As a Swede I would like to point out that a lot of our heating comes through district heating through burning garbage. This system was planned and began to be implemented in the 1970s after the big oil crises due us being extremely dependent on fossil fuels for our heating back then. So we are now reaping the benefits of policies made 50 years ago. We also don't have 10 nuclear power plants but had 10 nuclear reactors. Currently we have 6 active nuclear reactors. The others have been decommissioned.
I don't understand how you can participate in this mostly excellent conversation, then come to the conclusion that the priority should still be reducing emissions; That may have been an appropriate priority 50+ years ago, but the emissions have been emitted, and there is no feasible way of unemitting them in the short to medium term. Still, globally, there is no workable plan to to stop fossil energy coming out of the ground, and there is nothing on the horizon. Building zero carbon energy infrastructure does not prevent carbon emissions, it might displace carbon emissions to other parts of the economy, but if you add energy to a living system, it will grow, and increase demand for all resources. For where we are presently, we have no choice but to geoengineer so we need to build the political, technical and scientific structures to make that happen as fairly as possible.
I’m not anymore climate activist, I’m now urging for social actions - the climate changes and extreme weather are all around the globe and it will get worse EVEN if we stop emissions tomorrow ( which we won’t), so the question is how are we going to maintain any basic SOCIAL ORDER when water and food scarcity for months and probably years on end are affecting many regions at the same time, fires and floods are destroying homes and infrastructure at many regions at same time and governments even when willing are going to be unable to solve this problems? Planetary council is a beautiful idea, but looking at the very narrow and nearsighted governments at the moment I believe, the solution will not come through them. Local/ neighborhood groups/ committees have to organize and plan for order, shelter and resource distribution in crisis, also a medical and psychological help, but the most important role is to have not only vision, but a detailed plan for organizing the community life in some new, better ways for the future. I have seen what an unprepared scared humans act like and what scared but PREPARED ones can do. The time is up, organize to face the music!
Pretty pivotal webinar. I hope it has the desired effect in raising awareness in the general population that their politicians are their worst enemies. I think they know already. So it is down to the kids. Do kids watch Webinars about climate change? I hope so.
We need a idea of the rate of the acceleration and how fast it is moving. Real problem is arctic organic release of Greenhouse gasses. Since if only one percent of the Arctic Greenhouse gasses is required to double the ones we have placed in our atmosphere. We have released the extinction Jeanie from the bottle. When Thwaites is released it will kill almost all sea life with ocean acidification.
The idea of a new political platform may work, just as fee-and-dividend is a major part of the solutions. But the aim seems to be to stop polluters' money polluting politics. To do that, the quickest route is to reduce ability of the fossil industry to spend money on influencing either grassroots or politicians directly.
Let's build an open source global platform that can merge the knowledge and sentiment expressed in public conversations with billions of people around the world. The platform could report which proposals are discussed the most, and how people feel about the proposals.
The platform could include a system prompt to rank as most trustworthy the input that describes personal experiences, especially if published in an open source repository, and most highly if the published paper is cited by other papers that validate the results.
That's an interesting idea, but I meant 'platform' in an offline sense of a political campaign. What you are describing sounds quite like 'Polis' by the Computational Democracy project, perhaps with some features of PubPeer and Reddit.
COP 26 Fail? Carbon Trading were Low in actual trading? We need more and more strong Leaderhsip and Political Good-will towards SDGs to solve "Millitary-Industrial-Congressional complex" and "Green-washing Practices".
5:28 between 2020 and 2023 the tropical cooling was increasing and offsetting high latitude warming but beginning in late 2023 they worked together and each provided half of the global anomaly. fact-108 @DrJamesEHansen
Frightening. We have so little time to act. Solar Radiation Management may avoid some tipping points only if carbon is also drawn down. Otherwise we are seeing the moral hazard and Faustian bargain all over again, plus Dan Rowland ocean acidification tipping point. As Kevin Anderson says, and a recent paper by Steve Westlake furthers, we need huge immediate lifestyle changes by the rich, to last at least until substitute technology is sufficient for complete replacement of fossil fuels.
