Everything You Need to Know About Climate Change

[@ClimateAdam]

What did you know already? And what core climate questions do you still have? Huge thanks to Nathalie Schaller for helping make this video possible with her support via patreon: www.patreon.com/ClimateAdam

[@colombiacoffeeroasters5353]

Well, to answer your question. I knew about levels of gasses, and just how bad it is getting, well, atleast an estimate. A question for you: What were the predictions for the past few years on climate change? And can we use that information to help us estimate how hot it will get in the next few years? Sorry that sounded like a test. Thanks for letting me respond! ;)

[@silviamartinelli6848]

More about hope if at all possible 😅

[@l000tube]

Your enthusiasm is infectious... sending links of your vide to my kids. THANKS.

[@KJSvitko]

It is important that everyone speaks up for the future of the planet.

[@ChewonThat]

Agreed!!👏

[@a.randomjack6661]

You mean like this? *At 4°C of warming, would a billion people survive? What scientists say* www.climatecodered.org/2020/07/as-warming-approaches-15c-target-talk.html

[@alessiodebonis2710]

@@a.randomjack6661 thank you for sharing

[@a.randomjack6661]

@@alessiodebonis2710 You're welcome :-)

[@respect386]

“Hope has to be earned” is such a good perspective. Action and accountability make hope possible.

[@a.randomjack6661]

That requires lots of courage...

[@ClimateAdam]

I'm virtually certain I heard it somewhere else first and internalised it, because it is *so* important!

[@ChewonThat]

This is such a concise overview of our climate, and I love the editing style! I wish that climate science was a larger part of general education, but for now, people just need to watch your channel!👍

[@ClimateAdam]

So glad you liked it!

[@Dr.Gehrig]

Brilliant. Truly one of my favorite videos. I am doing my third med school presentation on the climate crisis and I start it off with a segment based on this.

[@ClimateAdam]

that is such an unreasonably lovely comment to receive - thank you 💚

[@Dr.Gehrig]

@@ClimateAdam I'd love to get the opportunity to discuss my work with you sometime, I feel like with direct input I could make it much better and more effective.

[@Dr.Gehrig]

@@ClimateAdam ps the presentation is called "The Climate Crisis: Causes and Solutions on a Single Slide, Why we should care and What you can do about it" Figured it might be relevant to your interests.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

We need to examine what mental processes cause many of us to assume that because we humans have the CAPACITY to move quickly that we will do so in time. How is it we can so easily dismiss the past 50 years of failure to take the needed actions, as being largely irrelevant?

[@mpgingdl]

Renewables still require the extraction and processing of non-renewable resources. Problem still not solved.

[@qualia765]

This is like all other climate change videos, but just better.

[@ClimateAdam]

This is like many other comments, but just lovelier!

[@weron3849]

Great news! Ecosia just planted 100 million trees #plantchange 💚

[@ChewonThat]

Love Ecosia! It’s so cool that they take a modern everyday need (search engine) and transform it to create positive change for our environment🌳

[@a.randomjack6661]

@@ChewonThat Try searching "climate change" in Ecosia. It uses Google's search engine, you will see lots of denial, as opposed to Startpage dot com for instance.

[@byrongsmith]

Thanks, this is excellent! I must have missed it when it came out.

[@gregsimones9295]

Really well done Adam.

[@ClimateAdam]

Thanks so much, Greg!

[@andydutton455]

I live in a town that has a sustainability department. It's well planned and I know that it can be done.

[@barthennin6088]

The relationship of rise in CO2 levels to global temperature rise is not in direct proportion but logarithmic. Each doubling of CO2 only creates half the previous temp rise. So, it's not catastrophic. Funny how the alarmists are always saying "follow the science" but when people do, they are denigrated for not following the science.

[@ClimateAdam]

two points. firstly, I've personally met multiple scientists explicitly working to understand the logarithmic relationship. they've never suggested that this implies CO2 is somehow safe. quite the opposite. secondly, the logarithmic relationship looks something like: Delta T = k log (C/C0) so if this holds, any doubling of CO2 would create the same temperature change. i.e. k log(2). so each doubling of subsequent doubling creates the same temperature rise, not half the rise. put another way: for each doubling of CO2 concentration, temperature increases by a constant value (as long as the relationship holds).

