ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ย. 2024
- Learn the basic science of climate change in 24 easy steps.
Viewers like you help make PBS (Thank you 😃) . Support your local PBS Member Station here: to.pbs.org/PBS...
Subscribe to It's Okay To Be Smart: bit.ly/iotbs_sub
Scientists overwhelmingly agree that our climate is changing, Earth is getting warmer, sea levels are rising, and it's primarily because of humans putting lots of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Whether you already trust in the science, you're undecided, or you disagree with what all this, this video is for you!
SOURCES LISTED HERE: bit.ly/1zGbOry
Want to learn about the science of climate change and why humans are causing it, but in layman's terms? I recommend these books:
Climate Change: Evidence and Causes (National Academy of Sciences/Royal Society) FREE ebook: amzn.to/1w6itfl
Global Weirdness (Climate Central) amzn.to/1BtZZbP
How to Change Minds About Our Changing Climate (Seth Darling + Douglas Sisterson) amzn.to/12jjcxN
Produced for PBS Digital Studios
Joe Hanson - Creator/Host/Writer
Joe Nicolosi - Director
Amanda Fox - Producer, Spotzen IncKate Eads - Associate Producer
Andrew Matthews - Editing/Motion Graphics
Katie Graham - Director of Photography
John Knudsen - Gaffer
Dalton Allen - Post-Production Intern
Theme music:
"Ouroboros" by Kevin MacLeod
-----------
Join us on Patreon!
/ itsokaytobesmart
Twitter
/ drjoehanson
/ okaytobesmart
Instagram
/ drjoehanson
/ okaytobesmart
Merch
store.dftba.co...
Facebook
/ itsokaytobesmartpbs
Ah, if only facts convinced people of stuff.
It's definitely a problem. I'll get to that in the next video.
It's Okay To Be Smart
looking forward to that Joe! :) EDIT: Damnit, I keep confusing you with Hank Green... You two looks so alike it's uncanny.
Who needs facts when you can just read the Bible and have the answers about EVERYTHING??? And they're all 100% accurate!!
/sarcasm
nmlss dude, I'm an atheist, too, but that was really unnecessary and unrelated. It's not only bible belt nuts who deny climate change, it's more of its own thing that got nothing to do with religion.
haiggoh I'm sure that a vast majority of religious people are climate change deniers. And what's wrong on mocking stupid beliefs?
"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."
-Winston Churchill
I think the saddest thing about this quote is it made me feel a little better.
Can always count on Europeans to be arrogantly obnoxious lol. Good thing we helped save you after trying to make Americans British subjects😉
CaptainHappen you can always count on the british to think they are superior to Americans
@@pcgamerz3081 Hopefully they don't need our help for anything... AGAIN.😂🇺🇸✌
@@mattjohnston5807 lol, everyone can play that: Can always count on Americans to arrogantly bring back WW and diminish the role of the USSR.
I just want to say, I study Earth Sciences and we regularly look at climate change. While Joe Hanson did give it emphasis, probably not enough. The rising CO2 levels are bad, but it is really the dropping pH (the water getting more acidic) what is the true and utter terrifying prospect. I don't like fear mongering, but a more acidic ocean (from CO2 atmosphere to ocean transfer and gas methane hydrates) really will spell the end of life on earth as we know it. Will life end? Probably not. But will human life end? Most likely.
Edit: fixed some grammar errors
iamihop I think you are confusing knowing what technology is needed and actually having the tech. Sure, we know for large parts how to survive on the moon. But even if we fast track it, it could be over a hundred years of R&D before we have a stable colony, anywhere.
And what I am trying to hit home is that ocean life is dieing. The increased acidity is dissolving the shells of animals that need calcium. We know this is a problem, but people dont seem to like it because it wont directly effect them. People* are lazy and only want to do something if it directly benefits them. Sadly, not drowning to death, or starving, are succumbing to tropical diseases in a temperate area of the world dont count as direct benefits.
The main reason why scientist say: "this and that could supposedly happen..." is because we are charting unexplored areas. We dont know what is going to happen, but pretty much 100% of our scientists, the best and brightest of humanity, agree that it isn't going to end well if we do nothing.
No, I dont like fear mongering. But we should be afraid of this very real and very direct threat. I could tell you of all the things that could happen. But from a strictly scientifically point, I would have to claim it as a possibility and not a certainty, even if it is very likely.
But I can tell you, it won't end well if we keep going on.
I myself was very skeptical of the imminence of the danger. It was only until last September when we started investigating the oceans for our Geochemical Cycles course that the facts really started to sink in. Our whole class, usually a very joyful and friendly bunch, couldn't and cant stop talking about it.
Learning of the importance of the oceans was, for me, the turning point. And I am still trying to find words to best emphasize their importance.
PS: sorry it got a little long, really just find it important to explain this.
*: I am describing an average behavior of people, not a specific one for everybody.
iamihop
boy do I feel silly now. I revised my text like three times to make sure it was understandable to someone who isnt in geology xD.
The real concern for me is the stability of gas methane hydrates (GMH) in ocean sediments. It only takes a slight temperature change to make the crystal unstable and dissolve. There are two lighter sides (if you look at it in a very obscure way): the rising temperatures wont affect deep or intermediate ocean right away of course. So that could give us an extra 100 to 500 years. And the increase of sea level increases the pressure too.
That not so fun side is that basically the USGS has done (ballpark estimate) 80% of the research on GMH's. When we made a Stella Model, we didnt have good numbers for anything.
When we tried to calculate the production of GMH there was only 1 article that we could find that gave us something we could use. And even that was with a wide margin.
(for the article, look for: F. S. Colwell, S. Boyd, M. E. Delwiche, D. W. Reed, T. J. Phelps and D. T. Newby, “Estimates of Biogenic Methane Production Rates in Deep Marine Sediments at Hydrate Ridge, Cascadia Margin” Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2008, 74(11):3444. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02114-07.)
But killing of 8 billion people would be hard. But loss of coastal lands, degraded farming (droughts, flooding, soil depletion, saltification), ocean dead zones and acidification increased temps, water scarcity and go on and on. We are seeing deaths from climate stress (climate factors and social unrest due to climate) which could probably kill off 70 to 90% of humanity (again, a ballpark estimate). Wouldnt be everything, but it wouldnt be hard to end human life on earth. We will probably be hit by an asteroid we where no longer looking for. That would be a kind of dark humor.
My real concern is that we just dont know enough, and that when we do, it will be too late. Maybe a bit outdated, but if I where to have kids, I don't want them to live in an Interstelleresque kind of world, where starving to death, or the black lung are legitimate causes of death.
PS: Also maybe important, I am in my second year of Earth Sciences. Not an expert yet, but University does like to grind new information into you.
iamihop Continue, guys! :)
pipu
maybe tomorrow, its 2:30 am for me and have to be at school by 9am
iamihop It sounds like you agree that the human race will at least be seriously diminished if these changes occur. Relying on a few humans surviving the collapse of an ecosystem is risky and a worse case scenario in my opinion.
It's like arguing with flat Earthers. Eventually they start yelling that you work for NASA and throwing things.
Earth is plane at ground level, spherical at satellite level, and circular at moon distance. This is because of general relativity. It all depends on the referential on which you are for observing the Earth.
The Earth can't be flat. If it were, cats would have pushed everything off it by now.
Yea, the alarmist can be insane if you do not agree with their bullshit.
@Seth Adkins IF gravity pulls everything into a sphere, how do you explain the flat head alarmist?:)
@@hansproebsting7391 lol
even if climate change isn't real, does it really hurt to move to renewables? If we protect ourselves now, we don't need to worry all that much about what the future holds, we either know what it is, or are already protected against it.
Right. And the thing is..... IT IS REAL! LETS MOVE TO RENEWABLES!!!
Steve C D I tried to restore you previous comment, but ti didn't work, I;m sorry. But please, do explain, you interest me. How does reducing pollution kill people? Or is it the job loss? Because you can get jobs back with construction and maintenance crews
Steve C D alright, I'll stop speaking to you now. Tinfoil hattists do not speak to me.
A quick search will tell you that wind is already cheaper than fossil fuels in many countries and solar is headed that way _fast_. With those facts down pat, how can ANYTHING be 50% cheaper than fossil fuels and 10 TIMES cheaper than wind, if wind is already cheaper than fossil. That's not how maths works.
Steve C D Umm, my government happens to be anti-renewable... so I don't know what propaganda you're talking about. (Maybe they're extra sneaky :P)
Also, why do you reckon renewables to be inefficient? Solar is almost efficient as coal, and the technology has been in use for MUCH less time and had a lot less money devoted to it.
Source about the solar thing: newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/milestone-solar-cell-efficiency-unsw-engineers
And these articles are to sort our your price confusion.
www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Price-of-US-Wind-Power-at-All-Time-Low-of-2.5-Cents-Per-Kilowatt-Hour
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-06/solar-wind-reach-a-big-renewables-turning-point-bnef
bze.org.au/media/newswire/australia-wind-power-already-cheaper-fossil-fuels-and-solar-right-behind-130211
I live in Alaska, and when I was a kid, it snowed in September. End of story. But in the past 20 years, I have seen that average climb all the way up until November, with the snow falling less, having far more melting cycles through winter, and having spring start nearly a month earlier than it did when I was a kid. Yet people here, who have lived here and witnessed this, STILL believe it's not happening. People would rather believe a convenient and comforting lie than believe a disturbing and important truth.
The Pacific was in its 30-yr PDO warm cycle from 1980~2008... It's now in its 30-yr PDO COOL Cycle.
Over the past 4 years a rare pool of warm water (called "The Blob") surrounded Alaska, which generated inordinately warm weather around Alaska. There were also 2 El Nino events (2009/10 and 2014/16) which made Alaska's weather mild.
We're just entering a La Nina event, The PDO is in its 30-yr cool cycle and "The Blob" anomaly will soon be gone.
