วีดีโอ

Look you guys, yes, I understand wanting to get funding, but every second you spend doing predictions rather than generating activities in some vital way is just pissing away resources as far as my calculations go. Any solution you come up with, as a large problem, makes it cheaper for those engaging in the problem behavior to continue that behavior. If all you do is predict, you encourage them without even mitigating them. The ideal activity both builds mitigating projects, but also diverts resources and energies away from the destructive projects, and smiling and telling your descendants everything will be alright simply makes you out a diabolical fool. Please, if you're gonna do anything at all, consider focus to productive efforts AND away from destruction.

Do you mean Dr Natalia shakhova and Igor semilitov were correct 10 years ago?

Hi! Could you send me the sources of these videos? Thanks!

Yet, the Earth is getting greener every year. One of many sources: www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows/#:~:text=Taken%20all%20together%2C%20the%20greening,2000s%20%E2%80%93%20a%205%25%20increase. How's that possible? Well, maybe because it's easier for plants to perform photosynthesis when there is more CO2 in the air? Maybe there is a NEGATIVE feedback loop?

Can't stop, can't keep going, The McPherson Paradox loss of aerosol masking gonna get you if the ghg doesn't first. Either way we're done and so is most life on earth.

A very misleading obviously fossil fuel corporate funded effort to drive their narrative that there's nothing as INDIVIDUALS we can do, so we should just keep burning 8,000,000,000 tons of coal a year and 100,000,000 barrels of oil per day as we go merrily along to our final apocalyptic demise. Water vapor absorbs 2,260 BTUs per gram of heat energy as it evaporates from land/ocean and holds it in "latent" form until it cools and that energy is released as water forms again, as clouds and rain. The real problem for our survival as a species is the 1,200,000,000,000 TONS of ice melting annually now. One gram of ice absorbs 343 BTUs of heat energy as it melts into water, so melting ice and heating water are our air conditioning and Copernicus Climate Change Systems in the EU predicts that 2/3rds of the global ice will be gone in 2,100, so ALL gone by 2,138, if we extrapolate. Then what? Venus 2.0. So, ignore the obviously slick (slimy?) video here and do your own research, as this ole doc did.

Arctic is heating 4 times faster than Earth's average. 1.2 TRILLION TONS of global ice is melting annually now and accelerating. The real issue with melting permafrost is the heat being absorbed (converted to latent heat: water), more than the gases released. So, the real question is how hot the planet will be in 115 yrs. when ALL the global ice is predicted to have melted (Copernicus Climate Change System-EU). Venus 2.0. Were it not for this heat absorbing melting, today's temps would be 65 degF hotter. The 26 degF here in Marietta, Ohio, would be 91 degF. Feel me?

Ha ha, They have been saying this since 1958, research for yourself, CO2 is at its lowest level ever, in all of human history, fact.

Stop Climate change fraud .Co2 follow the heat with the hundreds of years lags and Heat doesn't follow co2 .ice core record from vostok shown already even 420000 years records .stop Antihumanism

Bollocks.

Why did Milankovitch forecast all of our climate changes over 100 years ago?

