@charliem,

Energy is absolutely a better measure and marker of climate change than temperature. I started there since the video did. In reality though, everything in climate change is solely about the energy balance at the Top Of Atmosphere. More TOA energy in and temps go up in the long term, less and temps go down. It's the very foundation of climate change.

The climate models that your links look to for projections of things like methane thresholds are based on modelled temperature predictions. The IPCC notes the following on the state of the art in climate models:
For instance, maintaining the global mean top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy balance in a simulation of pre-industrial climate is essential to prevent the climate system from drifting to an unrealistic state. The Models used in this report almost universally contain adjustments to parameters in their treatment of clouds to fulfil this important constraint of the climate system (Watanabe et al., 2010; Donner et al., 2011; Gent et al., 2011; Golaz et al., 2011; Martin et al., 2011; Hazeleger et al., 2012; Mauritsen et al., 2012; Hourdin et al., 2013).
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
It's in Box 9.1

So, climate models currently FAIL to predict TOA energy accurately and hand tuning is required for modelling temperatures into the known past in order to avoid unrealistic states because the TOA energy is wrong. Maybe we aught not panic just yet on extrapolations from that base. I'm not calling climate models garbage, rather they are a learning tool for climate processes and one lesson is that we have a long ways to go in understanding the central component of TOA energy balance. If you go to google scholar and lookup the references from the IPCC assertions you'll find that the modellers acknowledge that most models still either leak or create energy from nothing. As in, even conservation of energy is imperfect in them still.

Your cursory glance approach is a problem, the devil is in the details.

Looking at energy further from NASA's numbers also tells us that the net contribution to TOA energy trapping from the CO2 we've added in the last 100 years is about 3W/m-2 globally. The global TOA energy imbalance is about 0.5W/M-2. In other words, if we could magically remove all the CO2 we've added to the atmosphere, we'd suddenly have a global energy imbalance at TOA of -2.5W/M-2. That brings two things to mind.
1.The enormous energy imbalance you want to call a catastrophe is 0.5W/M-2, but merely rolling back to 1900 CO2 concentrations today would yield a negative energy imbalance 5 times as large.
2.Of the 3W/M-2 that our actions have pushed on the planet, natural factors(warming and other unknowns) have already balance out 2.5W/M-2 of the imbalance, today.

You also might wanna check how much energy is in the oceans on the whole. If you take the increase in energy as a percentage of OCH instead of straight joules you'll find the trend is << than 1% annually.

0.8 degree increase in 100 years. We've come from the 1915 and WW1 days when cars and planes where futuristic dreams, and not dying from tetanus or basic infections was a major concern. Today 100 years later we are thriving by comparison, in spite of the 0.8 degree increased temperature. IPCC best estimates for 2100 are about 1.5 degree increase, so another hundred years and increase that is about twice as bad. Of course, it's twice as bad as what we saw the last 100 yeas and not only survived, but thrived under. It's a problem to be sure, but it's also no catastrophe either. Switching to electric cars within 20 years will reduce emissions alot and is likely inevitable no matter what. Adopting non-emitting power is possible today if people accept nuclear as France did years ago, and would be a good idea if we could only sell environmentalists on the idea. Barring that we are waiting another 20-40 years for alternatives like solar, wind and hopefully Fusion to undercut the costs of running on coal. That said, without any special moral or government mandate we should be cutting our CO2 emissions radically long before 2100 of our own accord.

Bottom line, don't panic, it's a manageable problem and we got this. In the last 100 years we've come from not having cars or planes or space craft or computers or modern medicine to taking all those things entirely for granted. It's really hard to say that 100 years from now our descendants will be crying for their inability to cope.

Kudos, I'd just like to really highlight two of the good points you make.

First, Tesla motors is huge. When I said electric cars, I didn't mention them by name but was thinking specifically of them. They have proven that electric cars are the future and are coming quickly.

The second is as Tyson pointed out, the most important metric is energy coming into the planet compared to energy going out. Temperatures fluctuate to many other variables. Particularly if the oceans are absorbing or releasing energy, temperatures as we experience them will shift on that and muddy the perception of what's actually happening to the overall planet's energy balance and long term change. In the late 80's we started measuring the energy in and out of the atmosphere with satellites. There was an observed increase between late 80's and late 90's in the energy imbalance. That means not only was more energy coming in than going out over that time, but the excess staying in was getting higher. With increasing CO2 emissions, that is exactly what we expect. An increased overall greenhouse effect should see the energy imbalance growing quite steadily as the effect gets stronger and stronger. Now, the IPCC's fifth assessment report has the the longer term data from those same and new satellites. The data shows that since 2001 there is strong agreement that the data shows NO TREND. That doesn't mean the energy in the planet hasn't been increasing. It means the rate of extra energy coming in hasn't gone up or down statistically since 2001. It means the overall greenhouse effect has been entirely stagnant for a little more than the last decade. Things are warming, but no faster than they were ten years ago.

