The Economist 
Climate activists talk a lot about following “the science” around climate change. What actually is the science and how is it calculated? Read more here: https://econ.st/3ci07Qy
Find our school briefings series here, including our recent climate explainers: https://econ.st/2Zeo7kV
Sign up to receive The Economist’s fortnightly newsletter to keep up to date with our latest coverage on climate change: https://econ.st/3dZrKz6
Find The Economist’s most recent climate-change coverage here: https://econ.st/2X74b0w
Covid-19 presents an opportunity for countries to flatten the climate curve: https://econ.st/3em6YKn
Read about the pressure to make the post covid-19 rebound green: https://econ.st/2XA7NbF
Why the world urgently needs to expand its use of carbon prices: https://econ.st/2ZJdtmu
Humans’ dependence on fossil fuels is heating up the planet at an unprecedented rate. Governments and policymakers must take urgent action. That action is guided by what science says about the impact of climate change on the Earth.
This is how it’s calculated.
This is Vilhelm Bjerknes. At the end of the 19th century he devised formulas which linked the flow of heat, water and air. 50 years later his ideas were the basis of the first computer model of the atmosphere. And modern-day weather forecasting was born
Today’s climate models are the highly evolved descendants of that original, except the computers are some 25trn times faster. Here’s how it works
Scientists divide the Earth’s atmosphere into a grid of hundreds of thousands of cells, in stacks like a skyscraper.
The model used by the Met Office, Britain’s national weather service for example, uses stacks which are 85 cells high
The models then calculate how energy, air and water vapour flow through each cell over a given time period. While weather forecasting takes a snapshot of the atmosphere at a given time and predicts what will happen over the next few days
Climate models consider the atmosphere’s behaviour over years and years simulating either the world as it is or the world as it might be.
For all their complexity, these models have limitations.
This means the models often struggle to capture details like cloud cover.
And clouds play a key role in climate.
As greenhouse gases make the atmosphere warmer they change the amount of water vapour it can hold and how air rises and falls. That in turn changes the amount and character of cloud cover. Depending on where clouds form, they can either trap sunlight which warms the planet, or reflect it back into space, cooling it. And some processes which govern cloud formation work on a very small scale.
Dozens of these models exist, run by teams all over the world
Every few years the models are brought together fed standardised questions and then their results are compared.
This helps scientists understand the strengths and weaknesses of different climate models, and improves them. Of course, it’s impossible to assess the models’ future projections.
But what researchers can do is compare the success of models from previous decades. A recent report compared the models from the 1970s to the 2000s.
The climate models are getting increasingly complicated capturing more aspects of the Earth.
But there is one element that is impossible to model. And it is the biggest contributor to climate change.
Instead, scientists take simplified results from these climate models and run them through economic models.
In 2013 scientists used these models to examine the effect of different climate policies on the future temperature of the planet.
The first looked at what would happen if there was continued large-scale use of coal. The second, if there was continued use of fossil fuels but some use of renewable energy. The third, if there was a much higher uptake of renewable energy. And the fourth if there was a lot of use of carbon-capture technology and more land to grow biofuels.
Climate models don’t predict the future and they’re not perfect. There is a long way to go before they fully represent all of Earth’s intricate processes. But for now they are the only way that scientists have of understanding how damaging an increase in carbon dioxide will be for the planet.
Ultimately, the solution to climate change won’t lie inside models but rather what humans choose to do with the information they provide
source
About The Author
Now we have entered into a 40-60 year cooling cycle. In the 70's the same "science" and "scientists" use fear tactics to convince people of the Coming Mini-Ice Age. Models have so many flaws, but they are engineered to support a predefined narrative and agenda. People really have a difficult time with discernment.
Much consensus and very little science. Revenue based on fear mongering is very profitable.
Well, I think USA can't get it because the editor said, "Kilometers" Instead😁😁😁
To all people who will use this to deny anthropogenic climate change threat: yes, models are just models, and yes, they cannot predict everything accurately; but none of that means there will be NO human contribution to climate change. Regardless of Sun activity and other factors we cannot control, what we CAN control is the amount of substances we emit into the atmosphere. Their properties are known, their concentration in the air is quantifiable, it is a known fact that the composition of the atmosphere has been changing, and anyone with a liitle understanding of chemistry knows that its behaviour must somehow change as a consequence. This is not about warming or cooling, this is about any kind of consistent deviation from natural behaviour that human activity is causing. Any change of that kind will inflict further damage on nature on all levels, including water, soil, biological communities and us. Trying to dismiss that is just dishonest.
In 1940, life expectancy was 50 years. The best measure.
Give up the propaganda, this has been round the block many times. Man cannot control and has not controlled the climate. Who is to gain if we belive this. Follow the money and you know who funds this propaganda.