From 2017, Alaska's winters will become brutally cold, especially with the weakest solar cycle in 200 years starting from 2022....
Mellanie Mellbourne u do realize that your brain cant correctly remember somthing from that long ago. So that means its probable the same amount of snow but u just remember it wrong.
Something as simple as remembering what month snow usually fell is not something I'm going to forget in a mere 20 or so years. What I ate for Christmas dinner in 1996? No idea. Whether it snowed in September, October, or November that same year? Easy.
All of that said, scientific proof cannot rely on mere anecdote such as mine. What matters are the data and trends, and sorting through to find if the correlating data are due to causation. I am simply stating that all of the evidence makes sense to me personally, and I don't see how so many people, especially where I live, are adamant that climate change isn't real.
Mellanie Mellbourne If you look at my post of October 27, as predicted, Alaska is now suffering from BRUTAL cold.....
ALL 50 states will experience record breaking cold this week. Frigging Hawaii will get 3 FEET of snow on its tallest mountains, for the first time this early in the season than ever recorded....
Kuwait just got its first show accumulation in November for the first time......evahhhh.
Tokyo just had 2 inches of snow accumulation on November 25th, which is the fist time since 1875.....
Jeez...
The PDO and AMO will BOTH be in their respective 30-yr cool cycles from 2019, so global temps will fall for 30-years thereafter....
We're also experiencing record low solar cycles, which will add to global cooling for the next 100 years....
Can we please stop wasting $trillions on this CAGW hoax????
I can see your mind has been made up, and I certainly wont have mine changed, so I suppose it's best to drop it and agree to disagree.
The part where this video fails is that it assumes that CO2 emissions are 100% to blame for out warming planet. No one is going to deny that humans pump out a lot of CO2, but you're assuming that the amount of CO2 we put out has a noticeable effect on the climate. It correlates, but is there causation?
+Jason Bilangino
There is most certainly is a causality happening here.
You can see on many graphs that earths heat follows the CO2 concentration.
Most of the CO2 is emitted naturally, but the hydrosphere absorbs it , we humans have messed with this harmony and now there is a wheel of heating >> consequences >> some consequences help the greenhouse effect >> heating >> and so on...
I think that even if we stop emitting CO2 all at once it wont be enough, to completely solve this problem we'll need to turn the wheel back.
It can only ever be correlation regarding climate change because we cannot conduct a controlled experiment on such a phenomenon. That does not mean that it is 'only' correlation as if it can be dismissed; it is obviously a very very strong correlation, just like the correlation between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer which cannot be experimented on either because of ethical issues.
There's a correlation, and over a hundred years ago chemists showed why there's probably also causation (though that wasn't their aim, and correlation is also not without merit if you can rule out other factors); CO2 absorbs outgoing radiation in a part of the spectrum where water does not, meaning that that radiation "vent" if you like is getting plugged by rising CO2 concentrations. That water vapour traps heat is pretty intuitive to anyone who's been out on a cold winter day with and without clouds, and CO2 works by the same principle.
CO2 isn't the only reason for the temperature increase, but it's the main one. Changes in Earth's orbit, the sun's radiation output (as mentioned in the video) or a lowering albedo can't explain the increase in temperature, so CO2 appears to be the main culprit.
Of course all afaik, but there you go.
CO2 and other 'greenhouse' gases absorb and re-emit infrared radiation. It is a direct causation of global warming.. There are other human changes to the environment which also are direct causation. Deforestation for example.
Hello, we are a group of English students from Granollers (Barcelona). We watched your video to learn about climate change and we answered your question in class, as a paper. Here are the students opinions:
Francesc:
Nothing changes suddenly on people’s lifes, so if they can’t see it they don’t believe it.
Marc: They don’t believe in climate change, because some politicians, say that it’s fake, or it’s the normal cycle of the Earth.
Noé: Because they suppose that this won’t change their lifes, or it is too difficult to this could happen...
I hope you like their comments!
Have you told your students that there is no known physically possible way that atmospheric CO2 could measurably influence Earth's surface temperatures?
@@davidrussell8927 Ehhh, you're wrong
Comments are painful. Proper science education in schools PLEASE.
They'll never do that. Not with Betsy Devos in charge.
Proper by what standard?
@HUNNID K BEATZ The greenhouse effect and climate change are taught in schools, you know this, right? The education system as it is just allows teachers to remove it from their curriculum if they don't believe it. And isn't it your side that preaches "facts don't care about your feelings?"
Won't help, kids who have republican parents will never believe contradicting science because they idolize their parents and their beliefs.
@@henrikswanstrom9218 you mean the science of prophecies of destruction? Why don't you listen to scientists who claim global temperature data isn't possible to accurately collect? Why dont you care that climate scientists hide their sources so they don't get criticized? Why don't you care that the billions of dollars that has been poured in to one ideological side has also been used to produce hit pieces on Nobel prize winners who dare to criticize the admitted ignorance of the actual scientific method. Criticism is openly not allowed, their science is without fail. You are the kook here, believing in this religion which claims science as its ally yet hides the literal science used to back it up.
So, I am not extremely educated on scientific matters. I didn't get a science degree in college. I studied philosophy.
As such, I don't feel qualified to personally understand what the causes of climate change are.
I do however have a decent amount of friends who are engineers, and I have seen the types of alternative energies there are available.
My opinion is; regardless of whether or not the use of fossil fuel and coal are causing the climate problems we see today; we should be using cleaner, safer, cheaper energy, even if our irresponsible use of resources has nothing to do with our environment changing.
Arguing about the cause of climate change makes no difference. Fossil fuels and coal are antiquated sources of fuel. There are FAR better options out there.
+Facey Neck And what are those better sources of energy you speak of?
The fact is you can improve the efficiency of cars, houses and such, but not with the solar panels, windmills and nonsense Al your pal Gore has. Want to get 80-90-% of the CO2 out of your life. Write me, let's have a chat.
I have a plan. Send me $5 million and I will do the R&D to get the first prototype done. That is cheap...Bill Gates is up to $200 million with ecomotors.com and nothing to show for it....
It will lead to 300 mpg cars that can hit a wall at 70 mph. That same car can power your house. That same engine can go into a roadable airplanes (hence seaplaneguy).
So, if you want to do something, then find me the right people to work with. Otherwise keep the clapper shut...
seaplaneguy "So, if you want to do something, then find me the right people to work with. Otherwise keep the clapper shut..."
You seem to be _explicitly_ saying that unless I have the means, time AND education to put into use sources of energy that will improve the globe, I should censor myself from speaking about them?
Why are you so insecure about the spread of information? Could it be because what you propose is preposterous and you fear competition?
Your proposal is extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require greater than or equal to extraordinary evidence for them to have weight.
Your comment was essentially a lot of huffing-and-puffing without substance of any sort. Literally a blow-hard.
The alternatives to fossil fuel are well known and proven. If you really are educated on the matter to a point where your claim could be implemented, you would know this.
Holy fuck. Regardless of what I type on TH-cam, there will always be simpletons trying to look like the next Messiah.
Facey Neck
Not scared of spread of true information. Just get the facts right before you open your mouth, that's all. No, just good engineering. I only prove the claim to people who can make me a deal. Why would I want to prove to you anything?
No, just thought I might find some intelligent life out there that wants to solve this oil issue. Since you have nothing to offer, please go away.
Actually, there are no viable "alternative fuels" that works in current systems. Wake up. A fuel is only good with a certain piece of equipment. For example, NG takes too much space to be viable for current cars with the limited stations. If you triple the range you can get to the needed range per volume if there were enough stations. Normally you need more range for alternative fuel, not less. This is why electric cars don't work. The range needs to be 2 x just to compete. Try getting 600-1000 miles on an electric car.. But you knew that, right?
seaplaneguy First you said: "So, if you want to do something, then find me the right people to work with. Otherwise keep the clapper shut..."
...now you're saying: "Not scared of spread of true information. Just get the facts right before you open your mouth, that's all."
Do you see how you're changing your words?
You EXPLICITLY, in NO uncertain terms, told me to stop talking about cleaner sources of energy. Now, you're saying, 'Well uh... I mean, just make sure your facts are in order.'
Shut up dude!
I'm not gonna get into a debate with someone who changes their stance on something as simple as 'shut-the-fuck-up' in one fucking post. If you know how to revolutionize the world with clean energy; great. Go do that.
At the moment you're trying to argue with me about what constitutes viable energy sources, and stroking your own ego. Neither of which is going to do anything good.
The point of my original post should be obvious: whether or not the climate is changing due to human activity, the primitive energy sources we're using are outdated and there are much better options.
I will leave you with this though: No, you cannot currently drive over 600 miles on one single electric charge. So fucking what? EV's were never intended for long-distance travel. Doesn't matter in the slightest though, because electric vehicles could be implemented and altered in most people's cars, as the overwhelming majority of people do not need to drive more than 200 miles in a given day. Leave the fossil fuels to the large transportation vehicles that need to do that.
That's one of a countless other number of safe, easy, JOB-CREATING solutions that you're trying to not look at. And I know you're trying to be a dick about it, because you suggested that I didn't know what I was talking about, and then you suggest that I don't know the limitations of electric transportation, which I am very well aware of. Once again; I have a lot of smart engineer friends.
Move along sir.
Facey Neck
I am an engineer with the solution. I have worked with those "smart" guys from Caltech, Stanford and MIT. None have solutions that work. Sorry....
An electric car is designed with 200 mile range because the stinking battery weights 400-600 lbs per gallon equiv.. Natural Gas weighs 12 lbs/gallon with the tank. Do the math. Electric motors are really only 60% efficient. My new engine will be that with the conversion on board, meaning I get climate control for free via the cycle. Your piece of junk e car needs to run another cycle to cool the car. Try running that Tesla junk in Alaska or anywhere where it is cold or hot. Forget it. My technology will be twice as good in range when it is hot or cold. Fact....
