Science isn’t about how many scientists think “this” will happen or how many think “that” will happen. Science is about a testable, repeatable, theory that explains what happens and yields the same result every time it’s tested.
You have just described the state of climate science research over the past 50 years. Now, the emphasis in climate science research is focused on how much and how fast; the part about "the Earth is warming due to human-driven carbon emissions" is taken as a given and not really mentioned in the literature anymore. This is akin to "2+2=4," which is a given and isn't mentioned in calculus texts.
Thank you! The logical fallacy that the number of scientists who argue a point doesn't equate it to being the correct. Einstein and Copernicus were in the minority in their times. On the counterside, this doesn't default to the notion that the minority is correct. It comes down to the testable, repeatable studies, as you have mentioned.
@@S3raphicReaper The conclusion to be drawn from this is "therefore peer review should find flaws in the theory if so many papers are presented. The fact that more papers on this topic are passing peer review means the science is solid, testable and repeatable.". Especially because those papers tend to flesh out and make more concrete the theory, so more concrete tests and conclusions can be synthesized from the theory (and isn't just a vague hand wavy claim).
Yes, I see it. I think RU-vid are trying to point viewers towards the truth on videos that might contain falsehoods. In this case, I suspect it's because of the title and it's triggered showing the Global Warming article. If you find a flat earth video, then you'll probably see a link to an article about how the earth is provably round.
Caught on film "Never let a crisis go to waste', what I mean by that, is you are able to do things during a crisis, that you would otherwise not be able to do" Rauhm Emanual - advisor to Pres. Obama.
The cars, although it as reliable as the cars of the early 2000s up to around 2009, were far more comfortable, powerful, user serviceable, had far more space, and were gorgeous. Today's vehicles inspire falling asleep behind the steering wheel and nauseating reflexes. No wonder the crappy autonomous car is being pushed so hard. I will never surrender my control. The first rule of driving is you must ways be in full control of your vehicle. Never let go of the steering wheel. Always be aware of surroundings. Always be ready to react.
There's no evidence of AGW. And even if there was, intermittent expensive unreliable solar panels and windmills are only adding to environmental degradation, heavy metals pollution, landfills and wildlife destruction. There's nothing green about solar panels and windmills.
Solar particle forcing. Do yourselves a favor and check this out.. THe next IPCC report in 2022 will finally include particle forcing and all papers going forward will have to include it.. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rEWoPzaDmOA.html
Medieval warming periode is more often used (Growing barley on Greenland , tree rings/graining in north American trees..etc) , more important to address . Also 7000 years back, even warmer (higher tree lines...)
I remember seeing a mini documentary. It claimed that we needed to add limestone to our fields every decade or so to increase yields. It claimed that naturally it take a glacier to grind up rocks to re-fertilise the land.
I used to work on a farm and I had to mix up big batches of soil with all kinds of minerals and natural compounds added back to increase plant yields. So, you're not wrong. 😉
“The debate is over.” Translation: “shut up.” Apparently the folks in the 70s who thought global cooling was a danger didn’t tell their naysayers to stfo, so you’ll excuse the rest of us for carrying right the hell on with our objections.
@@per2 You don't actually think this ill prove it to you. The debate is over that humans need air to breathe. The debate is over that gravity is real and measurable. Now I get it you have a identity connected to your views. But understand if you want, you can walk all the way up the stairs of science from stone tools to AGW. And that science is just as solid as physics and chemistry.
The winters were hellacious in the 70’s on the eastern seaboard. Anyone old enough to remember the blizzards in Buffalo and New York State? It WAS a REAL fear back in the 70’s. Today’s society can only remember what happened 5 minutes ago, and who tweeted what ten seconds ago.
IT'S F U CKING MIDDLE OF APRIL AND WE IN EUROPE STILL HAVE TO WEAR WINTER JACKETS, IT'S INSANE! "GLOBAL WARMING" MY A$$, IT'S GETING COLDER AND COLDER, IT'S F OKEN APRIL AND I DID NOT HAD A ICE CREAM YET It appears that global warming theory is simply wrong given the evidence which is everyday life
@@krsmanjovanovic8607 It still dropped to 40 degrees this month and I'm in indy, by this time of the year it's around 60-70 degrees outside. . . You can still wear winter clothes on some days and be perfectly fine.
The "global cooling" scientists were always, ALWAYS in a pretty small minority. However, due to how media works, it's "more interesting" to give a "new" view some more attention. The science however, was never that good, and eventually the "global cooling" theory was just abandoned as the global warming theories proved a lot more true.
I only remember "global cooling" news in the _National Enquirer_ ... I thought that was dismissed by educated people ... do people still believe Carol Burnett gave birth to three-headed snakes? ...
Now i see how some people are against the use of non-greenhouse gases coz they think the companies are popularizing it to increase their market in eco-friendly fuel sector. They think golbal warming is just going to be like global cooling.
They are still right, and no!, I'm not one of those, but they were referring to the 50.000 and 120.000 years geological ice age cycles, but they didn't have any idea of the magnitude of Human CO2 emissions, so some believed that temperatures would drop over the next 2000 years! It was never considered urgent as global warming is today.
shane carlson it’s just what they’ve been told to do in order to be taken serious. Kids are growing up with the internet now, and believe they have all the information.and it’s gotten to their heads.
