I admire Katherine's energy, positive tone and methods. I think she is making a big difference. Notwithstanding this, I do not concur that everything will be rosy whenever we reach NetZero. Considering the recent jump of concerning effects, I think it's very hard to predict what the state of the climate will be if and whenever this occurs. Though very important, annual societal emissions are only part of the energy imbalance. The high level of greenhouse gases resident in the atmosphere will have to resolved. About 50% of emissions remain in the atmosphere each year. Otherwise the primary sink for CO2 is the oceans where about 30% emissions are absorbed. Over very long periods of time most carbon involved in the carbon cycle is stored in Ocean sediment and sedimentary rocks as calcium carbonate. When we finally achieve net zero, if we are in a climate state where the oceans can no longer absorb CO2 due high surface saturation levels with higher temperatures, this will greatly slow removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. Furthermore, if CO2 levels in the oceans rise to the extent that the waters become too acidic for bio-mediated formation of calcium carbonates, sedimentation of calcium bound carbon will be impaired. As well, 90% of the accumulated heat from our up to now rapidly increasing energy imbalance is being accommodated in the oceans. Warmer sea surface temperatures may increase the rate of radiation to space, but they will likely continue to maintain higher Global mean temperatures for a long time. The long wave radiation while interacting with greenhouse gases and condensation of evaporated water will both deliver heat to the atmosphere in proportion to the temperature gradient. Basically, the energy imbalance is a function of the greenhouse effect and global albedo. Cryospheric albedo is rapidly decreasing as the coverage and duration of snow and ice declines. The abrupt decline of 2 million square kilometers of sea ice formation around Antarctica of the last few years is very concerning. As forests are lost to land use changes, attrition from heat and drought and wildfire destruction, this sink is diminished and emissions greatly increased. Apart from the concerning amount of CO2, methane and nitrous oxide released by wildfire, though not a greenhouse gas, CO is problematic in that it competes for methane's primary sink, upper tropospheric hydroxyl radicals that are able to oxidize methane at the extremely low temperatures. Also, hydrogen handling and applications will leak hydrogen into the atmosphere where it will, also compete for hydroxyl radicals. With rising global temperature and more upper atmospheric water vapor, the formation of these radicals is somewhat impaired, since more of the required UV spectrum is absorbed. Consequently, for this reason and those stated above, the atmospheric duration of methane, this high radiative forcing value gas, will increasingly add to the problem. At this time there are many who are concerned about the effects of the rapid rise in methane. By some calculations, increases in atmospheric methane's radiative forcing are more than 50% that of CO2. 40% of this is coming from natural sources as feedbacks to rising temperature. Together, not only emissions, but resolution of stored heat in the oceans, resident levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere along with temperature related feedbacks from natural systems, including associated reductions of cryospheric albedo and declines in natural sinks, are all factors that need to be considered when attempting to predict outcomes. The predicament that we are in is complicated by numerous factors. Resolution cannot be achieved without a major reform of our occupancy of this planet. Adoption of a Fee and Dividend carbon tax arrangement as Dan Miller and James Hansen have been promoting would be a great start. It is essential for the rapid reduction of emissions. Deploying drawdown methods in order to facilitate achieving NetZero, as well as, accelerating the reduction back to near preindustrial values of resident greenhouse gases is another essential component. Natural systems might be leveraged for this purpose. Perhaps, as promoted by Russ George, ocean pasture restoration could be a great benefit. This might require the synthesis of ligands which make iron bioavailable to phytoplankton in order to avoid a zero-sum problem, according to a recent journal paper. Soon as is reasonable, after careful consideration and with great caution various forms of solar radiation management, SRM, are essential. They should be deployed as an intermediate intervention in order to bring down temperature. This would be very effective in arresting the mounting destruction of much of the natural and built environments with their attendant self-reinforcing and compounding feedbacks. Proactive and reactive societal response activities are part the climate forcing feedback problem as is military conflict in a world of rising tensions. As well, looming tipping point thresholds could be put on hold. As you can see I do not stand with the climate resolution purists that only allow efforts to achieve NetZero while abiding the destruction of much of what is good and irretrievable. Of course we must be effective in bringing down emissions regardless. Intentional temperature management is a climate resolution pathway essential, as are rapid emissions reductions. One doesn't exclude the other. Engaging SRM is far preferable to the current inadvertent unraveling and it will buy us very badly needed time to appropriately do all else that is necessary. If you have read and given due consideration to what is written above, you might agree with me that shunning essential interventions is a reckless abandonment of reason. I actually think it's crazy to have so many of our local communities, regions and nations preoccupied with disaster preparation, response, clean up, relocation and rebuilding when much of this could be avoided. The same holds for ecosystems that are being irretrievably devastated by climate extremes often intensified by meteorological derangements. Both the environmental and social costs are becoming very high and as a society we are in danger of becoming locked into an epic tragedy where hand wringing is preferred to resolutions that are so close to this very same hand.
"I think it's crazy. Perhaps it's collective". In my opinion it's that there's no "we". "Of course we must be effective" S.B. "Of course all Foreign Type blokes and blokes with 20,000 times as much money as I gots must be effective". Else your entire dissertation looks top notch to me.
great to hear hayhoe talk about the consequences of rugged individualism and shifting the blame and subsequent burden of action onto the individual consumer. it's insidious
My humble observation is that those with political leanings tend to approach a problem in one of two opposing ways: 1. Throw money at it, measure success by how much has been spent and blame any failure/shortcoming on insufficient funds. 2. Declare that the problem is not a real problem or would be terrible for the economy or is a money-making scam. I believe that neither approach actually solves problems. As Katharine said, what is needed is solutions that work!
The main thing we need, is for every doctor, to tell every patient, who's health issue is exacerbated by air pollution, that their health issue is exacerbated by air pollution. At present most people think their problem, or their loved one's problem, isn't because of, or exacerbated by air pollution. How do you expect people to believe that the air is bad, if most doctors say "no the air isn't bad enough to be your problem"? The particularity of invisible particles and gases, is that they are invisible. Looking out of the window, does not allow us to correctly evaluate if the air we breathe is good or bad.
Yes, Dan the language. I find it doesn't match the level of urgency for the climate crisis emergency. Basically we are facing the end of everything. Basically we have probably gone past the critical tippingpoints. To be talking BAU policy just doesn't cut it & is basically facilitating delay in what shld be a WW 2 x10 effort
I donno if Dan doesn't recognize his MO as BAU because of ignorance or greed (guessing the 2nd one), but either way he, Ms Hayhoe and Democrats are part of the problem, just like Republicans. If we want to save ourselves, we have to take power away from all of them.
I agree with Katherine's position that we need to talk to folks, but word of mouth is going to take much too long. We need dramatic policy changes NOW!
very polished and carefully chosen language. Hayhoe seems to think people are dummies. real talk is much more interesting and persuasive compared to words crafted using analytics.
Climate policy did not achieve 2.7C down from 5C by 2,100. It just meant we couldn't grow at the same hyper rate we did since the globe hooked into cheap communist labour in China. It's a complete fricking disaster greenwashed for marketing talking points by Hayhoe. The same person who argues they have to fly to COPs because it's ever so important to meet face to face at the fossil fuel love-ins, when it could easily be a zoom meeting and still do over the planet and the 6th epoch of life on the planet.
Thanks, Dan, for this content. EC just did a video with Eliot and I know you did too, Dan. Eliot emphasized the our CO2eq are between 530-540ppb and that he thinks 2.7 degrees C to 3 degrees C is baked-in over the next 20 years. Eliot wasn't certain about the 20 years but I think he and Jen used that number of years because of the methane breakdown to CO2 years. I was heartened to hear that global warming can be slowed in a matter of years per Katherine and Zeke Hausfather thinks that as well. Alas, I am in the Doomer camp that US policy will not change but I do what I can.
