Climate change is here. For those passionate about learning more about the state we are in and how humanity can solve this global crisis, you have come to the right place. For those who believe the end has come and nothing we can do now can save us, you have also come to the right place, but for a different reason. There is no longer time for denial, apathy, or procrastination. We have no choice but to fight it.
"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." - Nelson Mandela
Let me go there with a few tons of semtex and I will blow the ice shelf off the dooms day glacier and we will never have to listen to climate change.....!!
How long does it take for the predictions given in the past of the melting glaciers to actually occur? And for sea levels to truly rise? The answer is more than 59 years. How do i know this, because i am 59 years old and none of the predicted catastrophes have occurred. Stop speading fear. Our planet is capable of many amazing things and scientists are not.
A climate myth I hear a lot is that the climate has patterns, and the stronger storms, droughts, and higher sea levels that we are seeing are just a part of the climate pattern and that eventually the climate will go back to what it was in the 90's. Please help me explain why this is a myth.
It sounds like wishful thinking from people who think that climate-driving mechanisms are some unsolvable mystery that the fates have decided for us. We know hurricanes and monsoons get stronger when there is more heat in the atmosphere due to increased sea surface evaporation and moisture content in ambient air, among other things. Since we are actively causing the planet to get warmer, and show no signs of reversing this process, it can be inferred that these storms will get stronger too. Over a hundred years of accurate temperature monitoring and decades of improvements in computer models and observations have reduced a lot of this "mystery" about climate change that deniers love to bring up, especially with references to past predictions like those made in the 1950s.
From what I've seen in my 77 years, is tons of propaganda from Fossil Fuel Corporations. Every 6 months studies show melting ice, were wrong and the ice is melting faster faster than predicted Then again 6 months later same results, Greenland is even worse than ever predicted It just not Antarctica, Ice is melting everywhere, We past the tipping point 50 years ago, nothing can stop it.
Predictions made in the 1970s by ExxonMobil scientists were actually accurate at predicting global temperature increase as a result of rising CO2 levels. Our technology and understanding has only improved orders of magnitude since then and there has been no sign of increased discourse among climate scientists. The Earth is warming and we know why and how.
@@PlanetZeroVideos really? Because scientists were predicting global cooling in the seventies and that is documented. They were recommending that we should build wind mills around the artic circle to prevent freezing or covering the north pole in soot to absorb heat. Now what if the governments of the world would have listened to them? By the way it's still cooler now than the first century A.D.
In the 70s people were also still debating on whether or not smoking caused cancer. Should we do away with all our current anti-tobacco laws because of speculations made when we had insufficient science and massive corporate lobbying to obfuscate the truth? Our science has come a long way in the last 50 years and there isn't any radical shift in the way we are observing the climate crisis unfold. There was a period of time after World War II when the Earth's climate did cool quite a bit despite CO2 emissions continuing. The reason for this was the massive amount of coal and dirty oil being burned across the globe, pumping tons of ash and soot into the air. This scattered sunlight and acted like continuous volcano eruptions, cooling the Earth slightly. However, when clean air laws were passed and the burning of coal began to wane, the temperature began to climb again. Back then, we didn't have as thorough of an understanding of aerosol physics and mistook the cooling trend for some climate abnormality. Turns out it was humans toying with our climate stability again. Lastly, your final sentence is just an abject lie. Please show me one source that claims the first century was warmer than the 2010s.
@@PlanetZeroVideos you really should learn some geology ice ages follow a pattern of glaciations alternating with interglacials both are part of an ice age we are currently in an interglacial phase of our ice age called the Holocene interglacial it has lasted 12,000 years, so far the last glaciation ended 12,000 years ago the ice age is still going strong you’re confusing glaciations with ice ages most people do
@@johnvoelker4345 If you’re going to argue semantics, I suppose we are still in the Quaternary glaciation in terms of geologic epochs. When you said “ice age”, I assumed you were speaking of the LGM. My mistake. I’m not sure what that has to do with the WAIS though. Also, have you considered that the rapid influx of carbon dioxide may prevent future glaciations, potentially ending this epoch’s episodic cycle? Some models predict that under CO2 concentrations of 750 ppm, the next glaciation could be postponed by as long as 50,000 years.