Question professor: If the science is nailed down, why did the temperature decrease from 1940 to 1980 while the CO2 during the period was dramatically increasing? Clearly, CO2 is not the only major factor.
Great question. The temperatures no longer decreased from 1940 to 1980 because NOAA/NASA have retrospectively adjusted those temperatures and produced new graphs to suit their narrative.
Japan has had a festival when the cherry trees blossom for like 2000 years, this year was the earliest it has EVER been. Man made climate change is not a fairy tale.
You are correct. It follows the Solar cycle. When I was a kid the big scare tactic was the impending ice age because of carbon dioxide reflecting heat back into space. It was rather scary to be a kid back then and being bombarded by all that fear.
@@indridcold8433 He explains in the video that the reason of the cool Seventies were the aerosols. Even now it's considered to spray a lot of aerosols in the atmosphere to cause some rapid cooling. We used such dirty fuels in the Seventies that the rain got acid. Trees died from it. These aerosols block on themselves not so much sunlight. But sulfur dioxide is important since it makes for very white shiny clouds which reflect a lot of sunlight. Aerosols are very important and they are mentioned not enough I feel.
What unscientific final remark: “we don’t need more debate.” This is simply a call to transform sign into religion. The revealed truth has to be accepted without questioning.
Actually, I do remember The New Ice Age being "caused" by jet engines making more vapor clouds, sulfur dioxide (besides causing acid rain) blocking sunlight, and industrial production just kicking up more sunlight blocking dust into the atmosphere in general. So they were looking for ways to curtail the liberty of the proles and tax more even then.
Yeah, perhaps when comparing scientific journals. It's just that no one in the public ever heard of global warming until the mid 80's. I was there. I know. I remember. In the 70's, there were TV specials made on the coming ice-age, while the "greenhouse effect" didn't turn up until around 1986. In between was a silent period when nobody talked of either.
This video commits the same fallacy it credits to others: those who study solar cycles. And claiming the science is "nailed down". No models have succeeded, because there are far more complexities involved. When scientist claim to have 100% certainty, they're not following the basic tenets of science.
No, scientists NEVER claim 100% certainty on anything and this video doesn't claim otherwise. 2 different audits of scientific research papers on climate have shown that around 97% have concluded that man made climate change is real. Just because only 3% say otherwise, or are neutral on the subject, is no reason to discount the other 97%. If 97 out of a 100 doctors say you have cancer, do you say "I'm not going to do anything about it because 3% of the doctors disagree"?
@@vpheonix the video did claim scientist are claiming certainty over the mechanisms and what is happening. With the uncertainty on how to proceed. That 97% statistic has been debunked time and time again, and is unrelated to my statement. The only similarity being both have percentages.
@@studibakre Again, no scientist ever claims 100% certainty in anything. That's why they still use terms like "Theory". Scientist talk about peer review, verification and consensus. This is as close to certainty as science ever gets, but is responsible for all technological break through's through out history. Germ theory, atomic theory, electromagnetic theory, photoelectric theory. These are accepted as fact but are still subject to revision should any new evidence be supplied. If we wait for a perfect, 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt scientific "fact", we would never have gotten past the making fire stage of our development. And if we wait for 100% of all scientists to agree that climate change is real then it will be too late to actually do anything about it. As for the debunking of the 97% figure, please provide a citation. I've seen some of these so called debunkings. They a full of fallacies, and pandering to right wing conspiracies. Let me offer you a version of the Pascal's wager. If the world accepts that climate change is real, but it turns out to be completely wrong, what would be the consequences? Sure, we would have spent a lot more money than we would probably have spent, possibly disrupted the worlds economy a little (certainly not as much as people believe as new technologies actually boost the economy), but we would have reduced our dependence on fossil fuels and the huge multinational conglomerates that control them. We would have cleaner air and oceans. We would have created far more industries and jobs than we would have lost (again helping the economy). However, if we don't do anything about climate change and it turns out that it's real, we'll be in deep shit. If you're worried about disrupting the economy, then our entire current economy is dependent on the current climate. The very first industry we ever created was agriculture and depends on the current climate. The longer we procrastinate the more expensive and disruptive it's going to get. My mum use to say "A stitch in time saves nine". My dad use to say "Always carry a tool kit in your car, you may never need it but it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.". We always have insurance for when bad things happen, even though we hope they never will. If you don't believe in climate change, that's fine, we are all entitled to our opinions. All we are asking from you is just some insurance in case your wrong.
@@vpheonix you do realise that this whole climate change ordeal would destroy any economy. For example we don't focus on nuclear power instead we focus on renewable energy when that has been proven to have a limit (wind turbine) instead of telling China and India to clean up their act or we put tariffs on then the west decided we will wreck our economy while the main culprit is doing nothing
@@TeaRex Arbitrarily setting time scales skews the data in either party's favor. The xkcd chart starts at quite literally the coldest point in the last eight hundred thousand years en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg
@@williamsalvucci8280 The title of the chart literally says "since the last ice age glaciation". The point is to show how major the amount of warming is by comparing it with the last time Earth was ice-covered, and to show how rapidly it is warming compared to all other changes during that time, including the overall warming that looks like a steep slope in the EPICA plot you linked to, which is also why that chart is not actualy useful in this context: it's just too long-term to be able to see anything going on in human timescales, while global warming _is_ happening in human timescales. By pointing out that the xkcd chart starts at the coldest point in nearly a million ears you're actually amplifying the message of the xkcd chart, since it uses the severity of that ice age as a unit of scale for our future warming.