Leon Simons provides poor quality science to the ignorant masses such as yourself. What you typed was an illogical mish-mash. I'm not willing to review my notes for the umpteenth time right now because there's no audience in GoogleyTubes, so just roughly then, of the 4.2 w/m**2 of forcing since 1750 the situation now is handily about: 1/3rd of the heater that's made was used up warming the Earth by 1.3 degrees 1/3rd of the heater that's made is held back by aerosols pollution 1/3rd of the heater that's made is held back by the ocean bringing up it's 2,000 year cold supply So the 1st line is finished, did it's warming which was 1.3 degrees. Thed 3rd line is the present heater 1/3rd of 4.2 = 1.4 w/m**2 (actually 1.2 w/m**2 is assessed lately but the El Nino and other things made good accuracy near impossible eveidently). So, if there are no changes in my 2nd line "held back by aerosols pollution" over the next 20 years then a present global heater of 1.3 w/m**2 plus the new GHGs heats for 20 years. GHGs emissions are +0.38 w/m**2 / decade so the average global heater size over the next 20 years will be 1.7 w/m**2. With the global heater averaging 0.9 w/m**2 the last 20 years surface warmed 0.40 degrees so just scaling the heating to the size of the heater over the next 20 years surface will warm As A Trend AS A TREND, AS A TREND Dan Miller with your Leon Simons Business feature: 0.40 degrees * 1.7 w/m**2 / 0.9 w/m**2 = 0.76 degrees For a total of 2.1 degrees since pre-industrial by 2044 In 2016 I studied the surface warming, EEI and calculation this which I've posted since 2016. It's still good. +0.25 degrees 2020-2030 +0.31 degrees 2030-2040 +0.37 degrees 2040-2050 +0.43 degrees 2050-2060 so a total of +1.36 degrees above 2020 by 2060 That's with +2.4 ppmv/year CO2 maintained throughout and CH4 increasing at recent rates That's assuming humans don't do a huge cleanup of their aerosols air pollution. I see that my 2016 assessment I spent 20 hours on gives 2.1 degrees at 2050 and I just above calculated in 3 minutes 2.1 degrees by 2044 from rough memory work. Probably closer to 2050 so 2.1 degrees at 2048. Might be 2044 though if that shipping fuels effect was a big better than generally thought. Anyway I don't need to concoct exciting BS Drivel like your Parroted "2.7 degrees C to 3 degrees C is baked-in over the next 20 years" because I'm retired and self-sufficient, passing the time with interesting stuff, not needing to make a Business Income out of exciting Drivel like Leon Simons, Paul Beckwith, Guy McPherson (not needing to make a Business Income out of Banal Crap like Suspicious Ben, CDN John Robson, Judith Curry, Tom Nelson either) and I've never in my 77 years been a Standard Parrot like you are. Always been my own person.
@@donniemoder1466 the policy is called the IRA, which is designed to "mobilize private equity" to solve climate change. I don't think financial incentives to promote the development of "green" tech is going to work. It is (1) too slow, (2) not actually environmentally friendly, (3) does nothing to force the cessation of fossil fuel burning and (D) designed to generate profit for the already-rich. Americans are not going to get on-board with this, and for good reason.
Quick'n'easy way to think of that (it's within +- 15% of IPCC) is right now there's: 1/3rd of the heater that's made was used up warming the Earth by 1.3 degrees 1/3rd of the heater that's made is held back by aerosols pollution 1/3rd of the heater that's made is held back by the ocean bringing up it's 2,000 year cold supply Good enough
Dan's channel is secretly to promote geoengineering aka "albedo modification." So I suppose pointing out that current sulfur pollution already masks a couple degrees C global average kind of defeats the purpose of introducing new means of not addressing the cause of global warming. As Professor Raymond Pierrehumbert emphasizes ANY kind of albedo modification just puts Earth into a "terminal shock" scenario until the focus on removing carbon emissions is focused on. Algae can sequester 100 gigatons of CO2 emissions by the way - and oil and coal are original from algae. Funny how the most natural solution is also the most natural cause of abrupt global warming - and hence Nature continues to be ignored in our ecological crisis. Gotta love the irony - although Sir David King and double Ph.D. marine biologist Raffael Jovine both promote algae as the only real solution. Monterey Institute also realizes ONLY algae can save the earth from "biological annihilation." And yet ALL these global warming climate channels do not focus on algae - maybe they will interview David King once but that's it - they'll just pretend he never mentioned algae apparently - like Nate Hagens. Hilarious. I did an algae talk on Environmental Coffeehouse.
@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 "current sulfur pollution already masks a couple degrees C " Your usual highballed overestimate. Also I explained McPherson's jaw-droppingly stupid CRAP to you 4 years ago and you eventually agreed and said you didn't care that he spouts CRAP. Good for you.
I actually called a board member of my pension fund - I knew she would be more open to listening - to complain that another board member was the chairman of a multi billion dollar coal mining company and the former leader of a right wing party opposed to climate action - even opposed to CCS as they deemed it an unnecessary expense - just surge exponentially to kingdom come. Well, about 3 months later, that guy resigned his directorship. Not sure if I helped, or his leaving helps, but hey, used my hands. The problem with pension funds is that they can circumvent financial disclosure rules that banks and general insurers operate under. This is attractive, as they can charge a premium to underwrite large loans or capital injections.
Hi Jed. Hurricane Francine will bring some rain to you maybe (maybe not as far north as you are due to the High Pressure system). Don't be scared, be prepared.
CCS is expensive. It also doesn't work in particular on a commercial scale. There is not proof also that we can retain the Carbon from being re-emitted. Like the hood is it will. It's deep carbon that is now effectively been reintroduce to the surface & will be so for millions of years.
Google "katherine romanak", researcher at Uni Texas Bureau of Economic Geology... of ECONOMIC geology. She says CCS leakage isn't even a thing so stop suggesting it. She doesn't offer good proof, basically her argument is "the IPCC says CCS is legit, case closed". If you thought Dan Miller and Katharine Hayhoe were unlikable, just wait until you see Katherine Romanak.
Big question: Global sea level rise rates have barely changed in the last 100 years. How is it that the climate experts say that nation need to prepare for .5m of rise bt 2050? For this to happen where I live rise rates would need to increase from 0.75mm per year to 20mm/year. Sea level isn't rising 20mm/ year anywhere on earth.
"Global sea level rise rates have barely changed in the last 100 years" == Silly liar. More pathetic nothingness couldnt-care-less-about-science-about-Reality-only-money-solely-Money-nothing-but-money Random Dregs Unit. Hey Parrot! Polly wanna cracker? 8k-7k ago 9.4 metres (9.4 mm / year) End of glaciation giant ice sheet melting 7k-6k ago 1.25 metres (1.25 mm / year) 6k-5k ago 1.25 metres (1.25 mm / year) 5k-4k ago 0.5 metres (0.5 mm / year) 4k-2k ago 0.2 metres (0.1 mm / year) 19th century 0.005 metres DROP (0.05 mm / year lowering of sea level) 20th century 0.14 metres (1.4 mm / year SLR) The last 30 years 0.12 metres SLR (4.0 mm / year) The last 10 years 0.045 metres SLR (4.5 mm / year)
This was an *Outstanding discussion.* a Tour de Force. Dr. Katharine Hayhoe nailed it on so many levels. She helped me to see how I can better focus my advocacy. One indication of the power of this interview, the number of trolls it has attracted - attempting to discredit it. One point I would like to have seen discussed more was the Carbon and Dividend policy system, which seems an excellent policy plan to advocate for because it would make reasonable choices more affordable for the most vulnerable.
