Does Climate Change Cause Extreme Weather?

First you say emphatically that weather is not climate, but then claim that extreme weather is. You imply that this is because extreme weather events have increase by citing EM-DAT, which is a measure of increasing self-reported damage caused by events, not an increase in the severity or frequency of event themselves. Actual measures of the frequency and severity of extreme weather events shows an overall decreasing trend, not increasing. Harvey marked and end to the longest absence in major landfall hurricanes in history, over a decade.

You also must appreciate storm category inflation. A century ago major hurricanes were categorized based solely on weather station data, so one of the weather stations it passed over had to record high enough sustained winds to reach a category. Today they use of aircraft and satellite observations, coupled with computer models, is how strength is assessed. If the models say that any part of the storm should in theory be reaching the criteria for a high category, that's how it's labeled, even if no weather station ever sees those conditions. This happened in 2016 when hurricane Matthew was labeled Category 5 even though no weather station saw it as more than Category 3. Had it formed a century ago, it would instead have been labeled Category 3, and probably not even that since the weather station that recorded it as Category 3 didn't exist then. Something similar happened in Australia in 2015 where a landfall "Category 5" tropical cyclone, Marcia, inexplicably did almost no damage – weather stations recorded it as only Category 2.

You say there is an "overwhelming scientific consensus is that if climate change continues it its current rate, extreme weather will only get more extreme." This is simply false. While there are some scientists who have made this claim, that doesn't make it the consensus, let alone the "overwhelming" consensus. If there is an overwhelming scientific consensus, it is that all of human activity likely contributes to climate, although there is no consensus on whether the magnitude of that contribution is large or small. Read the Bray surveys of climate scientists, not the claims made by Cook & Oreskes (a psychologist and a science historian) who are only guessing at what climate scientists think without actually surveying them. The actual consensus among climate scientists if close to the consensus among climate skeptics.

We should use all our available tools to reduce the human impact on atmospheric CO2. #RethinkNuclear

I'd love for these videos to be more in-depth (however your production costs might prohibit that?). 4:50min for such an important and broad topic might add more noise rather than cut through it – even though it's well produced.

Regarding climate change, I don't think humanity is nearly alarmed enough. Unsurprisingly.

Vague numbers like 400ppm (400 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere), +2 °C global warming, metrical amounts of greenhouse gases are no figures that alarm the population. The general restraint of science is a great achievement however it is misplaced in this matter I think.

– A lot of area around the equator will become inhabitable
– So will many cities along the coastlines
– Millions if not billions of people will flee to countries with more moderate conditions (conflicts caused by cultural differences will arise)
– Thawing permafrost in the arctic will release more than double the current amount of methane (34 times more potent than CO2) in the atmosphere
– Food will become more expensive as fertile land becomes more scarce
– Armed conflicts will become more frequent (for clean water, food) – see syria where a draught fueled the civil war
– Potential viruses unknown to humans trapped in the permafrost might be exposed
– Increasing deforestation will lead to lower oxygen output, higher CO2 concentrations will have an impact on general health
(…)

Going back to your question: I think we need to actively work against climate change in a collaboration unprecedented in human history. We have a huge blocker in our way though: Capitalism (or more precisely: captial). In reality a lot more wealth and lives will have to be destroyed in order for "us" (namely the powerful, rich) to act accordingly.

A combination of a basic income, new energy production and storage technologies while stopping the burning of fossil fuels, collaborations between countries and perhaps a voluntary/paid (or mandatory, not sure about that) "environment duty" for citizens can be part of a solution.

a snowball in HELL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All life including humans will be extinct in under a decade per http://accorddeparis.org 7th lesson video. There is no 2050 or 2100 folks. The CO2 in the atmosphere is a blanket and earth's getting warmer. As Siberian tundra now spewing methane from over 7000 blowholes, some craters a km wide, are joined by both Canadian/Alaskan methane pockets, plus from the sea floor now that we have a blue ocean region where there used to be ice, and places where methane is fizzing like ginger ale in areas 150 km wide, its 150-300 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas when first released, then 20-80 times more powerful in a few years depending on concentration. So if the blanket was an inch thick, imagine a blanket 150.- 300 inches thick. That's a 25 foot thick blanket folks. Warm enough? As sea levels rise and multiple nuclear plants fail combined with the rapid sea level rise, more superstorms, drought and famine, together triggering widespread mass migrations, kiss civilization, along with readily available parts and tech labor ALL goodbye, which means 1,600 nuclear facilities will, not maybe, catastrophically fail. Warm enough now?

More bugs less food production more hot humid days 0 bennifit we all slowly die

is no one else going to mention the fact that Edna Mode is smoking a cigarette?

You see, I am higky conservitive and global warming/climate change exists and is happening. I agree we can do better on recycling and finding fossil fule alternitives but the media is goreifying and exaterating about the whole thing. They are using it to scare us and make us more easy to control. All we need to do is not acually stop using fossil fules but instead use a lot less of it and ease our way out of it slowly.

Great clip, informative

why are we using this video in school

i hate school for this

If Co2 reflect the heat from earth shouldn’t it reflect the heat from the sun as well?🤔🤔 Fact: No climate model have ever precisely predicted the climate because they’re not made to predict climate but to understand it(according to the Japanese inventor of the climate model). But then again, why trust Nobel laureates with decades of experience when you got a teenage high school dropout who can’t even answer the basic question I’ve been asking all alarmists: What would be a desirable Co2 lvl and how much are you willing to sacrifice to get there. And then….. the conversation usually ends.

Bahaha! The Snowball!!!! LoL. That's so stereotypically correct of a political "argument".

🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

Could you have same data instead of just saying that thing's are worst. Tell me the last 10 hurricanes on history? When they occur?