Some like Paul Beckwith argue that we are already at 1.5 degrees. The goal posts have been moved. No longer is 1750 the beginning of anthropic global warming but now 1900 in a slight of hand unnoticed and uncommented on by the media.
Yes, but he also is aware that it may likely drop by a fraction at the end of this year, as does Hansen. Obviously, the trend is up, up, up... but let's be factual.
It’s actually 1850 (when temp recording started) vs 1850-1900 average (used now). And yes we passed 1.5C and yes it’s El Niño influenced but James Hansen says we have already locked in close to 4.0C.
@@AlignmentCoaching yes. That is a minimum over several decades to 2100, not to 2027, where it could be expected to dip. It doesn't change the need for very drastic reductions in consumption of just about everything, which from my place of relative comfort as my death approaches, seems eminently desirable.
We knew already back in 2015 that keeping global heating below +1.5C was practically impossible. Even keeping below +2C seemed highly implausible for anyone who understands a bit about how the Human System works. We will not stop until we are stopped.
If nothing else the climate itself WILL stop us, because as the change becomes ever more damaging to civilization, eventually civilization will fall. If that happens fossil fuels extraction and use will end pretty much over night, and humans will suffer like they've never suffered before.
There in always layed the problem... Humanity is incapable, at scale, in resolving the problem we created for ourselves. Despite many now knowing the problem and what is needed to fix it. Our voracious greed and desires to satisfy short term wants always wins out, on whole.
Today Greenland is covered in glaciers, but just 2 million years ago it was covered in a temperate rainforest, and experience temperatures 11 to 19 degrees C warmer on average than today. You can Google the study.
I remember that back in the eighties,climate scientist James Hansen was telling the world that even 1 degrees of warming would have a big detrimental effect and we don't want to go there.
Our snowpack is way lower than it would have been in the past. And it melts much sooner. That means we have far less water. That is really bad for farmers and ranchers like me. Our winter sports are badly affected. The lake below my house no longer gets cold enough for ice fishing, in fact it isn't even frozen over at all in mid January. There isn't enough cold or snow for snowmobiling and forget about skiing. Forest fires have caused me to evacuate my home 5 times in the past decade. Yes it is bad and if it gets much worst there won't be enough water to farm or ranch around here at all. I am entirely off grid with solar energy. I use all the energy I wish including air conditioning and heating with a heat pump. My stovetop is induction which works better than gas ever did. I still use a small amount of propane but even that will end as we get more batteries. I haven't had to use a generator at all for over a year. I was hoping for a Tesla cybertruck but the ranger is too small to replace one of my 1/2 trucks. I hope that changes. I look forward to electric farm tractors which are in development. I could easily put up enough solar to power all of my needs and export lots of excess energy if only the infrastructure and politics allowed it. Renewable energy doesn't mean sacrifice, quite the contrary. You do have to limit energy usage during times of low production but that is quite minor and the rest of the time you use as much energy as you like.
The temperature is a problematic way of dealing with the problem. Much better to go to the basics, the ppm-level of CO2 in the atmosphere. I think it was actually James Hansen who wrote about the 350 ppm limit of CO2 in the atmosphere. I shortly wrote about the CO2-level it in a comment here just a couple of hours ago. Hope it is not spamming to copy it in here once more. ---- "See my logo here. It has a number that is a very good measurement of where we are, or actually should be. 350ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. Mauna Loa Observatory reported for January 5th 2024 421.86 ppm. Maybe also it should be made clear for all that we will never come back to 350 ppm (the secure level) in our lifetime. Around 25% of the CO2 we daily put out will stay in the atmosphere for 100.000 years (David Archer “The long thaw”)." ---- Everything around climate change (well almost) follows by the basics, the CO2-level in the atmosphere. The Keeling Curve is the most important level of human development, much more important then any of the curves of the stock market development.
One very important reason not to give up on 1.5 C is the following: There are two temperature limits mentioned in the Paris agreement: 1.5 and 2. If we don´t stay below 1.5, the next temperature limit everybody would focus on would be 2 degrees. 1.6., 1.7. and so on is not part of the agreement, so governements will not be motivated to even try to focus on any temperature limits between 1.5. and 2.
Funny. The limit was originally based on the 1750 baseline but was later moved to 1850. Now they are trying to say 1.5 degrees is based on a 10-year average (or other variations of on ongiong average). Constantly shifting goalposts. We exceeded 1.5 degrees for a 12 month average already. El Nino's impact is still not done and this year will be even warmer. Reality sucks, but it is reality.
