amount of co2 now being removed and the air being cleaner and reduced noise and it can help with mental health as concrete jungles and repetitive planting of the same trees and flowers in Almost all 50 states make people go mad or at least it does me.
Thoughts.
With EEI (Earth Energy Imbalance) at roughly +2 watts per square meter in the 2020s, more twice as high as EEI was about 20 years ago, the acceleration process of sea level rise will continue.
Also, the vast majority of the Sun's heat that Earth receives is received in the 50% of Earth within 1,800 nautical miles of the Equator. It is 5,400 nautical miles from the Equator to the poles. For various reasons, heat tranport from equatorial regions to polar regions is more effective at higher temperatures. Ice near atmopheric pressure is "metastable" on up to a temperature of +0.01 degrees Celsius, the "triple point temperature" of water. Above +0.01 degrees Celsius, ice melts. As heat transport from tropical regions to polar regions becomes more effective, the decade by decade rate of change in the July snowline altitude in the Northern Hemisphere and in the January snowline altitude in the Southern Hemisphere will increase. It does not have to be above +0.01 degrees Celsius in all 12 months of the year for glacial ice eventually to melt away. An average of 2 or more such months per year above +5 degrees Celsius will do the job at almost any location outside of the tropics.
Always appreciate seeing these videos. Open mindedness ought to bring one to a conclusion that the predicament of so many humans having such a high standard of living is not sustainable on this spinning ball. I can see why it is a difficult idea to wrap ones head around though. I like my conveniences, entertainment, security and longevity. I have mine, you have yours and we are all happy, right? Not so much in the very near future so it appears. What will I do and what will everyone do about it constantly gets posited. I don't think there is much chance I or anyone else will jump off a moving train especially one that is picking up speed and careening around a corner on a cliff during a conflagration. That would be suicide. So choose ecocide! Much more popular, ya think?
Summer's gonna be hell.
November 7th was 2.04 degrees C.
Hopefully the species survives capitalism. It's getting more and more unlikely every day.
Love ur channel ❤!! By the way this comment is for old the gods of the algorithm!
I am more than a little concerned that it hit nearly 70°F (21°C) for a couple of days in February in northern Ohio.
Excellent video.
Could you discuss the recent paper "Physics-based early warning signal shows that AMOC is on tipping course" by Van Westen et al? Thank you, Dr.