I have a serious problem with part 5 of these videos when Richard Gere says "if sea levels rise by 100 ft, millions of people will be displaced". ( I have a phd in feedback cycles (ie control theory), statistical inference and estimation theory. I was also offered a job as a CTO of a climate risk assessment startup). So look folks, 50% of the world's largest cities are at sea level. 500 million Chinese live at sea level. All of the Pacific Islanders live at sea level. Bangladesh is almost under water right now. Then there are issues with king tides and storm surge and hurricanes as they couple with sea level rise. So forget about 100 ft of sea level rise and what that would do to the amount of farmland in the world (let alone rice patties). 1-2 feet of sea level rise coupled with storms is sufficient to displace *billions* of people, causing mass refugee movements, starvation, disease, human exploitation, massive fascist/ xenophobic responses, political instability religious extremism and ultimately world war. And all this would be happening while taking all rice out of production and other crops besides. An error in order of magnitude is an error in kind! Never once does it state "agriculture is the Achilles Heel of humanity", which is the number 1 most important message to convey... nor attempt to explain why. And also, there's no discussion whatsoever of the #1 most important positive feedback cycle (aka vicious circle or feedback loop) of all: human population growth. We have resources on the planet for 680 million people to live an American lifestyle according to Bill McKibben, a world renowned climatologist. Currently there are 330 million Americans and 8 billion - 330 million other people all aiming to live and eat like Americans do. Americans ate 4.7% of the world's population using 20% of its resources. We're over leveraging the planet's renewable resources by 12x or so. And furthermore there's absolutely no discussion of how we go about persuading millions of ignorant, selfish, apathetic people that they must e.g. stop eating beef. There's no discussion of human sources of methane production from landfills or from agriculture at all in fact. There's a collective action problem here. A Tragedy of the Commons problem here. It's true there's a brief discussion of economic externalities and the game of hot potato we play. But these videos completely abdicate their responsibility to point out how corporations are setting public policy and doing so in a way that is maximally destructive to humanity. And these videos fundamentally fail to show the main problem here... to recognize the major tension in our society right now between having the cake and being able to eat it too. For instance fossil fuels are used to make fertilizer, to make pesticides, to move farm equipment, to pump water (extremely energy intensive), to till and sow and reap a harvest, to mill the crop, to run grain elevators, to run refrigerators, to move crops to trucks, to make plastic wrapping and containers, to keep freezers cold in stores, for gas to go buy groceries, to cook a meal, to clean the dishes to make the containers the dish soap is stored in, to haul the refuse away afterwards, to run the equipment that cleans the sewer water e.t.c. We currently have a society where 1 farmer can feed 10 million people. Fossil fuels are making that possible. If we quit using them cold turkey, 99% of humanity would starve... Politicians are corrupt, self-interested, blind, science ignorant and lacking in moral fiber/ mass, how are we going to address that problem again? How are we going to persuade 330 million Americans they need to reduce not just their emissions by 5x, but also use 5x less copper, zinc, iron, lithium, manganese, nickel, gallium, selenium, palladium, silver, cobalt, boron, gold, lead, silicon, e.t.c? Also, these videos are not providing any sensitivity analysis, for the most part, except for a few statements quickly said in passing. It's like they're hitting the nail, yes, but only with a glancing blow at times. What's our instantaneous rate of forest loss in California, Ontario, Spain, Italy, Greece, Siberia and the Amazon? What is the half life of all forests in the northern hemisphere likely to be if California loses 4% of its forests in a year? This is a related rates problem. If differential equations is too overwhelming for this audience, then what does basic common sense say? What's our estimated impact analysis for the fact that Ontario has > 22 million less forested acres this year than it did last year? What about there rate of rice patty loss from salt water intrusion? What's the coupling between eating rice and eating wheat or corn or other grains? 40% of Asia used to feed itself off of the ocean. What is that number now? So yeah, in the one hand the videos are very good. Even excellent. On the other hand I'm quite frustrated with the allocation of time and the fact some of the most important topics of all were summarily ignored. Scarcity breeds aggression. Insects and climate change are meanwhile caught up in positive feedback cycles that ate destroying crops. There was no mention of the fact that heat waves are 4x as likely at 1.5 deg C and 13.8x as likely at 2 deg C of warming. There's no mention of how heat waves and lack of water affect agriculture either directly or indirectly (via snap freezes, hurricanes, hail, e.t.c). Bill McKibben says pine trees must move north by 1 km/year to maintain thermal equilibrium. Anyone know of any trees that can walk (outside of the movies)? What are the implications? Most of the world's major rivers ate running at all time lows right now. What ate the implications? 1.2 billion Asians depend on Himalayan snow melt for agriculture which is failing right now. What are the implications? What happens to our supply lines if the Panama canal stops functioning due to drought? What happens to geopolitical stability if other countries besides India stop exporting their food? We're looking at a 30% decrease in agricultural yield in North America in 2030 versus 2020 for every crop except dryland wheat. Crop failures are 4x as likely at 1.5 deg C and 20x as likely at 2 deg C of warming. The effects are very nonlinear. Unfortunately this video didn't broach the topic of a linear/proportionate response versus a nonlinear/disproportionate one. And these estimates on agricultural impact were just looking at heat stress and drought concerns, not on Japanese beetles, Asian moths, other invasive pests, hail damage, snap freezes, floods, muddy fields that can't be ploughed, the lack of pollinators (because invasive hornets are killing all the bees entre outre). There's also no discussion of what CO2 adsorption is doing to the pH of ocean. We're on track to have all corral life (aka fish nurseries) and all shellfish life become impossible by 2040 as the ocean pH drops below 7.95. I guess 40% of Asua is about to start eating a lot more terrestrial protein (which is maximally emissions intensive). This is of course its own positive feedback cycle. Cows emit 6L/day of methane which means eating beef is 80x as emissions intensive as eating most veggies. Furthermore the human body only digests animal protein 25% as well as it does vegetable protein, we're not optimized for it. (My uncle did a PhD on this very topic at Stanford finished magnum sum laude, not cum laude... and then spent 15 years doing food planning work for Asian countries as a principle economist at the World Bank. You would be well advised to trust him on this one...). So in summary. We're still looking at the world through a straw here. We're definitely seeing some dots now. But we haven't really succeeded in connecting many of them yet. If humanity doesn't change its value systems *over night* in a dramatically and remarkably dramatic fashion, then humanity is done. If food prices double when much of the world is already spending 50% of its income on food... well that's all of the prerequisite conditions for a french revolution right there... in every country on Earth. It's time we do some Big O analysis (scaling considerations) here and some sensitivity analysis. This may not be an opportune juncture to add another 1-2 billion hungry mouths to the human population. There's also no mention of the fact that ecological diversity is collapsing. The biomass of wildlife on the planet is down 2/3 in the last 30 years. We have 1.2 billion cattle and 15k lions, giraffes, gorillas, whales, cheetahs, rhinos, polar bears, grizzlies, etc. I hope you appreciate that in nature ecological diversity means robustness. Lack of robustness means mad cow, sars, covid etc. It means disease of one kind or another. Bees are doing $36 trillion a year of free labor for us and yet we're wiping them out. How smart is that? I think we're about to go hungry. And seeing as we'll hit 2 deg C of warming between 2035-2040, I think that's when our civilization goes pear shaped. We can not contend with a planet where our agricultural exploits fail 20x as often, not when all the pollinators are disappearing, all the rice patties are being poisoned by salt water, when we're losing farm land to the ocean and when population is growing exponentially all the while. I haven't even mentioned what happens if the ogallala aquifer fails or the Colorado river fails or all the wells in the California central valley run dry. Presently 1200 of them are at risk of doing so. Anyone remember what happened to the Mayans? I prefer to learn my history lessons vicariously, what about you?