[@petere2828]

I have just watched this video in full. It helps explain why you are now a journalist rather than a working scientist. In fact it's difficult to believe you have a PhD in Atmospheric Physics. In my experience there are two types of scientist, both good at passing exams. 1. Those very good at absorbing what they are taught and then being good at exams and even applying the science. They 'know' but they don't really know how to apply the scientific method. 2. Those who truly no how science progresses. They start by learning, but then learn to question and challenge. That is, to be a sceptic. These are the scientists who advance scientific knowledge. They challenge what they learn with the result of either confirming it or proving it wroing - thus helping to progress our knowledge in a postivie direction. This video gives the clear impression you are scientist type 1. I conclude this because your video is simply a step-by-step repeat of all the standard alarmist positions on climate change - that it is the cause of everything bad and 'we're all gonna die!'. I am a scientist. I know CO2 is a GHG, that we are increasing its concentration in the atmosphere and very likely contributing to the warming. I will pick you up on some specific points in separate comments.

[@kameron1834]

Keep up the great work!!

[@ClimateAdam]

thanks so much!

[@ianrbuck]

Thanks for putting timestamps for the video's sections in the description! Little touches like that are much appreciated.

[@ClimateAdam]

No worries!

[@bazoo513]

I am making this request on several channels I follow and I feel are up to the challenge: Oversimplified explanations of the greenhouse effect lead many young minds to doubt it, and to "buy" arguments of "skeptics". "Just like a blanket" is not good enough. To summarize: - CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is rising at an unprecedented rate - Isotopic composition shows unequivocally that we are the culprits - CO2 is transparent to visible and near-infrared light but absorbs longer wavelengths - The troposphere is getting hotter , also at an unprecedented rate - The upper stratosphere is getting colder - No, Sun is not responsible Correct? So far, so good. However: - There is only ~400ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, very little compared to, say, water - The halflife of the excited state of CO2 molecule after which it re-emits the IR photon is very long compared to the mean time between collisions with other air molecules. It would seem that these collisions are by far the prevalent mechanism of relaxation. - The atmosphere is already almost totally opaque to the offending infrared wavelengths. So, the image projected in numerous popular accounts "CO2 lets short wavelengths from the Sun down, absorbs longer wavelengths, re-emits them all over including back down" is a gross oversimplification, making the opening for the "skeptics". Would you please consider devoting an episode to setting the record straight? The main question needing the answer is how a relatively rare gas contributes dramatically to the "insulation" properties of the atmosphere in the wavelengths where it is already opaque. Thanks! Update: Adam pointed me to a good blog post on the topic (see his reply below), which, in turn, container a link to this good video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rZabh4utlp1mfLM Thank you, Adam!

[@a.randomjack6661]

I kind of agree with you. I too will give some lines 1- a greenhouse gas intercepts infrared radiation emitted by the Earth 2- On average, the Earth emits 20 photons of IR light for every photon received by sunlight. Because IR has much less energy (about 20 times) than visible light, more with the more "energetic" UV light. 3- every molecule of gas made up of 3 atoms or more is a greenhouse gas. 4- The way those molecules vibrate intercepts (scatters) the longer IR wavelength (aka heat) acting like those metaphorical blankets See this short video *Discuss the Vibrational Spectra of CO2 molecule* #Spectroscopy #PhysicalChemistry kzbin.info/www/bejne/gWfHhICVo6mYm5o 5- Isotopic analysis tells us if the CO2 is from fossil fuel or biological activity (life) (same with methane, oxygen, etc.) I would recommend learning a bit about the electromagnetic spectrum. Astrophysics is what I used to be most interested in... www.radio2space.com/components-of-electromagnetic-spectrum/

[@bazoo513]

@@a.randomjack6661 Ah, so my comment is still here, after all. Thanks. I know all this. Tha gap in my understanding is mostly how does CO2 contributes to the "blanket" effect then the atmosphere is already opaque to offending wavelengths. Is the energy transfer in collisions what actually heats the atmosphere? I mean, warming of the troposphere and cooling of the upper stratosphere clearly shows that the effect is happening, but I don't understand details.