Make work causes CO2. It does not help your religion. Your smart engineer friends have no clue. Find one. Get him on here and I will debate it.
As for CO2, the AGW theory is false, absurd and shows how stupid the smart guys are.
And now I'd like the two hour version of this!
lol
Tice Roose yus
Tice Roose me too
Ditto.
Check potholer45 for more thorough info. And their video descriptions for the actual studies.
I live in Sweden and over here almost everybody believes in climate change, I'm a twelve year old girl and at school everybody talks about it. Some are more worried than other but everybody agrees that something must be done. I didn't really know how many people in the U.S.A didn't believe in climate change until now. Truly eye opening to see how other people think about climate change and there's sooooo many who don't believe it! Thank you for this inspiring video!!!
The reason for the contrast in views on climate change between Sweden and the US is primarily down to two things: Education and culture. Swedish education is very progressive whereas in the US it is compromised by pressure groups trying to mould education to their world view.
The Swedes (and Scandinavians in general), by and large, are quite collectivist in their outlook. They generally subscribe to the idea that everyone is better off when we work for collective gains. This is why Scandinavians are far more relaxed about paying high taxes than others: They are confident that well-invested taxes provide exponential results. Americans are far more individualistic. They don't take kindly to being told what to do or how to think, and the White House hates the idea of being subjugated to international bodies such as the UN, the ICC or the IPCC. Since America is so corrupt, they have no faith in their governments disbursing tax receipts constructively. Big industry, in particular big pharma, the fossil fuel industry and the military industrial cartel, are the big winners from US tax spending.
You could also add that the very religious Americans are kinda gullible and prone to latching onto any viewpoints that accord with their own world view, whereas the more pragmatic Swedes place their faith in scientists.
So now you're 14. In school do they talk about the carbon footprint of the military industrial complex?
th-cam.com/video/oMozyspFuBM/w-d-xo.html
watershedsentinel.ca/articles/the-militarys-carbon-bootprint
th-cam.com/video/cw2Wm8T6tio/w-d-xo.html
www.athena21.org/in-english
th-cam.com/video/LLCF7vPanrY/w-d-xo.html
Thanks for sharing 🙏
Yeah Sweden are not the main ones to blame....but the US, Russia, China, India, Israel, Iran, Palestine, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia etc...is a totally different matter. Even Japan, Germany, Canada, Brazil and Mexico!
No reason to blame Sweden, the Faeroe Island, Greenland, Tonga, Fiji, Nepal, North Macedonia, Ghana, New Zealand, Norway, Denmark and Switzerland...these are some of the countries doing the best by comparison.
I'll talk off my elbows for a second here, and suggest that what we need to do is to find a way to _shift_ the whole discussion around the main culprit for climate change. I suggest:
*For us to stop trying to yank people off their addiction to fossil fuels and instead, find ways to make them addicted to renewable energies.*
Because I think that we're trying to replace fossil fuels for the _wrong_ kind of reasons...
Right now, any new source of non-fossil energy presents itself as either a solution to climate change, or as a handy replacement for when fossil fuel reserves run out.
_This_ wind turbine can replace _this_ coal plant! With _this_ electric car you replace _that_ gas car! With _this_ solar panel you don't need to worry about the sun _running out_ soon! And so on.
But are these the right arguments one should make to convince people to leave fossil fuels?
Aren't we dreaming a little *too small* with those ideas?
Because by continuously framing things like this, renewable energies keep looking, at best, like a replacement for fossil fuels, and at worst, as an inefficient but _necessary_ replacement for them. Something that we have to use we like it or not.
And so the solar panel/wind turbine/whatevs looks expensive, primitive, and as enjoyable as brushing your teeth or going to the doctor. It looks like "a backup", a desperate solution, a resource you will be _forced_ to use for when everything else fails.
And that's no way to sell the future to people.
So let us imagine, just for a moment, and just for the sake of argument, that renewable energy had been presented to us, not as a "replacement" for fossil fuels, not as a way to "save the planet" or "fight climate change", but rather, as an *improvement* beyond our good' ol gas engines.
Imagine if we thought of it as methods to obtain energy (and therefore, to get shit done) that not only does what fossil fuels do right now, but which can do _even more_ than they could ever dream of.
And before you slam me about how renewable energies are "not there yet", let me tell you the kicker:
We've already done this.
There was a time when a new kind of technology appeared which depended on unreliable sources of energy, which was expensive and technical and which was barely able to do what your old technology did with ease. Yet it became the default source of energy for centuries:
Fossil fuels.
People didn't replaced farm animals for machinery because machinery was "necessary" or good for the environment. People didn't began using cars instead of horses because horses were a "bad habit" or because cars were "saving the world". People switched to fossil fuels in the first place because they were _better_. Because they allowed you to build, move and produce faster, bigger, and on a scale unimaginable at the time.
And I think we're missing the same kind of opportunity here.
So forget about how renewable energy competes with gas or coal, forget about how expensive or technical it is in comparison to what you're used to, forget the initial investments or the mountains of research still to be done. These were all the same kind of problems people had to deal with when selling gas or coal engines in the first place. And they won by framing it like this:
What do the new source of energy does that the old one _cannot_ do? What does it _allows_ you to do as a person, or as a society, that you were _unable_ to do before?
What do renewable energies posses that will make fossil fuels looks not only obsolete, but _barbaric_?
Find THAT pitch, find that *unfair advantage* in renewable energy, and you can finally stop selling it like the backup or compensation prize that it feels like right now.
Find the unique characteristic that differentiates it from the rest. Stop competing with the old one, change the discussion and give people something they didn't know they needed before.
And as a bonus, we get to the save the planet.
Solution is easy. Nuclear :P
Ned Jeffery fission or fusion? ;)
Arturo Gutierrez fusion preferably. But that won't happen any time soon 😢
Michael Hendrickson wow, someone on the internet agrees with me! I should put that on my resumé 🙌
Michael Hendrickson Ned Jeffery we need a cake to celebrate this rare moment of agreement XD
They're only gonna take action when it's too late
sorry to break it to you but this is from 6 years ago
@Jaydon Jencks i said that a week ago lol
Temperature and CO2 have changed from low to high in cycles throughout earth's history. geology.utah.gov/map-pub/survey-notes/glad-you-asked/ice-ages-what-are-they-and-what-causes-them/
"There have been five or six major ice ages in the history of Earth over the past 3 billion years". [Wiki]. "Current CO2 concentrations at 400 ppmv are low when compared with the average atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the past 300 million years or so which ranged between 1000 ppmv and 1200 ppmv." "in past eras [it] reached concentrations that were 20 times higher than the current concentration. . .the Earth is actually cooling, in the context of the total geological timescale. . .It is possible that . . .CO2 will increase normally in the course of the next 50 million years to 1050 ppmV or 2500 ppmV."
".. .the claims regarding catastrophic climate change filling the newspapers are overblown and based on data that is being arbitrarily exaggerated to blame humanity for climatic changes which are absolutely natural"
www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html
skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm#:~:text=The%20last%20time%20CO2%20was%20similar%20to%20current,be%203%20to%204%C2%B0C%20warmer%20than%20pre-industrial%20temperatures.
Alterations To The US Temperature Record (Part 2)
th-cam.com/video/QmBiXfekga8/w-d-xo.html
Alterations To The US Temperature Record (Part 3)
th-cam.com/video/Sf4gC9E_3iU/w-d-xo.html
This article posted on August 25, 2020 by Dr Ross McKitrick entitled "New confirmation that climate models overstate atmospheric warming" “we note here for the record that from 1998 to 2014, the CMIP5 models warm, on average 4 to 5 times faster than the observations, and in one model the warming is 10 times larger than the observations.” judithcurry.com/2020/08/25/new-confirmation-that-climate-models-overstate-atmospheric-warming/ Link to research paper of above Dr R. McKitrick & Dr J. Christy 15 July 2020. "Pervasive Warming Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric Layers" agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020EA001281
It's so sad that people and politicians are only focused on money and just ignore the facts.
+Just For Commenting
Indeed. They could spend money on more important issues than "Climate Change".
+e0jt0gym and where would that money go to then?
Just For Commenting I hope they'll understand that
Simple, in their pockets.
The climate agreements will only hurt us in us. Wont solve problemo
who went to the comments 2 find people denying climate change lol
meeeeeee
Remember when these same expert climate scientists said we were entering a new ice age?? NO? Well here you go. th-cam.com/video/eq6fDa9JrzQ/w-d-xo.html&t
@@killersushi99 so did you not just watch the video or?
@@killersushi99 what goes up must come down... after we burn out the condensation freezes us over again as the sunlights reflected
Just fighting the good fight
"I don't want to believe, I want to know." Carl Sagan
Then do *MATH*
You don't need to believe, there is nothing to believe in climate science, it's not a religion, it's science and it has facts and proof.
@Charr Aznable Because the earth is round and climate change is caused by humans are clear facts.
@Char Aznable name some that's happened to?
@Andrii Shumskyi huh? I was asking a dude to name some scientists that had their reputations destroyed for 'questioning the narrative'... where'd I say anything about skepticism? Any skeptic can go and perform the same experiments and gather the same 'raw data' then do the math and figure it out.. psychology is the only 'science' with ego bias
I'm 19 and I show my family the evidence for human-accelerated climate change. They know it's a problem but don't seem to understand the severity. I don't know if they don't respect my opinions or if they're not scientifically literate enough to comprehend. Either way, they value the economy and "terrorism" as problems more deserving of resolve. It's really pretty depressing.
wow you are brainwashed. This is a hoax and you have been lied to.
I would try appealing to their worries about the economy and terrorism by explaining how climate change can worsen the economy and increase terrorism.
1. Climate change leads to flooding, natural disasters, a reduction in agricultural productivity (for example the gulf stream could disappear or weaken, cooling Europe and collapsing most of European agriculture). These things would have a significant negative impact on the economy.