I have a serious problem with part 5 of these videos when Richard Gere says "if sea levels rise by 100 ft, millions of people will be displaced". ( I have a phd in feedback cycles (ie control theory), statistical inference and estimation theory. I was also offered a job as a CTO of a climate risk assessment startup). So look folks, 50% of the world's largest cities are at sea level. 500 million Chinese live at sea level. All of the Pacific Islanders live at sea level. Bangladesh is almost under water right now. Then there are issues with king tides and storm surge and hurricanes as they couple with sea level rise. So forget about 100 ft of sea level rise and what that would do to the amount of farmland in the world (let alone rice patties). 1-2 feet of sea level rise coupled with storms is sufficient to displace *billions* of people, causing mass refugee movements, starvation, disease, human exploitation, massive fascist/ xenophobic responses, political instability religious extremism and ultimately world war. And all this would be happening while taking all rice out of production and other crops besides. An error in order of magnitude is an error in kind! Never once does it state "agriculture is the Achilles Heel of humanity", which is the number 1 most important message to convey... nor attempt to explain why. And also, there's no discussion whatsoever of the #1 most important positive feedback cycle (aka vicious circle or feedback loop) of all: human population growth. We have resources on the planet for 680 million people to live an American lifestyle according to Bill McKibben, a world renowned climatologist. Currently there are 330 million Americans and 8 billion - 330 million other people all aiming to live and eat like Americans do. Americans ate 4.7% of the world's population using 20% of its resources. We're over leveraging the planet's renewable resources by 12x or so. And furthermore there's absolutely no discussion of how we go about persuading millions of ignorant, selfish, apathetic people that they must e.g. stop eating beef. There's no discussion of human sources of methane production from landfills or from agriculture at all in fact. There's a collective action problem here. A Tragedy of the Commons problem here. It's true there's a brief discussion of economic externalities and the game of hot potato we play. But these videos completely abdicate their responsibility to point out how corporations are setting public policy and doing so in a way that is maximally destructive to humanity. And these videos fundamentally fail to show the main problem here... to recognize the major tension in our society right now between having the cake and being able to eat it too. For instance fossil fuels are used to make fertilizer, to make pesticides, to move farm equipment, to pump water (extremely energy intensive), to till and sow and reap a harvest, to mill the crop, to run grain elevators, to run refrigerators, to move crops to trucks, to make plastic wrapping and containers, to keep freezers cold in stores, for gas to go buy groceries, to cook a meal, to clean the dishes to make the containers the dish soap is stored in, to haul the refuse away afterwards, to run the equipment that cleans the sewer water e.t.c. We currently have a society where 1 farmer can feed 10 million people. Fossil fuels are making that possible. If we quit using them cold turkey, 99% of humanity would starve... Politicians are corrupt, self-interested, blind, science ignorant and lacking in moral fiber/ mass, how are we going to address that problem again? How are we going to persuade 330 million Americans they need to reduce not just their emissions by 5x, but also use 5x less copper, zinc, iron, lithium, manganese, nickel, gallium, selenium, palladium, silver, cobalt, boron, gold, lead, silicon, e.t.c? Also, these videos are not providing any sensitivity analysis, for the most part, except for a few statements quickly said in passing. It's like they're hitting the nail, yes, but only with a glancing blow at times. What's our instantaneous rate of forest loss in California, Ontario, Spain, Italy, Greece, Siberia and the Amazon? What is the half life of all forests in the northern hemisphere likely to be if California loses 4% of its forests in a year? This is a related rates problem. If differential equations is too overwhelming for this audience, then what does basic common sense say? What's our estimated impact analysis for the fact that Ontario has > 22 million less forested acres this year than it did last year? What about there rate of rice patty loss from salt water intrusion? What's the coupling between eating rice and eating wheat or corn or other grains? 40% of Asia used to feed itself off of the ocean. What is that number now? So yeah, in the one hand the videos are very good. Even excellent. On the other hand I'm quite frustrated with the allocation of time and the fact some of the most important topics of all were summarily ignored. Scarcity breeds aggression. Insects and climate change are meanwhile caught up in positive feedback cycles that ate destroying crops. There was no mention of the fact that heat waves are 4x as likely at 1.5 deg C and 13.8x as likely at 2 deg C of warming. There's no mention of how heat waves and lack of water affect agriculture either directly or indirectly (via snap freezes, hurricanes, hail, e.t.c). Bill McKibben says pine trees must move north by 1 km/year to maintain thermal equilibrium. Anyone know of any trees that can walk (outside of the movies)? What are the implications? Most of the world's major rivers ate running at all time lows right now. What ate the implications? 1.2 billion Asians depend on Himalayan snow melt for agriculture which is failing right now. What are the implications? What happens to our supply lines if the Panama canal stops functioning due to drought? What happens to geopolitical stability if other countries besides India stop exporting their food? We're looking at a 30% decrease in agricultural yield in North America in 2030 versus 2020 for every crop except dryland wheat. Crop failures are 4x as likely at 1.5 deg C and 20x as likely at 2 deg C of warming. The effects are very nonlinear. Unfortunately this video didn't broach the topic of a linear/proportionate response versus a nonlinear/disproportionate one. And these estimates on agricultural impact were just looking at heat stress and drought concerns, not on Japanese beetles, Asian moths, other invasive pests, hail damage, snap freezes, floods, muddy fields that can't be ploughed, the lack of pollinators (because invasive hornets are killing all the bees entre outre). There's also no discussion of what CO2 adsorption is doing to the pH of ocean. We're on track to have all corral life (aka fish nurseries) and all shellfish life become impossible by 2040 as the ocean pH drops below 7.95. I guess 40% of Asua is about to start eating a lot more terrestrial protein (which is maximally emissions intensive). This is of course its own positive feedback cycle. Cows emit 6L/day of methane which means eating beef is 80x as emissions intensive as eating most veggies. Furthermore the human body only digests animal protein 25% as well as it does vegetable protein, we're not optimized for it. (My uncle did a PhD on this very topic at Stanford finished magnum sum laude, not cum laude... and then spent 15 years doing food planning work for Asian countries as a principle economist at the World Bank. You would be well advised to trust him on this one...). So in summary. We're still looking at the world through a straw here. We're definitely seeing some dots now. But we haven't really succeeded in connecting many of them yet. If humanity doesn't change its value systems *over night* in a dramatically and remarkably dramatic fashion, then humanity is done. If food prices double when much of the world is already spending 50% of its income on food... well that's all of the prerequisite conditions for a french revolution right there... in every country on Earth. It's time we do some Big O analysis (scaling considerations) here and some sensitivity analysis. This may not be an opportune juncture to add another 1-2 billion hungry mouths to the human population. There's also no mention of the fact that ecological diversity is collapsing. The biomass of wildlife on the planet is down 2/3 in the last 30 years. We have 1.2 billion cattle and 15k lions, giraffes, gorillas, whales, cheetahs, rhinos, polar bears, grizzlies, etc. I hope you appreciate that in nature ecological diversity means robustness. Lack of robustness means mad cow, sars, covid etc. It means disease of one kind or another. Bees are doing $36 trillion a year of free labor for us and yet we're wiping them out. How smart is that? I think we're about to go hungry. And seeing as we'll hit 2 deg C of warming between 2035-2040, I think that's when our civilization goes pear shaped. We can not contend with a planet where our agricultural exploits fail 20x as often, not when all the pollinators are disappearing, all the rice patties are being poisoned by salt water, when we're losing farm land to the ocean and when population is growing exponentially all the while. I haven't even mentioned what happens if the ogallala aquifer fails or the Colorado river fails or all the wells in the California central valley run dry. Presently 1200 of them are at risk of doing so. Anyone remember what happened to the Mayans? I prefer to learn my history lessons vicariously, what about you?