@SHEISTER CAM ehm, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. It is plotting the global average temperature (as in, temperature averaged over the entire Earth's surface). Subtracting a reference value (to make it easy to compare past, current, and future values with that reference point set in recent history) just moves the axis, it doesn't change the plotted graph.
Anthony Johnson - students today have only heard of the warming trend as a scare. The groupthink is so prevalent today you’re considered an outcast “denier” if you don’t cave in to the warming view. Just ask Bill Nye- he thinks global warming deniers should be locked up!
@@petjobedet4650 You're correct about that. I'm old enough to remember the 1970's environmental indoctrination push, where schools unfortunately overlapped earth science with social studies. That alone created more skeptics today than I could ever count.
This was a minority opinion in the 60's and 70's. Six times more research papers from this time were predicting more warming due to carbon emissions. There was some speculation that industrial aerosols would block solar irradiance and cause the Earth to cool, but this hypothesis was put to rest with continued warming in the 80's. This is all explained in this video.
@@disruptusmaximus9217 The Polar Vortex we all heard about, and taught to school children, never materialized. Neither did the Hole in the Ozone scare of the 70'-90's. You can add about 25 more to that list. Were they minority opininions too? And if so, why didn't the scientific community communicate that these far fetched ideas were only the casual beliefs of the scientific community fringe? Considering that, it's no wonder the best climate scientists in the field are skeptical of global warming. Wouldn't you agree...
@@disruptusmaximus9217 So you're trying to tell me, that the media in the 60,s, and 70's pushed the idea of global cooling and the coming new ice age.....all the while the scientific community held scientific research to at least six fold in volume with data that suggested something to the contrary? Why in God's name would they do that? And are you then saying that the media cannot be trusted when it comes to reporting on issues related to the Environment?
I got a tip for the next video: Whatever happened to GLOBAL WARMING? You never hear global warming anymore, but CLIMATE CHANGE. Those are two different perspectives on the climate, because the climate was and is always changing, so that's correct. The thing i disliked about your video is your conclusion: "The scientific debate is over". So now we just need to ignore the scientist that say global cooling is coming (even tho they are the minority)? Now we need to assume that 'GLOBAL WARMING' is the only correct story? The debate is the right thing to do in this situation and in general science (as you also mentioned in the video that there are a lot of scientist who looks at different aspects of the climate). I liked your video anyway, because you have shown me (like many others) that the media has got a huge role on this subject and let you only see one part of the conversation instead of the whole picture.
Imagine one group of scientists think we are getting colder, one group of scientists think we are getting warmer. Seems they were playing both sides of the coin. Head they win. Tails they win.
There were vinyards in the north of England during the Medieval warm period and, then, in the late 1700s the Thames was frozen during winter and growing a vinyard in northern England was impossible. These changes weren’t man-made. Our contribution is negligible at best.
aren't we on the tail end of a 250 million year ice age period? shouldn't the temperature increase at that point? did anyone else pay attention in class besides me?
No, we are in the middle of an ice age, in a period called an "interglacial". if it weren't for man-made global warming, we could expect temperatures to drop in the next several thousand years, Pay more attention next time lol
@@nadrud The dinosaurs lived between 245 and 66 million years ago. By your reckoning there would have been stegosaurs walking around on glaciers. Clearly you didn't pay attention that closely lol
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="665">11:05</a> Arguably, Guy Callendar and others had demonstrated adequate proof of global warming due to human activity by 1963, by running reality checks on a supported theory Callendar first presented in 1938. My Dad read these papers as part of his Electrical Engineering MSc thesis on magnetrons (the component of microwave ovens that converts electricity into electromagnetic radiation of the correct wavelength to make water to heat up). I remember him explaining this to me in some depth over a game of chess in 1970.
Given the changes in temperature and the significant past variability, how do we separate out the portion of change that is natural and the portion that is man made? How do we know for sure what portions are which?
You just use maths and calculate the amount of greenhouse gas is produced by natural factors and then then calculate the amount produced by human factors and when you take out percentage you get how much humans are contributing.
@@someguy3276 How exactly? The past's temperature was naturally variable, which means now it is variable too. There are many more factors and feedbacks that make up the inputs than simply the ratio's of one (of many) greenhouse gases. How do we know for sure what portions of the temperature change come from which inputs?
@@MarkVrankovich from data already available I guess and some maths, The global average temperature is indeed variable but we know by how much it should vary by what under the conditions and right now the most important factor for global temperature changes is greenhouse gases as the earth's orbit seem to be stable enough and the other factors contribute so small that we can outright ignore them and you can find out the amount of what greenhouse gases what factor generate quite easily with the data already available about their sources. And yeah it's all simple ratios as maths made up of nothing more than simple ratios.
All those comments under this video saying global warming isn’t real make me lose hope in humanity. Honestly climate change deniers are worse than flat earthers.