2. The negative effects of climate change (natural disasters, flooding, food shortages, economic recessions, ect.) cause social unrest and political instability which increase terrorism
Your family will never do anything to actually affect other people, so it really doesn't matter what they believe. What you have to do is accept that your family doesn't understand climate change and instead focus on changing the minds of people who hold power. Or better yet, become one of the people who hold power in this world and change it for the better.
that's just not true. How likely is it that he will change the mind of a person in power? almost zero.
how likely is it that the people in power do something because more people vote for people who care about issues like this one? close to 100%
get the people around you invested in this stuff and they will vote. voting is the best instrument in a democracy, because everything people in power care about, is to stay in power.
There is no evidence...
I believe the reason a lot of people don't believe in climate change has to do with Petroleum companies. They're rich, and have the power to spread rumors that completely go against reality
You can't be more right but not all fossil fuel companies do not want to change.
And also because of the boss of indoctrination : the military industrial complex
th-cam.com/video/oMozyspFuBM/w-d-xo.html
watershedsentinel.ca/articles/the-militarys-carbon-bootprint
th-cam.com/video/cw2Wm8T6tio/w-d-xo.html
www.athena21.org/in-english
th-cam.com/video/LLCF7vPanrY/w-d-xo.html
Thanks for sharing
No we simply dont believe it because science dont support it. There are enough measurements that show different data that IPCC chose to not use. If that is not good enough reason I dont know what is. Its like reading assement on junkfood being healthy by McDonalds company.
@@17MrLeon Everything that is against IPCC is science fiction and you watch to much of those movies.
@@klokoloko2114 really real scientific data that a peer reviewed is science fiction to you? Man you are brainwashed
As a 15 year old girl, I really care about all of this, all the problems that affect the environment really upsets me. It's just upset to see that most of the people care about the EU and Brexit and politics, and yet people are blind just to see that climate change and plastic pollution is a bigger threat towards wildlife and the future generation. I wish that people over all the world can hopefully open their eyes from the darkness and see that this problem can be resolved. Climate change cant be stopped, it's got to a point where it will cause the wildlife and our population extinction just because we didn't understand the effects of our mess with CO². just because we "can't stop climate change "it doesn't mean that we should keep going with our ways. We all should take on the main problem and change it to make the whole planet a better place for both humans and the wildlife.
Thanks for reading :D
Katie SO1 THIS IS WHAT YOU CAN DO AT HOME TO HELP THIS PROBLEM! Download Ecosia, it’s a search engine that Plants Thousands of trees as long as you use it. There are a bunch of desserts out there that we don’t need and a bunch of co2 that we need to get rid of before we suffocate ourselves. Trees get rid of co2 and makes the air a bit more cleaner. Y’all seeing the picture here right.
@@katlyplqnt4752 I already have ecosia
Humans had a good run
If you want to save the environment, I highly highly advise you to learn about a Natural Law Resource Based Economy. Peter Joseph goes in depth of how environmental destruction is built into our highly destructive economic system and proposes economic calculation without money, explains the biopsychosocial synergy of our existence and how we can solve the worlds problems with the use of science and technology.
I have the utmost respect for science. I have never doubted the scientific consensus concerning the acidification of the oceans, rising temperatures, increasing severity of wild fires and hurricanes. I have never doubted that increasing levels of carbon dioxide is the cause and that human activity is the source of that increase. However, you must also weigh the consequences of reducing carbon emissions. That is what thoughtful people do.
The other day I heard someone claim that we must eliminate carbon emissions now. I thought to myself, "How could anyone be so stupid that they could actually say such a thing?" Think about it. What would I have to do to eliminate my carbon emissions. Well, first I would have to stop breathing. Every time I breathe out I am spewing carbon dioxide into the air. Let's leave this one though. Assume it's ok for me to breathe. Let's concentrate on activities that involve fossil fuels. So, I would not be able to drive my Toyota Prius because it uses gas. Perhaps I could drive an electric car? Well no. I live in an area where my electricity is generated by burning coal. So, while driving electric would be better than driving my Prius, it would not be allowed. Since my electricity come from coal, I would have to unplug my refrigerator and freezer. My potable water is pumped using fossil fuel energy so say goodbye to my water supply. I guess I would have hunt small game and cook it over a wood fire. I would be dead in a few days or few weeks at most. I do not have the skills to live without energy from fossil fuels.
The immediate consequences of not using fossil fuels are far far worse than the consequences of continuing to use them. This is also a fact every bit as much as the fact of global warming. Not recognizing this fact is just plain stupid.
The problem with climate change is that it is a huge problem with no simple solutions. Creating a world that does not depend on fossil fuels will require the energy of a lot of fossil fuel. Global warming is something that has already happened. As I write this California is having the worst wild fire season in history. But life goes on. Rising sea levels will not extinguish human life. People will move long before they are knee deep in water.
What we need is rationality. We need engineering. We need to know costs of doing nothing and the costs doing various somethings and then somehow make collective decisions about what should be done.
No you are wrong on your first point already Breathing is carbon neutral because the co2 was absorbed by plants and is part of the natural carbon cycle. this will not increase carbon in the atmosphere .
But yes we can not stop emiting co2 tomorrow.
@@Dundoril Agreed. I know. That is why I immediately moved onto the real issue of burning fossil fuels.
@@Dundorilbut were chopping trees and plants down we destroy the natural cycle
Sees video
*Proceeds to shower for 30 minutes*
*You're gonna have a bad time*
Megalovania starts playing
*Climatelovania Intensifies*
You haven't changed my mind at all! (Okay - because I already accept the facts of science anyway.)
But any time I've tried talking to a science denier, they immediately burst into a tirade of conspiracy theories. It's like trying to educate a brick.
You would have thought, with global temperatures going up and up and up, they would show a bit of humility and perhaps accept that the people who study the climate for a living know what they are talking about.
@@Stealthbong Alterations To The US Temperature Record (Part 2)
th-cam.com/video/QmBiXfekga8/w-d-xo.html
Alterations To The US Temperature Record (Part 3)
th-cam.com/video/Sf4gC9E_3iU/w-d-xo.html
@@Stealthbong Use a search engine and type in "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False".
@@Stealthbong “humility” like dude i dont even know what you are saying and if you are a flat-earther or a sane person
@@henrykid1393 Yes. That's humility. But it also sounds like you're quite stoned.
You forgot Carbon-14 in your explanation. Because it's radioactive there is 0% Carbon-14 in fossil fuels and the percentage of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere is falling at a faster rate than Carbon-13 exactly as expected of burning fossil fuels. It's a minor issue though because either way the proof is undeniable. Thank you for the video sir.
I didn't know that!
4:29 Surface Ocean PH dropped from 9.0 to 8.08 from 1990 to 2014, I was pretty sure that since the preindustrial time, it was more like 8.21 to 8.1 which is still significant, but 9 to 8.08 would be 8.3 times more acidic
The carbon footprint of the military industrial complex
th-cam.com/video/oMozyspFuBM/w-d-xo.html
watershedsentinel.ca/articles/the-militarys-carbon-bootprint
8.3 is alcaline not acidic. Elemenatry school.
Any chance you guys could update the links for the sources? Need to convince a friend. Thanks!
They won't do that climate change biggest hoax in history
Wayne Johnson There is no evidence that proves that climate change doesn’t exist. You can search it up, there isn’t any scientific data backing up the blogs of random people. If you go onto NASA’s web page, there is a graph on how much co2 is in the air as of this year compared to 1950.
The real debate is what to do about it.
You've convinced me! I've been environmentally minded since before it became fashionable, and before climate change was a topic, but until I saw this, I wasn't convinced that it was humans alone causing the problem. As much as I'm aware of the problems we create for the environment these days, I also wondered if the change in the climate could be part of a weather cycle which began before man walked the earth. Thanks for the clarification.
Me, too. I've been into climate science since the SAME people were panicking about the coming ice age. This was back in the 1970s, after 40-some years of cooling. Of course, they memory-holed the cooling, took its lowest point in '78-'79, and tried to make us panic about the warming since then. Of course, the ice pack didn't block seaways in the '70s and they're not disappearing, now.
We should live cleaner, but the government isn't going to get us there. The government is why we pollute so much, as it is.
the climate alarms should have more to do with the bottom being pulled out of the global food supply.
get up to date here, and carefully forward to academia.....climate change is more due to loss of carbon sink, ( loss of topsoil and deforestation )
it's just that most climate scientists never even saw it, ( well we all have to eat, right? ...so it subconsciously gets discarded )
Meanwhile, in paleo-anthropology, linear human evolution has become Shattered theory....and it turns out that past interns in the field, ( who got hooked on the african heroin ), latter in their carriers took positions interpreting the data, and through the Shear Terror of the Withdraws, put the source of their junk at the center of the universe....well the reality is that approximately 1 /5th of sub-saharan DNA came from something that was not even bi-pedal at the time, and that whatever it was had skipped over the first 2 to 3 million years of homin evolution....so while sub-saharans are technically the same species by 4/5ths of their DNA, they also Technically carry Species Invasive DNA, and are NON-FEASABLE to the human species......they breed faster than the food grows, into a murderous reproductive swill, if they have food, or into withholding nutrients from their own starving children that they have the energy to make more....they are litterally a caloric sink hole from hell, and do not report their numbers, or income, to facilitate endless growth, ( i have seen the loss of Two Feet of american topsoil in my 57 year old lifetime, we are down to inches, and i traced the abnormal losses back to africa's "humanitarian aid", which turns out to be heroin money laundering.... humans can't be like that, we live on a finite planet, and have the ability to get what we need......so back to my original statements now, it turns out that people of sub-saharan decent have been causing climate change For Thousands Of Years, and we are just further into a tipping point than most would be comfortable admitting .... we just need to get sub-saharans re-classified as a planetary invasive slated for extermination, and the planet will begin recovering.....we have CRISPR now, and can bring their Species Applicable DNA back in Latter..but their Invasive Sequences have to go.....but don't talk to them about it because they get information about the rest of us faster that we do about them as it is, and they kill people who find out.....they are not like they are on TV when you live somewhere near where they are pulling out shiploads of food, and they have been doing this as far back as i have well studied in the united states, but much further back in the paleo-anthropological record....history shows, whenever they meet a supply and demand food system, Total Disaster soon follows....and trying to keep "everyone" feed ends up an exercise in fueling their methane factory and near term future starvation.
