How Well Do Scientists Understand Global Warming? | Climate Change on America Uncovered

How Well Do Scientists Understand Global Warming? | Climate Change on America Uncovered



our planet has been getting warmer but how well do scientists understand why welcome to America uncovered I'm Chris Chappell our planet beautiful diverse complex so how well do scientists understand our planet in particular how well do they understand global warming but before I'm able to examine that issue YouTube is probably trying to preempt it by putting a link to the Wikipedia entry on global warming right below this video if you click the link Wikipedia will tell you matter-of-factly that global warming is a long term rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system and that the term commonly refers to the mainly human-caused observed warming so YouTube and Wikipedia have teamed up to editorialize my video before I've even started the article on global warming is one of many thousand semi protected articles you can tell by the lock icon that means you have to be a confirmed user to edit the page and it's usually a sign that the topic is controversial you can find the same lock icon for other topics I've covered on America uncovered like gun control and Isis even the other Isis I mean Egyptian mythology was controversial at the time back when Tom moon and Rob were combined into Amon rah those are some real flame wars I hope that the five people who got that joke appreciate it anyway here's the crazy part I'm not a conspiracy theorist I'm a journalist and a comedian whose jokes aren't even that funny what I'm going to talk about in this episode shouldn't even be controversial I asked viewers what they wanted to know about climate change and they wanted me to look into how well scientists understand global warming I'm not here to take a position I'm just here to explore how much scientists understand it and how much consensus there is so let's go back to that Wikipedia page the first issue is is the earth getting warmer is there a long-term rise in average temperature the scientific understanding of this is pretty straightforward reasonably good surface measurements of temperature started being collected in about 1880 since then the average surface temperature of the planet has risen by about one degree Celsius or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit there are a lot of ways to measure surface temperature now from weather stations to buoys to satellite so it's gotten more and more accurate over time and there does seem to be broad scientific consensus on this point the average surface temperature of Earth has gotten a little warmer between 1880 and today does that mean we know what's going to happen in the next hundred years maybe but also maybe not that depends on how good our climate change models are and we'll get to that but first let's address Wikipedia point number two the mainly human caused part you may have heard this before 97% of scientists agree global warming is happening and humans are the cause as the consensus project puts it the debate is over wait the debate is over okay I guess that's it for this episode of America what's that Shelley click learn more but they just said the debate is over fine I'll learn more ah I see 97% of published climate papers with a position on human-caused global warming agree global warming is happening and we are the cause wait wait with the position on human-caused global warming are there scientists who don't have a position on whether humans are causing global warming turns out yes but those scientists are often ignored this 97% only accounts for the scientists who take a position and even NASA pushes that figure but that's super misleading here's why the NASA page says ninety-seven percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree asterisk climate warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities and that asterisk points us to a study which cites another study the most widely cited consensus study by John Cook at all which is this one this is the source of the claim that 97% of scientists support an Oh genic global warming or agw anthropogenic global warming means caused by human activity so here's how they conducted the study they looked at the abstract of about 12,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers that match the terms global climate change or global warming they didn't do any climate science and they didn't read the papers they only read the abstracts that is the summaries of each paper and they found that about two-thirds of the papers expressed no position on whether humans were causing global warming only 1/3 said humans were the cause the final 1% was divided between scientists who said humans were not causing global warming or just weren't sure so how do you get 97% of scientists agree humans are causing global warming well what better way to reach consensus then to take out the parts that don't fit that's better now 97% of scientific papers agree that's literally where the commonly cited 97% agreement comes from it's like if I say 97% of my viewers like America uncovered but only among the viewers who've emailed me specifically about whether they liked or disliked America uncovered frankly why is it not a hundred percent who would even bother to send me an email to tell me they don't like me yeah to be clear I do not want to find out anyway 97% of people agree Chris Chappel is amazing and the debate is over see my jokes really aren't that funny but anyway among the scientists who have taken no position that study didn't break down why they took no position for example they might have been looking at different aspects of global warming but not at what causes it anyway the simple 97% consensus figure now gets repeated by media and institutions and it's often used without explaining that it only includes the much smaller number of papers where the scientist took a position John cook the lead author of the 97% study said that the motivation for the analysis was the importance of scientific consensus in shaping public opinion and therefore policy so the point was to promote consensus in the use that to shape public policy got it because there's a big difference between not everyone agrees about the science but we should still have a discussion in good faith about potential policy versus if you don't adopt my policy we will all die not that anyone would do that now cook isn't the only person who has claimed there's broad consensus about manmade global warming but all the studies on this generally have the same flaw they include the small number of scientists who say it's not man-made but ignore the large number of scientists who don't take any position on it now to be clear I'm not saying I think humans are not causing global warming I'm saying I'm not taking a position like those two-thirds of abstracts that were taken out of the equation but I am taking a position on the fact that the results of this study are often used in a misleading way 97% of people agree on that so how well do scientists understand global warming well it turns out that climate science is unbelievably complicated I'll give some examples about 13,000 years ago there was a period called the Younger Dryas period measurements taken from Greenland ice core samples showed that the temperature dropped significantly according to this paper from Columbia University at the end of the Younger Dryas average annual temperatures increased by as much as 10 degrees Celsius in 10 years that's more than a hundred times faster than the 1 degree change we've experienced over the last hundred 40 years how did that happen well it's a touchy subject that is currently the focus of much research but don't worry because this scenario may be irrelevant for future climate change the point is climate scientists don't really understand