the worst part is that we have an exponential increase in everything nitrous oxide sulfur dioxide of course CO2 methane dead zones in the ocean and also the loss of oxygen due to the loss of phytoplankton

Adam as I understand it, our 'clean solar' panels are made from coal in China. Given that we have one atmosphere, how can we attack coal but praise solar? Honest question and am interested in your view.

Först och främst ska man sluta kriga för krigandet är den värsta klimatboven, mot allt levande, djur, natur och människan. Den aspekten diskuteras aldrig, av aktivister. Kanske det behövs allmän upplysning om saken, för både aktivister och dem som styr i länderna, det angår oss alla

Didn't your mother told you that you should NOT tell so many lies ! CO2 in the air is at historically low levels !

Thank you! A few days ago, the the World Economic Forum published the Global Risks Report 2025. According to the report, extreme weather events are the most severe global risk on the long term (10 years). So even "money people" know what is going on. Maybe there is some influence on future investments, e.g. more money for the green transition?

Thumbs up for not flying to NY, and riding by train wherever possible!

What happened to the hole in the ozone layer and acid rain? Why has it gone from global warming to climate change? Im over 40 and according to "experts" we should be dead already 😂

Blimey this is awful.

Read somewhere theres going to be a short warming before a mini ice age in the 2040s. Wat mean?

If there'a an extreme cold, be ready for extreme heat...

Well... unless u stupid you know climate change is a thing and its getting hotter and hotter...

so there were two arguments presented against my pointing out the relative short period of 150 years vs the long term natural trends of billions and the inability to take actual temperature records of the past: 1) it's human warming we are worried about. 2) science doesn't allow us to make apples to apples comparisons to previous time periods if we had long term temperature records since the earth has reconfigured itself over the long term. In answer to 1) we are trying to COMPARE what humans do vs what the earth does naturally, in fact the global warming argument itself is predicated on that claim so Climate Adam's logic doesn't make sense. If the science prevents us from understanding our current 150 years vs the long term trend, the science has serious limitations, and those limitations need to be very much part of the climate discussion. Brushing it aside or downplaying it doesn't do us any favors. We didn't take temperature records in the past, nor did we take those records in the context of those periods. We have to rely almost exclusively on proxy reconstructions.... Proxies are placeholders for data that was never taken to begin with, yet we rely on them almost exclusively for almost all of earth's history....then accept climate arguments made on that questionable basis without argument.

Tbh, LA is always on fire

I'm not gonna stop asking until I see it: please do a video on the melting permafrost and explain how it's possible that's not already a runaway process?

Maybe I'm in a bubble, but I think I see growing momentum behind the idea that climate change is happening and we need to do more about it.

Okay, so weird specific question - how do the EXTREME high temperatures of lingering wildfires throw off the annual averages? Does that one giant spot being 800C for weeks make a weird spike that doesn't occur in less flammable years?

2016, with an El Niño, was around 1 degree of warming. By 2024, eight years later, it is around 1.6 degrees Celsius. If global warming continues at the same rate, we will surpass 2 degrees in the next decade.

The Kiss of death, last year in Scotland it snowed up to the 14 June and the frost and snow were back in October

Stay science-based, Adam, like your comment section requires I consent to before posting.

i think its also gonna be great for renewables and with the uprise of people fighting, hopefully

I'm from Costa Rica. We just had a brutal rainy season, resulting in loss of crops and lots of destruction. This is the dry season, and it's still raining.

Thanks

Yes. Absolutely yes. 2025 will be hotter, 2026 hotter again, and 2027- again. And it will not stop.

Well that’s not all fully true

Honestly, one of the things I am most concerned about is feedback loops. Even if we stopped emmitting at all, the feedback loops we've already set off by creating conditions for ice sheets melting releasing methane into the atmosphere in very high volume, and other processes that will change the environment in massive ways. I think it is very soon going to get to the point where people cannot ignore the effects of climate change because it will begin to consume their daily lives. I guess what I mean in all of this is: I'm curious about your thoughts on feedback loops and what the magnitude of their role is in this global crisis.

As the new generation would say, we're cooked. We're fully cooked, overcooked even. Burnt to a crisp, both metaphorically, and literally. (Or litterally and litterally, if you prefer. 🤷‍♀️) Though even if there is no hope we must act as if there is. That's what it means to be alive.

the answer to the title is: "if u dont live in siberia or the north central US"...

Appreciate your ground explanations as always. It’s bad, but we gotta keep fighting