This certainly changed my mind, now to tell my family. Thanks for the video!
MatthewBruh13 are you serious? You didn’t believe climate change and this changed your mind??? That gives me hope
If you are really serious then some of my faith in humanity has been restored.
MatthewBruh13 THIS IS WHAT YOU CAN DO AT HOME TO HELP THIS PROBLEM! Download Ecosia, it’s a search engine that Plants Thousands of trees as long as you use it. There are a bunch of desserts out there that we don’t need and a bunch of co2 that we need to get rid of before we suffocate ourselves. Trees get rid of co2 and makes the air a bit more cleaner. Y’all seeing the picture here right.
Katlyz Compz relax ppl don’t like being yelled at
Katlyz Compz 1. It’s spelled "desert" 2. Glhf with planting trees in a damn desert 😂 3. Trees also use up oxygen and produce co2 in their respiration process. Get your facts straight kiddo.
You are not telling the whole story here. Do we make more or less CO2 now than in the 1970s when we saw the fastest change in temperature? Also, you failed to mention that the big scary 2,000 GT of human based carbon emissions you mention is a drop in the bucket compared to what our oceans and land biomass contribute. The point I'm trying to make is that the global climate is very complex and to say that consensus 'proves' that we are to blame for these varying factors and models is not what many bonafide climate scientists believe.
I'm from germany, and the problem is huge here. Naturally, our state/ government takes for ever to change things. Its just how we are as people here. The same goes for everyday life. I have countless friends who could EASILY ride the bike to work, or for gods sake, take the bus, but they just don't care. "It's more convenient" and "I don't want to be sweaty when I arrive" are just 2 out of many excuses I hear. Having a car is no problem. Use it for heavy groceries and visiting people you can't reach that easily otherwise. Speeding across the motorway with 220 km/h and driving 4km to work everyday is.
And that is just one example. I don't even want to start about the amount of energy we consumpt and how easily we could turn it down (just don't leave your charger plugged in, use reusable packagings, don't order too frequently on amazon etc.), but in my experience, people here are just too "unaffected" to change things. By that, I mean most of the people, not all. There are exceptions, but few.
I've been riding my bicycle for decades and agree 💯%. But check this out. The carbon footprint of the military industrial complex
th-cam.com/video/oMozyspFuBM/w-d-xo.html
watershedsentinel.ca/articles/the-militarys-carbon-bootprint
th-cam.com/video/cw2Wm8T6tio/w-d-xo.html
www.athena21.org/in-english
th-cam.com/video/LLCF7vPanrY/w-d-xo.html
Thanks for sharing
The problem is "Large Cities". If you drive an hour outside of town--you'll be amazed at how clean the air is, and how fresh nature seems. Fortunately, large cities only disturb a tiny portion of the entire planet. We're fine--just move out of town, and forget cities exist--the country is safer anyways.
There is less disagreement about the existence of climate change than there is about what to do about it.What to do about climate change is where it seems that no two people seem to agree and the chance of reaching consensus about ANY remedies seems to be impossible.
Exactly. Many people act like changing the way we produce energy isn't going to harm millions and millions of people. But it certainly would.
How about we stop financing the biggest polluters for a start
th-cam.com/video/oMozyspFuBM/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/cw2Wm8T6tio/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/LLCF7vPanrY/w-d-xo.html
Diversify our energy sources
And least but not last
Reduce
Reuse
Repair
Redistribute (share)
Recycle
Reconsider....!
Most of my closest friends do not think that climate change is real, and this seems to be because their parents do not believe that it is real. This is very frustrating for me because, simply based off of what their parents have told them, they feel 100% ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that climate change is not real.
+Susan Garry just like 'inheriting' religion - sadly.
It hurts :p
+Susan Garry although I'm religious myself! :)
I think that's great - though I myself am not religion. I just don't like it when I see parents forcing their political and religious views down a kid's throat.
+Susan Garry I agree with your point SOOO much…but if you really meant what you wrote you must be consistent and be critical of people who 100% believe in man made climate change based on what they have been told also (Maybe you do?). That’s kind of the point I’ve been trying to make here…that anybody that is 100% positive - on either side of the issue - is not conducting a logical assessment.
Here
are some scientific facts that clearly show that an increase in CO2
does not lead to any significant increase in temperature
The
co2 concentration today is 400ppm. The temperature is circa 18c.
in
the Jurassic period the co2 concentration was 2000ppm, [5 times
greater than today] the temperature was 22c.
in
the Triassic period the co2 concentration was 2500ppm [ 6 times
greater than today] the temperature was 22c.
in
the Ordovician period the co2 concentration was 3000ppm [7.5 times
greater than today] the temperature was 17c
in
the Cambrian period the co2 concentration was 6000ppm [15 times
greater than today] the temperature was 22c
For
most of the time the planet was thriving not frying, the data shows
that temperature is independent of co2 concentration
Look
at the data for the Cambrian. The co2 concentration is 15 times what
it is today but the temperatures is about the same as it is today.
Look at the Ordovician , the CO2 concentration was 7.5 greater
than it is today and yet the temperature was 2 degrees lower
than it is today.
Some
people who have read this data seem to get upset about it. They
describe these simple data sets above as 'bullshit' etc etc.
the
data I have given above is standard information that can be easily
verified by checking its validity on the many websites that cover
this subject. These data sets have been around for many years, there
is nothing controversial about them.
Looks like *the greenhouse effect is an adiabatic (pressure-induced) process* and therefore doesn't depend on the composition of the atmosphere. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is thus irrelevant to the greenhouse effect, because its concentration in the atmosphere doesn't affect the intensity of such effect. Here's the DOI code of such scientific paper: *10.4172/2573-458X.1000112*
You cannot just state "There is nothing controversial about this data" and expect us to believe you, you need to state your sources.
@@salaheddinekira1317 Just Google it. CO2 is good for plants and anybody who denies it has a political agenda and has been paid by politicians
@@achyuththouta6957 When you defend an idea, you are the one supposed to bring arguments, as for me, there is enough scientific evidence to make me believe in climate change.
And concerning what you have said about plants, the overall negative effects of climate change impact plants more than the short-term beneficial effects of CO2. Look, I took your advice and googled "co2 is good for plants". Here is what I found:
climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/
skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/
"As a scientist I rather have questions I can't answer than answers I can't question" - 100% of scientists
well if you dont question answers good luck with progress...
by global warming theory, water vapor is a green house gas.. and water vapor (or steam) dwarfs by far the amount of CO2 in the world's atmosphere which makes any fraction increment of CO2 insignificant .. funny how you forget to mention that.. so when I heat water to make my coffee I'm destroying environment.. man, I'm feeling bad now..
+Pascoal Freitas You should probably learn about "positive feedback loops" before trying this one again
+It's Okay To Be Smart CO2 concentration in Mars's atmosphere is 16 times higher than Earth's.. and it is hotter than Earth.. ops.. wait.. no, it is not.. is this one good enough for you?
+Pascoal Freitas The atmosphere of Mars is 1/100th the density of Earth's and even if it were 100% CO2 it couldn't effectively trap solar radiation. Next!
It's Okay To Be Smart exactly.. but does it not contradict greenhouse gases theory?? hahaha.. thanks for confirming it: what matters is the amount of all gases in the atmosphere not only a few ones
+It's Okay To Be Smart You should probably reference how your argument rests on amplification effect of CO2 for your positive feedback loops to work, and the data collected does not match climate change prediction models......at all.
Anyone else here because your teacher sent you the link?
It’s definitely interesting times we live in- interesting but scary! Honestly though, we need some radical changes. I assume at some point within the century- we will definitely have another hard time! Every generation does at some point. Perhaps instead of World War and depression like the last century, it will all be surviving the climate, earthquakes, and so on. With today’s political polarization and division- we need the changes to wake ppl up! Something catastrophic to show us humanity Isn’t so invincible, and to humble egos! So be it!
“Life becomes an unsolvable mystery with any number of twists and turns awaiting us. And that’s enough to fill any soul with terror.” - Asura, Kishin
We unfortunately need to learn the hard way.
We're at war with Earth and our ecosystem. Here's why
th-cam.com/video/oMozyspFuBM/w-d-xo.html
watershedsentinel.ca/articles/the-militarys-carbon-bootprint
th-cam.com/video/cw2Wm8T6tio/w-d-xo.html
www.athena21.org/in-english
th-cam.com/video/LLCF7vPanrY/w-d-xo.html
Part of the issue isn’t just that people don’t believe in the science. A major divide right now is based on politics and political activism. Many skeptics are simply not convinced that government is the solution to tackling issues, and as such, shouldn’t be the solution.
It’s not just that people deny the Earth is warming. A great chunk see human innovation as the solution. And as a result, those of us who do get labeled as science deniers by political activists because they simply cannot see how individuals in a free market can solve the issues we face.
Great presentation by the way. I think sticking with the facts like this in a calm and rational manner is the way to bring those that are skeptical to consider the data.
Brilliant overview! The basic principals of climate science are pretty straight forward- it's a shame so many are still ignorant of them.