@@amberazurescale5617 Uh, do you even read what you post? You are saying, "they can always just pick a new number". You do understand that makes a goal pointless? WTF!?
Numerous parts of Earth reached a global average temperate of +1.5 degrees in 2023, some for at least 3 months of the year. With El Niño in full swing this year we will most likely be at or around +1.5 for a longer period than that this year. When La Niña comes back we will probably dip back below 1.5 for maybe a few years but with the general trend-line going up we should consider 1.5 now gone. The real question is it even possible to stop warming reaching 2 degrees by mid century. Tipping points and feedback loops are starting to kick-in now so run-away warming now seems entirely possible, in not probable. *Edit: I understand that the warming is done on a 10 year average but we really can’t afford to act based on that data over that long a time period.
If you're measuring the state of the climate two and a half decades away or to the end of the century the only _useful_ metric to estimate your carbon budget is the data "over that long a time period". Otherwise, you may as well pick your estimate of the remaining carbon budget by throwing darts at a wall.
Today Greenland is covered in glaciers, but just 2 million years ago it was covered in a temperate rainforest, and experience temperatures 11 to 19 degrees C warmer on average than today. You can Google the study.
As you say, it's people, and I mean this in the sense that we have a civilisation absolutely allergic to behaviour change (since it's the consumption argument that stands up to scrutiny and not the population argument which is often deployed with thinly veiled prejudice). I just think that we've been deliberately disempowered from day one of our existence and unless a person is quietly running an oil company on the side, they don't need to beat themselves up too hard - no-one was making it out of this alive in any case. So... strap in. Don't put things off. Recognise that a lot of the safety nets we've grown accustomed to may well be compromised or absent. And try to be halfway nice to those around us whenever possible. Good luck, everyone.
well... we all carry a lot of responsibility for allowing this to happen. Our power can be inferred by the fossil fuel disinformation campaign -- they knew it was critical to mislead people because they know people have power. We still have that power.
Keeping 1,5C targets in the frontline means, we don't really talk about 2,0C nor 3-5C that we are currently heading. 1,5C gets about 10% probability to succeed by physics, not in our emission fueled society. 90% chance that even physically this target is buried. FFS.
In Costa Rica, we are expected to go 2 C over our dry season average, which is very, very hot. We are also in draught alert. The sea has taken to flooding the highway on the Pacific coast, even tearing off pieces of the seawall. It won’t happen all over the world at once. January has been already crazy hot for us. And our current government is less than committed to keep us a green country.
Sounds like you need to make it more important for the political class to care. I'm going to bet that relocating that highway to a place the sea can't cause it expensive damage, is going to be even more expensive. I really don't think many governments have truly grasped what climate change IS going to cost every economy. If they really understood, then governments, and businesses would be slashing emission ruthlessly. It's going to be a VERY expensive lesson.
I am terrified to start planting this year. Earthworms have been gone for over 3yrs. 2 yrs in a row vegetables stopped growing after 2 nights warmer than days (d75F, n80F) all my vegetables shut down did not die did not grow. See Plant DIF for mechanism. I’m a horticulturist in Rome GA my name is Jimmy Greer and I stand by my observations. There are no fly larvae in trash cans for 3yrs. Birds and insects almost gone in my area compared to 1980’s. These are facts. I’ve been commenting everywhere since and was ridiculed but now others are noticing similar horrible things in their own areas. The time for Gaslighting is over. It’s happening. Good luck
Where I live your car windscreen would be completely covered by dead bugs while driving around thirty years ago. Now I rarely see any bugs. I actually moved a few years ago because I got depressed by the lack of animal life and bird sounds where I lived. I lived in the center of the countryside, in between cattle ranches and farmland. I didn’t move a lot but now I have an own garden with a handful of trees where birds actually nest. My garden is full of worms by the way.
@@Atheistbatman I’ll check it out. I’ve two rain barrels and somehow they seem to spawn from water inside of the barrels. Also in any bucket or puddle they seem to just spawn out of nowhere. I’ve got a big compost bin and every worm I see I add to that bin. Inside of the bin it’s full of insects and the compost is really high quality. I’m very lucky with my small garden but I am also very aware of all the cattle ranches being like green deserts devoid of any life due to cultivated English rye grass.
The numbers on how many people will be affected by life threatening heat, for each degree of warming were really interesting, by which i mean mortifying. Thanks for keeping on spreading the word. And yeah, the Schrodinger spot between "We are already fuckaroo'ed" and "Never give up because there is a chance for complete change" is the place where i sit too.