@@PlanetZeroVideos ‘some models predict…’ look up ‘CO₂ as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate’ by DL Royer in it Royer suggests that CO₂ must be over 1,000 ppm to prevent a glaciation at 420 ppm, we aren’t even close to
@PlanetZeroVideos What l can say is that scientists have predicted a lot of problems, but they have not happened. So don't count your chickens before they hatch. That is very wise thinking ok
@@rodmartin-nl8ns I am not claiming that science has the answers to every question about the future, but it would be foolish to overlook its predictions that have come to fruition. People as far back as the 1970s, with very limited technology and understanding of Earth science, made accurate predictions in how the Earth’s temperature would respond to rising CO2. Now 50 years later, with massive improvements in technology and understanding, our predictive capabilities have only grown more precise. Again, not claiming science is a path to total knowledge about the future, but brushing it to the side in order to ignore the problems that we are objectively causing would be unwise to say the least.
@PlanetZeroVideos Just to answer that SIMPLY The last two Noble prize winners both have made it clearer that if science does not improve computer models, we are not going to be believed ok
@PlanetZeroVideos As for your problems, food production is up world,best ever, and the worlds greening barrier reef is fantastic. Still plenty of ice I have never seen the world this good TIDES ok. What's your problem
People love to imagine all the possibilities that AI could have without realizing that, in its current form, it is purely regurgitative and does not provide any new solutions. We don't need to rely on technocratic hyper-speculation about this new software to solve climate change; the answer has been crystal clear since before the Internet existed.
PROPAGANDA. The volcano idea came up over a decade ago and was squashed by both AGW believers and skeptics alike. Skeptics have not been talking about volcanoes and serious ones of us never did. You're trying to cover up the failures of climate science by inventing a failure for the other side.
Actually, the volcano idea was mentioned in the original broadcast of "The Great Global Warming Swindle", one of the widest-reaching climate change denial documentaries, before Plimer published his book. This idea has long been included in the suite of narratives stating that natural geological processes are causing climate change. Serious skeptics mention this constantly. I am hardly inventing a failure, but rather drawing attention to a myth disguised as science to tens of millions of people.
Just as there are AGW believers who push crap science there are "skeptics" doing the same. Just as believers came up with all sorts of hyperbole so did many initial skeptics. Believe me, the volcano idea has been dropped by skeptics who base their objections on science.
Debunk the myth that we're in a predicament that can't be solved and anything we do to try and solve it will only lead to more environmental degradation and loss of life on Earth. Therefore, even though Plimer is wrong, if his actions help speed up the inevitable collapse, he will be helping the rest of the life on Earth. Dan Miller of Climate Chat YT channel calls that a "pro-doomer" position. He doesn't subscribe to it. The title to the video is called :"Discussion with a Climate Doomer: Interview with Prof. Eliot Jacobson"
Interesting idea. Doomerism appears to me more of a philosophical reaction to climate change than a myth about the science, but it would definitely make for a cool video
CLT costs can vary depending on the type of building. Typically, it is cheaper to build using CLT, but it can become more expensive in multi-story apartment/hotel/skyscraper settings. It is also cheaper to work with CLT compared to concrete since it is a lighter material to transport and requires less time and labor to assemble.
a bunch of random Qs from watching the video: how strong is CLT/can it support multi-family houses? could it replace other common uses for concrete, such as sidewalks? also, how much of a fire hazard is it in construction? my impression is that wood is already used in home construction, and that CLT would be safer in fires due to its density.
CLT can support multiple stories, but as the number of stories reaches double digits, it becomes less cost effective to use CLT compared to concrete. I'm sure you could replace sidewalks with something even cheaper than CLT as the need for structural integrity is a lot lower for a walkway. CLT is incredibly fire resistant due to its density as you said. There's a part in the video where I mention its structural integrity holds for 30-90 minutes after being set on fire, which allows plenty of time for evacuations.
