I have heard all of these questions so many times, I thought it was time I made a video that sorted 'em out! But let me know what you're still a'pondering! Oh, and a huge thanks to Joeri Rogelj & Fredi Otto for their feedback.
The US Department of Energy says that 40% of American emissions are from heating water and heating and cooling buildings. That's crazy to me because, in at least half of the USA, we could eliminate it by just doing things a little differently. It wouldn't even be that hard in lots of places. In the Southwest, for example, residential water heating can be handled almost entirely by just having those solar water heaters. And you can make them yourself. And you can make hot water with compost. I read about a community in Canada that uses solar air heating and they basically just have a giant hole in the ground filled with all the hot air collected from all the rooftops during the day that pumps out hot air to the houses when they get cold. I love it. I think we can do things like that and the investment into it would still be pretty small compared to some of the huge climate projects that keep being proposed.
Thanks so much for your work. It's a pity you don't have more subscribers and views. Great job you do. I have two things to ask: I've heard about something called "tripping point" with regards to the future of our climate. How are these things likely and generally how afraid should we be of them? The second thing: What's the relationship between greenhouse gases emited and the rise of average global temperature in up-to-date models? Is it linear or more complicated? I may have asked the same thing twice...
Wait, the best time to start would have been twenty years ago? Shouldn't it be thirty or forty? George H. W. Bush said he was going to beat the greenhouse effect with the White House effect, in the 1988 election campaign.
Thanks for the explainer, I am one of those people who would definitely have moved in forest Adam's circle. About the idea that scientists don't downplay the science, doesn't this happen to some degree with the IPCC reports, that have to be politically vetted before publication (even if it is not primary literature, per se)? I also see papers that come out from time to time, in Nature and Science and other top-reated journals, that suggest that some or other feedback loop or rate of something has been significantly underestimated - as models improve, I guess. Do these tend to be within the range of uncertainty from previous papers, or has there been anything mind-blowingly unexpected? And should or does this trend have any effect on the precautionary principle as it is practiced in the political sphere? And while I appreciate the rigor that climate scientists must undergo and expect of themselves, I wonder if there is enough interdisciplinary work being done, to look at the synergistic effects of all ecological and biogeochemical/atmospheric etc. factors (given the silo nature of sciences)...perhaps that is what IPCC working groups are about. Please don't feel the need to answer any or all of these, just me typing out loud. Thanks for the awesome videos.
This has to be my favourite of all your videos that I remember (I'm knocking on a bit)! It really needed to be made. You might have seen that I'm a pretty good climate science denialism debunker, but I'll also debunk those who twist and over-exaggerate the science to spread unwarranted alarmism, even doomism. Anyone who takes these types on will find that they are even more stubborn, more incorrigibly convinced of their own beliefs etc than most denialists because they think they have 'right' on their side. Some even think it legitimate to scare the public far more than the rational level of being alarmed that the climate climate science shows us is appropriate, so that they can stampede the general public into voting for the immediate draconian 'solutions' they favour and they justify this by using the deceptive myths that you talk about (and a couple of others). I have had many battles with these types who almost always fail to appreciate that their doomism and tales of near term human extinction are highly counter-productive - such over the top propaganda is instantly seized on by denialist lobbyists and ruthlessly used to smear the actual peer reviewed climate science by proxy. They do this by insinuating to the general voting public that if such and such a maverick scientist (or Greta type) said such and such a shock horror thing then climate science surely must just be a crock of scare-mongering crap and haven't extremist envionmentalists been wrong many times in the past before? I think that among most mainstream scientists in the public eye, as well as those like John Cook of Skepticalscience com (who is a friend), there is still a tendency to rather shy away from correcting the alarmist myths because they think it sends mixed messages to the the viewing audience, or they think their time and resources are better spent on combatting denialism alone. Congratulations on breaking a mould which really should have been broken a long time ago...
I follow most of those climate scientists. And they’re great scientists I respect. But Paul Beckwith is my favourite one by far, and he doesn’t seem to get the respect or credit he deserves.
oh for sure - Paul is just so informative! although I was focusing on listing people researching climate change themselves, which I don't *think* Paul does.
@@ClimateAdam Ah you mean the expert commenters who always seem to know better. Hopefully that situation will start to improve now. And I’m not exactly sure what Paul does. He definitely gives his interpretation of the latest data and reports. Which is really invaluable.
@@ClimateAdam, You may want to do some research on what Paul Beckwith is actually telling his followers. He is a major source of the kind of misinformation you address in the above video. An involuntarily funny take that shows his lack expertise and his willing to jump on any scary story is that he claimed wind crossing the equator was due to climate change.
It is clear that scientists need to have a far larger role, and influence on the politics of our current civilizations. Not just climate scientists, but social scientists... ALL SCIENTISTS, and not self serving politicians.
As ever, I include links in the description to learn more about all the points mentioned. But this is a really useful write up: www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached/
I like your global comment - Combine UK, US and Canada and that only slightly dents global emissions - India, China and other developing world accounts for a majority of emissions - and their developing middle class is demanding more luxuries. Not to mention China continues to open about two coal fired plants per month. It isn’t going to be anytime soon.
Aren't you ignoring historical emmisions, the fact that much of China's emissions come from making stuff for those countries and the fact that much of those countries wealth comes from multinational companies that may not be accounted in the countries themselves but which have a huge impact? Sounds like you're just deflecting tbh.
@@klang180 - so applying some critical thinking - when would you like your start date? Go ahead - knock yourself out and try to go zero (destroying your economy while doing this) - China and India will gladly continue to increase their emmissions through their development and increasing their lifesyles. Meanwhile,t they will laugh all the way at a week western world.