[@a.randomjack6661]

@@bazoo513 It certainly is not opaque if by offending radiation you mean IR. It is mostly opaque to X-Rays from the sun though. If it was opaque to IR, it would be more like Venus temperature wise down here. Greenhouses gases trap "some heat" and the more greenhouse gases, the more heat will be trapped. The stratosphere is cooling because it is not receiving "as much" heat (IR) since that heat is partly absorbed in the troposphere. The stratosphere will keep cooling as we add more and more greenhouse gases to the very thin troposphere, which also increases water vapour (relative humidity) in the troposphere, just about doubling the warming of the troposphere caused by other greenhouse gases alone.

[@ClimateAdam]

Hi bazoo - if I understand correctly you're asking why if the absorption at particular frequencies seems to be 'saturated' how extra CO2 can make a difference? Executive summary: because the height at which CO2 stops being opaque to these frequencies rises, meaning less heat can be radiated to space (for the same surface temperature). I think this break down of the processes is pretty good: skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm As for whether it's a topic for a video - I'm sure it is, and it's one I've thought about before. It could one day make a nice extension for my episode on how CO2 works on the molecular level: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bJCbfKOBms93Z8U

[@bazoo513]

@@ClimateAdam Aha! Well, that's a bit subtle, but, in hindsight, obvious. What I was confusing is "atmosphere is opaque for a given frequency" (as in "astronomers can't see in that part of spectrum") with "nothing at that frequency escapes to space". Yes, that would be a good "sequel" to your "up, down. up. down" video. I think we need more "stricter" (but still accessible to laypersons) treatment of these topics. Thanks!

[@wanderingohm]

I wonder if during the global lockdown period we had ever cut emitions during that time. We saw the air pollution improve around the world, we saw shared some startling pictures. This is a great video, thankyou for your work

[@ClimateAdam]

Hiya Cate - I've touched on emissions from COVID in my climate & coronavirus playlist, which you can check out here: kzbin.info/aero/PLeBwUoIvGwcYbvO8EH639POzXH8AvFsEX Thanks so much for watching, and glad you enjoyed the vid!

[@rayian5891]

Since O2 does not absord IR how is it warmed. Do excited CO2 molecules colliding with the oxygen warm it? Just something that I've been wondering

[@CamishaEinbeck]

Thank You Adam that was really helpful.

[@shaunaburton7136]

This is a great video, governments need to watch it and make policy to address it.

[@mirakaradjova3500]

I loved this video!

[@nicholas3435]

4:39 If the upper atmosphere is cooling, how bad of an idea would it be to make a big fan to get the cool air down here?

[@ClimateAdam]

Hi Nicholas - sadly the heat lost by the upper atmosphere is tiny compared to the heat gained by the rest of the Earth system, so I don't think a big fan will save the day, sadly. Unless that big fan is a huge wind turbine to generate renewable energy ;-)

[@mtarnowski95]

It looks like a perfect intro, e.g. for kids, teens and other laymen.

[@silviamartinelli6848]

Great video Adam! Thanks :)

[@adrianafernandez1086]

Love your content!

[@ClimateAdam]

thanks Adriana - great to have you here!

[@brucejankowitz4501]

this is great! I sent to my kids on our family chat(whatsApp) so they can be evangelist's too of this super important subject

[@JeremySmith-wc4lh]

Nice touch with the 10,000,000 likes (:

[@ClimateAdam]

and 0 dislikes..! hehe

[@anninaelephant8058]

Hello I always look forward to your videos and I share them with my friends and not so informed other humans ;)The best way to explain to other people the problem is your video about the punishment, where you hit yourself. This metaphor has helped me many times. Thanks for your time passion and knowledge. Have you been in Germany, Austria or Switzerland to shoot the Video, there where some Advertising on German ;)

[@ClimateAdam]

I'm so glad that you find my videos useful and thanks so much for sharing. And yes I live in Germany these days, aber ich spreche nur ein bisschen Deutsch!

[@elisha7339]

I’m showing this to my dad that denys climate change exists :)

[@ClimateAdam]

eek. hope he finds some of it useful.