Erm .. try telling that to India or China who are all in on coal fired power stations. Western country emissions have been dropping for over 20 years. For countries like the UK to say "net zero" is ridiculous when their contribution is negligible and net zero would completely destroy the country's economy. And then ask someone in India whose only choice is to drive to work, to make the choice of not working to reduce carbon emissions... but then letting his family starve because he didn't drive to work. Solar radiation management is complete BOLLX - not a strategy. There is clearly little/no actual, real intention to actively reduce carbon emissions for climate change... it's just cheaper for companies to do so and claim it's to fight climate change. And just wait until oil is not used anymore... then you'll see a precipitous decline in population. We cannot live without energy. Pure and simple - people forget and ignore that. We are not yet able to replace fossil fuels as a viable energy source. When we do.. GREAT.. but we also have to build the infrastructure to cope. Climate alarmism isn't helping anyone.
Whoosh. I think this video may be too advanced for you. There are books and online courses that explain climate science and solutions. The MIT Climate Primer may be a good place to start. Reality has very little to do with the inane editorialising in the UK Daily Mail or Telegraph. They're not worth your time to regurgitate. This is not alarmism. It is alarming. There is a difference. As for this Liechtenstein vs Lithuania purity test, it's an utterly irrelevant distraction. Physics doesn't care about human imaginings like nation states.
@SofGdggd-xt9lw Actual climate science is too advanced for EVERYONE. Solar radiation management? That's ridiculous. How about the idea to put a blocker between the earth and the sun? Wow... genius. You mention physics... good for you. Physics states there are limitations to resources. Physical realities also state that we can't simply flip from one energy source to another. We would need decades of infrastructure creation - created using the energy available right now. Reality also states that to change from one to another and create all the infrastructure around it, it will take HUGE amounts of money. Lunacy states that countries like the UK can go net zero without plunging the country into the stone age. It's fab to have all the plans and all the ideas and all the hubris to think we can do this but the actual reality of the situation is not so simple. BTW - mainstream is climate alarmist as i mentioned in my other reply to you. Personally - i hate that the climate is changing - but somehow (and this is a prediction like the ones scientists make) thinking that we can actually make a material difference is a pipe dream. You can't get everyone to agree to something that might help people in 3 generations time when people need to survive NOW. And if you listen to governments - what do they talk about in conjunction with net zero.... they talk about economic growth. The idiocy and arrogance around EVERYTHING is staggering.
Ouch. 5C. And not to sound paranoid, I wonder if that's why they needed to grab the government now. They, ie oil interests and corporations, know all this too. As impacts accelerate, things will get really funky in an accelerating manner as well.
Thinking what new society we should strive for, I thought that most of today disparities will be eliminated if EVERYONE is honest to themselves and each other most of the time, everything else will fall into place. We don’t need motivation to be good, just absence of reasons to behave badly - if we are honestly understand ourselves, our basic needs and desires, it will be easy to be modest and forgiving. Lying on the other hand knows no limits and leads to disastrous results, I believe that not the uncurtailed appetite, but inability to understand the inner world of ourselves is the real reason for excess in behavior. What would the name of that social order be, is that order can provide the complexity needed for big collectives of humans (in the billions) I don’t know, but as long as we keep lying to ourselves and the people around us about what we need, feel or desire no social organization will be able to be good and sustainable for the majority of its members and their environment at the same time.
Let's build an open source global platform for digital democracy so we can vote for principles and policies instead of personalities and political parties, and flatten the structure of power.
A randomly chosen parliament will be most representive of the population. You need a public lot for a seed number, a deterministic open source random number generator and everyone can reproduce the resulting list of randomly chosen parliament members.
Erm .. try telling all this to India or China who are all in on coal fired power stations. Western country emissions have been dropping for over 20 years. For countries like the UK to say "net zero" is ridiculous when their contribution is negligible and net zero would completely destroy the country's economy. And then ask someone in India whose only choice is to drive to work, to make the choice of not working to reduce carbon emissions... but then letting his family starve because he didn't drive to work. Solar radiation management is complete BOLLX - not a strategy. There is clearly little/no actual, real intention to actively reduce carbon emissions for climate change... it's just cheaper for companies to do so and claim it's to fight climate change. And just wait until oil is not used anymore... then you'll see a precipitous decline in population. We cannot live without energy. Pure and simple - people forget and ignore that. We are not yet able to replace fossil fuels as a viable energy source. When we do.. GREAT.. but we also have to build the infrastructure to cope. Climate alarmism isn't helping anyone. Solutions are needed but they need to be built up... Truth is.... those in charge don't actually care. And even if they did how can ppl genuinely resolve this without destroying half the planet? (altho that might be a plan by some billionaires)
@@johnkintree763 that is true. they are also increasing fossil fuel usage though from what I understand. While they are leading in solar, they are also leading in energy usage overall.