I have a serious problem with part 5 of these videos when Richard Gere says "if sea levels rise by 100 ft, millions of people will be displaced". ( I have a phd in feedback cycles (ie control theory), statistical inference and estimation theory. I was also offered a job as a CTO of a climate risk assessment startup). So look folks, 50% of the world's largest cities are at sea level. 500 million Chinese live at sea level. All of the Pacific Islanders live at sea level. Bangladesh is almost under water right now. Then there are issues with king tides and storm surge and hurricanes as they couple with sea level rise. So forget about 100 ft of sea level rise and what that would do to the amount of farmland in the world (let alone rice paddies). 1-2 feet of sea level rise coupled with storms is sufficient to displace *billions* of people, causing mass refugee movements, starvation, disease, human exploitation, massive fascist/ xenophobic responses, political instability, religious extremism and ultimately world war. And all this would be happening while taking all rice out of production and other crops besides. An error in order of magnitude is an error in kind! Rice is 20% of all our calories. At the same time we are on track to lose 99% of coral at 2 deg C of warming-> 25% of all marine life. There goes the commercial fishing industry! Never once does it state "agriculture is the Achilles Heel of humanity", which is the number 1 most important message to convey... nor attempt to explain why. And also, there's no discussion whatsoever of the #1 most important positive feedback cycle (aka vicious circle or feedback loop) of all: human population growth. We have resources on the planet for 680 million people to live an American lifestyle according to Bill McKibben, a world renowned climatologist. Currently there are 330 million Americans and 8 billion - 330 million other people all aiming to live and eat like Americans do. Americans are 4.7% of the world's population using 20% of its resources. We're over leveraging the planet's renewable resources by 12x or so. And furthermore there's absolutely no discussion of how we go about persuading millions of ignorant, selfish, apathetic people that they must e.g. stop eating beef. There's no discussion of human sources of methane production from landfills or from agriculture at all in fact. There's a collective action problem here. A Tragedy of the Commons problem here. It's true there's a brief discussion of economic externalities and the game of hot potato we play. But these videos completely abdicate their responsibility to point out how corporations are setting public policy and doing so in a way that is maximally destructive to humanity. And these videos fundamentally fail to show the main problem here... to recognize the major tension in our society right now between having the cake and being able to eat it too. For instance fossil fuels are used to make fertilizer, to make pesticides, to move farm equipment, to pump water (extremely energy intensive), to till and sow and reap a harvest, to mill the crop, to run grain elevators, to run refrigerators, to move crops to trucks, to make plastic wrapping and containers, to keep freezers cold in stores, for gas to go buy groceries, to cook a meal, to clean the dishes to make the containers the dish soap is stored in, to haul the refuse away afterwards, to run the equipment that cleans the sewer water e.t.c. We currently have a society where 1 farmer can feed 10 million people. Fossil fuels are making that possible. If we quit using them cold turkey, 99% of humanity would starve... Politicians are corrupt, self-interested, blind, science ignorant and lacking in moral fiber/ mass, how are we going to address that problem again? How are we going to persuade 330 million Americans they need to reduce not just their emissions by 5x, but also use 5x less copper, zinc, iron, lithium, manganese, nickel, gallium, selenium, palladium, silver, cobalt, boron, gold, lead, silicon, e.t.c? Also, these videos are not providing any sensitivity analysis, for the most part, except for a few statements quickly said in passing. It's like they're hitting the nail, yes, but only with a glancing blow at times. What's our instantaneous rate of forest loss in California, Ontario, Spain, Italy, Greece, Siberia and the Amazon? What is the half life of all forests in the northern hemisphere likely to be if California loses 4% of its forests in a year? This is a related rates problem. If differential equations is too overwhelming for this audience, then what does basic common sense say? What's our estimated impact analysis for the fact that Ontario has > 22 million less forested acres this year than it did last year? What about the rate of rice paddy loss from salt water intrusion? What's the coupling between eating rice and eating wheat or corn or other grains? 40% of Asia used to feed itself off of the ocean. What is that number now? So yeah, on the one hand the videos are very good. Even excellent. On the other hand I'm quite frustrated with the allocation of time and the fact some of the most important topics of all were summarily ignored. Scarcity breeds aggression. Insects and climate change are meanwhile caught up in positive feedback cycles that is destroying crops. There was no mention of the fact that heat waves are 8x as likely at 1.5 deg C and 13.9x as likely at 2 deg C of warming. There's no mention of how heat waves and lack of water affect agriculture either directly or indirectly (via snap freezes, hurricanes, hail, e.t.c). Bill McKibben says pine trees must move north by 1 km/year to maintain thermal equilibrium. Anyone know of any trees that can walk (outside of the movies)? What are the implications? Most of the world's major rivers are running at all time lows right now. What are the implications? 1.2 billion Asians depend on Himalayan snow melt for agriculture which is failing right now. What are the implications? What happens to our supply lines if the Panama canal stops functioning due to drought? What happens to geopolitical stability if other countries besides India stop exporting their food? We're looking at a 30% decrease in agricultural yield in North America in 2030 versus 2020 for every crop except dryland wheat. Crop failures are 4x as likely at 1.5 deg C and 20x as likely at 2 deg C of warming. The effects are very nonlinear. Unfortunately this video didn't broach the topic of a linear/proportionate response versus a nonlinear/disproportionate one. And these estimates on agricultural impact were just looking at heat stress and drought concerns, not on Japanese beetles, Asian moths, other invasive pests, hail damage, snap freezes, floods, muddy fields that can't be ploughed, the lack of pollinators (because invasive hornets are killing all the bees entre outre). There's also no discussion of what CO2 adsorption is doing to the pH of ocean. We're on track to have all coral life (aka fish nurseries) and all shellfish life become impossible by 2040 as the ocean pH drops below 7.95. I guess 40% of Asia is about to start eating a lot more terrestrial protein (which is maximally emissions intensive). This is of course its own positive feedback cycle. Cows emit 6L/day of methane which means eating beef is 80x as emissions intensive as eating most veggies. So in summary. We're still looking at the world through a straw here. We're definitely seeing some dots now. But we haven't really succeeded in connecting many of them yet. If humanity doesn't change its value systems *over night* in a dramatically and remarkably dramatic fashion, then humanity is done. If food prices double when much of the world is already spending 50% of its income on food... well that's all of the prerequisite conditions for a french revolution right there... in every country on Earth. It's time we do some Big O analysis (scaling considerations) here and some sensitivity analysis. This may not be an opportune juncture to add another 1-2 billion hungry mouths to the human population. There's also no mention of the fact that ecological diversity is collapsing. The biomass of wildlife on the planet is down 2/3 in the last 30 years. We have 1.5 billion cattle and 15k lions, giraffes, gorillas, whales, cheetahs, rhinos, polar bears, grizzlies, etc. I hope you appreciate that in nature ecological diversity means robustness. Lack of robustness means mad cow, sars, covid etc. It means disease of one kind or another. Bees are doing $36 trillion a year of free labor for us and yet we're wiping them out. How smart is that? I think we're about to go hungry. And seeing as we'll hit 2 deg C of warming between 2035-2040, I think that's when our civilization goes pear shaped. We can not contend with a planet where our agricultural exploits fail 20x as often, not when all the pollinators are disappearing, all the rice paddies are being poisoned by salt water, when we're losing farm land to the ocean and when population is growing exponentially all the while. I haven't even mentioned what happens if the Ogallala aquifer fails or the Colorado river fails or all the wells in the California central valley run dry. Presently 1200 of them are at risk of doing so. Anyone remember what happened to the Mayans? I prefer to learn my history lessons vicariously, what about you?