58:01 The IPCC and other organizations are warning we need to reduce carbon emissions 50% by 2030, for excellent reasons. The term "net-zero" is being used in comparing options for equipment upgrades to reduce carbon emissions. The net-zero date for a given project is often based on comparison of existing emissions with future emissions for the given project. This is utterly fallacious because it ignores carbon emissions to mine, manufacture, ship, and install the proposed upgraded project. Unless those emissions are included in determining the true net-zero date, we risk installing hundreds if not tens of thousands of projects which actually reach net-zero potentially decades later than current calculations would indicate.
@@dbadagna It could be things like solar panels, heat pumps, etc., on a residential level, but of course it could apply at any scale. I think we need an agreed upon method of calculating net-zero. Obviously the best carbon emission reduction is to reduce demand by using less, personally as well as economy wide. However, I feel that in general it is difficult to make even seemingly simple choices in this realm, when investment is required, due to lack of enough verified information or decision criteria in regard to ramifications of our decisions.
@@dbadagna One issue in calculating net-zero based on including emissions of mining, manufacturing, and installation of a given project is, as far as I know, that there is no requirement for business enterprises to publish the embodied energy (approximately representative of embodied carbon emissions) in their products or construction projects.
@@dbadagna There has been, as I understand, some research on embodied energy in various products and processes in the UK, with some published papers on the topic. I have not seen them however.
@@davidwalker2942 If it could be accomplished, wouldn't actual zero be better than "net zero" (although, in the short term, the complete cessation of fossil fuel burning would result in a 133% increase in surface temperature over land)? In any case, I don't think industrial technology of any sort is going to be a valid solution to our current predicament, which was caused by industrial technology.
No ‘BAU’? ‘Most’ ‘economic thinking’ is ‘short run’ and ‘redundant’? ‘It’ ignores the ‘supply side’? ‘Growth’ {and ‘civilisation’} depends upon ‘cheap’ F.F. - those so called ‘halcyon days’ are ‘over’. ? “The crisis now unfolding, however, is entirely different to the 1970s in one crucial respect… The 1970s crisis was largely artificial. When all is said and done, the oil shock was nothing more than the emerging OPEC cartel asserting its newfound leverage following the peak of continental US oil production. There was no shortage of oil any more than the three-day-week had been caused by coal shortages. What they did, perhaps, give us a glimpse of was what might happen in the event that our economies depleted our fossil fuel reserves before we had found a more versatile and energy-dense alternative. . . . And this is why the crisis we are beginning to experience will make the 1970s look like a golden age of peace and tranquility. . . . The sad reality though, is that our leaders - at least within the western empire - have bought into a vision of the future which cannot work without some new and yet-to-be-discovered high-density energy source (which rules out all of the so-called green technologies whose main purpose is to concentrate relatively weak and diffuse energy sources). . . . Even as we struggle to reimagine the 1970s in an attempt to understand the current situation, the only people on Earth today who can even begin to imagine the economic and social horrors that await western populations are the survivors of the 1980s famine in Ethiopia, the hyperinflation in 1990s Zimbabwe, or, ironically, the Russians who survived the collapse of the Soviet Union.” ? No ‘green’ solution? “The problem with both visions of the future - and the spectrum of views between them - is a fundamental misunderstanding of the collapse which has begun to break over us. This is that each assumes the continuation of that part of industrial civilisation which is required to make their version of the future possible, even as the coming collapse wipes away ALL aspects of industrial civilisation. Most obviously, nobody had developed even an embryonic version of the renewable energy supply chain which is the essential first step to turning non-renewable renewable energy-harvesting technologies (NRREHTs) into the envisioned “renewables” upon which the promised techno-psychotic future is to be built. That is, until it is possible to mine the minerals, build the components, manufacture and transport the technologies without the use of fossil fuels at any stage in the process, then there is no such thing as “renewable energy” in the sense which the term is currently promoted. “
Re Individual footprint If we all Individual reduced our carbon footprint it would only reduce emissions by 25% Going to call this out. That's false. Maybe directly but I am willing to bet, er I am sure, that if more individuals did this it would lead to more & faster systemic effective emissions & ecological policy. And by the way Kathryn its not just all about the direct impact but doing the right thing. And leading by example. Climate scientists & ppl who know how bad certain activities are should not be doing them. Example the absolutely worse, by far, by magnitudes, flying & then eating meat.
To get transport, food, sustainable heating and cooling easier and cheaper boy do you need to change the system, all the while fighting against every entrenched petty self interest. Is this aim a cop out, you just know is gonna fail until it is too late?
Yep but in the mean time if you have a great easy life like Paul Beckwith Guy McPherson Dan Miller Kate Hayhoe ... on and on .... in the meantimes inbetweentimes don't we gots fun.
This was a very creepy and depressing interview, on so many levels. When the Republicans win in November, it'll be bacause of people like Dan Miller and Katherine Hayhoe.
Standard Parrot keith gibbins Unit 5728 bravely Parroted the new meme that's been around a few months, the "4 More Years!" of memes, the brain crap of memes made for the absolute lowest in the Army of Idiot-Parrots "What is all the hype about CO2 .... Energy in equals energy out". Well, Energy in to Earth from space = sunlight and it doesn't depend hugely on Earth's "surface" temperatures, only as a feedback because warming reduces the "white" ice, snow & clouds, but not fundamentally as the huge energy factor. Energy out from Earth to space = DOES depend hugely, fundamentally, on Earth's "surface" temperatures as the huge energy factor. What is Earth's "surface" and why would anybody put it in quotes? Because Earth's "surface" that radiates to space is NOT the surface you stand or float on. it is an amorphous mix of solids, liquids and infrared-active gases within heights from 80 microns below the surface you float on to 35 km above the surface you flvoat on (molecules are almost all gone then) so the amount radiated depends on the VERTICAL RANGE OF TEMPERATURES from 80 microns below the surface you float on to 35 km above the surface you float on. If more infrared-active gases are added that alters the DISTRIBUTION of molecules radiating in the "surface" 35.00000008 km tall, making the average be higher than before. Going upwards until 12 km above the surface you float on the masses of molecules keep getting colder so the distribution shift upwards gives a colder amorphous "surface" radiating to space so less radiation goes to space, causing Earth to warm in order to get more energy to space.