I hope that's not to technical, but it paints a non-catastrophic picture. It also gives a superb metric to measure climate models against going forward. The models universally are projected on a steadily accelerating greenhouse effect as CO2 emissions rise. If the measured results of the last decade continue to not reflect that much longer, we have more reassessing to do. As noted in the IPCC, the effect of water vapor and clouds to increasing temperature is poorly modelled right now. If we are lucky the uncertainty of the sign on it as feedback is resolved to find it is a negative feedback. Meaning, as things warm, more clouds appear and reflect more energy back out. As things cool, less clouds appear and more energy comes in. And yeah, that's my own hope, and it is not the majority opinion within the scientific community as represented by the IPCC. They do acknowledge it as a possibility, but a less likely one. That said, the models they base that opinion on do not match the satellite energy measurements, and that one uncertainty would explain it rather well. My fingers are still crossed. More reasons for my optimism is the IPCC projections through 2100. If you look close, the actual temperature plotted against the projections has the actual following the very coolest of projections so far. Again, that lends hope that something like water vapor is either working for us, or not as badly against us as is currently modelled.

Not sure of the relevance of how long I've "believed" there is climate change happening? I'd argue as just another laymen nobody should be putting any stock in my opinion based on my credentials in any way. Compare what I say is in the actual IPCC reports, to what is actually and honestly in them for yourself instead. To the strict and bare question, I don't really know how long, more than a decade though to be sure.

Wealth redistribution is basically any form of taxation. Moving money from entity X to entity Y for justification Z.

Amateur videos on you tube by guys who clearly haven't read or understood the scientific journal articles on the subject are part of the problem and confusion.

The point of recycling is to reduce energy use and transportation in manufacturing materials... So yeah, it's part of the solution and not to be thrown away.

Yes, the plant is warming, and scientists are agreed on that.
Yes, humans are adding significant CO2 to the atmosphere which contributes to warming.
What is the severity of the warming over the next 100 years, and what difference do our actions today make, and what cost do those actions have?

See the first 2 points are agreed and help understand some of the problem. The trick though is that the severity is still known with less certainty, read the details in the latest IPCC AR5 report if you doubt me. The error bars within the scenarios(different carbon emissions we reduce or increase to) span multiple degrees of temperature. The error bars are only as accurate as the current days models, which still are uncertain of the sign to attribute to water vapor as a feedback. The water vapor that contributes more to the greenhouse effect than all other GHG's combined. How great is the economic cost of reducing our emissions to meet each scenario? That's no in the IPCC report. What is the alternative cost of adapting to the temperature ranges if we just continue emitting? Again not there.

The trouble is there DOES still exist uncertainty on a great many aspects of the problem. Random amateurs proclaiming otherwise on youtube doesn't change that. Until we've got a good grasp on the cost/benefit differences between reducing emissions and adapting to changes, we can't make any claims on action X is obvious because of climate change.

Now, I'm not advocating we do nothing. Electric cars are a huge opportunity, and the technology is finally hitting the threshold of being cheaper than gas. Adopting that technology makes economic sense. A fringe benefit is that it reduces emissions from transportation drastically too.

There are solutions other than redistribution of wealth through naive/blind carbon taxes.

I know it's short, but I don't feel any more informed than when I came in.

In summary, pesticides are used on strawberry farms to increase production and lower costs. Production and cost have increased so much, that supply exceeded demanded, and thus came marketing campaigns. Some pesticides can sometimes be hazardous to people if used incorrectly. Reference to specific misuses and the associated risks is entirely left out though.

This video just felt weak to me. Basically a slick production value, pesticides are scary video focusing on strawberries. meh.

People doubt climate change because the noise of the people pushing agendas has drowned out the actual science. Even the major media, both 'defending' and 'attacking' climate change all get things entirely wrong and misrepresent the actual science. Lets be honest most people, particularly many of the people claiming to be well informed, really haven't looked at the actual science available and assessed it honestly.

99% of the world right now fits into two camps, the 'believers' defending the coming apocalypse that we've created and must adapt to yesterday, and the deniers who disagree.

The actual scientists observing that there is a warming trend that we are contributing to aren't listened to be EITHER side. When the IPCC posts projections for 2100, even the IPCC most optimistic view riles up the deniers and even the IPCC most gloomy view is dismissed by the 'believers'.