What you understand seems to be just uneducated media talking points. They are very commonplace memes amplified by fossil interests, but If encourage you to read specialists. Of course solar radiation management isn't a strategy, it's desperation by scientists who have been systematically ignored. The IEA for one has pathways to zero-emission energy, which is needed for a stable habitat. Companies will reduce emissions based on regulation and pricing. The question is whether it will be fast enough to avoid major typing points like AMOC collapse. 'China' has a net zero target for 2060 but is likely to reach it before the UK; it's thought its emissions peaked last year.
@ So are their coal powered stations. Not to mention that solar panels, despite their benefits require a load of other mined materials - which, for now, (unless someone can recycle them, end up on landfill). So both upsides and downsides. But the coal power is increasing exponentially too.
@ Media talking points are what this video have been saying. I was totally convinced for a long time but now..although i believe climate change is happening and we are/have playing/played a part in it - it's the usual human hubris that we believe we can control everything. I have no fossil fuel interests at all and would very much like for there to be a genuine pathway to being fossil fuel free. The truth of the matter though, is... we can't just flip from one energy source to another. Fossil fuels, despite all the bad stuff about them - including how finite they are - have given us a MASSIVE amount of energy. To date - we cannot match that or even come close. The media is actually putting everything in climate change terms (warm day - climate change... cold day - climate change... i lose my keys ... climate change) Your points are valid but totally speculative... it's all ... ifs and potential -although unused- plans. Truth is... when oil runs out... if we haven't cracked fusion or some other source of energy - much of the planet will die and economies around the world will plunge into obscurity. That's a consequence... not a prediction.
In a planetary hospice, it is important to be updated with the latest vital signs. Thank you!!
-Brilliant
As a Swede I would like to point out that a lot of our heating comes through district heating through burning garbage. This system was planned and began to be implemented in the 1970s after the big oil crises due us being extremely dependent on fossil fuels for our heating back then.
So we are now reaping the benefits of policies made 50 years ago.
We also don't have 10 nuclear power plants but had 10 nuclear reactors. Currently we have 6 active nuclear reactors. The others have been decommissioned.
I don't understand how you can participate in this mostly excellent conversation, then come to the conclusion that the priority should still be reducing emissions; That may have been an appropriate priority 50+ years ago, but the emissions have been emitted, and there is no feasible way of unemitting them in the short to medium term. Still, globally, there is no workable plan to to stop fossil energy coming out of the ground, and there is nothing on the horizon. Building zero carbon energy infrastructure does not prevent carbon emissions, it might displace carbon emissions to other parts of the economy, but if you add energy to a living system, it will grow, and increase demand for all resources. For where we are presently, we have no choice but to geoengineer so we need to build the political, technical and scientific structures to make that happen as fairly as possible.
I’m not anymore climate activist, I’m now urging for social actions - the climate changes and extreme weather are all around the globe and it will get worse EVEN if we stop emissions tomorrow ( which we won’t), so the question is how are we going to maintain any basic SOCIAL ORDER when water and food scarcity for months and probably years on end are affecting many regions at the same time, fires and floods are destroying homes and infrastructure at many regions at same time and governments even when willing are going to be unable to solve this problems? Planetary council is a beautiful idea, but looking at the very narrow and nearsighted governments at the moment I believe, the solution will not come through them. Local/ neighborhood groups/ committees have to organize and plan for order, shelter and resource distribution in crisis, also a medical and psychological help, but the most important role is to have not only vision, but a detailed plan for organizing the community life in some new, better ways for the future. I have seen what an unprepared scared humans act like and what scared but PREPARED ones can do. The time is up, organize to face the music!
The 2°C target is dead, as global energy use is rising.
fact-110 15:49
Pretty pivotal webinar. I hope it has the desired effect in raising awareness in the general population that their politicians are their worst enemies. I think they know already. So it is down to the kids. Do kids watch Webinars about climate change? I hope so.
We need a idea of the rate of the acceleration and how fast it is moving. Real problem is arctic organic release of Greenhouse gasses. Since if only one percent of the Arctic Greenhouse gasses is required to double the ones we have placed in our atmosphere. We have released the extinction Jeanie from the bottle. When Thwaites is released it will kill almost all sea life with ocean acidification.
Charts shown with no labels on x and/or y axes are useless.