So-called "greenhouse effect" physics: It happens in Earth's troposphere. The H2O gas & CO2 in Earth's atmosphere manufacture ~1,500 times as much radiation as the Sun's radiation that Earth absorbs (or something of that scale, hundreds of times as much). Taking 1 Unit as the Sun's radiation that Earth absorbs (which is 99.93% of all energy going into the ecosphere, geothermal and all the human nuclear fission and fossil carbon burning are 0.035% each) and the 1,500 times as a workable example (not accurate) to describe the physics concept: ==== Atmosphere energy (as power) Budget ==== Units 0.33 Solar SWR that Earth absorbs into the atmosphere 1,500 LWR manufactured by H2O gas & CO2 molecules in Earth's atmosphere, using up 1500 "heat" Units 1,497.65 LWR absorbed by H2O gas & CO2 molecules in Earth's atmosphere, generating 1,497.64 "heat" Units 0.92 LWR Leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere and goes to space 1.43 LWR Leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere and goes into the surface 1.57 LWR Leaks out the surface and goes into the bottom of Earth's atmosphere 0.45+x "Heat" (regular+water evaporation latent) rises from the surface into the troposphere at a range of altitudes x "Heat" (regular+water condensation latent) goes from the troposphere at a range of altitudes into the surface ==== Surface energy (as power) Budget ==== Units 0.67 Solar SWR that Earth absorbs into the surface 1.43 LWR Leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere and goes into the surface 1.57 LWR Leaks out the surface and goes into the bottom of Earth's atmosphere 0.45+x "Heat" (regular+water evaporation latent) rises from the surface into the troposphere at a range of altitudes x "Heat" (regular+water condensation latent) goes from the troposphere at a range of altitudes into the surface 0.08 LWR Leaks out the surface and goes to space -------------- LWR straight from the surface to space is because H2O gas, CO2, CH4, O3, NOx, CFCs don't absorb those wavelengths Earth makes LWR & SWR photons from the centre of Earth's core to the top of Earth's atmosphere (it's all various atoms & molecules making it) in an amount of several hundred billion of those Units above, an amount of several hundred billion times as much as the Sun's radiation that Earth absorbs. It can't much get out to space though because practically the exact same amount of photons several hundred billion times as much as the Sun's radiation here also gets absorbed by the same, or other, atoms & molecules by the time it's travelled a few microns in solids & liquids, or travelled metres in troposphere gases, or travelled metres to kilometres in stratosphere gases and higher, being converted when it's absorbed into causing faster atom or molecule speed, kinetic energy (which is what's commonly called "heat"). -------------- So there's the balance at the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) with 1 Solar SWR Unit being absorbed below and 0.92+0.08=1 LWR Unit being sent through the TOA to space. The "greenhouse effect" is the fact that only 0.92 leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere but a larger 1.43 leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere into the surface, because only the leakage to space gets rid of the constant stream of solar SWR energy, not the leakage into the surface. If they were both the same, both 1.175, then there'd still be 2.35 leaking out of Earth's atmosphere but there'd be no "greenhouse effect" (as you see, out of the top of Earth's atmosphere to space has gone up from 0.92 to 1.175 so there's obviously much more cooling). The reason why they are unbalanced with more leaking out the bottom than out the top is simply because Earth's troposphere is usually by far (much) colder at the top than at the bottom and colder gases make less radiation than warmer gases because they collide less frequently and with less force (that's what "colder" means, it's just molecules bashing other molecules less frequently and with less force). ------ If more H2O gas & CO2 molecules are added into Earth's troposphere then the 0.92 that leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere is reduced and the 1.43 that leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere is correspondingly increased. For example, add some ghg molecules for a 0.01 Unit effect and the 0.92:1.43 leakage changes to 0.91:1.44 leakage, so there's more "greenhouse effect". That 0.01 Unit example is a "forcing" of 2.4 w/m**2 which is 60 years of the current ghgs increase and is expected would warm by ~2.4 degrees with the feedbacks.
Are you trying to demonstrate the polar opposite of the way Dr. Hayhoe communicates? She is clear & concise and you are... errr... the opposite. I have not idea what you are trying to say, but I certainly don't want to spend the time trying to figure it out. Plus it appears to be BS that goes against accepted climate science (but, again, I don't want to spend the time to try to understand something written so obtusely).
@climatechat No Dan it isn't that. It's that your brain, general education & education in the relevant topic is not what I'm searching for around the GoogleyComments. I'm not understanding why you keep thinking that it's necessary for you, with ~zero science & mathematics education, to understand what I type for the relevant browsers to understand. My comments aren't directed at you or guest unless I indicate that. Is your concept of your mixed-science-and-social-"Channel" that it's your Fiefdom rather than a Public venue for relevant discussion? ----------- In particular, your brain, general education & education in the relevant SPECIFIC topic is evidently low and likely your general science education is far lower than mine. You should not waste any of your Life worrying about it Dan, exactly as I'll never learn any Politics, Financial matters, Social "Science" or playing of the violin (the former no interest and the latter absurd incompetence). If the brain I seek comes along then we'll discuss the details. If you REALLY insist then I could waste my time laying it out for you personally (you didn't reply the prior time that I did that) and hope that you grasp it but I'd rather not waste the time and I expect so would you. Just don't worry about it Dan because you have other skills and interests for your Business. --------------- I admit to minimal success in the Bottom of Swamp science intellect and knee jerk Parrot brains that inhabit to >99.9% quantity the GoogleyToob comments (hence the human species), I just got one (Gerry apparently) "enderwiggin1113" on my team at th-cam.com/video/oqu5DjzOBF8/w-d-xo.html but it's very early days and I'm persistent, not simple, sugary and instant gratification like you and all the other humans. I need just half a dozen high-functioning brains like mine to get interested and assist me in destroying the thermodynamic Drivel of a "Tom Shula" and "Marcus Ott" and "Mister Yong Tuition" (who I first worked against on Googleys in 2013) because I need more than one of me and their acolyte-Parrots are vast in numbers. The other issue is that quite a few of the "Tom Shula" and "Marcus Ott" and "Mister Yong Tuition" have science educations that are pretty good but your team has a negligible number of that and just a heap of the stupid like the random example of the other couple down here "chester fine cat Unit 7588", "Larry From The Ciffs" & "Some Dan Edwards or Other". It would be more usefuller if your Team also had at least a few dozen high functioning Hobbyist Honest Bods in addition to the "Rhubarb Rhubarb" "It's Settled Science!!" unwashed masses that you have and I'm trying to make contact with several of that few dozen in the English-Speaking part of species. But the MAIN reason is that I really enjoy the science and I'm good at it. ----------------------- Addendum: Thanks for not banning me so far because I'm fully banned for years on "Heartland", "Tom Nelson", "CDN John Robson" and "Mister Yong Tuition" because I tear their science errors into sorry shreds & tatters and don't assist their Business Models. For the other team I'm fully banned for years on "Paul Beckwith", "Climate Emergency Forum" because I tear their science errors into shreds & tatters and don't assist their Business Models. For Popular Channels I only got Sabine Gerrybird & potholer left (since 2013) and Mister Think don't ban but he chides me about presenting global warming science on his Green Energy Channel and I avoid treading on his toes because I really like him. "Jim Massa" is niche with a low audience (he deserves more).
I admire Katherine's energy, positive tone and methods. I think she is making a big difference. Notwithstanding this, I do not concur that everything will be rosy whenever we reach NetZero. Considering the recent jump of concerning effects, I think it's very hard to predict what the state of the climate will be if and whenever this occurs.
Though very important, annual societal emissions are only part of the energy imbalance. The high level of greenhouse gases resident in the atmosphere will have to resolved. About 50% of emissions remain in the atmosphere each year. Otherwise the primary sink for CO2 is the oceans where about 30% emissions are absorbed. Over very long periods of time most carbon involved in the carbon cycle is stored in Ocean sediment and sedimentary rocks as calcium carbonate. When we finally achieve net zero, if we are in a climate state where the oceans can no longer absorb CO2 due high surface saturation levels with higher temperatures, this will greatly slow removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. Furthermore, if CO2 levels in the oceans rise to the extent that the waters become too acidic for bio-mediated formation of calcium carbonates, sedimentation of calcium bound carbon will be impaired.
As well, 90% of the accumulated heat from our up to now rapidly increasing energy imbalance is being accommodated in the oceans. Warmer sea surface temperatures may increase the rate of radiation to space, but they will likely continue to maintain higher Global mean temperatures for a long time. The long wave radiation while interacting with greenhouse gases and condensation of evaporated water will both deliver heat to the atmosphere in proportion to the temperature gradient.
Basically, the energy imbalance is a function of the greenhouse effect and global albedo. Cryospheric albedo is rapidly decreasing as the coverage and duration of snow and ice declines. The abrupt decline of 2 million square kilometers of sea ice formation around Antarctica of the last few years is very concerning. As forests are lost to land use changes, attrition from heat and drought and wildfire destruction, this sink is diminished and emissions greatly increased.