Don't hold out any hope that facts, reason and logic are gonna shift humanity anytime soon. Historically speaking it's pretty much not gonna happen,

He is so set on the importance of looking for evidence and asking questions that do NOT fit your expectation. He then does this test, fully expecting people will try to ask questions confirming if their own rule fits rather than looking for what does not. He flat out says multiple times how floored he is by how the people interviewed kept trying to reinforce their own guess instead of disproving their own guess. Truth is, plenty of the people in the shown interviews very quickly made guesses that did NOT fit with the first, second or third pattern they tried to guess at, so they clearly WERE trying to disprove their own guess. I really see a self important trip here where the guy interviewing is falling even MORE into the trope he is so eager to see in everyone else.

But, Africa isn't able to feed itself. Regional instability being an overwhelming part of that. When farmer and family spend a year growing a crop and raising animals for food, only to have men with guns come and take it at the end of the year, your production next year goes down. It doesn't take more than a single generation to go from prosperous ag to mass starvation, and for a multitude of reasons Africa has been facing that problem for multiple generations.

If we can agree the reasons for it are many fold and complicated, can I get agreement that there DO exist circumstances where foreign intervention absolutely is in the interest of the local people? It seems undeniable if you look at Rwanda that all of Central Africa would've been better served by action than the inaction our world collectively provided.

@VoodooV

I don't think you mean to be as callus as your statement seems. The world did follow your advice with Rwanda and let 'them' fight their own battles. It never actually settled anything, instead the main participants in the genocide just moved over to the jungles of the Congo. It's not coincidental that hundreds have been raped every day there ever since. Before advocating we not get involved watch the PBS documentary Ghosts of Rwanda, it's on the sift. It's as brutal as Schindler's List, but that it consists entirely of actual footage taken during the genocide. IMHO it should be required viewing in all public education systems.

I don't think anyone is calling them unstoppable. There is just, as you point out, an unwillingness to do so. Internally to each warlord's zone, there is the inability to do so. Across the African Union, well, the majority dislike the precedent of unseating dictators for war crimes, so they are unwilling to help. The rest of the world is sitting far away, and comfortable. Our war hawks out here refuse to go in because there is nothing in it for them. Our peacniks refuse to go in because war is bad, end of conversation.

The sad truth is there are very few people in the world who both care about the plight of such people AND are willing to endorse intervention.

Look no further than Somalia. The world powers decide to use military escorts to distribute aid to the country fairly. A few US marines get killed, and immediately EVERY world power pulls out and leaves things alone. To this day standard warlord manuals clearly state that in the case of UN peacekeepers or foreign intervention, shoot 2-3 of them and wait a week for them all to go home.

@RedSky,

I really hear what you are saying. When faced with Rwanda though, I just can not agree that the world response of doing nothing, even to the point of refusing to use the term genocide, was 'better' than an intervention, even a unilateral one. I know it's maybe not a strong logical, factual argument, but standing aside while a genocide takes place is to me morally wrong and unacceptable.

I also don't see any strong argument that an intervention would have made things 'worse' in the long run. The forces that committed the genocide were never actually stopped or apprehended. They just moved out of Rwanda and into the jungles of the Congo, where it's worth noting they continued to commit horrendous atrocities, all the way up until today, and no doubt tomorrow and years from now.

And I fully agree and support people getting across the point that aid to places like Africa is not futile. I just fear the big overlap of people that insist that military intervention is therefor always a detriment and the dollars far better spent on aid. I wish I shared your optimism on popular opinion if intervention had taken place in Rwanda, but I just don't see it. The other two genocides I mentioned were committed by Saddam and we've all seen how popular that reception was around the world. The Belgian officer in charge in Rwanda was facing a court martial for putting his men in harms way as the genocide began. I'm afraid I have zero doubt had Clinton sent Americans to stop the Rwandan genocide our popular opinion today would be the lesson of how tragic the foreign intervention was in escalating a civil war into a disaster and if only Clinton had listened to the voices begging for peace not war.

I hate to get on Bill Nye, and I agree with the need for more foreign aid even. I must protest non the less about war being a minor factor in poverty and related deaths. Blaming the millions that die of starvation and malnutrition in Africa on that alone is little different than saying that the millions who starved under Stalin and Mao could have been saved by foreign aid.

Even when there isn't active warfare in the most poverty ridden places of the world, there are warlords and criminals ruling the region through starvation and actively redirecting what little foreign aid there is to themselves and away from those that do not support them. Simply sending more food and money to places like Somalia or North Korea does nothing to help the people there, and if the aid is naively sent blind to whomever holds power it actually makes things WORSE by strengthening the very monsters responsible for the suffering. I'd like to believe our apathy here is the biggest problem as much as the next guy, but the reality is that there are also people local to the problem involved first hand in perpetuating and profiting from human suffering. If we refuse to admit that there are instances were 'aid' necessarily takes the form of shooting the bad guys then we are doomed to watching as the next genocide plays out, as we did for the Rwandan Tutsis, Iraqi Kurds and Shias and countless others.

I'm sure the Syrian people will be relieved to know that chemical weapons are either no longer 'in use' or are less deadly than this list...