[@halizne]

I want to send my family and friends this video but they don't speak English. Is there a way I can help to translate the subtitles?

[@halizne]

Anyways, great video! I learned a lot through it.

[@deemisquadis9437]

I like your hair like that best. That is you. ❤

[@FrancisFjordCupola]

I would say that whole of humanity works on climate change. But that's a matter of perspective. I wish we'd work towards impacting less.

[@petere2828]

That's interesting. You have a PhD in atmospheric physics, and yet you don't seem to have discovered the limiations in the hockey stick temperature graphs? Bristlecone pines, the divergence problem, and more... Or as a scientist I would presume you have investigated the criticisms and found good reason to discout them. I would be interested to hear of your findings. I will watch more of your videos. BTW, I am an environmental scientist and geologist. I have closely followed climate science probably since before you were born.

[@jobambiflatetbaas6301]

Great vid.

[@zackamor8043]

There is no hope

[@aidannn9997]

The day we touched the tree was the day nature fell

[@OldJackWolf]

Adding hope to the mix is a rather useless emotion, IMHO. Its held us back for decades.

[@92hikhik]

I have a question please, can we know the impact of carbon dioxide emissions of a country on another country? For example exactly how much carbon dioxide moves from china to japan ? Or maybe china's carbon dioxide effect on other countries ?

[@a.randomjack6661]

Nope, it all quickly becomes a global... mishmash because of air circulation. However, you can search atmospheric circulation simulations on You Tube, I bet NASA has some awesome ones, like this one kzbin.info/www/bejne/rmK2mKB8lpWlZpY There's also this excellent site I often use. Click on *Earth* to access the Menu and select what you want to view. There is some essential info in the *About* section, make sure you check it out kzbin.info/www/bejne/rmK2mKB8lpWlZpY

[@klokoloko2114]

This is good video kzbin.info/www/bejne/n6G5qauuptx1h9k

[@a.randomjack6661]

@@klokoloko2114 Yep!

[@ClimateAdam]

Exactly as others say - because CO2 lasts so long in the atmosphere it has time to mix all around, so that everyone's CO2 becomes everyone's problems. That means that poorer countries who have emitted much less don't escape. In fact in many ways these countries end up being hit the hardest and have the least ability to adapt.

[@92hikhik]

ClimateAdam then why poorer countries suffer the most from climate change ? Is it because climate in those countries is already warm ??

[@jackpanella3285]

Imagine the sudden elimination of heat by a sudden change in atmospheric circulation, as a result of a substantial reduction in obstruction to air circulation, affecting the area of the Colorado River Basin and extending across the United States and around the world. WHOOSH! It just happened. Grab a sweater. Carbon dioxide isn't the problem.

[@fortycraftsadventureshelpu4669]

Was I the only one who expected a jump scare when he was in the dark😂

[@ClimateAdam]

having water thrown in my face was terrifying enough!

[@tobyw9573]

Does NOAA sea level DATA from gauges track with CO2 levels? NO!

[@KarolaTea]

Great education video, thank you!

[@TheDisproof]

BERLIN!!!! :)

[@ClimateAdam]

woop wooooop!

[@XezolPL]

I have no hope but I still do everything that I can do personally for the climat. :/ sad story

[@ClimateAdam]

I think everyone who cares about climate change feels like that sometimes - I know I do. But it's important to remember that every bit of warming matters and so every action we can take makes a difference. Thanks for watching and for caring ❤️

[@jermsbestfriend9296]

2023 update please. Can you make the intro much shorter or add a teaser because otherwhere my friends will not watch. They're too stupid

[@bazoo513]