Another myth is that extreme climate change wont be a problem till 2100. This is false. It is likely that rapid global heating will collapse agriculture and civilization by 2040, because of the accelleration of global heating, recently reported by James Hansen.
I don't think I know anyone who believes that climate change is real but won't be a problem until 2100. It is a problem today and it has been especially noticeable in the last 5-10 years. I will look into this myth though.
Another myth to consider, is the myth that if we stop burning coal and dirty fuels, the planet will cool down. This wont happen, because ghg's are recalcitrant, and dirty emission reduction will reduce global dimming, and more sunlight will strike the earth, heating the planet. If humans stop putting particulates into the atmosphere completely, the earth will heat up by 2.5c within a few months.
And yet, the last thing we want to do is continue to burn coal under the premise of "climate cooling". If all we need are the aerosols to stop 2.5 C of warming, we might already have a plan for that (solar aerosol injection).
Im looking forward to this. By the way, i read a while back that we discovered the hest-trapping properties of CO2 (in a lab) all the way back in the 19th Century. Earlier that smae century, a scientist surprised rven himself by proving that the Earth "should" be -100 degrees (I dotn remeber if it was Celsius or Fahrenheit- probably Celsius, but I dont want to spread misinformation) given its distance from the Sun. He concluded that there must be something in the atmosphere that's keeping the Sun's heat from escaping it. The science on this goes waaay back.
Yes, the understanding of the greenhouse effect goes all the way back to the 1800s with the likes of Fourier, Foote, Tyndall and Arrhenius. They made some miscalculations and incorrect assumptions, but put it on the radar. In the 1950s and 1960s, researchers like Revelle, Suess, and Keeling started to see that CO2 was accumulating in the atmosphere and rising year after year. By 1980, we have climate models that have predicted Earth's current temperature increase with stunning accuracy. It is now 2024 and still people question if we really understand why the Earth is warming.
One myth to be aware of is the myth that the climate will heat up a few degrees and then stablize at a workable level. The reality is that a dozen climate feedbacks have been triggered, and the planet is going to heat up and keep heating and it will get hotter faster, and it wont stop heating up until the oceans evaporate and atmospheric pressure doubles, resulting in a temperature similar to that on Venus.🙂😎❤👍✌💯
To trigger a positive feedback that would evaporate the world oceans would require CO2 concentrations beyond what is possible with Earth's carbon cycle and solar radiation. This is a scenario that will unfold 1-2 billion years in the future when the Sun's radiation has grown by many orders of magnitude, but will not happen accidentally because of human activity.
The world has been aware of climate change since the 1980s. People don't believe in climate change because (a) it's profitable for them not to accept science fact (b) they don't want to (clashes with world view or religious beliefs), or (c) they just aren't bothered (caring for the Earth for future generations is of no interest to them). I'm amazed that when talking about tech (physics, engineering, gadgets, inrastructure) that are very technical in nature no-one questions anything, but BIG opinions when it comes to climate change!!! All of a sudden scientists don't know anything completely ignoring the fact that just about every aspect of human society is based on science... funny that. Tech has altered our lives in unbelievable ways - some good, some bad. Our response to climate change will require changes too, but in a few years we won't even notice just like with the adoption of lifesyle habits, tech & gadgets in everyday life. Brushing our teeth every morning or shaving or doing chores or taking out the trash is monotomous & boring, but we do it because it's better for our health or quality of life... we do it anyway. Caring for the Earth needs the same attention because it's better for our general quality of life awa cuture generations. Still looking forward to the series though! Good luck
Even more than that. Nuclear physicist Dr. Teller was warning the public about climate change in the 50s (I appreciate his work to try to solve the problem with nuclear reactors, but maybe the public would've trusted him more if wasn't also making thermonuclear bombs)
@@jeffbenton6183 There are always those waaay ahead of everybody else. The very first inkling of climate change was already being foretold in the late 1800s??? Of course enviro damage (the root cause of climate change) sparked the enviro movement in the 1950s already? My favourite sustainable city is Curitiba (Brazil). The then mayor, Jamie Lerner, began to develop his sustainable cities in the late 1960s, waaay before our understanding of what "sustainability" is. It's such a pity it takes the majority of us decades to catch up. But, of course, we the internet & social media etc wasn't "a thing" yet (for good or for worse). Unfortunately most climate change communication has been dominated by natural scientists (physics, chemistry, weather etc). But enviro destruction, biodiversity loss & climate change is a result of human thinking, worldviews, decision & policy making, politics, economics & activities - the purview of the social scientists...