“ Follow the science” seems to be a trendy buzzword for a segment of society more interested in a propagating an agenda than actually determining facts. If there is one conclusion or “ provable fact” that can be drawn from this video it is that if you “ follow the science” there is a reasonable chance that future science will prove you wrong.
I didn't like the way you glibly said that water is a greenhouse gas. Completely true but the effects of increased water are very complicated because the main effect is more clouds which can give both cooling and warming. Science doesn't work well when it becomes political - as in this case.
What scientists need to do is figure out how to cool the climate, since not even the extreme global warming activists are not going to quit driving, flying, heating their homes, cooling their homes, eating animal proteins, etc. we have research of ideas going on, that will help and I have seen lots of ideas, but getting to 0 emissions is magical thinking!!!
If climate change is real and the oceans are going to rise why didn't Michelle and Obama Barack Obama spend 15 million on an ocean front property in the East Coast they don't believe the oceans are going to rise 70s global cooling 1980s acid rain 1990s the ozone hole the year 20 00 global warming 2010 climate change the weather at the current time produces the calamity that is needed keep chicken little scared bad bad the Sheep are are scared and you say the right wing that are paranoid you left Wingers are a joke you're always scared of something or maybe it's your government trying to seize control of the people and their freedoms is that why they call you, communist
CO2 rise to 407ppm has caused the earth to grow greener with about 14% more vegetation in the last 40 years according to the satellite photos. Crops are growing much better and earths people are no longer starving as they were 40 years ago. I remember being in 123 degree heat in Death Valley in the shade 50 years ago and it was 134 degrees in California in the 1930s. CO2 is more of a blessing than a curse. Tomatoes approximately double growth with less water at 1000ppm CO2. Let’s consider the positive s.
oi simon, I get the feeling you're a bit of a gamer thanks to your time with hatfilms. I just thought of a great video idea: in Subnautica, what is the player's impact on the environment (specifically with what's built and used and powered etc.), particularly with the whole ecology comprising just four square kilometres (I think)?
the impact would be devastating. not because the Aurora exploded and caused radiation, but from the countless bladderfish that I've turned into water lmao
Evagelos Drinis : There were some hot days in the 30s in the US but it was not hotter globally. Not even close. Did you not see the graph in the video?
@@lrvogt1257 Compare the IPCC reports. They have altered the historical data. Made the 1930s cooler than their earlier reports. It's verifiable and easy to resource
@@lrvogt1257 It is a Fake graph Climate Cultist the rest of the earths countries did not have many reporting stations.The 1930s the whole earth was hot there is a written history.Ever here of the Dust Bowl.LMAO!
@@theimmortal4718 : There is no model or machine that does not require adjustment. You would get less accurate results without accounting for errors and changes in methodology. The models are tested over the historic record for accuracy. All the raw data remains available. The character assignation of one field of science is desperate and stupid. The 30s had some hot days LOCALLY. Not globally. climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
@@lrvogt1257 You're misunderstanding. They adjusted the raw data. That should never be done and is dishonest. Were not talking about adjusting models. Do you agree or should we be busy rewriting the temperature record?
What surprises me is that between 1965 and 1979 there were only about 66 papers on global temperature <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="439">7:19</a> . Such small numbers would easily be swamped, if there was bias from individual agendas preventing publication of contraversial outcomes, or even refusal of pier review resulting in studies being withdrawn.
Look at the source in the description. That study looked at all the papers that made predictions about the future climate. Most papers don't make any predictions, so you can't include them here. Cooling papers predicted cooling in the near future (from now and perhaps a century ahead), warming papers predicted warming in the near future, and neutral papers predicted no significant temperature change in the near future.
You are both young enough to be here to see how flawed the "radiative green house" version of atmospheric heating is and how cold it will be in the next 2 decades. Thanks for trying, but no consolation prizes!
andrew30 assuming you mean “cooling”: the evidence is the sun rays and particles (sun cycles) as well as galactic/cosmic rays influence on clouds and volcanoes. The energy inputs to earth have been underestimated by models. It won’t matter if CO2 is at 500+ ppm there is no contribution from it and it will be laughable once the physicists have to dump the idea it was man’s influence. I’ll be here to see it. Also, most people are unprepared for the ravages of the cold: food losses and death. The heat is our friend. The interglacial period is normally hotter.
andrew30 if you can leave your comfort zone of consensus and search the literature for non-CO2 related climate influences and alternative explanations you will see why I say what I did. There is no “one paper”. You can start at solarisheppa.geomar.de
mkmason2002 go visit California or Australia or go to the Arctic. The climate is changing places are heating up more in the summer and winters are becoming more harsh. You honestly have to be blind or dump not to realise it
@@ExpLizard Antarctica has numerous underwater volcanoes, therefore, the water is heating slightly in some areas. The climate is definitely changing, cooling down. Are you aware that there are over 235 days with no sunspots in 2019? Do you understand what that means? Please answer. This is due to the Grand Solar Minimum, solar cycle 25. It's the sun, not CO2 emissions. The US set over ONE THOUSAND cold records yesterday. The jet stream is wobbling now and responsible for the heat rising and extreme cooling in warm areas. ru-vid.com/show-UCP0Dfc4Tt600NS7lKEZtJqQ ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-01TDXDOBZdo.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-HdxOcgS3k5E.html Now go do your homework and think for yourself.