The paper you link to on aerosols estimates that a rapid reduction in emissions (SSP1-RCP2.6) would lead to a 1.12 W/m2 forcing or approx 0.8C temp rise. That's pretty massive, no?
the radiative forcing from aerosols is very uncertain, and the upper end of that is definitely pretty massive! buuuut (to quote Joeri Rogelj): The point is that aerosols are not suddenly removed all at once. Rather even with strong air pollution measures they decline gradually and never become entirely zero in our protections. When combined with stringent reductions in all greenhouse gases (which will see methane warming decline), the resulting additional warning from this is limited.
@@ClimateAdam Well I hope you are right. I have heard that suggested before that loss of aerosols and CH4 decline will occur in parallel and cancel each other out. I find it a bit of a academic argument. Coal use - the source of much SO2 - will decline well before we ween ourselves off natural gas. And melting permafrost will pump CH4 in abundance. Plus eternally leaking gas wells and so on. Speaking of CH4, look at last year's numbers including September. Unless it's a weird one-off, the trend of the last ten years is broken and a rapid acceleration is taking place.
Hello Adam I love your videos, they are informativ, funny and just the right topic. My kids have a lot of nailpaint they don‘t need any more, i can send them to you if you like. :) It‘s so sad that you don‘t have more people watch your great videos. Have a nice weekend and creative ideas for your next videos. Annina
Regarding the first claim, I've seen other climate scientists, such as Michael Mann and others, say that there is warming in the pipeline. It used to be that I heard two or three decades, but I'm aware of the recent paper saying it would be much less, only up to one decade at most. Is that what your answer is based on? Would you have said something different before that paper came out? Or did those other people (tbh, I can't remember who) have it wrong?
I don't know too much about the history of this, but my impression is that it *is* something the science suggested, because there was an assumption that CO2 levels would remain constant in the atmosphere. Now studies explicitly looking at it indicate the assumption is incorrect. So fair to say this was also a scientist's myth, too! More in the links in the video's description!
2:09, I am confused about this. A recent study doesn't say that. www.clickondetroit.com/tech/2021/01/04/study-warming-already-baked-in-will-blow-past-climate-goals/ I agree that this is one study. But the article also refers to other studies (and even International panels).
I'm glad you asked! I actually asked around when this study came out, and it does look at what happens if *concentrations* went constant in the atmosphere, not what happens if emissions actually go to zero (and then concentrations decrease as I explain here). This work is really interesting nevertheless, and might suggest there would be additional warming in the pipeline even with the gradual reduction of concentrations, but that might take a very long time to materialise (as the article explains). During that time very many other things might be at play, and may dominate this effect, and so I don't think it's fair to say this warming is 'committed'. Here's the conversation I had at the time: twitter.com/ClimateAdam/status/1346516030127026176
Explaine this: global warming from late 1800s til 1940 (no significant emisstions) then when the emissions started in the 1940s we got 30 years of global cooling... then late 1980s the warming started... There is no correlation with CO2 and warming here! Even the warming in the early 1900s was as big as what we see from 1980s till now... This does not make any sense at all if you argue that CO2 is driving the climate -- obviously it is not....
It's good to see some one actually thinking critically on this topic. Maybe this will lead to the realization by accident, that maybe they aren't actually thinking critically if they keep repeating alarmist propaganda dressed up as "science".
Great video. You mention being amazed by what the climate movement has achieved the last few years. Could you elaborate a little about what specifically you're referring to here? Maybe I just haven't been paying enough attention. I'm still pretty pessimistic about our future.
Two of my most recent videos probably say it better than I could in a comment! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-y8Azd3OGREs.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5ou-negnzu0.html
7:40 Well, there is no silver bullet, but solar + storage + EVs + efficiency are probably about as close a thing to that as we have. That will make a MAJOR dent in the problem.
I like your enthusiasm and thinking, but I'm afraid solar is not a viable option. If you would like me to elaborate and go deeper into tye topic I will gladly do so!
Great question, and one I want to make a video about some time! Truth is that the climate has already changed and it will continue to change more until we get emissions to zero. So we absolutely need to adapt to this new climate. That said, this adaptation is no substitute for work to stop climate change. After all, the more climate change we let happen, the harder it will be to adapt, and the more people will be left behind.
Very important, nuanced and helpful video, Adam. Thank you so much! It takes one some courage to admit, in particular regarding the topics one's most passionate about and spends lots of time in, that one's wrong on some points. The last thing we would want is activists who automatically feel superior in all climate-related topics. The strength of cooperation is that indeed we don't have to know everything at all times. :)
Thanks for deleting my earlier comment. I guess you aren't that concerned with the truth? Having a discussion on committed warming without mentioning Earth's energy imbalance (EEI), and the fact that one way of thinking about committed warming is to consider the fact that as long as the the EEI is positive, that energy will force temperatures higher. But don't take my word or Adam's word for it, there are many scientific papers on committed warming if one cares to look them up. Only people who are more focused on getting people to believe we can decarbonize before our ecosystem fails to support life are committed to denying committed warming.
I think it's fair to say that individually going plant based probably is the greatest impact you can do personally. After all it seems very difficult to influence government and big companies to change their reliance on fossil fuels. Also worth noting how a drastic reduction in methane production (mainly from ruminants) would have a much quicker impact than reducing co2 due to its relatively short lifespan in the atmosphere.
So lovely! Awesome educational content! It's a balance between taking the issue seriously, and getting the facts straight so that others take us seriously.
Excellent video Adam, possibly my favourite! It's so important to expose misinformation no matter the source. And thanks for the list of scientists, I wasn't familiar with some of them so I'll be sure to add them to my ever growing list!