Apart from the concerning amount of CO2, methane and nitrous oxide released by wildfire, though not a greenhouse gas, CO is problematic in that it competes for methane's primary sink, upper tropospheric hydroxyl radicals that are able to oxidize methane at the extremely low temperatures. Also, hydrogen handling and applications will leak hydrogen into the atmosphere where it will, also compete for hydroxyl radicals.
With rising global temperature and more upper atmospheric water vapor, the formation of these radicals is somewhat impaired, since more of the required UV spectrum is absorbed. Consequently, for this reason and those stated above, the atmospheric duration of methane, this high radiative forcing value gas, will increasingly add to the problem.
At this time there are many who are concerned about the effects of the rapid rise in methane. By some calculations, increases in atmospheric methane's radiative forcing are more than 50% that of CO2. 40% of this is coming from natural sources as feedbacks to rising temperature.
Together, not only emissions, but resolution of stored heat in the oceans, resident levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere along with temperature related feedbacks from natural systems, including associated reductions of cryospheric albedo and declines in natural sinks, are all factors that need to be considered when attempting to predict outcomes.
The predicament that we are in is complicated by numerous factors. Resolution cannot be achieved without a major reform of our occupancy of this planet. Adoption of a Fee and Dividend carbon tax arrangement as Dan Miller and James Hansen have been promoting would be a great start. It is essential for the rapid reduction of emissions.
Deploying drawdown methods in order to facilitate achieving NetZero, as well as, accelerating the reduction back to near preindustrial values of resident greenhouse gases is another essential component. Natural systems might be leveraged for this purpose. Perhaps, as promoted by Russ George, ocean pasture restoration could be a great benefit. This might require the synthesis of ligands which make iron bioavailable to phytoplankton in order to avoid a zero-sum problem, according to a recent journal paper.
Soon as is reasonable, after careful consideration and with great caution various forms of solar radiation management, SRM, are essential. They should be deployed as an intermediate intervention in order to bring down temperature. This would be very effective in arresting the mounting destruction of much of the natural and built environments with their attendant self-reinforcing and compounding feedbacks. Proactive and reactive societal response activities are part the climate forcing feedback problem as is military conflict in a world of rising tensions. As well, looming tipping point thresholds could be put on hold.
As you can see I do not stand with the climate resolution purists that only allow efforts to achieve NetZero while abiding the destruction of much of what is good and irretrievable. Of course we must be effective in bringing down emissions regardless. Intentional temperature management is a climate resolution pathway essential, as are rapid emissions reductions. One doesn't exclude the other. Engaging SRM is far preferable to the current inadvertent unraveling and it will buy us very badly needed time to appropriately do all else that is necessary.
If you have read and given due consideration to what is written above, you might agree with me that shunning essential interventions is a reckless abandonment of reason. I actually think it's crazy to have so many of our local communities, regions and nations preoccupied with disaster preparation, response, clean up, relocation and rebuilding when much of this could be avoided. The same holds for ecosystems that are being irretrievably devastated by climate extremes often intensified by meteorological derangements. Both the environmental and social costs are becoming very high and as a society we are in danger of becoming locked into an epic tragedy where hand wringing is preferred to resolutions that are so close to this very same hand.
"I think it's crazy. Perhaps it's collective". In my opinion it's that there's no "we". "Of course we must be effective" S.B. "Of course all Foreign Type blokes and blokes with 20,000 times as much money as I gots must be effective". Else your entire dissertation looks top notch to me.
Well said.
great to hear hayhoe talk about the consequences of rugged individualism and shifting the blame and subsequent burden of action onto the individual consumer. it's insidious
Thank you for this helpful discussion! It addressed a lot of the questions I have been wondering about.
Out of curiosity, what questions?
I'm satisfied everything is going to be OK. Thanks Katherine for putting all our minds at ease. Back to business!
Gteat interview with Katherine very informative she definitely knows her stuff.
My humble observation is that those with political leanings tend to approach a problem in one of two opposing ways:
1. Throw money at it, measure success by how much has been spent and blame any failure/shortcoming on insufficient funds.
2. Declare that the problem is not a real problem or would be terrible for the economy or is a money-making scam.
I believe that neither approach actually solves problems. As Katharine said, what is needed is solutions that work!
I've started 2xing and now am waiting for Dan to browbeat his guest into how great geoengineering is.
Great job leading him to talk at length, and not interrupting him, just allowing the brilliance to roll…
"The head, the heart and the hands" I love Katharine Hayhoe, she is such a great communicator. Positive in the face of adversity
I am a long-time member of Nature Conservancy.
The main thing we need, is for every doctor, to tell every patient, who's health issue is exacerbated by air pollution, that their health issue is exacerbated by air pollution.
At present most people think their problem, or their loved one's problem, isn't because of, or exacerbated by air pollution.
How do you expect people to believe that the air is bad, if most doctors say "no the air isn't bad enough to be your problem"?
The particularity of invisible particles and gases, is that they are invisible. Looking out of the window, does not allow us to correctly evaluate if the air we breathe is good or bad.
Good talk…nothing will change until the sea starts to rise alot so sit back and watch the show.
Yes, Dan the language. I find it doesn't match the level of urgency for the climate crisis emergency. Basically we are facing the end of everything. Basically we have probably gone past the critical tippingpoints. To be talking BAU policy just doesn't cut it & is basically facilitating delay in what shld be a WW 2 x10 effort
Well said
Bet she flies around giving speeches about how we should conserve.
"To be talking BAU policy just doesn't cut it "
I donno if Dan doesn't recognize his MO as BAU because of ignorance or greed (guessing the 2nd one), but either way he, Ms Hayhoe and Democrats are part of the problem, just like Republicans. If we want to save ourselves, we have to take power away from all of them.
@@TheDanEdwards um... Dan Miller and Ms. Hayhoe are? Did you watch it? Or are you not able to identify BAU as it destroys the world around you?
2.6 C is probably a pipedream.
I agree with Katherine's position that we need to talk to folks, but word of mouth is going to take much too long. We need dramatic policy changes NOW!
So little views. Video's about how HAARP is destroying the earth etc have million views.😢 Nice talk keep doing the good work.❤
For some that song from the man From la mancha .. came to mind on listening... good luck..
very polished and carefully chosen language. Hayhoe seems to think people are dummies.
real talk is much more interesting and persuasive compared to words crafted using analytics.
Climate policy did not achieve 2.7C down from 5C by 2,100. It just meant we couldn't grow at the same hyper rate we did since the globe hooked into cheap communist labour in China. It's a complete fricking disaster greenwashed for marketing talking points by Hayhoe. The same person who argues they have to fly to COPs because it's ever so important to meet face to face at the fossil fuel love-ins, when it could easily be a zoom meeting and still do over the planet and the 6th epoch of life on the planet.
Most people are, though but I'm sure she would up language depending on the audience.
@@LarryCleveland when you start with the assumption that those you're trying to persuade are dummies, you end up being the dummy yourself.
Thanks, Dan, for this content. EC just did a video with Eliot and I know you did too, Dan. Eliot emphasized the our CO2eq are between 530-540ppb and that he thinks 2.7 degrees C to 3 degrees C is baked-in over the next 20 years. Eliot wasn't certain about the 20 years but I think he and Jen used that number of years because of the methane breakdown to CO2 years. I was heartened to hear that global warming can be slowed in a matter of years per Katherine and Zeke Hausfather thinks that as well. Alas, I am in the Doomer camp that US policy will not change but I do what I can.