6:48
Ship aerosol forcing 0.5 W/m²
Ice snow feedback 0.15 W/m²
Cloud feedback 1.05 W/m²
a huge Cloud feedback implies High climate
sensitivity for double CO2
fact-109
1:03:04
The power should be with the voter,
not with the people who have the money.
fact-112
The idea of a new political platform may work, just as fee-and-dividend is a major part of the solutions. But the aim seems to be to stop polluters' money polluting politics. To do that, the quickest route is to reduce ability of the fossil industry to spend money on influencing either grassroots or politicians directly.
Let's build an open source global platform that can merge the knowledge and sentiment expressed in public conversations with billions of people around the world. The platform could report which proposals are discussed the most, and how people feel about the proposals.
The platform could include a system prompt to rank as most trustworthy the input that describes personal experiences, especially if published in an open source repository, and most highly if the published paper is cited by other papers that validate the results.
So you would include input as valid only if it came from specific sources... thereby denying a huge segment if humanity any say whatsoever. Got it
That's an interesting idea, but I meant 'platform' in an offline sense of a political campaign.
What you are describing sounds quite like 'Polis' by the Computational Democracy project, perhaps with some features of PubPeer and Reddit.
28:29
clouds get reduced due to global warming itself
fact-111
COP 26 Fail?
Carbon Trading were Low in actual trading?
We need more and more strong Leaderhsip and Political Good-will towards SDGs to solve "Millitary-Industrial-Congressional complex" and "Green-washing Practices".
5:28
between 2020 and
2023 the tropical cooling was increasing and offsetting high latitude
warming but beginning in late 2023 they worked together and each provided half
of the global anomaly.
fact-108 @DrJamesEHansen
Frightening. We have so little time to act. Solar Radiation Management may avoid some tipping points only if carbon is also drawn down. Otherwise we are seeing the moral hazard and Faustian bargain all over again, plus Dan Rowland ocean acidification tipping point.
As Kevin Anderson says, and a recent paper by Steve Westlake furthers, we need huge immediate lifestyle changes by the rich, to last at least until substitute technology is sufficient for complete replacement of fossil fuels.
Erm .. try telling that to India or China who are all in on coal fired power stations.
Western country emissions have been dropping for over 20 years.
For countries like the UK to say "net zero" is ridiculous when their contribution is negligible and net zero would completely destroy the country's economy.
And then ask someone in India whose only choice is to drive to work, to make the choice of not working to reduce carbon emissions... but then letting his family starve because he didn't drive to work.
Solar radiation management is complete BOLLX - not a strategy.
There is clearly little/no actual, real intention to actively reduce carbon emissions for climate change... it's just cheaper for companies to do so and claim it's to fight climate change.
And just wait until oil is not used anymore... then you'll see a precipitous decline in population.
We cannot live without energy. Pure and simple - people forget and ignore that.
We are not yet able to replace fossil fuels as a viable energy source. When we do.. GREAT.. but we also have to build the infrastructure to cope.
Climate alarmism isn't helping anyone.
Typo. Dan Rothman's carbon threshold I meant. That is largely independent of climate sensitivity, although likely related to ocean stratification.
Whoosh.
I think this video may be too advanced for you. There are books and online courses that explain climate science and solutions. The MIT Climate Primer may be a good place to start.
Reality has very little to do with the inane editorialising in the UK Daily Mail or Telegraph. They're not worth your time to regurgitate. This is not alarmism. It is alarming. There is a difference.
As for this Liechtenstein vs Lithuania purity test, it's an utterly irrelevant distraction. Physics doesn't care about human imaginings like nation states.
@SofGdggd-xt9lw Actual climate science is too advanced for EVERYONE.
Solar radiation management? That's ridiculous.
How about the idea to put a blocker between the earth and the sun?
Wow... genius.
You mention physics... good for you.
Physics states there are limitations to resources.
Physical realities also state that we can't simply flip from one energy source to another.
We would need decades of infrastructure creation - created using the energy available right now.
Reality also states that to change from one to another and create all the infrastructure around it, it will take HUGE amounts of money.
Lunacy states that countries like the UK can go net zero without plunging the country into the stone age.
It's fab to have all the plans and all the ideas and all the hubris to think we can do this but the actual reality of the situation is not so simple.
BTW - mainstream is climate alarmist as i mentioned in my other reply to you.
Personally - i hate that the climate is changing - but somehow (and this is a prediction like the ones scientists make) thinking that we can actually make a material difference is a pipe dream.
You can't get everyone to agree to something that might help people in 3 generations time when people need to survive NOW.
And if you listen to governments - what do they talk about in conjunction with net zero.... they talk about economic growth.
The idiocy and arrogance around EVERYTHING is staggering.