Part 1/2: I have a serious problem with part 5 of these videos when Richard Gere says "if sea levels rise by 100 ft, millions of people will be displaced". ( I have a phd in feedback cycles (ie control theory), statistical inference and estimation theory. I was also offered a job as a CTO of a climate risk assessment startup). So look folks, 50% of the world's largest cities are at sea level. 500 million Chinese live at sea level. All of the Pacific Islanders live at sea level. Bangladesh is almost under water right now. Then there are issues with king tides and storm surge and hurricanes as they couple with sea level rise. So forget about 100 ft of sea level rise and what that would do to the amount of farmland in the world (let alone rice paddies). 1-2 feet of sea level rise coupled with storms is sufficient to displace *billions* of people, causing mass refugee movements, starvation, disease, human exploitation, massive fascist/ xenophobic responses, political instability, religious extremism, and ultimately world war. And all this would be happening while taking all rice out of production and other crops besides. An error in order of magnitude is an error in kind! Never once does it state "agriculture is the Achilles Heel of humanity", which is the number 1 most important message to convey... nor attempt to explain why. And also, there's no discussion whatsoever of the #1 most important positive feedback cycle (aka vicious circle or feedback loop) of all: human population growth. We have resources on the planet for 680 million people to live an American lifestyle according to Bill McKibben, a world renowned environmentalist. Currently there are 330 million Americans and 8 billion - 330 million = 7.67 billion other people all aiming to live and eat like Americans do. Americans are 4.7% of the world's population using 20% of its resources. We're over leveraging the planet's renewable resources by 12x or so. And furthermore there's absolutely no discussion of how we go about persuading millions of ignorant, selfish, apathetic people that they must e.g. stop eating beef, driving huge cars across the country, solo, flying to Hawaii 4x / year etc... There's no discussion of human sources of methane production from landfills or from agriculture at all in fact. There's a collective action problem here, ie a Tragedy of the Commons problem here. It's true there's a brief discussion of economic externalities and the game of hot potato we play. But these videos completely abdicate their responsibility to point out how corporations are setting public policy and doing so in a way that is maximally destructive to humanity. And these videos fundamentally fail to show the main problem here... to recognize the major tension in our society right now between having the cake and being able to eat it too. For instance fossil fuels are used to make fertilizer, to make pesticides, to move farm equipment, to pump water (extremely energy intensive), to till and sow and reap a harvest, to mill the crop, to run grain elevators, to run refrigerators, to move crops to trucks, to make plastic wrapping and containers, to keep freezers cold in stores, for gas to go buy groceries, to cook a meal, to clean the dishes to make the containers the dish soap is stored in, to haul the refuse away afterwards, to run the equipment that cleans the sewer water e.t.c. We currently have a society where 1 farmer can feed 10 million people. Fossil fuels are making that possible. If we quit using them cold turkey, 99% of humanity would starve... If politicians are corrupt, self-interested, blind, science ignorant and lacking in moral fiber, how are we going to address this problem again? How are we going to persuade 330 million Americans they need to reduce not just their GHG emissions by 5x, but also use 5x less copper, zinc, iron, lithium, manganese, nickel, gallium, selenium, palladium, silver, cobalt, boron, gold, lead, silicon, e.t.c? Also, these videos are not providing any sensitivity analysis, for the most part, except for a few statements quickly said in passing. It's like they're hitting the nail, yes, but only with a glancing blow and only at times. What's our instantaneous rate of forest loss in California, Ontario, Spain, Italy, Greece, Siberia and the Amazon? What is the half life of all forests in the northern hemisphere likely to be if California loses 4% of its forests in a year? This is a related rates problem. If differential equations is too overwhelming for this audience, then what does basic common sense say? What's our estimated impact analysis for the fact that Canada has 45.7 million less forested acres this year than it did last year? And that those fires put 1.67 Gtons of extra CO2 into the air to contribute to next summers global warming, drought and fires? As a point of comparison, Canada's total CO2 equivalent emissions for 2022 were about 680 Mtons. So... nothing else Canada does to reduce emissions is even relevant if these fires continue. The world is emitting about 45 Gtons, ie 45 billion tons of CO2 equivalent emissions annually. CO2 equivalent means that other types of pollutants such as methane are being converted into units as if they were CO2. It's a misleading statistic though because methane decays after a decade or two (into CO2 among other things), but CO2 hangs around for 100s of years. What about the rate of rice paddy loss from salt water intrusion? What's the coupling mechanism (aka a "substitute commodity" in econimics jargon) between eating rice and eating wheat or corn or other grains? 40% of Asia used to feed itself off of the ocean. What is that number now? As sea food diminishes in abundance (due to bleached corral reefs, less oxygen in warmer water to support life, many creatures are dieing from excessive heat outright, plastic pollution, PFAS chemicals are damaging sperm counts world wide including in marine mammals, then there's sewage, fossil fuel leaks, radioactive waste in several locals etc...) all that food demand is shifting on shore. And guess what? Terrestrial protein sources (of meat, not veggie protein) are the most maximally impactful kind of consumption of food we humans do. We're taking the least impactful sources and destroying them which makes is more reliant on the heavy footprint sources of protein... which then further serves to sterilize the ocean. It's a vicious cycle. One of many! 80% of humanity's sewage is dumped directly into the ocean, btw, and yes there are negative consequences of various kinds... So yeah, on the one hand the videos are very good. Even excellent. On the other hand, I'm quite frustrated with the allocation of time and the fact some of the most important topics of all were summarily ignored. Scarcity breeds aggression. Insects and climate change are meanwhile caught up in positive feedback cycles that are destroying crops. There was no mention of the fact that heat waves are 4x as likely at 1.5 deg C and 13.8x as likely at 2 deg C of warming. There's no mention of how heat waves and lack of water affect agriculture either directly or indirectly (via snap freezes, hurricanes, hail, e.t.c). Bill McKibben says pine trees in our hemisphere must move north by 1 km/year to maintain thermal equilibrium. Anyone know of any trees that can walk (outside of the movies)? What are the implications? Most of the world's major rivers are running at all time lows right now. What are the implications? 1.2 billion Asians depend on Himalayan snow melt for agriculture which is failing right now. What are the implications? What happens to our supply lines if the Panama canal stops functioning due to drought? What happens to geopolitical stability if other countries besides India stop exporting their food? We're looking at a 30% decrease in agricultural yield in North America in 2030 versus 2020 for every crop except dryland wheat. Crop failures are 4x as likely at 1.5 deg C and 20x as likely at 2 deg C of warming. The effects are very nonlinear.