what caused it even though it was a sudden and huge global warming event that was definitely not caused by human industry unless the flintstones was an animated documentary scientists also don't understand much about for example sea level changes in the period since 1880 while temperatures increased by 1 point 8 degrees Fahrenheit global sea levels have risen by about 9 inches that's a lot and if the oceans continue to rise it will be a major problem for coastal areas huge parts of the Netherlands are already threatened by rising ocean levels and so are a lot of island nations like Japan the Philippines and Kiribati wherever that is in fact if sea levels keep rising even big parts of lower Manhattan could be underwater I mean not Wall Street won't somebody please think of the poor people on Wall Streets but while 9 inches and especially a few feet may seem really scary keep this in mind over the course of the last 500 million years world sea levels have gone up and down dramatically sometimes as much as 700 feet higher than today at other times 100 feet lower all of that without human activity and while scientists do understand that continental ice shelves play a major role in changing sea levels they don't understand all the mechanisms that cause these ice shelves to form and melt but what about carbon dioxide or co2 we've released a huge amount of co2 into the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and co2 is a greenhouse gas meaning it traps heat from the Sun making temperatures rise that's true in a famous scene in An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore dramatically stands on a cherry picker and says the level of co2 in our atmosphere is likely to go higher than its been in 600,000 years it's already right here that blue line is temperature won't that go up too well co2 is widely understood to be a greenhouse gas but it's only one of many many factors that cause global warming water vapor is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas and water vapor formation is not very well understood I mean if it were AccuWeather would be a heck of a lot more accurate seriously meteorologists can't even predict the local weather ten days out I don't think they can tell me how clouds are going to form a hundred years from now and if you look at Al Gore's actual data and move the temperature curve up to match the co2 data you'd see that while there is clearly a correlation between the temperature and the amount of co2 the causation isn't so clear half the time when both temperature and co2 spiked the temperature went up first often thousands of years earlier that is to say the data shows correlation but doesn't actually suggest that co2 is what's causing the temperature to rise maybe there are other factors that affect both and besides during many of those spikes global temperatures were actually higher than they've been in recent centuries I guess Al Gore just cherry picked his data but again this isn't to say that Al Gore is wrong to say there's too much industrial pollution pollution is harmful and we should protect our planet my point is even Al Gore's mainstream film drew conclusions without really factoring in all the data so why didn't he just factor in all the data because he couldn't there's too much data no matter how fast computing power gets climate models still rely on humans plugging in the right data sets and the right equations and scientists still don't understand all the factors that affect the climate that's why so many predictions have turned out to be wrong for example in 2000 the independent in the UK published this article it says children just aren't gonna know what snow is fast forward 19 years those kids are all grown up and that article has mysteriously been taken down but now a British newspaper is asking if 2019 will be the coldest winter on record yeah that child probably knows what snow is this is to say a lot of climate models aren't very accurate scientists don't necessarily understand global warming enough to make accurate predictions so why don't we hear much from scientists who admit they don't understand because research that says humans are causing global warming gets a lot more funding than research that takes no stance or has a dissenting voice climate scientist dr. Judith Currie from the Georgia Institute of Technology said in a 2015 US Senate testimony that there is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus this pressure comes not only from politicians but from federal funding agencies universities and professional societies she gave an example an email she received from a scientist employed at NASA the employee said that they were told we should not try to publish papers contrary to the current global warming claims because the NASA boss would then have a headache countering the undesirable publicity dr. Currie is pretty concerned about how politics is compromising climate research it should be no surprise that money and politics can bias science and to be fair it goes the other way to the fossil fuel industry funds websites like this with research showing how carbon dioxide is good for plant growth so let's just have a picnic take it totally on stage photo and forget about how we're releasing huge amounts of pollution into the air okay but obviously most scientists who believe we don't know enough about global warming to assign a cause are not funded by the fossil fuel industry but they also are much less likely to be funded by governments or universities that makes sense who wants to fund research where the conclusion is man I don't know all this being said there are a lot of scientists who say they do understand climate change well enough to definitively state that humans are the main cause of global warming but there are also a lot of scientists whose voices haven't been heard much who say there's not enough evidence or understanding to make that claim right now this shouldn't be a surprise it would be more surprising for 97% of people to agree on anything but that doesn't mean we should scream at whoever it disagrees with us I mean I get that's in fashion right now but still global warming can be both real and not well understood there are lots of ways we can all come together with a little less screaming burning fossil fuels releases co2 but it also releases a lot of other chemicals into the air there are much worse for example in China air pollution is killing a million people per year so regardless of the impact of co2 on global temperatures we need to rein in toxic air pollution there are lots of environmental and financial reasons to explore renewable energy and ways to make our world more energy efficient even if that Wikipedia page also has a lock icon for thousands of years mankind has tried to live in harmony with the natural environment even if we don't fully understand what has been causing the earth to get warmer it's in the interest of future generations to cherish the planet reduce pollution and build structures that can endure a changing climate no matter what unpredictable things happen and before you go this episode has been sponsored by mova Globes you've seen a mova Globe on my desk before and now they have a beautiful new model of planet Earth as it looks from space the technology is really amazing when you pick it up it keeps spinning and when you put it back on its base it corrects its motion and starts rotating no cords no batteries it just works and it's powered by ambient light which is renewable energy mova also has a bunch of other cool designs too so click the link in the description below and pick your favorite version and when you buy a mova Globe you'll also be supporting your favorite show about America that stars me Chris Chappell so click below to check it out now thanks for watching this episode of american covered I'm Chris Chappell see you next time