1:43 Bro……what?
I'm tired of warm winters!!!!!!!!!!
3 relevant truths for mankind are that the Covid virus is highly contagious,
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and every human has a soul/spirit. Denial is not a viable option.
Kekkers
Economists do not compute and report the Depreciation of Durable Consumer Junk.
Economists do not suggest that double-entry accounting be mandatory in high schools. That could have been done since Sputnik.
Hi guys! if u care for the environment, please use Ecosia as your search engine. For every 45 searches u make, a tree will be planted somewhere. If you think this is fake, u can always check out their YouTube channel. Stay safe guys 🙂 bai bai
This is exactly what I’m looking for about climate change, please continue more like this!!!👍👍👍
“If it were not for greenhouse gases, Infrared Radiation (heat) would freely escape thru the atmosphere and into space resulting in a planet frozen solid.”
Use the above statement as the search topic in your browser and very appropriate and relevant results will appear.
Note: The related topic of global warming is dealt with in a very proactive manner on the YouTube channel “Just Have A Think”.
Oliver – there isn't a climate crisis. As your video correctly explains, there is a theory of warming due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere, but there isn't much evidence. The theory of CO2-induced warming has been the loudest empty vessel and has attracted political attention. As a result, money is being wasted on a very poorly supported idea (not supported by any testing evidence whatsoever).
In 1979, Jule Charney produced an estimate of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) as a way to quantify how much warming to expect. This was theoretical, and needs to be confirmed by compelling real-world observations. He estimated a very large (uncertain) range of 1.5C to 4.5C per doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. He also stated that the high end of the range will take longest to observe, as they depend on very long-term climate processes, such as ice melt, which will take thousands of years. There was no suggestion that significant temperature change could be observed by 2100.
Bear in mind that Charney's range is just an estimate – there is nothing to say that ECS will lie in this range, or even be greater than zero. It's just a theory and an estimate from the theory.
Climate scientists have built a multitude of models which (it seems) all incorporate the theorised processes, and produce various estimates of the outcome of the theory. They produce a wide scatter from varying their inputs. For example, how much CO2 will be emitted by human activity. It is well known that RCP8.5 (the top line in the IPCC chart) is unrealistic and should not be used. But people who want to paint a bleak picture still use it.
Meanwhile, nobody has been able to narrow down the original Charney range of estimated ECS. Despite huge amounts of money spent on research and many different techniques, ECS cannot be narrowed down to give any additional hint at whether there really is a problem in the next 100 years, and if there is, what kind of action we should be taking. So we are left with a theoretical concern and no way to determine what should be done about it.
At the same time, the models have yielded information about the patterns of warming throughout the atmosphere associated with their predictions of CO2-induced surface warming. These are testable, and researchers have gone looking for the model predicted patterns. There are plenty of articles in the literature by researchers like Santer and Christy. The conclusion they have come to is that the patterns are not confirmed by observations. This gives a strong indication that the theory is wrong, and is supported by the fact that ECS refuses to be quantified.
Do a video on all of the above Oliver, and you'll be on the right track to chart the history of western democracies who allowed themselves to be enchanted by a fearmongering bubble. Modern-day Lysenkoism is in full swing.
I like the opening line: unprecedent rate! So alarmist!
There is no science of climate change. It is a complete and total fraud. Climate science is anti-science and is based on opinion which is by definition, anti-science.
The question is why was 2 degrees ever considered to be accepable when it was known in the late 1960's that is woiuld result in catastrophic changes.
Where does the incorporation of planned obsolescence affect the amount of CO2 put into the climate models?
did you know that climate change is also turning fish into incels 🙁
We are basing this on models that can't do clouds? Like saying I've modelled football but can't do the goalie very well, so predicts scores of 20-15 regularly.
I'm going to ask one question if climate change is so bad ,why are "Bank's" investing so heavy in ocean from property?Look up how many climate change scientist are becoming millionaire!
They could have asked social scientists to contribute? They could have just continued the causal chain to its source. Fossil fuels are burnt through economic activity. The amount of activity is a function of inputs, capital and labour into production. Production responds to demand for consumption. Consumer demand exceeds needs. It is artificially constructed through psychological manipulation called advertising. Inefficiency and limited durability are purposefully engineered into products to increase sales. Market expansion is subsidized, encouraged and promoted. This system is continually entrenched through financial instruments that require future revenues that will grow while dependence grows in the present. If the IPCC wanted to write a useful report, they could employ philosophers to tell us why we can’t imagine a world without capitalism, but we can imagine a world without ecological systems. They could engage economists to develop a new economic system, and political scientists to ensure it is just. They measured the wrong thing, and are failing at solving the wrong problem. Scientists are not supposed to be ideological, but their bias is so great that reducing the cause of fossil fuels is never considered.