You had me until as a scientist you said the debate is over. Science must have debate or it is not science. And the fact that you used 1978 as a benchmark helped my skepticism that you are are a scientist. Double fail. I am not a climate change denier but I cannot stand when scientists say "I am right so shut up". Debate is the #1 rule of ANY good science and you ruin your credibility when you are a debate denier.
I think he more so meant in the sense that things like gravity aren't seriously debated. That doesn't mean people don't do experiments that test them but it is taken generally to be true. While I am aware that scientific method calls for scrutiny it also respects evidence from tests and predictions later found experimentally to be true. So in this regard a warming climate is not debated while the degree of the change is.
I for one am sick of the sycophants b&m-ing about climate change as if they could stop it. It's a waste of energy and obvious intellect. Any improvements they could possibly hope to make won't happen without the adherence of all of Asia. It's a fact we won't be get any compliance from them, talk about settled. I've yet to hear a legit solution that didn't require me being taxed into the dirt to support some corporation to get billions of tax dollars to not get the issue fixed. Ya know what is setteled..? Governments don't do anything right... Not health care, not welfare and not even traffic enforcement. I messed up I should have been a climate scientist, talk about job security getting government grants till the end of my life so I could tilt at windmills.... I guess I am the idiot.
@@guylandia2150 Say you're at university, living in shared accommodation, with 4 others (5 of you in total). Say you all divide the cost of the internet bill equally. And say the monthly usage limit is 1 TB (1,000 GB). So you decide amongst yourselves that you will each have a personal limit of 200 GB per month (1,000 / 5 = 200). Then say one of your housemates actually uses 400 GB in a month, while the rest stick to their 200 GB targets. This means your household used 1,200 GB in a month, exceeding the limit, and you incur fees. If the 400 GB housemate says "WELL I USED LESS THAN ALL THE REST OF YOU COMBINED SO REALLY YOU'RE THE ONES TO BLAME, WHO CARES ABOUT PER CAPITA, DO YOU THINK COMCAST CARES ABOUT PER CAPITA, THEY ONLY CARE ABOUT TOTAL USAGE", then that housemate would be a fucking moron. The rest of the housemates would justifiably demand that the offending housemate pay any fees incurred by exceeding the monthly download allowance.
While overall I agree with the contents of the video, as a statistician I’m upset at the figure at <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="600">10:00</a>. While there is a significant increase in concentration of carbon dioxide, the graph makes it looks much more drastic than it really is by having the y-axis start at the 1960 observation. Is there anything factually wrong with the graph? No. Is there probably a less biased way to show the data? Probably so.
I see some merit in your point, but what you mean by "bias" is not very clear here. If the interest is to emphasize the total value of CO2 concentrations, then, fair enough, they should have added 310ppm to the whole curve. If, on the other hand, the idea is to show evidence of the rapid growth in CO2 since the record began (in 1958), it makes perfect sense to start at the initial value. Take into account that humans are NOT responsible for the full concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, but only for most of its change in the past century or so. It's not bias; it's using the data to answer a different question than the one you seem to have had in mind.
@@EidosTrantorianum The worst thing with this graph is not the increase, but the curve in it! Clearly showing the problem is accelerating, still a full century would also show the very obvious hockeystick taking off after 1925.
You only need to watch the TV weather forecast for the next 1 month to understand how well the climate predictions turn out. Weather forecasts are notorious with their predictions.
@@heronimousbrapson863 Was just joking. Guess weather is local, climate is global. Anyway, we all gonna die someday. Be a nice guy nice to yourself, to others, to the environment and that's it. What's this hysteria...
If they don't understand and can't predict what will happen in a week, how can they claim to understand all the processes involved in climate? They are so convinced that they have the science nailed down, that they adjust the historical record to match their theory and models. Climate scientist is as much a science as astrology.
The short version: Post-war industrial boom put a lot of soot and sulphur into the air, which caused minor cooling. It also caused deaths and acid rain, so was legislated against. Clean air legislation reduced the particulates and aerosols, but didn't affect the greenhouse gas emissions. They weren't dumb and they weren't even that wrong, they just didn't have as much of the picture.
Acid rain is caused by of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions. In most developed countries emission laws on power planets, smelters and factories have addressed this problem directly leading to a reduction in acid levels. Acid rain events still occur but the level's are much much lower. Sadly in some regions such as eastern Europe and Asia are now themselves being plagued by acid rain as regulation has not kept up with industrialization, India in particularly plagued by it. Ozone depletion is caused by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), HCFCs and halons. These gases were regulated in the 1980's as signs of Ozone depletion was rapidly decreasing. Since the Montreal protocol came into effect and we stopped putting that shit into the air at such ludicrously high amounts Ozone levels started to stabilize and by the mid 2000's sign of Ozone recovery began, The Ozone layer is predicted to return to pre 1980's levels by the end of century. You couldn't have picked 2 better examples of scientists being correct about emissions and the need to regulate them.
@Kyle Erasmus its a joke a a article was written saying that a scientist claimed cannabalism is more environmentally friendly or something and then some girl at a AOC talk said during the questions part she thinks we should start at eating babies
Vaclav Smil has a lot to say about manufacturing and using less. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rNV0xXy5oSg.html Smil is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, the recipient of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Award for Public Understanding of Science and Technology, and is probably Bill Gates' favorite author ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1bnZkzKEiZc.html Smil's opinion should be taken seriously.