Posts created 39977

25 thoughts on “How Well Do Scientists Understand Global Warming? | Climate Change on America Uncovered

  1. YouTube has PERMANENTLY demonetized this video for being too controversial. We can't afford to keep making this show! That's why we RELY on your support on the crowd funding platform Patreon. I know Patreon itself is controversial these days, but please, if you can, support this show at patreon.com/americauncovered. Otherwise we simply cannot afford to keep making content like this.

  2. Over 60% of "global warming" and "climate change" paper didn't take a position in the human factor is because there are much more to discuss on global warming than simply what caused it. For example, the study could be on the consequences on various aspects of the climate change and on how to mitigate the negative impacts.

    The study narrow the analysis on the papers taking a position because, duh, their goal is to find out the statistics on position takings among scientific papers. And please bear it in mind that all those papers are published with substantial data and analysis that passed the peer review process. When 97% of the dedicated study by researchers dedicated to this position taking choosing the same. I'd pay attention.

  3. The global warming will happen ANYWAY. yes.
    Carbon emission is accelerating that yes.
    Cientific comunity should clarify this. yes
    Left will not like the idea. NO

  4. Financing for research on global climate change: grants are availible ONLY to those that promote global climate change. No money is available for those that don't believe in it. Recent studies have shown that the assumptions made in the computer models are incorrect and are hopefully now being corrected.

  5. Global warming was invented by Al Gore con artist and ex VP. It proves the theory that a scientist will say whatever you PAY THEM to say.

  6. This video is really misleading. Just because most climate science papers don't adress the cause of climate change doesn't mean that the authors don't have an opinion on it. Like how many physics papers address whether Newton's third law is correct or not? Almost none of them do. That's not because most physicists aren't sure about it, but because it's very well established science so there's no need to write papers on it! If you want to see what the scientific consensus is on Newton's third law you would have to look at the papers that address it obviously. And that's what they did for climate science papers. It's not an evil plot to mislead people. And the consensus project explains all this on their website, they aren't trying to hide it. But if you don't like the way they got the result you can also just strait up poll climate scientists and tbis has been done and it has been found that 90-95% of climate scientists agreed with the consensus, but of course this video doesn't bring up that fact because it doesn't fit their narrative. I can address all the other stuff he talks about in the video but that would make this comment way too long. If anyone who reads this wants me to go into some of those just reply asking me to and I'll try to answer. I'm not an expert but I'm reading a book published by the American Meteorological Society dealing with all this.

  7. The debate is over 97% of the scientist that live out global warming propaganda agree that is a man made event.

  8. None of the surveys ask if man is the cause of global warming. They ask if man has SOME influence on climate and the answer is yes, just as every other life form on this planet has "SOME" influence on it. The real question is how much and the answer is AN UNMEASURABLE AMOUNT. Man-made catastrophic global warming is a scam. The Earth isn't even historically hot right now, it's historically cold. It's only historically hot if you think history only goes back to The Little Ice Age, before that 90 to 95 % of the time it was warmer.