I have a serious problem with part 5 of these videos when Richard Gere says "if sea levels rise by 100 ft, millions of people will be displaced". ( I have a phd in feedback cycles (ie control theory), statistical inference and estimation theory. I was also offered a job as a CTO of a climate risk assessment startup). So look folks, 50% of the world's largest cities are at sea level. 500 million Chinese live at sea level. All of the Pacific Islanders live at sea level. Bangladesh is almost under water right now. Then there are issues with king tides and storm surge and hurricanes as they couple with sea level rise. So forget about 100 ft of sea level rise and what that would do to the amount of farmland in the world (let alone rice patties). 1-2 feet of sea level rise coupled with storms is sufficient to displace *billions* of people, causing mass refugee movements, starvation, disease, human exploitation, massive fascist/ xenophobic responses, political instability religious extremism and ultimately world war. And all this would be happening while taking all rice out of production and other crops besides. An error in order of magnitude is an error in kind! Never once does it state "agriculture is the Achilles Heel of humanity", which is the number 1 most important message to convey... nor attempt to explain why. And also, there's no discussion whatsoever of the #1 most important positive feedback cycle (aka vicious circle or feedback loop) of all: human population growth. We have resources on the planet for 680 million people to live an American lifestyle according to Bill McKibben, a world renowned climatologist. Currently there are 330 million Americans and 8 billion - 330 million other people all aiming to live and eat like Americans do. Americans ate 4.7% of the world's population using 20% of its resources. We're over leveraging the planet's renewable resources by 12x or so. And furthermore there's absolutely no discussion of how we go about persuading millions of ignorant, selfish, apathetic people that they must e.g. stop eating beef. There's no discussion of human sources of methane production from landfills or from agriculture at all in fact. There's a collective action problem here. A Tragedy of the Commons problem here. It's true there's a brief discussion of economic externalities and the game of hot potato we play. But these videos completely abdicate their responsibility to point out how corporations are setting public policy and doing so in a way that is maximally destructive to humanity. And these videos fundamentally fail to show the main problem here... to recognize the major tension in our society right now between having the cake and being able to eat it too. For instance fossil fuels are used to make fertilizer, to make pesticides, to move farm equipment, to pump water (extremely energy intensive), to till and sow and reap a harvest, to mill the crop, to run grain elevators, to run refrigerators, to move crops to trucks, to make plastic wrapping and containers, to keep freezers cold in stores, for gas to go buy groceries, to cook a meal, to clean the dishes to make the containers the dish soap is stored in, to haul the refuse away afterwards, to run the equipment that cleans the sewer water e.t.c. We currently have a society where 1 farmer can feed 10 million people. Fossil fuels are making that possible. If we quit using them cold turkey, 99% of humanity would starve... Politicians are corrupt, self-interested, blind, science ignorant and lacking in moral fiber/ mass, how are we going to address that problem again? How are we going to persuade 330 million Americans they need to reduce not just their emissions by 5x, but also use 5x less copper, zinc, iron, lithium, manganese, nickel, gallium, selenium, palladium, silver, cobalt, boron, gold, lead, silicon, e.t.c? Also, these videos are not providing any sensitivity analysis, for the most part, except for a few statements quickly said in passing. It's like they're hitting the nail, yes, but only with a glancing blow at times. What's our instantaneous rate of forest loss in California, Ontario, Spain, Italy, Greece, Siberia and the Amazon? What is the half life of all forests in the northern hemisphere likely to be if California loses 4% of its forests in a year? This is a related rates problem. If differential equations is too overwhelming for this audience, then what does basic common sense say? What's our estimated impact analysis for the fact that Ontario has > 22 million less forested acres this year than it did last year? What about there rate of rice patty loss from salt water intrusion? What's the coupling between eating rice and eating wheat or corn or other grains? 40% of Asia used to feed itself off of the ocean. What is that number now? So yeah, in the one hand the videos are very good. Even excellent. On the other hand I'm quite frustrated with the allocation of time and the fact some of the most important topics of all were summarily ignored. Scarcity breeds aggression. Insects and climate change are meanwhile caught up in positive feedback cycles that ate destroying crops. There was no mention of the fact that heat waves are 4x as likely at 1.5 deg C and 13.8x as likely at 2 deg C of warming. There's no mention of how heat waves and lack of water affect agriculture either directly or indirectly (via snap freezes, hurricanes, hail, e.t.c). Bill McKibben says pine trees must move north by 1 km/year to maintain thermal equilibrium. Anyone know of any trees that can walk (outside of the movies)? What are the implications? Most of the world's major rivers ate running at all time lows right now. What ate the implications? 1.2 billion Asians depend on Himalayan snow melt for agriculture which is failing right now. What are the implications? What happens to our supply lines if the Panama canal stops functioning due to drought? What happens to geopolitical stability if other countries besides India stop exporting their food? We're looking at a 30% decrease in agricultural yield in North America in 2030 versus 2020 for every crop except dryland wheat. Crop failures are 4x as likely at 1.5 deg C and 20x as likely at 2 deg C of warming. The effects are very nonlinear. Unfortunately this video didn't broach the topic of a linear/proportionate response versus a nonlinear/disproportionate one. And these estimates on agricultural impact were just looking at heat stress and drought concerns, not on Japanese beetles, Asian moths, other invasive pests, hail damage, snap freezes, floods, muddy fields that can't be ploughed, the lack of pollinators (because invasive hornets are killing all the bees entre outre). There's also no discussion of what CO2 adsorption is doing to the pH of ocean. We're on track to have all corral life (aka fish nurseries) and all shellfish life become impossible by 2040 as the ocean pH drops below 7.95. I guess 40% of Asua is about to start eating a lot more terrestrial protein (which is maximally emissions intensive). This is of course its own positive feedback cycle. Cows emit 6L/day of methane which means eating beef is 80x as emissions intensive as eating most veggies. Furthermore the human body only digests animal protein 25% as well as it does vegetable protein, we're not optimized for it. (My uncle did a PhD on this very topic at Stanford finished magnum sum laude, not cum laude... and then spent 15 years doing food planning work for Asian countries as a principle economist at the World Bank. You would be well advised to trust him on this one...). So in summary. We're still looking at the world through a straw here. We're definitely seeing some dots now. But we haven't really succeeded in connecting many of them yet. If humanity doesn't change its value systems *over night* in a dramatically and remarkably dramatic fashion, then humanity is done. If food prices double when much of the world is already spending 50% of its income on food... well that's all of the prerequisite conditions for a french revolution right there... in every country on Earth. It's time we do some Big O analysis (scaling considerations) here and some sensitivity analysis. This may not be an opportune juncture to add another 1-2 billion hungry mouths to the human population. There's also no mention of the fact that ecological diversity is collapsing. The biomass of wildlife on the planet is down 2/3 in the last 30 years. We have 1.2 billion cattle and 15k lions, giraffes, gorillas, whales, cheetahs, rhinos, polar bears, grizzlies, etc. I hope you appreciate that in nature ecological diversity means robustness. Lack of robustness means mad cow, sars, covid etc. It means disease of one kind or another. Bees are doing $36 trillion a year of free labor for us and yet we're wiping them out. How smart is that? I think we're about to go hungry. And seeing as we'll hit 2 deg C of warming between 2035-2040, I think that's when our civilization goes pear shaped. We can not contend with a planet where our agricultural exploits fail 20x as often, not when all the pollinators are disappearing, all the rice patties are being poisoned by salt water, when we're losing farm land to the ocean and when population is growing exponentially all the while. I haven't even mentioned what happens if the ogallala aquifer fails or the Colorado river fails or all the wells in the California central valley run dry. Presently 1200 of them are at risk of doing so. Anyone remember what happened to the Mayans? I prefer to learn my history lessons vicariously, what about you?