Ouch. 5C. And not to sound paranoid, I wonder if that's why they needed to grab the government now. They, ie oil interests and corporations, know all this too. As impacts accelerate, things will get really funky in an accelerating manner as well.
Thinking what new society we should strive for, I thought that most of today disparities will be eliminated if EVERYONE is honest to themselves and each other most of the time, everything else will fall into place. We don’t need motivation to be good, just absence of reasons to behave badly - if we are honestly understand ourselves, our basic needs and desires, it will be easy to be modest and forgiving. Lying on the other hand knows no limits and leads to disastrous results, I believe that not the uncurtailed appetite, but inability to understand the inner world of ourselves is the real reason for excess in behavior. What would the name of that social order be, is that order can provide the complexity needed for big collectives of humans (in the billions) I don’t know, but as long as we keep lying to ourselves and the people around us about what we need, feel or desire no social organization will be able to be good and sustainable for the majority of its members and their environment at the same time.
Let's build an open source global platform for digital democracy so we can vote for principles and policies instead of personalities and political parties, and flatten the structure of power.
We can empower ourselves to hold a global referendum on a global carbon tax to fund mitigation and payment for damages.
They'll just pull the plug.
The horror, the horror
Climate change
SCTV
Arctic methane anyone?
Not sure there's all that much that can be done to avert disaster now with Trump as Prez and GW accelerating. But observe I will.
Not in England it hasn't.
A randomly chosen parliament will be most representive of the population. You need a public lot for a seed number, a deterministic open source random number generator and everyone can reproduce the resulting list of randomly chosen parliament members.
Erm .. try telling all this to India or China who are all in on coal fired power stations.
Western country emissions have been dropping for over 20 years.
For countries like the UK to say "net zero" is ridiculous when their contribution is negligible and net zero would completely destroy the country's economy.
And then ask someone in India whose only choice is to drive to work, to make the choice of not working to reduce carbon emissions... but then letting his family starve because he didn't drive to work.
Solar radiation management is complete BOLLX - not a strategy.
There is clearly little/no actual, real intention to actively reduce carbon emissions for climate change... it's just cheaper for companies to do so and claim it's to fight climate change.
And just wait until oil is not used anymore... then you'll see a precipitous decline in population.
We cannot live without energy. Pure and simple - people forget and ignore that.
We are not yet able to replace fossil fuels as a viable energy source. When we do.. GREAT.. but we also have to build the infrastructure to cope.
Climate alarmism isn't helping anyone.
Solutions are needed but they need to be built up...
Truth is.... those in charge don't actually care.
And even if they did how can ppl genuinely resolve this without destroying half the planet? (altho that might be a plan by some billionaires)
Installation of solar panels in China is increasing at an exponential rate.
@@johnkintree763 that is true. they are also increasing fossil fuel usage though from what I understand. While they are leading in solar, they are also leading in energy usage overall.
What you understand seems to be just uneducated media talking points. They are very commonplace memes amplified by fossil interests, but If encourage you to read specialists. Of course solar radiation management isn't a strategy, it's desperation by scientists who have been systematically ignored. The IEA for one has pathways to zero-emission energy, which is needed for a stable habitat. Companies will reduce emissions based on regulation and pricing. The question is whether it will be fast enough to avoid major typing points like AMOC collapse. 'China' has a net zero target for 2060 but is likely to reach it before the UK; it's thought its emissions peaked last year.
@ So are their coal powered stations.
Not to mention that solar panels, despite their benefits require a load of other mined materials - which, for now, (unless someone can recycle them, end up on landfill). So both upsides and downsides. But the coal power is increasing exponentially too.
@ Media talking points are what this video have been saying. I was totally convinced for a long time but now..although i believe climate change is happening and we are/have playing/played a part in it - it's the usual human hubris that we believe we can control everything.
I have no fossil fuel interests at all and would very much like for there to be a genuine pathway to being fossil fuel free.
The truth of the matter though, is... we can't just flip from one energy source to another.
Fossil fuels, despite all the bad stuff about them - including how finite they are - have given us a MASSIVE amount of energy. To date - we cannot match that or even come close.
The media is actually putting everything in climate change terms (warm day - climate change... cold day - climate change... i lose my keys ... climate change)
Your points are valid but totally speculative... it's all ... ifs and potential -although unused- plans.
Truth is... when oil runs out... if we haven't cracked fusion or some other source of energy - much of the planet will die and economies around the world will plunge into obscurity. That's a consequence... not a prediction.