  9. Even if we aren't causing Global Warming, it's still causing air pollution, no question. That alone should make people want to strive to reduce emissions.

  10. 1) We were in an extended Grand Solar Maximum (Modern Maximum) from about 1914 – 2007. They characteristically last 20-60 years according to one pr paper.
    2) The Modern Maximum had a double peak once around 1950 and another in the 1990s
    3) We are entering a Modern Minimum.
    4) Alarmist claim it womt be enough to offset AGW basing this belief on climate models (computer simulations) heavily reliant on TSI but incapable of accurately accounting for the effects of GCRs on clouds and Volcanoes.
    4) The people at cern say a few percent change in cloud cover could have big impacts on the climate.
    5) One study said GCRs may have less than 23% impact on changes in clouds between 11 year cycles. (The 11 year solar min max cycle is seperate from the grand solar cycles.)

    6) Antartica gains more ice than it loses. Its such a large mass that regional climate change is to be expected. So they get your attention on the Ross Ice Shelf and accelerating melting rates in one area and ignore the massive gains and record low temps in other areas of Antartica.
    7) The artic ice sheet rebounded to the "7th lowest on record" sea ice extent according to MSM.
    8) Greenlands fastest melting glacier is growing.
    9) Neves (the first stage of glaciers) are forming in Scotland.
    10) The world has been setting cold ice and snow records. Heavily in the northern hemisphere. Australia suffered its coldest start to winter in 36 years last year.

    11) Co2 levels have been extremely low. Elon Musk said the planet may have been carbon starved according to some theories in the scientific community.
    12) Plants use water more efficiently and grow more vigorously with increased co2 levels. We intentionally increase them in green houses to levels exceeding 1000ppm.
    13) Co2 may have a diminishing return effect as you add more and more until it is no longer able to trap anymore heat. (trap very temporarily it absorbs and emits the radiation it absorbs.)
    14) Submarines and the ISS allow thousands of ppm of co2 in their air because it doesnt become toxic to humans until 10s of thousands of ppm of Co2.

    Is that enough? That's probably enough.

  11. For those who strictly adhere to the CO2 “always” follows temperature, consider that, ‘yes’, on the long term temperature graphs, the Milankovitch Cycles ‘does’ precede the global temperature changes and the CO2 levels follow. However, when vast amounts of CO2 are pumped into the atmosphere by huge basaltic flows (Flood Basalts) like those that created the Siberian Traps and the Deccan Traps, then CO2 leads the temperature increase no matter what is in progress with the Milankovitch Cycles. In our current situation, it is the artificial unsequestration of tremendous volumes of carbon by the burning of fossil fuels that is causing the global temperature increases. And this is now beginning to be compounded by the additional release of land based methane and oceanic methane clathrate due to our warming biosphere.

    We can only say that contemporary global warming is ‘natural’ if we deny our culpability — otherwise we’d have to take responsibility and make things right (never mind that the biodiversity of all life on Earth is at stake). In short, we make lousy stewards of God’s Creation.

  12. Some more details on how John Cook "cooked" the 97% consensus – so after reviewing the 11994 abstracts of articles that the contained the phrase "global warming/climate change" he ignored 8276 (67%!!!) For expressing no position, he further interpreted 2934 as endorsing the human factor although it wasn't stated in the abstracts themselves but he considered the authors were implying that (!!!), he later combined those with some 934 articles that were saying that humans are contributing to climate change but without specifying the magnitude (?5% or ?95%). The articles that explicitly stated that humans are causing >50% of the warming were 65 and those who considered it less than 50% or said that humans were not a factor were 78 in total.
    This "stydy" in my opinion is nothing more than "scientific" fraud.

  13. Natural climate change associated with the grand solar minimum mini ice age of the 1600's has returned for its 400 year cycle, expect radical weather, meridional jet stream flow, record snowfalls, glacial growth, Polar Bear population booms, falling sea levels, blooming deserts, galactic influences, cosmic rays, wandering magnetic poles, volcanic uptick, earth quakes, mud floods and associated catastrophes and famine with crop failures leading to peak food shock and real climate migration, which has NOTHING to do with the man-made co2 global warming climate change myth. See ice age farmer, ice age now, adapt 2030, John Casey, grand solar minimum news channel, etc.

  14. The real question should be, why are we polluting our planet? Our only home. The people are easier to fool by misdirecting their rage toward irrelevant dilemmas. It doesn’t matter if the planet is warming because of us or nature, the question is what do we do about it. And what do we do clean up our oceans, and rebuild our forests.

  15. 66.4% of scientists took no position because if they denied climate change or questioned it at all then Bill Nye the NOT climate science guy would want them put in prison.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts

Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel.

Back To Top