Exzellent video, but the presence already shows clearly: in the best case we can slow down all these feedback loops, but we cannot reverse them anymore!

Industrial civilization is inherently unsustainable no matter what kind of energy is used to power it. Fossil fuels are needed for manufacturing solar panels and wind turbines. When we run out of fossil fuels and all the resources needed to make so called renewables, then what? Let’s not kid ourselves. Technology is not going to save us. What we need to do is drastically reduce our consumption, and live a much simpler life. That’s hard to do because we’re addicted to the temporary luxuries that industrial civilization provides. But if we can’t get over our addictions, nature will do it for us, and we’ll wish we had acted sooner.

source?

These series of videos are great; concise but full of information. Narration is excellent, experts in the video are on point. Thanks! I do, however, wonder why you leave a statement in their that said we will lose summer ice by end of the century when it really is more like end of this decade according to current trends? Probably lose winter ice by end of century, summer will be long gone. That really changes the game. I think these distinctions are important, end of the century is past most of our life times so we can dismiss it more easily ....

shame carbon takes such a long time to start warming the planet, maybe if the runaway situation was not well underway and we stopped polluting 20-40 years ago. This optimism that scientists are forced/encouraged to always portray when addressing the public, it seriously ruffles my feathers. It's like warning/lecturing people about the possibilities of future fire hazards whilst they are herded at gunpoint and nailed into a boobytrapped burning corn maze. The solutions seem counterproductive when it comes to most government endorsed solutions like recycling and speed cameras. Yea the rats from the mess the binmen leave is fun, but another bonus is that we get to clean it and tare it up everyday. And for what? So my council can sell it to china so lots of carbon and pollution gets emitted and the oceans filled with plastic by transporting it! Then half of the plastic creates more carbon and pollution as its recycled and the other half releasing pollution and carbon when the less suitable plastic get burned. Seems it would be better to remove the carbon from the cycle by burying it! Could point the finger at corporations for making all the plastic, but no. You choose to go after the people when you know full well that they are powerless and even when they successfully ask governments, the governments make selfish decisions on what to do about it! My local area was in uproar over the dangerous levels of pollution, but my local government was so convinced that the 200 new speed cameras were all working so well that the air quality tests needed to be changed! So they came up with a new strategy on how calculations are made along with the where, when and how Air samples are taken. My local government was spot on, turns out that instead of matching the air quality of most Chinese cities, were actually cleaner than the mountains of Tibet, fancy that. I wonder if the Tibetan mountains also smell like Sulphur?

