Insane Curiosity 
Experience a new way to learn with Imprint. Visit https://imprintapp.com/Insane-curiosity to get a 7-day free trial and 20% off an annual subscription.
We all know that our fossil fuel-based lifestyle is leaving a climate crisis for billions of people in the future. But when we say “future,” how far ahead should we be thinking? Until 2050? 2100? Or perhaps a bit further, maybe to 2500 and beyond?
You might have noticed that the climate projections used by international scientific and political communities generally extend only up to the year 2100. The simple reason for this is that it is impossible to predict with any accuracy the amount of greenhouse gases that will be released in the coming centuries and how this will affect the climate.
But don’t be fooled. This does not mean that climate change will cease to be a problem in the years beyond the maximum range of our most cited climate forecasts. The shocking truth is that climate change is just beginning. Regardless of future emission trends, the CO2 footprint of our brief time on Earth will remain in the climate system and impact the well-being of all forms of terrestrial life for what could be considered almost an eternity.
—
DISCUSSIONS & SOCIAL MEDIA
Commercial Purposes: Lorenzovareseaziendale@gmail.com
Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@insanecuriosity
Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/user/insanecuriosity
Instagram: https://instagram.com/insanecuriositythereal
Twitter: https://twitter.com/insanecurio
Facebook: https://facebook.com/InsaneCuriosity
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/insane-curiosity-46b928277/
Our Website: https://insanecuriosity.com/
—
Credits: Ron Miller, Mark A. Garlick / MarkGarlick.com ,Elon Musk/SpaceX/ Flickr
—
00:00 Intro
1:30 Imprint Sponsor
2:50 Earth Changements in Just 8 Years
7:50 What will the earth be like in 2100 due to climate change?
12:40 What about the United States
—
#insanecuriosity #climatechange #globalwarming
source
About The Author
Experience a new way to learn with Imprint. Visit https://imprintapp.com/Insane-curiosity to get a 7-day free trial and 20% off an annual subscription.
What we are doing to stop climate change is all wrong. When climate change effected the Mayan civilization, lack of rain, failed crops. They sacrificed young virgins by tossing them into a volcano. With hindsight, that appears to have worked perfectly. Maybe not for the Mayan civilization but for human kind, as we are still on earth. Of course if we sacrifice live chickens Iam sure the result will be the same.
We're cooked by 2046.
The climate change fear propaganda is being used to make the average citizen accept a less comfortable lifestyle than their ancestors had. Think about it, if the west was so worried about climate change they would reduce immigration because people are the main factor of increased co2 production. The people behind this propaganda tell you that you have to eat crickets and accept higher energy costs all the while they are buying farmland and forests to replace nature with concrete for housing and industry in order to accommodate the immigrants.
The climate always changes. Global warming caused the last ice age to end, and I donât remember cavemen having cars. Just saying.
Why should I be worried about rising sea levels, when politicians who preach âclimate doomâ have million dollar beachfront homes and fly around on private jets.? No thanks hypocrites.
I'm old and won't be around to suffer the worst effects of global warming, but even so, I will NEVER vote for any politician who doesn't support climate change mitigation legislation either because they deny it is happening, or even worse, they acknowledge it is a problem but refuse to act for self-serving reasons. Why the younger generation is not either in the streets protesting or voting in mass for green new deal politicians is inexplicable to me. It's their future.
Wow, we are the cancer of Earth these people are insane the planet doesn't need help from us. The planet is on its natural path and we cannot change course. Stop lying to yourself. The planet will continue to do what has been done for millions of years changing the environment and renowned the face of what we call Earth.
The flaming clikbait thumbnail for 97%Agree +1.8°C by 2100 is criminal anti-science of the DisInformation kind, but only Climate Deniers are being deplatformed and censored!
Liberal scare mongering and commie propaganda…. Pass
I be 120yrs old by then..sooo lm not too worried bout it..
Humans will destroy everything including themselves. Denial or believing in some made up deity will NOT stop the lost of habitat. Temperature is rising more moisture in the air means more water đĻ falling onto land đąđ¨đŋâđģđ
The sky is falling! There will be another ice age… Always has, always will. It's a cycle. Adapt, don't spread fear
yawnnnnnnn….waloc….pure conjecture
Why do you need to put flames in the thumbnail? No credible scientist believes our planet will be on fire in 2100.
No it won't.
More plants, bigger plants, better winters. Sounds great to me lets heat it up more!
Trust in nature, it will balance itself.
Won't benefit the human population though.
Small fish.
Is climate change really about our use of fossil fuels?
What about Milankovitch cycles?
Is climate change really about our use of fossil fuels?
What about Milankovitch cycles?
In the 70âs we were told we would run out of fossil fuel.
Stop. Having. So. Many. Children.
How silly do they think we are this is there second or third clip on this fairy tale garbage đī¸
It is scientifically proven that it is indeed human activities through their GHG (greenhouse gases) emissions that disrupt the climate, there is a scientific consensus (more than 99% of published climate studies confirm this), see this study : (pdf doc to download) "Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature", Mark Lynas et al.