OK, let's see will my comment (request, actually) be promptly deleted again. Here we go: I am making this request on several channels I follow and I feel are up to the challenge: Oversimplified explanations of the greenhouse effect ("like a blanket") lead many young minds to doubt it, and to "buy" arguments of "skeptics". To summarize: - CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is rising at an unprecedented rate - Isotopic composition shows unequivocally that we are the culprits - CO2 is transparent to visible and near-infrared light but absorbs longer wavelengths - The troposphere is getting hotter , again at an unprecedented rate - The upper stratosphere is getting colder - No, Sun is not responsible Correct? So far, so good. However: - There is only ~400ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, very little compared to, say, water - The halflife of the excited state of CO2 molecule after which it re-emits the IR photon is very long compared to the mean time between collisions with other air molecules. It would seem that these collisions are by far the prevalent mechanism of relaxation. - The atmosphere is already almost totally opaque to the offending infrared wavelengths. So, the image projected in numerous popular accounts "CO2 lets short wavelengths from the Sun down, absorbs longer wavelengths, re-emits them all over including back down" is a gross oversimplification, making the opening for the "skeptics". Would you please consider devoting an episode to setting the record straight? The main question needing the answer is how a relatively rare gas contributes dramatically to the "insulation" properties of the atmosphere in the wavelengths where it is already opaque. I know it is much more difficult than using tired metaphors, but please do try. To paraphrase Einstein, if you really understand it (and I suppose you do), you will be able to explain it (relatively) simply. Thanks!

[@klokoloko2114]

I'll give you an example about plant green house and how is much warmer inside ! You know that you can have conditions that can increase greenhouse effect so than you can have higher temp. than what is outside like in car or plant greenhouse. Now you have to see what is difference in atmosphere that makes lower temp. condition in atmosphere than what is inside our plastic greenhouse. First atmosphere is very thick more than 100 km and first 10km is most important because here is almost 90% of air and greenhouse. One big thing to notice is that when you go up air pressure drops rapidly so on 10km you have pressure that is 15% than what is on sea level. So as you go up you have less and less molecules to radiate heat to space and temp. of that regions is lower and lower. So on 10km air temp. is -50°C. Now imagine that you increase CO2 in air to 1% . Suddenly all radiation that earth is radiating from CO2 absorbtion spectrum to space is absorbed in first 1km of atmosphere. So now at 1km you do not have temp. for example 15°C but for example -50°C . Difference with more CO2 is now you have much less atmosphere at higher temp. that is at the same time at higher pressure and you have now stronger green house effect because radiation of those layers of air above 1km to space is much lower than before because they have much lower temp. Just like in your plastic greenhouse you reduced height of atmosphere and increased infrared reflection with plastic at very low altitude. Do you get it now? What about water vapor now, in this new situation? Air can dissolve much more water when air is warmer (that's why when you have cold object water from air condensate on cold surfaces). Now with more CO2 you have higher temp. of air and also water in air can increase without being condensed. What you get is even more greenhouse effect from water in air and you get clouds that are now closer to surface when they form because at 1km now you have -50°C and at that temp. For example maximum water in air at 20°C is 17.3 gr/m3 and at -25°C is only 0.64 gr/m3. Source: www.engineeringtoolbox.com/maximum-moisture-content-air-d_1403.html This is basic of greenhouse effect physics. And yes CO2 absorption in air is saturated so at first it seams logical that adding more CO2 in air GHG effect shouldn't change, but it does and above is explanation. Thanks for reading!

[@atticustay1]

I definitely don’t want to be adopted by Beyoncé and jay z

[@ClimateAdam]

less competition for me then!

[@victoros2642]

you deserve more public.

[@garyha2650]

Can you name a species extinct from climate change, not other causes like hunting?

[@ClimateAdam]

Sure: blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/climate-change-claims-its-first-mammal-extinction/

[@garyha2650]

@@ClimateAdam It's important that the case be very strong. People might argue that the mouse-looking creature on the 9 acre grassy sandbar was simply wiped away from there by a typhoon storm surge since it had very little height above sea level plus the mouse might have gone there from nearby New Guinea which might be its primary habitat, but thar be cannibals so it would be difficult to set up infrared motion cameras trying to locate them. In short, it's merely missing from that tiny little island.