This conveys a very important message and the implications are ominous. Very well done!! Multiple examples as to the urgency. Deserves everyone's attention who cares about the future.

Save and Protect our Amazon Forest from him #ForaBOLSONARO #GETOUTBOLSONARO !

It's good

Hi

At some point in these presentations and pursuant discussions I hope that the concept of decentralization comes up -- specially the decentralization of the human population. A decentralized population has shorter feedback loops and, along with minimalism, requires the degradation of less energy in construction, maintenance, and decommissioning. Even Degrowers don't seem able to conceive of the idea of giving up on cities.

“When we cut emissions, stop deforestation and regreen the earth, the arctic will cool.” No, that is false. The arctic will cool only when the conditions that kept it cool return, i.e. the CO2 in the atmosphere must return to 280 -350 ppm. And there is no way to do that. If you cut emissions to zero, there would still be 415 ppm CO2 and the arctic will continue to melt.

This is seriously misleading. We DO NOT have the technology to remove CO2 in any meaning full amount, therefore there is no way of cooling the arctic. Stopping the feedback loops is a fairy tale. Come back to this comment in five years. If the CO2 is above 415, you lose. My guess is it will be above 430. And the arctic summer sea ice may be gone by then as well. Yes, we should do everything we can, but “we can reverse it” is nonsense.

I see the scary part just don't see the hopium side population continues to grow rapidly the pollutants will stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years and nothing is being said about the heating that's locked in if we stopped admitting all man made co2 today and good luck stopping permafrost from releasing methane like stopping oil and plastic companies anytime soon we are doomed collapse of magor countries in this decade societal collapsing all over the world is almost here . Sorry but it's that serious when scientists are committing suicide and dealing with deep depression over hundreds of them saying it's a global emergency around the world yeah we are f****ed

Would prefer to hear the indigenous perspective. Theyve known about this long before western science....they are the true experts and authorities on climate change.

Fantastic content. I will be sharing. Its been hard to find concrete analysis of the feedback loops associated with climate change, so this is truly a gift

Excellent work! Thank you from S. Korea

Very instructive video, thank you!

Good movies!

Why is it that in this video about deforestation you only barely mention the impact of animal agriculture on the destruction of the rainforest. Millions of acres are lost each year clearing land for animal products, is that not worth discussing?

Thank you for this excellent series 🙏🏼

07:13 Dublin! 😉

Very impressing. Please translate and bring it on german TV. There are many people who don't know this. Even if we have year 2021.

Well done film! Scientifically accurate from my perspective. Yes, we did predict more big storms 30 years ago, although many intelligent folks are now arguing simplistically that diminished N-S temperature gradient will simply diminish winds and storms generally from reduced gradient, thus including lowering storm power and frequency. I've not been instructed yet on what sets a firm terminal limit to hurricane wind speed on Earth, so I won't prophess that we need a new scale for the top end, yet Resistance to wind being a cube function of wind velocity is known by every bicyclist, AND if that wind has big momentum (mv^2) you can flip that cubic function to a damage function, where it is harder for a house to hold in one place. It is interesting to see Kerry Emanuel reporting more frequent BIG hurricanes showing up now in the data.

Please continue in work we will help you by sharing it as much as possible by us 😌😌😌😌😌😌

I really can say that my school principle is very great as he has forwarded this video

8:18 Voting ain't gonna do shit. Multinational corporations and oil executives have governments and courts in their backpockets. They have all the necessary avenues to block any significant policy change that would negatively impact their profit margin. They have all the necessary avenues to prevent any political candidate that represent a threat to their financial interests from going far in the political process. Fifty years of participation in the political process as a mean to implement change have proven to be impotent. Little has been acchieved through the political process and I fail to see how that will ever change.

good

My bet would be 10°C of warming by 2100. Don't expect anything to be done to address climate change. Carbon emissions will continue to rise exponentially. The billionnaires of this planet would rather doom humanity just to line their pockets than spending a single cent to change anything.

El nomos humano y las leyes de la ciudad violentan las leyes naturales, que son las únicas que presentan carácter de necesidad general; las otras solo se deben obedecer en presencia de aquellos que las han hecho, pero cuando nadie lo observa conviene escaparse de ellas y vivir conforme a la naturaleza. Platón.

O mundo precisa acordar

Probably time to stop making documentaries that constitute a feedback loop of information bubbles. What needs to be done is an all-out information campaign funded by the billionaires about what we know we have to give up now to achieve these goals. If it burns, put it out. That means no combustion engines, no fossil fuel home heating and, yes, no server farms for videos that must be air conditioned to work. The hard truth is that people can't be fed without cutting big ag emissions as well. People are going to die in large numbers just as we are seeing now. Voting isn't working as only the richest, corporate-controlled drones are on the ballot. Plan for the worst scenario now. Fight the corporations head-on which are now stealing our drinking water to sell back to us. Start with that.

Excellent presentation. The concept of an uninhabitable Earth is very difficult to grasp; most Americans think it may happen to others but not in the US. I am old enough to remember what life was like. I would love to see an Ivory-billed woodpecker! We know the cause of global warming yet we continue burning fuels. The UK Drax 4,000 megawatt coal-fired power station is now burning wood-pellets made in Arkansas and other states clearcutting our forests. Drax says they are reducing carbon emissions, but burning trees creates higher carbon emissions than burning coal, and it takes decades for seedlings to grow tree plantations. Forests are irreplaceable. phys.org/news/2019-12-bioenergy-negative-climate-impacts.html/

Are there transcripts available to discuss this in school?

thank you from Brasil!