Leon Simons provides poor quality science to the ignorant masses such as yourself. What you typed was an illogical mish-mash. I'm not willing to review my notes for the umpteenth time right now because there's no audience in GoogleyTubes, so just roughly then, of the 4.2 w/m**2 of forcing since 1750 the situation now is handily about:
1/3rd of the heater that's made was used up warming the Earth by 1.3 degrees
1/3rd of the heater that's made is held back by aerosols pollution
1/3rd of the heater that's made is held back by the ocean bringing up it's 2,000 year cold supply
So the 1st line is finished, did it's warming which was 1.3 degrees.
Thed 3rd line is the present heater 1/3rd of 4.2 = 1.4 w/m**2 (actually 1.2 w/m**2 is assessed lately but the El Nino and other things made good accuracy near impossible eveidently).
So, if there are no changes in my 2nd line "held back by aerosols pollution" over the next 20 years then a present global heater of 1.3 w/m**2 plus the new GHGs heats for 20 years. GHGs emissions are +0.38 w/m**2 / decade so the average global heater size over the next 20 years will be 1.7 w/m**2.
With the global heater averaging 0.9 w/m**2 the last 20 years surface warmed 0.40 degrees so just scaling the heating to the size of the heater over the next 20 years surface will warm As A Trend AS A TREND, AS A TREND Dan Miller with your Leon Simons Business feature:
0.40 degrees * 1.7 w/m**2 / 0.9 w/m**2 = 0.76 degrees
For a total of 2.1 degrees since pre-industrial by 2044
In 2016 I studied the surface warming, EEI and calculation this which I've posted since 2016. It's still good.
+0.25 degrees 2020-2030
+0.31 degrees 2030-2040
+0.37 degrees 2040-2050
+0.43 degrees 2050-2060
so a total of +1.36 degrees above 2020 by 2060
That's with +2.4 ppmv/year CO2 maintained throughout and CH4 increasing at recent rates
That's assuming humans don't do a huge cleanup of their aerosols air pollution.
I see that my 2016 assessment I spent 20 hours on gives 2.1 degrees at 2050 and I just above calculated in 3 minutes 2.1 degrees by 2044 from rough memory work. Probably closer to 2050 so 2.1 degrees at 2048. Might be 2044 though if that shipping fuels effect was a big better than generally thought. Anyway I don't need to concoct exciting BS Drivel like your Parroted "2.7 degrees C to 3 degrees C is baked-in over the next 20 years" because I'm retired and self-sufficient, passing the time with interesting stuff, not needing to make a Business Income out of exciting Drivel like Leon Simons, Paul Beckwith, Guy McPherson (not needing to make a Business Income out of Banal Crap like Suspicious Ben, CDN John Robson, Judith Curry, Tom Nelson either) and I've never in my 77 years been a Standard Parrot like you are. Always been my own person.
Not going to go all Pollyanna with hope and healing when the facts are we are lemmings headed for the cliff, no matter what I do or say.
Does climate policy translate into action? I hear it's just a lot of talk. We are already at 1.5c.
There is no policy.
@@donniemoder1466 There is no policy. There is no "we". That's a fabrication.
@@donniemoder1466 the policy is called the IRA, which is designed to "mobilize private equity" to solve climate change. I don't think financial incentives to promote the development of "green" tech is going to work. It is (1) too slow, (2) not actually environmentally friendly, (3) does nothing to force the cessation of fossil fuel burning and (D) designed to generate profit for the already-rich. Americans are not going to get on-board with this, and for good reason.
Why no discussion on the aerosol masking effect?
It was brought up.
Quick'n'easy way to think of that (it's within +- 15% of IPCC) is right now there's:
1/3rd of the heater that's made was used up warming the Earth by 1.3 degrees
1/3rd of the heater that's made is held back by aerosols pollution
1/3rd of the heater that's made is held back by the ocean bringing up it's 2,000 year cold supply
Good enough
30:30 discussion on aerosol masking but using salt as the aerosol.
Dan's channel is secretly to promote geoengineering aka "albedo modification." So I suppose pointing out that current sulfur pollution already masks a couple degrees C global average kind of defeats the purpose of introducing new means of not addressing the cause of global warming. As Professor Raymond Pierrehumbert emphasizes ANY kind of albedo modification just puts Earth into a "terminal shock" scenario until the focus on removing carbon emissions is focused on. Algae can sequester 100 gigatons of CO2 emissions by the way - and oil and coal are original from algae. Funny how the most natural solution is also the most natural cause of abrupt global warming - and hence Nature continues to be ignored in our ecological crisis. Gotta love the irony - although Sir David King and double Ph.D. marine biologist Raffael Jovine both promote algae as the only real solution. Monterey Institute also realizes ONLY algae can save the earth from "biological annihilation." And yet ALL these global warming climate channels do not focus on algae - maybe they will interview David King once but that's it - they'll just pretend he never mentioned algae apparently - like Nate Hagens. Hilarious. I did an algae talk on Environmental Coffeehouse.
@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 "current sulfur pollution already masks a couple degrees C " Your usual highballed overestimate. Also I explained McPherson's jaw-droppingly stupid CRAP to you 4 years ago and you eventually agreed and said you didn't care that he spouts CRAP. Good for you.
Amazing that this conversation is mostly about strategies about effective propaganda.
There is a cliff. Katherine needs to appreciate that when the wet bulb temperature reaches a certain level - lots of people without cooling just die
...how the FUCK do electric cars reduce carbon footprints when you need to generate electrical power to charge the fuckin things!!!
might I introduce you to the concept of renewable energy?
@critiqueofthegothgf if the energy put into a tech is more than what u get out it's no good
I actually called a board member of my pension fund - I knew she would be more open to listening - to complain that another board member was the chairman of a multi billion dollar coal mining company and the former leader of a right wing party opposed to climate action - even opposed to CCS as they deemed it an unnecessary expense - just surge exponentially to kingdom come. Well, about 3 months later, that guy resigned his directorship. Not sure if I helped, or his leaving helps, but hey, used my hands. The problem with pension funds is that they can circumvent financial disclosure rules that banks and general insurers operate under. This is attractive, as they can charge a premium to underwrite large loans or capital injections.
❤
Run into Charlie Phogg recently?
@@paulsmallwood8779 no, I stay away from that bastard! He kicked me and my dog's ass last time I saw him.
Hi Jed. Hurricane Francine will bring some rain to you maybe (maybe not as far north as you are due to the High Pressure system). Don't be scared, be prepared.
@@dianewallace6064 Hi Diane! Probably just a regular rain here. We get lots of rain in my valley 60-70" a year.
@@TennesseeJed Wow!!! Glad you are safe. Take care. Talk to you soon.
A preview. It's reality now.
CCS is expensive. It also doesn't work in particular on a commercial scale. There is not proof also that we can retain the Carbon from being re-emitted. Like the hood is it will. It's deep carbon that is now effectively been reintroduce to the surface & will be so for millions of years.
Google "katherine romanak", researcher at Uni Texas Bureau of Economic Geology... of ECONOMIC geology. She says CCS leakage isn't even a thing so stop suggesting it. She doesn't offer good proof, basically her argument is "the IPCC says CCS is legit, case closed".
If you thought Dan Miller and Katharine Hayhoe were unlikable, just wait until you see Katherine Romanak.
Big question: Global sea level rise rates have barely changed in the last 100 years. How is it that the climate experts say that nation need to prepare for .5m of rise bt 2050? For this to happen where I live rise rates would need to increase from 0.75mm per year to 20mm/year. Sea level isn't rising 20mm/ year anywhere on earth.
"Global sea level rise rates have barely changed in the last 100 years" == Silly liar. More pathetic nothingness couldnt-care-less-about-science-about-Reality-only-money-solely-Money-nothing-but-money Random Dregs Unit. Hey Parrot! Polly wanna cracker?