Y? Missing the big picture. All the garbage producey by man could fit into a landfill 15 square miles. Ppl always trying to find some problems we can't solve
And the answer is we’re much better and smarter than before and we’re sure we’re correct. Fast forward 30 years ditto but different conclusion. Live your life. Live with minimal impact and be earth conscience. Man knows so little
you suggested changing energy providers, well idk about in the UK but here in the US you pretty much always have 1 choice and 1 choice only for utilities, they are regulated monopolies. What you can do is ask legislators to force the power company to use more renewables, not switch providers. the only provider you can switch to is yourself (installing solar panels and relying on that power)
The population bomb has resulted in almost 8 billion people on this planet destroying the environment, and hence habitat for all living creatures. Humans are creatures. Does that mean human habitat is being destroyed? It is not like humans rely on clean water, clean air or anything like that. Man people are insanely dumb.
its the opposite now. population implosion. birth rates are dropping fast in many places. the only reason the population of certain countries are still growing is because people are living longer.
I remembered this, many have forgotten. I thought i had imagined it... Search for the film "THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE" this explains the reason for the confusion, lies and money, money and lies same as it ever was.
You mean that global warming denial film that intentionally got a bunch of stuff wrong and was shat on by a bunch of people that actually know about the subject ?
"When the United States and other countries began to lower sulfur emissions in the 1970s to reduce acid rain and respiratory illnesses, the cooling ended abruptly. Since 1975, the average global temperature has risen by about 0.6 degrees C."
Only a few countries adhere to that emissions mandate. China and India pollute 10 times as much as they used to. We could have zero emissions and just China and India Alone would fill the gap. They don’t care about anything especially earth. Oh I saw a show where they build this green building,,, yeah but they were pouring sulphuric acid out the back door next to the concentration camps.
Last time I was this early, everyone still believed the earth was still cooling. Also good lord the recommended content on this video is horrible. Thanks, RU-vid!
@@DirtyPoul I thought that downvotes were caused by political activism in the later part of the video. Technically speaking I'd say that it was even anti-science, as it mixed up two quite distinct concepts: "AGW is real" with "immediate curbing of CO2 is the only path".
@@useodyseeorbitchute9450 I disagree. That would be similar to saying that it's anti-science if a nuclear physicist calls for laying down nuclear weapons as the only way to absolutely prevent a nuclear war. Curbing CO2 emissions is the only way to effectively eliminate the harms that would be caused by global warming. Technically, there is also a solution with aerosols, but we simply don't know what kind of impacts that could have. It could lead us to a situation even worse than just letting the warming continue. So until we know more about it, our only option really is to curb emissions. I don't see how that could possibly be perceived as anti-science, unless you're arguing in bad faith or you're a denier yourself. But I'd be interested to hear it.
@@DirtyPoul Actually, I'd agree with your nuclear weapon analogy. It's saying that because nuclear weapons have devastating effects, the only way is to run anti-nuclear movements and summits in democratic countries. Setting aside political feasiblity, it immediately excludes other possible strategies, like MAD. As MAD realies heavily on game theory, dismissing it out of hand, dismisses effectively game theory as well, so should be classified as anti-science. "Curbing CO2 emissions is the only way to effectively eliminate the harms that would be caused by global warming" In very big approximation - correct. "So until we know more about it, our only option really is to curb emissions." We're talking here about decades long plans based on not looking well centuries long extrapolations... and do you suggest to assume no new relevant technologies in the meantime? " only option really is to curb emissions" He was even more specific concerning policy implications. He suggested activism in the West and summits, while the actual rapid increase of emissions is happening in the developing countires. Sounds to me as going somethat at odds with political science and economics. "you're a denier yourself" I'd give you a few ideas of what else to acuse me: being creationists or on payrol of big oil. :D (Neither those would be correct, but if you really need it to cope with congitive dissonance of someone looking at those data and reaching different conclusion, please feel free)
Where's the 1970's Panorama documentary on this? It used to be up on YT but I can't find it and would like to watch it again for nostalgia! Though they scared the whatsit out of us at school with this :)
Seams the overwhelming amount of scientists that had believed in global warning didn't want to present their study/report to president Nixon? Weren't they confident on their analysis?
Reduce *net* emissions to zero, which means there will still be CO2 in the atmosphere! But we will only be adding as much to it as the planet can natural remove each year.
@@SimonClark Thank you for you reply. I've been gathering CO2 concentration figures, tell me what you think. Human tolerance 10,000ppm Optimum for plants 1,500ppm Current level 400ppm Minimum for plants 75ppm Plants die 30ppm
For many plants, CO2 isn't the limiting factor preventing optimum growth. They also need other things (different light levels, water levels, soil nutrients etc.) So just increasing CO2 won't automatically mean more plant growth to remove it (another conservative myth), however the changes in climate (flooding, drought, temperature and seasonal changes etc.) may even reduce plant productivity. Also, another (perhaps more selfish) reason to keep atmospheric CO2 levels low: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1Nh_vxpycEA.html (they give sources in description)
@@TasTheWatcher Interesting video, thank you. Here's two facts, do with them what you will: Assuming nutritional needs are met, it is a greenhouse practice to get in sackloads of dry ice to promote growth. Look it up. After the Apollo 13 accident, it was determined by NASA that CO2 levels in spacecraft should be kept at or below 1%. That's 10k ppm. Look it up.