Also the IPCC (whose role is to summarize the findings on climate change through checking the various peer-reviewed articles) fully confirms this (and please spare us the usual denialist BS on IPCC: this is not because you dislike the findings that it proves the messenger is unfit).
As for thinking for yourself (a classic among âskepticsâ of all kinds), here are my thoughts:
The climate has changed many times in the past for natural reasons (continental drift, Milankovic cycles linked to small variations in the Earth's orbit, etc.). Our Holocene epoch, called interglacial, began 11,700 years ago (Milankovic cycles) and allowed the development of our human civilizations thanks to a favorable and stable climate over the last 9,000 years. Average global temperatures showed a very slow cooling linked to the Milankovic cycles (next glaciation expected in about 50,000 years). Some regional events such as the "Medieval Optimum" or the "Little Ice Age" mainly affected Europe, and caused only a slight fluctuation in average global temperatures, +/-0.3°C. But this natural and very slow cooling was abruptly interrupted at the beginning of the 20th century. What do we know and why is anthropogenic CO2 undoubtedly the cause of this warming?
1- We know that the temperature is rising (+1.3°C since the start of the industrial era), although it has been generally stable for 9,000 years (with only slight fluctuations on the global average).
2- we have known the GHG mechanism for 2 centuries (Fourier, 1824)
3- we know that CO2 is a GHG : first physical demonstration of CO2âs warming effect in a laboratory by Tyndall in 1861.
4- we can see that the CO2 content in the atmosphere is rising (remaining very stable at 280ppm throughout the Holocene period until the start of the industrial era, then a sudden increase, now 420ppm, therefore +50%: see the site âThe Keeling Curveâ) while the other important GHG, water, has a generally stable content (but its content begins to rise because of CO2, the atmosphere warms up and hot air will be able to accept more water vapor).
5- we know that more GHG means more heat, the saturation of CO2 concerning the greenhouse effect only concerns the lower layers (pressure 1 atmosphere) but not the upper layers (so the addition of CO2 does indeed increase the greenhouse effect)
6- we know that we emit billions of tonnes of CO2 annually, 40Gt (transport, heating, industry, etc.)
7- we measure that the C14 content of atmospheric CO2 decreases, which confirms that the excess CO2 is fossil carbon (therefore added by man, since the other possible source of fossil carbon, volcanism, emits 100 times less CO2 than human activities).
8- we know that, while the temperature of the ground rises, the upper layers of the atmosphere (the stratosphere) have been cooling for a few decades, this confirms that it is not a warming that would come from the sun or other radiation (otherwise the stratosphere would also warm up) but the effect of greenhouse gases (which block IR coming from the Earth which cools the stratosphere). This is a publication by Pr Syukuro Manabe, which earned him the Nobel Prize in Physics.
9- we have measurements by the Nimbus satellites of the terrestrial radiation, which therefore make it possible to see the radiation that the Earth sends back to space, in relation to the radiation from the terrestrial ground (the difference between the two is therefore what is absorbed by the atmosphere): we can see the bands absorbed by the various GHGs, and especially the absorption by CO2. The shape of the spectrum observed around wavelengths of 15Âĩm (main absorption of CO2 in the infrared) corresponds very well to what the theory of GHGs indicated. A PROOF : an in-situ experiment made by satellites simply demonstrated that CO2 is indeed the driver of the warming, see ÂĢ Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010 Âģ, by D. R. Feldman et al.
10- the climate change deniers, after more than 40 years of in-depth research on the climate (Charney report in 1979 which raised the alarm and prompted numerous studies on the climate) have NO OTHER scientifically plausible explanation other than CO2. For example, âclimate cyclesâ (Milankovic) indicate that we are in an interglacial period with a very stable climate for the last 9,000 years (the next glaciation is expected in around 50,000 years), or also âcosmic raysâ (Svensmark) hypothesis which has been shown to be false. A recent attempt by deniers has suggested that the declining Earth's magnetic field as a possible cause, but there is no evidence to support this hypothesis (see Gavin Schmidt, climatologist and director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York).
Conclusion: the Earth's climate, which had been generally stable for millennia, changed abruptly at the beginning of the 20th century. The increase in atmospheric CO2 is clear, it is due to human activities, and it has been scientifically demonstrated that it is indeed the cause of global warming. Furthermore, no other hypothesis is supported by solid facts despite the determination of climate deniers to find a hypothesis that would exonerate human activities from their responsibility. Their goal is to perpetuate the climate inaction of governments by creating "doubt" in the population, as the tobacco industry did on cigarettesâ danger half a century ago.
Looks like data from year 2006 (he states : warming is +0.8°C vs pre-industrial times, this was year 2006 data, now this is almost +1.3°C – also the calculation: +3.2cm per decade means 30cm extra ocean rise by 2100 points towards year 2006).
Good video. Need less stock footage and more animations to explain concepts clearly.
No one can predict it
nonsense
The real truth behind climate change is getting rid of 5 billion people.
Don't care…. won't be around in 2100.