Sustainability does not get along with the capitalist motto of "spend spend spend". How are we supposed to have infinite GDP growth if our city is sustainable? Where will we import our goods from and export our trash to? There is no sustainability under late-stage capitalism as we know it. Also yeah, I agree it's ridiculous that people gladly accept we know so much about, for example, our Solar System, but know so very little about the climate of the planet we live on. We have had some of the smartest minds thinking about our climate for the last 200 years and yet people discount it all as just hypotheses. After all, we can't even predict the weather in a month, how could we possibly predict the climate? It's all thanks to the little birdies of the fossil fuel industry sowing seeds of doubt in the public's heads so they can continue business as usual. Just like with cigarettes, if you can get enough money to hire your own scientists to come up with false narratives, you can make it seem like it's a two-sided, unanswerable problem. I've seen the effect of this on people I care about and it's wholely upsetting. Thanks for taking the time to leave your thoughts, hope you enjoy the miniseries!
Thanks so much for citing your sources! I've been meaning to dive deeper into how different types of EVs stack up against each other for awhile now (obviously, smaller battery is usually better, but comes with obvious drawbacks) but haven't got around to it. Naturally, I was intrigued by the statement that a Leaf could be better than a Tesla, so I decided to look at your source. That Carbon Brief article was awesome! One complication which could be added to your tier list is that plug-in hybrids can actually be lower-carbon in some areas than EVs (though obviously higher in others). The Carbon Brief article you cited mentioned this and gave a solid break-down of that effect, so I won't dwell on it. It's something I've been thinking about for at least a few months now since I watched this video from Engineering Explained (pointing out how EVs are *not* worse for the environment than gasoline-powered vehicles): ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-6RhtiPefVzM.htmlsi=QVf-ePBwonUSTDZr
Thanks for the feedback! It looks like driving a hybrid is only lower carbon in states with a huge dependence on fossil fuels for their electricity. As time goes on and our grid slowly transitions away from these, hybrids will become less and less optimal. The video you linked is great though, I watched it before this episode too :)
Good point about the LEDs - there is one reason why some might be wary of switching, and that's because they're more expensive than filament bulbs (this might be inherent - I don't know whether or not they can be made any cheaper). Of course, they do save money over the long term and - though more expensive than the older equivalent - both are quite cheap. On another note, there is one other problem with LEDs, but it's not an *inherent* problem, so don't take this as a criticism or even a nitpick, just an addendum: these days we're receiving too much blue light, which not only messes with circadian rhythms, but also worsens light pollution as it travels further than "warm colors" (red, orange, yellow, etc.). Of course this is easily fixable, with an appropriate coating. Companies sell LED bulbs now in warmer colors, and individuals and industry ought to take advantage of this.
I think the blue light issue is a very easy fix (just make less blue LEDs). One reason blue light might be so ubiquitous is that it was a massive engineering struggle to make blue LEDs in the first place so once we figured it out, everyone went wild for them. Also don’t be afraid to nitpick or critique, I welcome the feedback!
Thanks for pointing out that some things which reduce pollution don't reduce CO2 emissions that much. It's really important that people don't mix up one environmental problem for another.
It is not even a question anymore, the sixth mass extinction is already underway, geologically speaking. Whether this will spell the end of times for humanity is highly dubious though. I believe that if there is any way for people to survive, we will continue to do so.
What will happen ? Nothing. N O T H I N G . Nothing will happen. NOPE. But a global banking collapse ? Or an EMP explosion over the USA ? Then.... We will ALL STARVE TO DEATH !
Al Gore famously misrepresented data from one climate model that did not even state that arctic sea ice was guaranteed to melt by any date. This also had nothing to do with Antarctic ice sheets as the model was only concerned with the North Pole.