@@useodyseeorbitchute9450 Yeah, of course it is? The majority of popular media rests on people buying them. That makes strategies like sensationalism incredibly effective. Just look at clickbait articles. That happens to a lesser degree, but is still present, in virtually all media. What grabs your attention sells, which is why something like disaster will be overrepresented. "Disaster in 10 years" sells better than the science article that concludes that 10 million people could be displaced from flooding or droughts and become climate refugees in 10 years if we continue our current path, which would result in significant global economic disruption and widespread human suffering. I've pulled the numbers out my arse, but it's a real enough scenario. I could absolutely see that being the way the media would spin it to cause sensationalism. It's an unfortunate situation because it arms deniers with perceived false predictions and it seems to cause people to take it less seriously.
If aerosols cause cooling, then can we pump an appropriate amount of aerosols into the atmosphere to counter the greenhouse gasses? It seems like the best science today can't solve this problem in a cost-effective way by reducing emissions. So the logical question is can we "pollute" more intelligently such that our negatives are compensated by positives?
That is known as geoengineering. Wikipedia has a good description and relevant links: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection There are quite a few problems with that, not in the least the problem of having to continue to do this for decades, perhaps centuries. Also, it does not solve the problem of ocean acidification. But ultimately it may well be a solution we *have* to try, simply because we don't do enough to curb emissions.
Geoengineering will probably need to be used to buy us time to reduce CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. For all the talk of climate accords and net zero, carbon emissions are still increasing, not reducing. And even if they stay stable, that still means the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise, just at a steady rate instead of an increasing rate. Of course if the geoengineering system breaks down, that means we would get a huge jump in heating all at once, so that's another risk.
Why haven't you brought up ice core data? ... this information became available at the end of the 1970s and established the periodic nature of glaciations ... also: at <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="646">10:46</a>, the graph shows only a 2ºC increase by 2300 under the RCP4.5 scenario ... do you have a citation for this information? ...
@@russcrawford3310 ah apologies - that's the academic lingo slipping out! AR5 is the fifth assessment of the IPCC, WG1 is the first working group of the report
@@russcrawford3310 RCP4.5 requires the global emissions peak by 2040. And that 2 degrees? That's vs the 1986-2005 average, i.e., another 1.5-or-so degrees vs today. That's well above the 2 degree target.
In reality, in the 1970s the majority of climate scientists were *already* warning about global warming. It was *the media* that focused on ice age predictions, not scientists.
I was told this in school in the 70s and being young and gullible i totally believed it.
4 года назад
What ever happened to global cooling? It's about to bite us all on the ass, because mini ice ages take place roughly every 200 years apart, the last one was 200 years ago coined as "1800 and froze to death". They are caused by a lack of Solar magnetism. When it drops below a particular point, the Sun can no longer produce magnetic Sunspots and the Solar wind is reduced allowing Galactic energies to invade our Solar system where it reacts with Earths atmosphere. The Sun hasn't had any magnetic spot's for a number of years, it's a noted phenomena leading up to and throughout all previous min ice ages. The reaction on Earth is greater cloud formation and precipitation. The more cloud there is blocking Solar radiation from reaching the ground, reflecting it into space, the colder it gets on Earths surface. Heat does actually have to reach the ground before Earth warms up, heat rises. The Milankovitch cycles do not match climate change, not when discovered and not now, there is no correlation. C02 is not a greenhouse gas, it can't trap heat that isn't there, when Solar radiation hasn't reached ground level because it's too cloudy. C02 levels lag climate change by about 70 years, so it's the result of climate change, not it's cause.. carts do not pull horses.
This is what every drilled ice core proves. CO2 levels rieses after every ries in temprature.
4 года назад
@@Plastpackad Also every sediment core proves the same thing, CO2 levels lag climate change. CO2 is not the cause of global warming, it's the result of warming. When volcano's erupt, they push out more CO2 than we do combined, during our entire lifetimes. We get a year without a summer. So it's not correct to say it does not cause climate change, because large amounts of it evidently causes cooling. The duration of the cooling period caused by volcano's is dependent on the magnitude of the eruption. Krakatoa affected the climate for decades.
untill a certain point. and we've gone well beyond that certain point. (almost) everything is good in the right proportions. it's just that us humans have the tendency to over-do it because a majority seems to think "if this is good for you, then more must mean more good"
17000 people died in the UK winter of 17/18 due to the cold and not helped by the cost of rising fuel costs subsidising green energy. Imagine if your consensus is wrong who is responsible for those deaths?
Science does it operate on consensus. Repeatability of an experiment is how science works. Consensus is simply a logical fallacy. One of the most damaging things climate science nonsense was done to the field of science make people believe that consensus is important part of science.
Could not agree more. Also, consensus still is "a thing" in sociology, psychology and philosophy. That's why my philosopher and historian friends are totally scared about "Global" warming - while my friends with a background in proper science (mathematics, physics and engineering) see it as the overblown political scam it is...