We re well past the point of no return so better sit back and enjoy the end of the movie.
or "How Skynet Convinced Humanity to Devolve"
they're so bad at modeling clouds some climate models leave them out . clouds are still beyond the capabilities of climate models
Could they possibly be wrong?
Take a shot every time they say "model"
Why scientists are afraid to speak up against the political claim that Climate Change is PROVED caused by man:
All You Need
‘I’ll have you hanged,’ said a cruel and ignorant king, who had heard of Nasrudin’s powers, ‘if you don’t prove that you are a mystic.’
‘I see strange things,’ said Nasrudin at once; ‘a golden bird in the sky, demons under the earth.’
‘How can you see through solid objects? How can you see far into the sky?’
‘Fear is all you need.’
Economists cannot calculate the depreciation of durable consumer goods since WWII.
Where is the control?
A general question: how is global CO2 level determined (methods, number and location of sites,..). Would be nice to read a paper about that. Thanks!
Ery interesting but misleading.
Where are the calculations?
The fact about the model can not predict crazy human activities were nice to me. Indeed, it is the most difficult challenge to predict the human brain.
big lie
So, we use millions of computers to try and assimilate very, very complicated "theories" , we then pick the very worst-case scenario, which incidentally has never happened, and base all our futures on that, which in turn bankrupts everybody and achieves nothing.., but it does keep a vast number of people who totally believe it in a job. I wonder if something as crazy as this could ever lead to a global energy crisis, leading to thousands of people all around the world dying, losing their homes or other equally disastrous outcomes?
Hang on!, that's exactly what is happening right now in 2023..
People need to wake up.. They can't even get a 2-3 day weather forecast right, let alone a "guess" at where we will be in 20 years.. 😱
ClimateCon
wonderful greta checks her bank account to see how loud she needs to scream todays happy theme
Little Johnie failed a math test. In fact, he failed to find any correct answers. When the teacher showed him the results he said, ¨I want to practice to become a climatologist.¨
All government granted political propaganda , like this need to have mandatory warning disclosures, so that people understand where it's actually coming from and not think it's real science.
How to detect climate change
Amazing Documentary❤️❤️❤️
Honest scientists tell you it is impossible to measure. Also, I love how the climate gurus always use a nuclear plant with a cloud of white steam to showcase pollution. Water steam is everything but pollution.
It's scientifically impossible for greenhouse gas behavior to cause global warming. All the greenhouse radiant energy from the earth is completely absorbed in earth's greenhouse effect by greenhouse gases within 20 meters of the radiating surface that is always in saturation from the strong greenhouse gas water vapor. This video has the United Nations Climate Change disclaimer. Global warming was officially stated at 1.1°C in 1991 and 1.06°C in 2022. There is no mechanism that would allow greenhouse gas behavior to cause global warming.
The back of the United Nation's IPCC science report states it took its greenhouse gas samples at 20,000 meters altitude where it is common high school level knowledge there is no greenhouse radiant energy. This is typical practice for deceptive marketing to state legal data transparency protecting the perpetrators from fraud prosecution. The IPCC has been transparent with its data acknowledging it is not dealing with active greenhouse gases.
Earth's greenhouse effect is frequently used as a primary example to high school students of a system always in saturation from the strong greenhouse gas water vapor absorbing all the greenhouse radiant energy from the earth with greenhouse gases within 20 meters of the radiating surface that is all around us everyday and can't have its overall effect changed. There is no further greenhouse radiant energy to interact with greenhouse gases. At 1% average tropospheric water vapor over 99% of earth’s greenhouse effect is from water vapor. Water vapor would hold earth's greenhouse effect in saturation if it were the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
Arctic warming is taking place with the proving mechanism being warm Atlantic Ocean waters migrating deeper and more frequently into the Arctic Ocean warming it and the region. That warmer water is causing a few weeks less of reflective snow and ice coverage resulting in more solar heat gain to the Arctic region surface.
Atmospheric CO2 levels of 1200 ppm about three times what they are today would greatly invigorate C3 plants the majority of plant life on earth greatly greening the planet.
0.4% of the atmosphere is CO2 and on average 1% is H20 water vapor. (1% H20)/(0.4% CO2) = 25. Water vapor is 25 times more present in the atmosphere on average than CO2. Water vapor has an CO2e of 18, 18 X 25 = 450 CO2e total for water vapor to 1 CO2e for CO2.
The Earth’s oceans have 3-1/2 million sea floor volcanic vents warming the water and changing it’s chemistry that have not been systematically accounted for.
I just casually dislike EVERY video of this shill magazine