The carbon footprint of the military industrial complex
th-cam.com/video/oMozyspFuBM/w-d-xo.html
watershedsentinel.ca/articles/the-militarys-carbon-bootprint
th-cam.com/video/cw2Wm8T6tio/w-d-xo.html
www.athena21.org/in-english
th-cam.com/video/LLCF7vPanrY/w-d-xo.html
Keep in mind those numbers still underestimated. Thanks for sharing 🙏
It's more of a shame that IPCC are sun deniers, the difference between the grand modern maxium and the low sun activity during the little ice age is at least 6-7W/m2
I feel like that wasn’t a great explanation, you have to explain the carbon cycle to people and offer evidence.
georg lieber there is no true evidence that humans cause any change, climate change yes, it’s ALWAYS been changing! Not my opinion either. Look for veteran climate scientists!
Enterdangit! Did you even watch the video?
@@Daniel-sn8fg Yep. Have the same slight headache you get from watching a TV evangelist grifting from pensioners.
@bad mojo my comment was meant to be an answer to @enterdangit! lol
@@JasonK427 no there actually have been some prove that humans cause climate change one way you can point out is that solar activity has been decreasing over the last 4 decades but the average global temperature has been increasing over that same period.
Talking to my mother about this is like talking to a brick wall. She gets all her information from the media and that's never wrong, right?
I believe the climate is changing. I trust what the scientific community thinks. The thing that blows my mind is this. Whether one believes that climate change is happening or not, what is wrong with using renewable fuel sources anyway? I consider it to be a lack of ethics to fight against saving our planet, regardless of one's beliefs.
Money
Why is there so much conflicting data on this issue?
Because big companies make a lot of money with fossile energy. It is the easier way to go.
It is the same as it was with the smoking companies when the health risks of smoking became popular. They made their own laboratories and payed their own "scientists" to publish data in their favor.
Жоро Марков because there isn't. it's real. all intelligent people know this
Same reason there used to be conflicting data on whether tobacco products were bad for you or whether sugar was bad for you. If people can make money by lying to the world, a lot of them will do it no matter how many people die as a result.
There's no conflicting data on how far the Moon is from Earth, for example. That's why we have science. Then you have misinformation because of special interest, mainly through the mass media. So it is important for people to make the distinction between information and science. I just want the science, not people's opinion. the problem is: who do you trust, and how do you judge that?
Жоро Марков The ones with evidence
Duh..?
You have a real talent for compilation. I've tried to get many of the same points across but I've never been able to do it as efficiently as you did in this video. I'll study this to help me spread the word more intelligently and efficiently.
Cows being gassy are causing the end of the world
I thought it's our waste that was causing the problem
Sat Nov. 8 Northeast Oklahoma 40F. Following week forecast: Low: Monday night freeze of 22F High: Sat Day 53F. Early Oklahoma Winter, 2019. (it will usually warm briefly in January and then another wave of winter worse than the first half commences). This is almost every year I can remember. Some years we have northern style snows, where it will freeze or snow remains for several days, almost a two weeks, or/and then remain cold and dry. Oklahoma is known for "random" weather.. but the pattern is kinda similar each year, it just varies in timing of when it happens. But it's definitely... abruptly winter from mildly warm falls, remains winter with a few struggles for warmth if it's dry, but the systems nail us with the cold.
I was in this big argument about climate change with my mom, and now I have resources to back my facts! Thanks!
You have nothing but lies to back up your silly argument.
@@GhettoRanger01 Whats the ACTUAL scientific proof written by a scientist that has NO political bias that supports climate change is a hoax?
@@grant8164 th-cam.com/video/eEmUS7PAWFw/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/TCy_UOjEir0/w-d-xo.html
@@grant8164 th-cam.com/video/UE6QxBaIEv8/w-d-xo.html
Don't worry. Captain Planet will save us.
Republicans hit him with golden cane that the oil lobbyists paid for.
I can really understand why communism came to be, they didn't want powerful rich people getting what they want with money. I know it was one of the worst ideas when attempted, but I really hate those oil companies who just throw money at whatever they want, and whenever something isn't going the way they want, they just throw more money at it.
Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨Ʒ no he won’t. Watch these: th-cam.com/video/TwJaELXadKo/w-d-xo.html
Captain planet is a pansy that will follow Elon to Mars.
"Let's not beat around the rapidly melting iceberg here"
i see what you did there
No see this th-cam.com/video/-peWWeRV71Y/w-d-xo.html
Question: For a school project I'd like to investigate the effect of climate change on coastal areas... I plan to look at this beach were coastal erosion is evident..but are there any Qualitative studies I can use to guide me?
Since I was born, snow would always fall in November or December, in 2019, December Or November had littler year no snow, but it started snowing in today. I live in Canada, Quebec in the city of Montreal.
just had a 95cm storm in 24hrs in NL after practly no snow for months
If I had a dollar for every time someone says “the evidence is overwhelming” I would be able to hire a hitman to make sure nobody utters the phrase again.
Thats a good one
Well it’s cause it is indeed overwhelming, it’s just when it’s presented to people who don’t believe in climate change, they either deny the evidence or make something up.
Ah, back when temp up was only "almost one degree". Now we're just a few years away from 1.5 degrees.
Anytime I bring up climate change to anyone, I usually am met with personal attacks. Even though what I am bringing up is something that is personally attacking all of us equally. How the turn...tables.
So many with hair on fire ... th-cam.com/video/IV2nwRszj8k/w-d-xo.html
@@climatecraze OK fossil fuel shill
You changed my mind! But to make this truly informative, you need to tell people what THEY can do. Good job tho.
The believers can go start a colony on Mars for starters.
CO2 causes mild warming and a huge increase in plant growth, it is a benefit to the planet and we should produce more.
if you agree with scientists that we are producing more co2 and that it has a greenhouse effect, have you ever looked up what the science has to say about the idea that dramatically increasing co2 will increase plant growth? my understanding of the science of plants is that co2 is a limited factor in their growth and you need very specific conditions, highly controlled humidity and temperature, to get any sort of benefit from increased co2 in growing plants.
@@davidkolo If it's such a minute contributor to plant growth people wouldn't be paying money to pump it into their greenhouses. It's like saying oxygen doesnt matter to humans because after all its not the highest concentrated gas we breath and we're not made of oxygen.
@@joshbirnel8265 the question isn't whether plants need co2, we know they do. The question is how much value does all the plants in the world are seeing from increasing co2 concentrations without also improving their other conditions. In a greenhouse, if you just pump more co2 without changing the other variables such as temperature and moisture, you will see limited gain in plant growth, at least according to my understanding. if you have reason to believe otherwise then please let me know.
For every major discussion topic in history, there have been people on both sides of a debate who base their ideas on a vague faith in something they've been told. So the discussion about climate change needs to be from a scientific perspective. I'm by no means saying I understand even a fraction of the depth of climate science needed to evaluate it properly. I'm saying the discussion should be without prejudice, and with as little emotion as humanly possible. The most important value in science is to question everything, they tell you that in grade school but not many take it to heart. Everyone knows the most legendary scientists have taken down paradigms, but not many are open to questioning mainstream theories themselves. No theory is ever proven and there are always alternative theories. A scientist has weakly supported opinions and strongly supported theories but they are NEVER certain. This is what i mean when i say scientific perspective. Not more or less knowledge, not on a particular side of any particular debate.
We have to try to understand the more complicated aspects of the subject , not simply quote the media.
This topic, climate, is a very, VERY complicated one. We all know that weather is not climate. You cannot simply look out the window, see that it's snowing and say there's no global warming. You also cannot point to any forest fire or hurricane and say its caused by "climate change". It is not simple. It is a matter of probabilities and statistical analysis beyond my comprehension.
It is widely established that the Earth is on a natural warming trend. Climate always changes in a local area, on different scales, but over many years the NET trend is toward a warmer Earth.
🧐most scientists agree on:
- glaciers are on a melting trend, most glaciers globally are receding
- the Earth was probably due for a warming trend (although trends in climate are not a predictable pattern whatsoever), it would be regardless of humans , we recently (in geological time) came out of a glacial period. This is due in part to the Milankovitch Cycle, a well established and academically accepted understanding of the cycles of Earth's climate dependent on the tilt and relationship to the sun etc
- a change in global climate trends can have extreme effects as equilibriums are disturbed , (like the wind in the spring)
- the greenhouse effect is a natural, very IMPORTANT part of our planets ability to sustain life
- levels of C02 are measured in certain locations, some in Tanzania and Hawaii because secluded and away from urban heat Islands, (keep in mind the local conditions including volcanoes that can increase C02 readings).... it gets complicated when you start thinking about atmospheric chemistry - I cant wait to learn more!
- C02 levels are rising (if you are to believe the data and trust the individuals who put out the statistics, which personally i don't)
- the changing climate will effect all life on Earth, some organisms will benefit, others will struggle, evolve, ecosysytems will have to rearrange, people will have to move houses away from rising sea levels etc Coral reefs have already shown adapting behaviour, when the seas warm they are bleeched and their mutualistic bacteria that photosynthesize for them are killed off but they are OBSERVED COMING BACK because they adapt and change their skeleton
- contrails add cloud and change local weather patterns, condensing more water and making it fall more often? I am unsure the effects of this system
there's more but.......
- the Carbon cycle is necessary for all life on earth. fossil fuels are a reservoir for plants. increased CO2 increases vegetation.
🧐Opinions based on faith/belief:
Whether or not humans and fossil fuels are putting enough C02 into the atmosphere to accelerate the greenhouse effect in a SIGNIFICANT manner AND whether or not this is detrimental to the planet or simply another change in the environment that humans and all other organisms must adapt to because that's the nature of life on Earth
Even IF there is any kind of substantial effect from humans, lets be clear and not narcissistic, the Earth and life in general will be fine. The biosphere has survived drastic changed in climate time and again over the millions of years of evolution. The nature of life is to adapt. The adapting coral reefs as mentioned, who is to say this isn't what they always do in fluctuating temperatures and scientists are simply just observing it now and believing the bleeching to be "our fault"
Do I hate polar bears and revel in the idea of their demise? No, on the contrary, the thought of any living thing being harmed in any way saddens me. But emotion has no place in science. I am very wary of those who try to sway me with emotion.