8k-7k ago 9.4 metres (9.4 mm / year) End of glaciation giant ice sheet melting
7k-6k ago 1.25 metres (1.25 mm / year)
6k-5k ago 1.25 metres (1.25 mm / year)
5k-4k ago 0.5 metres (0.5 mm / year)
4k-2k ago 0.2 metres (0.1 mm / year)
19th century 0.005 metres DROP (0.05 mm / year lowering of sea level)
20th century 0.14 metres (1.4 mm / year SLR)
The last 30 years 0.12 metres SLR (4.0 mm / year)
The last 10 years 0.045 metres SLR (4.5 mm / year)
Is she hiring? Looking for work
The planet does have tippingpoints. The cigarette analogy is quite the right one
Critically TPs have already passed imo.
Disambiguation - Shell is responsible for 2% of 'Total Emissions'
Total Annual?
Total Cumulative¿
This was an *Outstanding discussion.* a Tour de Force. Dr. Katharine Hayhoe nailed it on so many levels. She helped me to see how I can better focus my advocacy. One indication of the power of this interview, the number of trolls it has attracted - attempting to discredit it.
One point I would like to have seen discussed more was the Carbon and Dividend policy system, which seems an excellent policy plan to advocate for because it would make reasonable choices more affordable for the most vulnerable.
Disagree. These are hopium peddlers, dangerous ideology you should try your best to "snap out of".
58:01 The IPCC and other organizations are warning we need to reduce carbon emissions 50% by 2030, for excellent reasons. The term "net-zero" is being used in comparing options for equipment upgrades to reduce carbon emissions. The net-zero date for a given project is often based on comparison of existing emissions with future emissions for the given project. This is utterly fallacious because it ignores carbon emissions to mine, manufacture, ship, and install the proposed upgraded project. Unless those emissions are included in determining the true net-zero date, we risk installing hundreds if not tens of thousands of projects which actually reach net-zero potentially decades later than current calculations would indicate.
Which types of equipment are you referring to, specifically?
@@dbadagna It could be things like solar panels, heat pumps, etc., on a residential level, but of course it could apply at any scale. I think we need an agreed upon method of calculating net-zero. Obviously the best carbon emission reduction is to reduce demand by using less, personally as well as economy wide. However, I feel that in general it is difficult to make even seemingly simple choices in this realm, when investment is required, due to lack of enough verified information or decision criteria in regard to ramifications of our decisions.
@@dbadagna One issue in calculating net-zero based on including emissions of mining, manufacturing, and installation of a given project is, as far as I know, that there is no requirement for business enterprises to publish the embodied energy (approximately representative of embodied carbon emissions) in their products or construction projects.
@@dbadagna There has been, as I understand, some research on embodied energy in various products and processes in the UK, with some published papers on the topic. I have not seen them however.
@@davidwalker2942 If it could be accomplished, wouldn't actual zero be better than "net zero" (although, in the short term, the complete cessation of fossil fuel burning would result in a 133% increase in surface temperature over land)?
In any case, I don't think industrial technology of any sort is going to be a valid solution to our current predicament, which was caused by industrial technology.
No ‘BAU’?
‘Most’ ‘economic thinking’ is ‘short run’ and ‘redundant’?
‘It’ ignores the ‘supply side’?
‘Growth’ {and ‘civilisation’} depends upon ‘cheap’ F.F. - those so called ‘halcyon days’ are ‘over’. ?
“The crisis now unfolding, however, is entirely different to the 1970s in one crucial respect… The 1970s crisis was largely artificial. When all is said and done, the oil shock was nothing more than the emerging OPEC cartel asserting its newfound leverage following the peak of continental US oil production. There was no shortage of oil any more than the three-day-week had been caused by coal shortages. What they did, perhaps, give us a glimpse of was what might happen in the event that our economies depleted our fossil fuel reserves before we had found a more versatile and energy-dense alternative. . . .
And this is why the crisis we are beginning to experience will make the 1970s look like a golden age of peace and tranquility. . . . The sad reality though, is that our leaders - at least within the western empire - have bought into a vision of the future which cannot work without some new and yet-to-be-discovered high-density energy source (which rules out all of the so-called green technologies whose main purpose is to concentrate relatively weak and diffuse energy sources). . . . Even as we struggle to reimagine the 1970s in an attempt to understand the current situation, the only people on Earth today who can even begin to imagine the economic and social horrors that await western populations are the survivors of the 1980s famine in Ethiopia, the hyperinflation in 1990s Zimbabwe, or, ironically, the Russians who survived the collapse of the Soviet Union.” ?
No ‘green’ solution?
“The problem with both visions of the future - and the spectrum of views between them - is a fundamental misunderstanding of the collapse which has begun to break over us. This is that each assumes the continuation of that part of industrial civilisation which is required to make their version of the future possible, even as the coming collapse wipes away ALL aspects of industrial civilisation. Most obviously, nobody had developed even an embryonic version of the renewable energy supply chain which is the essential first step to turning non-renewable renewable energy-harvesting technologies (NRREHTs) into the envisioned “renewables” upon which the promised techno-psychotic future is to be built. That is, until it is possible to mine the minerals, build the components, manufacture and transport the technologies without the use of fossil fuels at any stage in the process, then there is no such thing as “renewable energy” in the sense which the term is currently promoted. “
Re Individual footprint
If we all Individual reduced our carbon footprint it would only reduce emissions by 25%
Going to call this out. That's false. Maybe directly but I am willing to bet, er I am sure, that if more individuals did this it would lead to more & faster systemic effective emissions & ecological policy.
And by the way Kathryn its not just all about the direct impact but doing the right thing. And leading by example. Climate scientists & ppl who know how bad certain activities are should not be doing them. Example the absolutely worse, by far, by magnitudes, flying & then eating meat.
Yes using ur voice for change! Absolutely.
Also remember action speakers louder than word.
To get transport, food, sustainable heating and cooling easier and cheaper boy do you need to change the system, all the while fighting against every entrenched petty self interest.
Is this aim a cop out, you just know is gonna fail until it is too late?
Yep but in the mean time if you have a great easy life like Paul Beckwith Guy McPherson Dan Miller Kate Hayhoe ... on and on .... in the meantimes inbetweentimes don't we gots fun.
Its like you folks dont even know about the green party
This was a very creepy and depressing interview, on so many levels. When the Republicans win in November, it'll be bacause of people like Dan Miller and Katherine Hayhoe.
Waste of energy!
So she is basically saying "don't look at any data. JUST TRUST THE SCIENCE" If you look at actual data you will learn there is no climate emergency.
Standard Parrot keith gibbins Unit 5728 bravely Parroted the new meme that's been around a few months, the "4 More Years!" of memes, the brain crap of memes made for the absolute lowest in the Army of Idiot-Parrots "What is all the hype about CO2 .... Energy in equals energy out".
Well, Energy in to Earth from space = sunlight and it doesn't depend hugely on Earth's "surface" temperatures, only as a feedback because warming reduces the "white" ice, snow & clouds, but not fundamentally as the huge energy factor.
Energy out from Earth to space = DOES depend hugely, fundamentally, on Earth's "surface" temperatures as the huge energy factor.
What is Earth's "surface" and why would anybody put it in quotes?
Because Earth's "surface" that radiates to space is NOT the surface you stand or float on. it is an amorphous mix of solids, liquids and infrared-active gases within heights from 80 microns below the surface you float on to 35 km above the surface you flvoat on (molecules are almost all gone then) so the amount radiated depends on the VERTICAL RANGE OF TEMPERATURES from 80 microns below the surface you float on to 35 km above the surface you float on. If more infrared-active gases are added that alters the DISTRIBUTION of molecules radiating in the "surface" 35.00000008 km tall, making the average be higher than before. Going upwards until 12 km above the surface you float on the masses of molecules keep getting colder so the distribution shift upwards gives a colder amorphous "surface" radiating to space so less radiation goes to space, causing Earth to warm in order to get more energy to space.