[@garyha2650]

@@ClimateAdam The 150 to 200 species per day due to climate change model was published in 2010 so there would be over 540,000 species extinct from climate change by now. It might be worth distancing from that claim for climate awareness to be able to gain greater traction since it surely causes people to doubt. More info: e360.yale.edu/features/global_extinction_rates_why_do_estimates_vary_so_wildly

[@Gumbatron01]

@@garyha2650 Yep, a critter being wiped off a miniscule sand bar that stands only a few feet above sea level is something that would be happening quite often over the geological past, the only difference here is that someone saw it. To attribute that to climate change is very much a stretch. It's a tiny, low sandbar in the tropics where there are fairly regular hurricanes. The chances of any population of animals surviving in such a tenuous habitat are very slim. As you point out, they clearly didn't evolve there as that island is a very volatile environment: "The cement base of the old (1958) temporary lighthouse tower, once located near the centre of the cay, now sits towards the south-eastern side of the cay at the high tide mark". The fact that a light house, built in the late '50s, has moved significantly relative to the rest of the island indicates that a fair bit of action is going on in relation to movement of the sand. Geologically, it's a flash in the pan.

[@garyha2650]

@@Gumbatron01 Thanks for that Mark. By the way folks, since my comment 2 years ago about 2010, I tracked the origin back to Adam Rogers of the United Nations in the 1995 book "Taking Action", in the preface. Previous to that there were various other numbers per day tossed around. Never any data or any of the computer models revealed, there were mere attempts being made, they didn't pan out. The number according to IUCN is an average of around 1.7 species per year in their counting efforts. However, Adam followed that statement with something I agree is important, citing a quarter million new people per day, net (accounting for deaths). Now down to 219,000 per day by my math, starting with 401,000 new babies per day, a figure that the mind may struggle to comprehend. If true, the low 1.7 seems almost a miracle to me the way we are expanding. I don't want to make anyone feel bad at all for having kids, it's just that I think it would be healthy for more of us to know, and then through that lens, more of our world's dots connect in my opinion. Have a great day everybody.

[@doutormanhattan5680]

I am like number 900

[@tobyw9573]

Read/watch Freeman Dyson.

[@markotrieste]

Did he publish papers on climate?

[@tobyw9573]

I am not aware of any Dyson papers on climate, he disproves the current memes via logic. Papers critical of "climate science" are rejected by publishers. Toby Search - Freeman Dyson’s brief case against dangerous CO2-driven warming by E. Calvin Beisner June 21, 2017 "At a lecture at Boston University a few years ago, Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s top physicists, who replaced Albert Einstein at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, put very simply one of the most basic arguments against the notion that CO2-driven global warming is likely to be disastrous:" @@markotrieste

[@andrewmcdonald6987]

My Dad was not a good guy and he died 😝

[@nalusan]

is there hope? 😂😂😂😂 people will not do anything against it. you can look up all that in behaviour. so that is it.

[@whitelilium2626]

Huge leaps here.... I don’t but it

[@kwood4419]

Woke alert

[@deemisquadis9437]

Do you remember that trees need carbon to produce oxygen, and that you need oxygen to breath. And the trees need you to breath. They have fooled you so badly, you must all be embarrassed and don't want to admit you let the governments fool the hell out of you. 😂😅😂😅

[@markotrieste]

With your logic, given that we need water to live, then drowning is ok. CO2 conventration is almost never the limiting factor for plant growth. On the contrary, desertification, extreme weather, deforestation are.

[@haley8004]

Adam, this is not wit, this is pure cringe! The most important topic is not befitting of silliness anyway.

[@haley8004]

Also, the new climate denial is not "global warming isn't happening" but "It's a big problem but we're doing great, hurrah green energy!" e.g. pembina.org

[@ClimateAdam]

I'm sorry it's not to your taste. Maybe try out channels like zentouro, Our Changing Climate, Kurtis Baute, and Simon Clark. Hope you find something that appeals to you out there ❤️

[@haley8004]

@@ClimateAdam Thanks for your suggestions. I’ll remain your fan since all the times you brought me science news on my commute to school. A significant part of what I’d be looking for on this topic is what it means for people to choose to cause such unprecedented destruction. Can any morality still exist? Allowing life to continue must be the core moral. I’m increasingly of the opinion that the appropriate response is not polite reason but outcry. Anyone who says publicly “but, the economy” should fear being fired and shunned, like what we saw with BLM. I think that’s the way to swift change, and the only moral high ground. Because soon we’ll be nothing but a legacy of extinctions and deserts.

[@Xlobudos]

Most important thing about it, it doesnt exist!!!

[@secretgoldfish931]

How do you know that?