Respect others beliefs without judging or thinking you're better than them or assuming they are horrible people who don't care. I care, probably more than most. I always bring my own water bottle, a coffee bottle to the coffee shop, love the reusable bags, use all my things until they are functionally unusable even if they don't look great anymore, I have a biodiverse lawn etc etc I do everything I can that I feel is right in my local community and ecosystem not because I want to impress anyone but because it is better. Pollution and mass production suck, I don't like a lot about it and there are better ways of doing things. I also don't hate humanity and think our species is a "plague" to the planet. We are beautiful and deserve to survive like every other animal. Every bad thing that happens to every other animal is not OUR FAULT. NATURE IS NOT A FAIRY-TALE. ANY EDGE ANY OTHER ANIMAL CAN GET TO SURVIVE THEY DO without remorse. WE CARE, we try to do right and have morality, that's good, but we should not be degrading our own worth and existence, that is a ploy by those in power. I don't feel bad about driving a car, I do wish it was electric but I cannot afford it and if the powers at be really cared about the pollution they would make electric cars better and cheaper. YES they could in the snap of a finger but they don't give a rats ass, and carbon taxes do NOTHING but put money in their pockets.
If I'm presented with evidence that strongly points to humans ARE accelerating the trend and this is horrible for the Earth, will I admit I was wrong ? Yes, wholeheartedly and without shame.
The point is to follow the evidence to the most likely truth regardless of belief.
this is some scary shit
geoengineeringwatch.org
***** you mean like a climate-change denier?
***** wow you're a idiot.
i think most people know these things, its just noone wants to do anything
No see this th-cam.com/video/-peWWeRV71Y/w-d-xo.html
I think we need a detailed action list of things that people can do. And talk about specific numbers. How many people need to drive electric? How many homes need to go solar? How much power needs to be generated by wind? I think people shut out climate change because the solutions feel nebulous.
What you need to know is politicians cannot control the climate
gpettipas they choose whether or not to fund oil companies or tree planting companies. So, yea they kinda do
@Seth Adkins CO2 is not a significant driver of the greehouse effect.
Neither can anyone else control or change the climate, Skippy.
I’m a scientist.. and my job is basically analyzing scientific articles... the idea that science cannot be questioned is absolutely ridiculous. The scientific database is FILLED with conflicting data, and even things that were considered “facts” (because science said so) have been proven wrong sooo many times before. Science isn’t perfect and has many downfalls. Just because a scientific study said something doesn’t mean it’s the ultimate and absolute truth. The tendency to stop all questioning as soon as a piece of evidence is reportedly “scientific” is the silliest thing I see non-scientists do. Because any good scientist will then consider, well how was the study designed, what were the variables, what was measured, is that measured outcome a proper one to consider to support the hypothesis, etc. This is especially important when the claim is something as extreme as omggg mass extinction incoming!!!
"This is especially important when the claim is something as extreme as omggg mass extinction incoming!!!"
it is coming....
That's why IPCC has a massive document about the observations, models, and findings for all of their major assessment reports. A few studies can certainly be incorrect, but thoroughly vetted studies with teams of scientists are much less likely to be
I wasn't furiously attacking climate change. I was making a general comment on how the public tends to view and interpret scientific data. And specifically in regards to climate change, this is causing a state of panic and mob-mentality. This has led people to blindly assume, in the name of science, that humans will go extinct. Considering such drastic consequences, based on so little we know about climate science, a field already riddled with so many unknown unknown variables, warrants additional skepticism. Again, I'm not saying climate scientists are wrong (in fact, they're more likely to be right than anyone else on this world), but I would be much more hesitant before jumping to extreme conclusions as to what and to what degree those effects will be.As for my personal opinion on climate change, I'm still trying to find a stance, which is why I was watching this video. I do believe that there is a good chance that climate change is real and that humans influenced it, but the outcome of these events (extinction, or other extreme consequences), to me, seem way over exaggerated. I do, however, full heartedly support making changes to have a cleaner environment, for health reasons and to stay on the cautious side. I'm pretty new to this topic and in the process of learning more. Maybe you could enlighten me.
@@sjpark1991 I don't think much if any of the literature jumps to extreme consequences, for what it's worth. Certainly not human extinction, though ecosystem disruption leading to extinctions of a number of species (and loss in biodiversity) is definitely a real potential consequence. That seems to be largely media driven
Yes, as I am learning more, that's what I'm realizing too. I'm just against the media driven large scale freak out buuuut also to be fair, that's what got my attention so I guess it worked
Who else is watching this for school
Do they talk about this at school?
The carbon footprint of the military industrial complex
th-cam.com/video/oMozyspFuBM/w-d-xo.html
watershedsentinel.ca/articles/the-militarys-carbon-bootprint
th-cam.com/video/cw2Wm8T6tio/w-d-xo.html
www.athena21.org/in-english
th-cam.com/video/LLCF7vPanrY/w-d-xo.html
THIS IS WHAT YOU CAN DO AT HOME TO HELP THIS PROBLEM! Download Ecosia, it’s a search engine that Plants Thousands of trees as long as you use it. There are a bunch of desserts out there that we don’t need and a bunch of co2 that we need to get rid of before we suffocate ourselves. Trees get rid of co2 and makes the air a bit more cleaner. Y’all seeing the picture here right.
Heyyy i have that too
The carbon footprint of the military industrial complex
th-cam.com/video/oMozyspFuBM/w-d-xo.html
It shouldn't matter if climate change is man made, we should treat it as if it is. Simply because this is the only planet as far as we know that human can live on.
Yeah we're going to have to move over to renewables sooner or later anyway.
well that's stupid, because we can danger ourself again,...(if human could control it, which happily we can't) a too low cO2 kills plants,...no clever then, right?
Actually, all that matters is whether the cost of fixing a problem is more expensive than living with the problem.
I haven't seen anything that says global warming would be impossible to live through.
But for many many people, disrupting the economy to fix global warming might kill them.
and the earth going back into an ice age would be worse than either of those.
The best way to immediately turn science into 'junk-science' is by the influence of politics or religion.
And who were the people who decided to make climate change political, hmmm?
@@LisaBeergutHolst, The ones who made it political are those successful at receiving tax funding. Follow the money. Then notice who uses the money to purchase oceanfront properties. It will be the same climate alarmists who warn of impending doom from sea rise.
Isn't Climate Change wonderful? Winter, Spring, Summer, and Autumn makes life more interesting, and less boring. I just don't like it when Winter lasts too long.
That's weather, not climate lol
Climate and weather are different dummy
Okay. I'm not here to argue with the majority of people who keep on denying what is obviously really happening. All I'm going to say here is this...
When it's too late and everything happens at once, you'll learn the hard way. If you refuse to believe the warning signs nature and Earth are sending now, then you'll have to learn the hard way. People always have to learn the hard way before they finally wake up and realize there's a real problem. That's the way it has to be, I guess. You can provide all evidence and tell a denier all you want, but you can't make him believe it. It must be human nature to deny everything until it's too late. Luckily, some people (including yours truly) have chosen to believe these things and not rely on human nature.
Call me anything you want and insult me until you're blue in the face for all I care, deniers. I'm either going to ignore you or mark as spam, but you won't get any replies from me.
Edit: I will, however, reply to positive replies from those who are on my side.
+David Colantuono Exactly!
+David Colantuono *gasp* AN INTELLIGENT COMMENT!
+David Colantuono I don't believe the people who are denying it, are a majority.
It's a vocal minority with no facts on their side. All they want is to give the impression, there is a controversy. Influence the public opinion.
They are like creationists who just try to poke holes in accepted science without contributing anything to the scientific progress.
+David Colantuono Don't worry. Jaden Smith will save us.
keep it alienated .. lovin it..
Just turn on all the air conditioners duh. Problem solved.
I already believed it. The depression only grows. XD
We have to focus on gating the trends towards a cleaner environment. America stands to lose the most, the faster we transition to green energy. Time to put economists and climatologists in the same room.
Exactly. The cost of the solution is what these global warming alarmists are ignoring.
Ultimately, the information he gave, even if taken at face value, cannot be used to support any conclusion on the association of human activities on climate change. What we think of as the climate has existed for nearly as long as the Earth itself, but he wishes us to make leaps of judgement based on decades of records and the estimation of a few centuries. (Not to mention some of the newest information available on the topic, and ignoring a discussion on how the era of "Climate Scientists" began.)
Oh, and yes, he really did say (paraphrasing for clarity) that water increases in volume when it converts from ice to liquid.
I know this is from 2 years ago but he didn't say water expands when converting from ice to liquid. Water does contract when melting but once past melting temp & continues to warm, it expands. sciencing.com/water-expand-contract-heated-5185456.html
Pffft all just a liberal conspiracy to have me give up my guns. I can't do anything to harm god's planet that he made 6,000 years ago. Jeb Bush 2016!!!
***** :D No problem man
Kyle Reynolds "It is so arrogant to think that humanity can even change the climate."
You are an idiot. The earth is older than 6,000 years. There is no help for you!
John Dominick over 20000000 years old
I have heard 4 times this week how climate change is fake because it’s been snowing. I get so heated and always end up feeling stupid.
Just tell them the world is bigger than their backyard lol
+Okay "Have an idea for an episode or an amazing science question you want answered? Leave a comment below!"
Sure. Explain, using physics, how 400 ppm CO2 can warm the atmosphere. No magic involved. Use Fourier, but all of his thinking, not just the part he rejected "greenhouse effect", and explain how a glass covered building that does not allow wet air expansion to rise (doing work) can be considered a model for anything but another greenhouse.