So-called "greenhouse effect" physics: It happens in Earth's troposphere. The H2O gas & CO2 in Earth's atmosphere manufacture ~1,500 times as much radiation as the Sun's radiation that Earth absorbs (or something of that scale, hundreds of times as much). Taking 1 Unit as the Sun's radiation that Earth absorbs (which is 99.93% of all energy going into the ecosphere, geothermal and all the human nuclear fission and fossil carbon burning are 0.035% each) and the 1,500 times as a workable example (not accurate) to describe the physics concept:
==== Atmosphere energy (as power) Budget ====
Units
0.33 Solar SWR that Earth absorbs into the atmosphere
1,500 LWR manufactured by H2O gas & CO2 molecules in Earth's atmosphere, using up 1500 "heat" Units
1,497.65 LWR absorbed by H2O gas & CO2 molecules in Earth's atmosphere, generating 1,497.64 "heat" Units
0.92 LWR Leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere and goes to space
1.43 LWR Leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere and goes into the surface
1.57 LWR Leaks out the surface and goes into the bottom of Earth's atmosphere
0.45+x "Heat" (regular+water evaporation latent) rises from the surface into the troposphere at a range of altitudes
x "Heat" (regular+water condensation latent) goes from the troposphere at a range of altitudes into the surface
==== Surface energy (as power) Budget ====
Units
0.67 Solar SWR that Earth absorbs into the surface
1.43 LWR Leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere and goes into the surface
1.57 LWR Leaks out the surface and goes into the bottom of Earth's atmosphere
0.45+x "Heat" (regular+water evaporation latent) rises from the surface into the troposphere at a range of altitudes
x "Heat" (regular+water condensation latent) goes from the troposphere at a range of altitudes into the surface
0.08 LWR Leaks out the surface and goes to space
--------------
LWR straight from the surface to space is because H2O gas, CO2, CH4, O3, NOx, CFCs don't absorb those wavelengths
Earth makes LWR & SWR photons from the centre of Earth's core to the top of Earth's atmosphere (it's all various atoms & molecules making it) in an amount of several hundred billion of those Units above, an amount of several hundred billion times as much as the Sun's radiation that Earth absorbs. It can't much get out to space though because practically the exact same amount of photons several hundred billion times as much as the Sun's radiation here also gets absorbed by the same, or other, atoms & molecules by the time it's travelled a few microns in solids & liquids, or travelled metres in troposphere gases, or travelled metres to kilometres in stratosphere gases and higher, being converted when it's absorbed into causing faster atom or molecule speed, kinetic energy (which is what's commonly called "heat").
--------------
So there's the balance at the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) with 1 Solar SWR Unit being absorbed below and 0.92+0.08=1 LWR Unit being sent through the TOA to space. The "greenhouse effect" is the fact that only 0.92 leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere but a larger 1.43 leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere into the surface, because only the leakage to space gets rid of the constant stream of solar SWR energy, not the leakage into the surface. If they were both the same, both 1.175, then there'd still be 2.35 leaking out of Earth's atmosphere but there'd be no "greenhouse effect" (as you see, out of the top of Earth's atmosphere to space has gone up from 0.92 to 1.175 so there's obviously much more cooling). The reason why they are unbalanced with more leaking out the bottom than out the top is simply because Earth's troposphere is usually by far (much) colder at the top than at the bottom and colder gases make less radiation than warmer gases because they collide less frequently and with less force (that's what "colder" means, it's just molecules bashing other molecules less frequently and with less force).
------
If more H2O gas & CO2 molecules are added into Earth's troposphere then the 0.92 that leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere is reduced and the 1.43 that leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere is correspondingly increased. For example, add some ghg molecules for a 0.01 Unit effect and the 0.92:1.43 leakage changes to 0.91:1.44 leakage, so there's more "greenhouse effect". That 0.01 Unit example is a "forcing" of 2.4 w/m**2 which is 60 years of the current ghgs increase and is expected would warm by ~2.4 degrees with the feedbacks.
Are you trying to demonstrate the polar opposite of the way Dr. Hayhoe communicates? She is clear & concise and you are... errr... the opposite. I have not idea what you are trying to say, but I certainly don't want to spend the time trying to figure it out. Plus it appears to be BS that goes against accepted climate science (but, again, I don't want to spend the time to try to understand something written so obtusely).
Steamboat Institute sounds like. They collect cracked pots.
In other words, humans are loosing habitat.
Seek help.
@climatechat No Dan it isn't that. It's that your brain, general education & education in the relevant topic is not what I'm searching for around the GoogleyComments. I'm not understanding why you keep thinking that it's necessary for you, with ~zero science & mathematics education, to understand what I type for the relevant browsers to understand. My comments aren't directed at you or guest unless I indicate that. Is your concept of your mixed-science-and-social-"Channel" that it's your Fiefdom rather than a Public venue for relevant discussion?
-----------
In particular, your brain, general education & education in the relevant SPECIFIC topic is evidently low and likely your general science education is far lower than mine. You should not waste any of your Life worrying about it Dan, exactly as I'll never learn any Politics, Financial matters, Social "Science" or playing of the violin (the former no interest and the latter absurd incompetence). If the brain I seek comes along then we'll discuss the details. If you REALLY insist then I could waste my time laying it out for you personally (you didn't reply the prior time that I did that) and hope that you grasp it but I'd rather not waste the time and I expect so would you. Just don't worry about it Dan because you have other skills and interests for your Business.
---------------
I admit to minimal success in the Bottom of Swamp science intellect and knee jerk Parrot brains that inhabit to >99.9% quantity the GoogleyToob comments (hence the human species), I just got one (Gerry apparently) "enderwiggin1113" on my team at th-cam.com/video/oqu5DjzOBF8/w-d-xo.html but it's very early days and I'm persistent, not simple, sugary and instant gratification like you and all the other humans. I need just half a dozen high-functioning brains like mine to get interested and assist me in destroying the thermodynamic Drivel of a "Tom Shula" and "Marcus Ott" and "Mister Yong Tuition" (who I first worked against on Googleys in 2013) because I need more than one of me and their acolyte-Parrots are vast in numbers. The other issue is that quite a few of the "Tom Shula" and "Marcus Ott" and "Mister Yong Tuition" have science educations that are pretty good but your team has a negligible number of that and just a heap of the stupid like the random example of the other couple down here "chester fine cat Unit 7588", "Larry From The Ciffs" & "Some Dan Edwards or Other". It would be more usefuller if your Team also had at least a few dozen high functioning Hobbyist Honest Bods in addition to the "Rhubarb Rhubarb" "It's Settled Science!!" unwashed masses that you have and I'm trying to make contact with several of that few dozen in the English-Speaking part of species. But the MAIN reason is that I really enjoy the science and I'm good at it.
-----------------------
Addendum: Thanks for not banning me so far because I'm fully banned for years on "Heartland", "Tom Nelson", "CDN John Robson" and "Mister Yong Tuition" because I tear their science errors into sorry shreds & tatters and don't assist their Business Models. For the other team I'm fully banned for years on "Paul Beckwith", "Climate Emergency Forum" because I tear their science errors into shreds & tatters and don't assist their Business Models. For Popular Channels I only got Sabine Gerrybird & potholer left (since 2013) and Mister Think don't ban but he chides me about presenting global warming science on his Green Energy Channel and I avoid treading on his toes because I really like him. "Jim Massa" is niche with a low audience (he deserves more).