I used to be very concerned about climate change. So I decided I needed to really understand the actual science behind it. The more I learned the less it made any sense to me that a CO2 level of 430 PPM could possibly pose a problem. First I looked at the climate variations during the Holocene and was surprised to discover that the most reliable proxies indicate the planet was warmer than it is today for most of the last 10,000 years, and since the beginning of recorded history humanity has always thrived in the warmer times and suffered with the cold. The Minoan warm period, the Roman warm period and the Medieval warm period were all at least as warm as today if not warmer, and those are the times when the climate was most stable, crops yields were the highest and the human population grew. During the cold times in between people starved, diseases were rampant and populations fell. Then I looked into the physics and learned that extreme weather such as hurricanes, tornados, droughts and extreme hot and cold periods are all driven by cold polar air interacting with the warmer water and air from the equatorial areas. The more extreme the difference in temperature between these air masses, the more extreme weather events will occur. As the Earth warms the poles warm more than the equatorial areas, so that gradient between warm and cold is diminished and the climate becomes more mild. This is exactly what the historical weather records show, but the climate crisis crowd claims the exact opposite to be true. I also learned the greenhouse effect of CO2 diminishes logarithmically, and at the current level of 430 PPM it's already approaching the flat part of the curve. I knew that plants use CO2 for photosynthesis but I was surprised to learn that the optimal CO2 level for most plant life is 1000 to 1500 PPM, and that plants require less water as the CO2 level increases. If you look at the earliest images in Google Earth and compare them to today it's apparent that the Earth has actually become more green in recent years. I learned much more than this. These are just a few points that really stand out. The more I learned the more convinced I became that the so called "climate crisis" is a completely fabricated scam, relentlessly perpetrated by special interests with ulterior motives, Intergovernmental agencies seeking ever greater political influence, billionaire investors eager to develop new profit centers, and governments all around the world leveraging the issue to gain greater power to control the masses and forever driven to capitalize on a new potential source of taxation. Scientists are forced to toe the line by the social and political climate that's become so entrenched. This is the only kind of climate we should really be concerned about changing.

"Does not mean we passed the limit. " On the way up, by the time the 30 year average gets to 1.5, we'll be past that goal for a decade.

Do you think that we understand climate well enough to try to engineer a solution? Obviously there are feedback loops afoot and even if we *stopped* emissions (we won't), we are careening in the direction of catastrophe. The unavoidable conclusion seems to be that we need to be thinking far outside the legal framework.

I suspect that not having kids would be much better than veganism.

I BELIEVE LAST YEARS THE HEAT CYCLE IS OVER NOW COMES THE FREEZING COLD HEAVY SNOW STORM WINTERS IN A ROW TO CLOSE UP THE TECTONIC PLATES FOR THE NEXT 25 YEAR PERIOD EVERY 50 YEARS CYCLE

try not to think of climate change as a tragedy... but rather as an opportunity..

It is inevitable that the ice age will end. Get used to it! ...

Why is it that on your channel it is not yet possible to hear the vocal translation in other languages ​​(so not the uncomfortable subtitles that have been there for years) of what you say? 😐

O dear. Is this Crymate Change?

Thanks for this one and keep up the good work!

And again, not a single word about animal farming, which accounts for at least 15 Percent of the total global GHG emissions. That's more than the combined air and sea traffic and could be stopped so easyly and at extremely low costs but would work almost immediately! Sorry, no Like.

Great video, thank you!

Just look at the things that have caused runaway climate change in the past plants volcanos asteroids Malkovich cycles obviously it takes very little. I think we triggered and run away climate change by the year 2000. that might make me a climate Doomer, but it doesn’t mean I’m not accurate.

Thank you. Go vegan.

Hi I love your chance but I cannot stand video titles with question marks.

Does it count as food waste if you slip it under the table for the dog when your parents aren't looking?

I love your hair! Thanks so much for your important and entertaining videos!

hottest year ever, again.

All technological solution are a sustainable lie. If every couple has just one child or less, we can reduce the human population from 8 billion to 2 billion in just two generations. This is not about selective breeding but about fairness for all living creatures on the planet and therefore also about our own survival.

no one seems to be talking about whether the oceans reached or slowed their capacity to absorb heat?

So, this isn't me being negative, it's a question i have on what i consider to be a possibility. Tipping points like the AMOC collapsing were, a couple of years back, i'm fairly sure, predicted as being happening some point next century. Now more recent things i have read have them potentially happening maybe in 2050, or sooner, with boundaries due to be crossed causing this as soon as the next couple of years, Off the top of my head (Wunderling, Heydt et al 24) (Westen et al 24) and others. So the question: Are those points being evaluated as getting closer because we are just identifying more variables/doing more accurate studies? Or are we measuring and already destabilising system, because one or more of those tipping points have been crossed (like Amazon turning into a carbon source, rather than sink)?

We live in a world where artificial intelligence is going to do so much more labor than other people used to. This alone is highly energy intensive. What about other innovations, like Blockchain/cryptocurrency? What about the rest of the world that is embracing capitalism and free trade, shall they deliberately stay poor? I have a problem whenever we discuss, solar and wind, that we do not discuss the externalities these energy sources produce. They are highly inconsistent for production of energy. These sources do not do favors for grids, if they are in the mix too much. Each energy source has its pros and cons. Fossil fuels definitely has benefits, unfortunately, you did not describe any of them nearly. And carbon capture could help mitigate some of the evils or externalities we get from fossil fuels. A wind and solar do have environmentally destructive impacts as well. Solar panels are incredibly difficult to recycle. They do disrupt habitat for animals wind turbines do kill birds. This is one of the few energy sources that takes up considerably more square meters per output, then prior technology as well-hence all of the environmental destruction on habitat Nuclear appears to be much more reliable for grids, with practically all of the externalities, in the form of waste. Whenever somebody appears to be dogmatic or claim that they have the solution is whenever I get very suspicious of their ideas. There are more than one ways to fight global warming. I do not want to shut the door on any of them and ultimately, I do not want to be antihuman in my pursuit of protecting the Earth. I want to protect the earth because of the humans, not in spite of us.