The so called greenhouse gases do not trap heat as shown in the video and which is generally taught in schools. The actual physics is that these gases like carbon dioxide, methane absorb the infrared radiations from the sun and convert them into their vibrational energy. Later on as they absorb more infrared radiation i.e. Heat.. they start losing this vibrational energy again in the form of heat because it is the easiest and simplest mode of loss of energy. That's why we see that most losses of energy in our nature and even in the industrial sector are into heat like friction and air resistance
Its scary that the people i normally agree with in politics are the people who think this is a hoax
No see this th-cam.com/video/-peWWeRV71Y/w-d-xo.html
11 year old boy just heard a BAD WORD
Average temperature rise is about .35 degrees over the last 50 years according to a group of about 30,000 scientists( some from NASA. UC Davis did a study on methane gas and the result was very little impact on the environment. The climate is always changing, sometimes it is warmer and sometimes it gets colder. Global warming group switched to climate change to be PC.
Just to correct you at 1:28 Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). ... And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions. 40% of ( the 3.4%) said human emissions is absorbed by the atmosphere.
So what he said was correct.
He’s saying that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere compared to before industrial revolution has increased by 40%, so he is not talking about the amount of CO2 compared to other gases.
alot of people just say: "Yes lets save the clima" but they never do
And sorry but I'm not any better like alot of us.
@5dope you're so damn right. I'm not any better than almost everyone. We are all just people that wants to save the clima but we are not willing to sacrifice any of our stuff or opportunities in this life for the clima.
Because if one of us changes his life the impact will be resulted in nearly nothing.
Governments has the responsibility to save us from ousrselves.
I can't decide to make my own electricity for my apartment, and I can't buy an electric car because my country has not made any stations for me to charge it, people want to change their life style but they simply *CANT* .
Vitus Tillebeck u see lats say all people gone be good for climate but that won’t change much bc normal people Course about 20 or 10% of co2 other about 90% is made by Fossil fuel companies bc of 💰 after all 💰 > 🌍I wish they could live like us not rich people
@@doshi050050 You should try anyways. At least reduce beef consumption and work on education. Reducing your waste by recycling should also help somewhat.
@@alyssahansen1400 well my family use less plastic than the average family but still I don't think our action contribute at all
To be honest I didn't even know what climate change really was before I watched this video and I believe everything you said.
You should :) because he’s a qualified science communicator and you can even research this yourself if you’d like! There are reports like the IPCC report you can try to sift through 😅 or you can look online and read papers on scientific America
Ok they might not be convinced by facts but it's a lot hotter than it used to be and that's not just in summer. The seasons are not in the months they used to be it's all messed up how can people just ignore that? They should be able to feel that physically.
Lol if we die from climate change imma be pissed
Climate change is natural. Of course, there will be positive and negative effects of it, but it will have it'll have like a big impact on the earth(my opinion)
apparently we only have 12 more years to live because climate change ( something i saw on internet sorry if i’m incorrect )
@@hannahsloserlifetvt3703 That's incorrect.
@minecraftliberal2009 you do realize the mass production in places like china are literally for the wests consumption right? Lmao. You seem eager to point the finger withiut recognizing why mass production is a thing lol.
@@hannahsloserlifetvt3703 we've actually got 12 years to change something, if we don't stop climate change by cca 2030 earth will likely be uninhabitable for us by 2050 (confirmed by the un)
Let's all save the planet and kill our self's off. The last time co2 levels where this high, was over a million years ago. So what caused co2 levels to drop, how did we do that? What should the co2 levels be? What should the average mean temperature of our planet be, and how do you arrive at that answer. An increase of one degree over 100 years? So what?! Isn't there someone I can donate money to, to deal with my guilt, for my part of being the problem?! If I kill myself, would that help?
+Saddle Sore Looks like you asked 4 questions: 1) What caused CO2 to drop in the past 2) What should CO2 levels be? 3) What should the average temperature be? 4) Is an increase of 1 degree Celsius a big deal? Let's see:
1) Global CO2 levels drop for all kinds of reasons all the time. CO2 levels didn't drop 800,000 years ago because of us; no one species "did" that. The Earth naturally does it by cycling carbon.
Every living thing on Earth uses carbon to build its cells (that's why we're called "carbon-based" life). Carbon sinks (things that use CO2 to build cells and grow) like bacteria in the soil, the algae and animals in the ocean, and animals on land naturally remove CO2 in the atmosphere. Heck, you're cycling CO2 and oxygen right now while you read this comment, and you're always making new cells. If enough plant and animal life exists, CO2 levels naturally decrease.
It's like the old wolf/deer scenario: If more wolves eat deer, the wolf population grows, and the deer population falls. Soon, however, wolves run low on deer = fewer wolves, and the deer population comes back. As long as nothing catastrophic disrupts this cycle, both species fluctuate in an endless exchange of resources.
2) CO2 is always cycling in and out of the atmosphere and the biosphere (the total mass of living plant and animal cells on the planet), so there's no right answer-it always changes, so life on earth always changes. CO2 spikes in the past come from tons of things: mass extinction events, super volcanoes, etc. It's unbalanced for a while, then plants or bacteria boom and use the abundant CO2 to grow, eventually slowing down when they run low on CO2 (like the wolves).
Right now, we're simply releasing a lot of CO2 from long dead plants and animals (fossil fuel) back into the atmosphere faster than living things can reabsorb it. We're also damaging carbon sinks with land use and deforestation.
3) There is no "average mean temperature" because the earth is constantly but gradually changing.
Some organisms do really well when it's warmer, others not so much. There's no "perfect" temperature, but if you're talking about a perfect temperature for humans, it's obviously close to what it is now, or else we wouldn't have evolved and found ourselves in such a dominant position on the planet. Jellyfish, for instance, would thrive in warmer, acidic oceans. Fish, not so much. It's all about perspective.
4) The carbon cycle is lopsided right now, so it's getting hotter much faster than the normal cycles we've seen in the recorded past. What we have now is simply unnatural, aka "man-made climate change" from increased CO2 emissions, combined with our destruction of carbon sinks like biodiversity in the ocean and deforestation.
It's a problem because water levels are rising, and according the UN 44% of humans on the earth live near coastal lying areas. Water levels rising, increased heat, longer harsher droughts, etc are all a big deal to us.
Climate change is a big deal. Unless you're a jellyfish. Then it's fantastic.
Hope that helped!
Lefty Scissors I was thinking that it would really help the planet if I killed myself. I think shooting myself in the head would be the best way.
+Saddle Sore
Thats the sad truth. many movies talk about humans being a cancer, which I dont deny. But cancer dosent stop and dosent think about its survival in the longrun, some people do, and these people are the ones that need to act. Most humans are stupid and just fillup their basic needs, but we dont need many to make a difference, we only need ones to do so, the revolution had started, its slow, maybe its not fast enough, but eventually itll become a vicious fire.
"The beginning is the most important part of the work" - Plato
Maybe its just the music talking...
Shay Lempert I would like to make a you tube video where I put a gun to my head and blow my brains out on camera, but I need help to do it, as I won't be able to post the video after I shoot myself. Would you help me?
thats pointless, it has the consequences as staying alive and feeding the beast inside you.
Would you please explain how co2 causes global warming? Thank you.
They can't, because it doesn't.
Kuldip Tangri what's your current level of understanding of physics and chemistry? Knowing this will assist in answering your question in a way that you will be able to understand.
@@boilerhousegarage It does, and we can. It creates an insulating blanket, just like the glass on a greenhouse. are you also refuting well established physics to prove yourself right? get out of your bubble!
This is exactly why I took the time to call for a real revolution and wrote a song about negligence when it comes to climate change. So many people protest but still buy the newest cell phones, clothes and splurge. It is time for them to really make a stand, start a real revolution and fight for those making cents an hour just to feed their families.
Joe, for being a PhD you included an awful lot of spin in this video. I implore you to be more honest in the future + 2 address your bias so that you can have a more open mind. I too am a college professor. I was like you for a while and assumed my position. But as I was working day and night on a series of patents to address global warming I looked at the data more closely. I can tell you I hate being lied to. The first thing I discovered was there is no empirical data showing that CO2 has increased temperatures. There is however significant data showing that increasing temperatures have generated a significant positive correlation With CO2 levels. That my friend it's just the tip of the iceberg. You either know the truth and don't care or you don't know the truth and don't care. Because, if you did care you would begin pointing out the large number of inconsistencies and inaccuracies not to mention the huge number of lies and fraud. Such as the fact that ocean levels are not accelerating, there is no increase in extreme weather according to virtually every reputable scientist, glaciers have been melting since the mid-1800s, NASA manipulation of surface temperatures, etc etc etc! You seem to be very good at TH-cam so I implore you to address your biases and be more comprehensive in certain areas. God bless you and I wish you and yours well.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (2001) Section 14.2.2.2. page 774
In Climate Research and Modelling
We should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non linear chaotic system And therefore that long term prediction future climate states is not possible.
Is there a link or something where I can see that? I just wanna see it for myself
These are not facts you only gave 3 references to 25 points and those "studies" came from 1916-1950.
Sources are in the description
I can't believe we're still at the same point 9 years later 😓
1 million years ago Co2 levels were at 1,000ppm and we are reaching that level again.. seems to be something that has happened in the past despite what humans do.
Except its happening much quicker than it should
This video iritats me
your spelling irritates me
ther·mo·sphere
/ˈTHərməˌsfir/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the region of the atmosphere above the mesosphere and below the height at which the atmosphere ceases to have the properties of a continuous medium. The thermosphere is characterized throughout by an increase in temperature with HEIGHT.
The thing is even IF climate change was wrong why WOULDNT we want clean renewable energy anyways?
When you start a video like this with hyperbole like this...you know they literally have no argument.
That's the spirit! Ignore reason and science!
Makes claims of scientific facts in a video, cites no sources in said video. :P
Can we please talk about how the source for this video is Wikipedia?
He gave you the facts. in 100 years 1 meter. Move 1 meter higher. Problem solved. Ya have 100 years to do it. LOL What a bunch of crybabies.
Funny thing is, in 1980s and 1990s they said the same damn thing.