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="516">8:36</a> A big reason why they underestimated the amount of heating that greenhouse gasses would produce was that at the time instrumentation was not sensitive enough to separate out the effect on carbon dioxide (CO2) and the effect on water vapour. It was thought arguable that the frequency heating CO2 was the same frequency that causes heating in water vapour, so there would be no net increase in atmospheric heating. Of course, they are different molecules, with different bonds, with resonant vibration at different frequencies. So once you have instruments sensitive enough to measure the difference in the frequency that drives vibration/heating in each molecule, you can see that increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide will cause the atmosphere to heat. For anyone that doesn't quite get this explanation, consider how a microwave oven works; you expose the water in the food to a frequency of the wavelength that makes water molecules vibrate, which makes it heat up. You would need a slightly different frequency to do this to CO2.
I enjoyed this 15 minutes, but It didn't give me an answer to my biggest question. When was climate constant? If we can get the answer to that, maybe we can work from there to find out how to get back to that constant bliss and be happy forever???
Never. However big changes only happened on geological level, that is to say at least thousands of years. Global warming is happening on a scale of decades.
@@richardcoomer3094 no global warming is different. Temperatures are going up really fast, and are going to increase as greenhouse gases concentrations are increasing.
@@richardcoomer3094 they are also a lot of what's called "feedback loops" that will increase warming. For example: -a lot of methane will be released from the Arctic if the earth temperature gets too high (methane is a very potent greenhouse gas) -the loss of ice coveted surface means that less energy gets reflected back to the sun (white surfaces reflect more energy than others)
@@leoazer2980 The only advice I can give is, think a bit wider than the mainstream wants you to. Then maybe you will start to understand reality. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-UFHX526NPbE.html
I remember studying this in school aged 12 or 13 and i understood it then. This stuff cools, this other stuff warms, the warming stuff wins - it's that simple. It annoys me so much how some media controls the way people think about things that they don't get to have opinions on - like, for example, science.
@@tomsmith6878 CO2 doesn't cause the warming, it follows the warming. Most of the CO2 is held in the oceans. As the sea warms it realises CO2. Before the industrial revolution CO2 was in decline and the growth of trees and plants was in decline as a result. The natural progression in the lack of CO2 would have seen the death of all life on the planet. CO2 is not a danger to life, it is life. We and everything on the planet are carbon based.
OK Irene, youre going to have to let the scientists tell you what is true, rather than listening to what you think is right based off gu-instinct. Carbon is essential to human life, but CO2 does cause warming. A lot of CO2 is held in the oceans, but we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere very quickly and the oceans cant absorb an unlimited amount of it, there does come a point when the CO2 in the atmosphere increases (0.037% to 0.042% in the last few years). Your point about 'natural progression' of CO2 doesnt make sense to me im afraid.
@@tomsmith6878 I don't go on my gut instinct, that's a silly comment. I learnt it from science. I meant that the natural progression of the decline of CO2 leads to the decline of plant life. Trees and plants absorb CO2 and if there are more plants they absorb more CO2 so it will never be a problem. It will contribute to the shrinking of deserts, a good thing I would have thought. Think about what will happen if there are no plants and then think about who eats plants. We only contribute 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere hardly enough to cause the changes we are accused of. There are so many more things that cause changes in climate that we have no control over like the sun, volcanoes, earthquakes, meteors, the tilt of the earth which has changed more than once and also the fact that has been times when it was a lot warmer and there was no ice on either pole and there was still abundant life on the planet. We are just another species on this world that will come and go in time as have others. With all that's going on in the world I believe we are coming into another dark age of ignorance and stupidity. The first world will collapse under the weight of a barbaric religion clashing with a regressive ideology (Communism) and humans will have more to worry about than rising sea levels and longer summers.
Yes! I really wish I could remember the study, but it seems that the amount of life, the density if you will, is directly related to the amount of oxygen produced in any area of the planet. This wasn't the opinion of some scientists, it was shown that the local Wildlife consumed every bit of locally-produced oxygen, having Zero Effect on global 02 concentration. Pretty sure everyone is also aware that the vast majority of our oxygen comes from life in the ocean. Anybody screaming about "Deplanktoning" our oceans?
That still doesn’t make sense. Forgive me if I’m wrong, don’t plants absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen? The more CO2 the better plants will grow. We were always taught that carbon monoxide was the problem, you know pollution? And eating meat is also not the problem. Why the vegan spin on climate change and why just cows? What about the 10’s of millions of Bison that used to roam America? There are less cattle here now than Bison in the 17 & 1800’s. The problem with cattle is feeding them mono crop grains for food vs the grass they should be eating. Also, we do not have long term climate data. We have short term weather data. One massive volcanic eruption could change temps for a decade to the lower and this would disrupt data and presumptions. Rotting vegetation puts off more CO2 than any cow fart. Mono crop ag does more damage to land and atmosphere than anything. The constant addition of chemical fertilizers destroys the lands ability to absorb CO2 or create it’s own nutrients. There are a lot of things that contribute to climate/ weather change and 200 years of industry is not long enough to collect data that would represent change in a dangerous direction of warming or cooling, compared to the 4.6 billion year age of the planet. If the planet were warming, why wouldn’t there be a fear of increased volcanic activity due to the heating of the earth’s crust helping to create softer spots for magma to punch through the surface? It’s all speculation at this point.