Today Greenland is covered in glaciers, but just 2 million years ago it was covered in a temperate rainforest, and experienced temperatures 11 to 19 degrees C warmer on average than today. You can Google the study.
@@QuitworkBehappy i don't need to google it, i know that. Point is not the fact things change, but how quick the change of average global temp is (quicker than any temp change in the geological record. Even, evidently, the comet extinction event). And the fact that it is due to our action, and the fact we could change our actions, to change it to something less destructive.
there's no evidence that it is "destructive" - that's merely a judgement. Events like the Chicxulub impact or the Mount St Helen's eruption...have shown us that far from being "destructive" these events are "constructive". These events happened in a single day...not centuries like global warming.
obviously the impacts and eruptions changed the climate much much faster than climate change ever will....so your assertion that it's never happened so quickly before is false.@@richardallan2767
Thank heavens you say you are a pragmatist. Presumably you will have read Jim Henson’s global warming in the pipeline paper, which states that we’re in for 10°C rise even with current greenhouse gas levels, owing to slow feedback processes. Unlike most climate scientists, Hansens team don’t just use climate models, they also assess the palaeoclimate record and current observations. He also says 1.5°C is deader then a doornail, with 2°C on its deathbed unless there is some cooling intervention. Unfortunately, the IPCC, who prefer to consider only models disagree with the Hansen team, and it is their voice that governments use to set policy. So we’ll have to wait for another tranche of species to get wiped out before mainstream climate scientists recognise that the warming has indeed accelerated. At that point schemes to re-brighten clouds over the ocean (for example) will need to be considered as a cooling intervention stopgap, while people try to get over their irrational fears of low doses of radiation, and allow regulators to do a proper job of fostering useful innovation to provide the cheap energy that is needed to replace the vast carbon emitting processes that provide the comfortable standard of living to which so many of us have become accustomed, and billions of others others aspire.
Right, small modular reactors, mass produced which can be scaled up more quickly than large plants. Also, there are companies now that claim that they can drill deep enough and then drill horizontally so they can put a geothermal plant anywhere like at a current electrical generation plant eliminating the need for new transmission lines. Whether were at 1.2 or 1.5 is a wasted time argument when rapid decline and danger is all around us now.
The planet might need very low doses of humanity like every other top predator. Focusing on stopgaps and cheap energy has been the way of humanity and we have brought ourselves to this predicament. We poison the planet then say, just a bit more then we can get it right tomorrow.
Yes, I watched a talk from James Hansen about that too. He said he doesn't think it's noise that temp is up but he says looking at the physics we have passed 1.5 and maybe even 2 because the climate sensitivity is higher he says from research he's done with others. He says this will be confirmed in the next few years cos the temp won't go down.
Fossil fuels release more radioactive materials than nuclear for 2 reasons (a) Nuclear, barring accidents, is contained (b) Living things concentrate radioactive material, coal, oil, gas, are all derived from living material. (The energy obtainable from fossil fuels, by extracting their nuclear material, is greater than the energy which can be obtained by combustion. )
One form of climate action doesn’t come with a very high price tag: changing your town or city’s zoning laws. Sounds weird, right? Zoning laws shape your city’s walkability or car-centricity. Walkable neighborhoods are actually far more financially beneficial to a city and residents by saving time, lives, money and energy and improving local business. Here is a shining example of less being more with the kicker that it saves on all the energy and resources needed for cars, from fuel, to roads and parking and cars themselves. The impact of cities adds up. Walkable ones also carve off a chunk of the hydrocarbon economy
@@yourcrazybear Think of it rather of putting humans next to the stuff they want to buy or do. They simply cut out the drive and hunt for a parking spot. Foot traffic in mixed used neighborhoods is far higher. Think about, without cars in the way absurdly higher levels of commerce takes place. And all this eschews the expense of car infrastructure. Multiple studies by Urban3 demonstrate the financial benefit to cities (walkable positive $) over suburbia (negative $).
@@GhostOnTheHalfShell "Think of it rather of putting humans next to the stuff they want to buy or do." That simple doesn't work. There are many stores and other locations that people are visiting. Forcing them to walk everywhere will just waste their time. "They simply cut out the drive and hunt for a parking spot." And instead people will waste walking long distances. "Foot traffic in mixed used neighborhoods is far higher. Think about, without cars in the way absurdly higher levels of commerce takes place. And all this eschews the expense of car infrastructure." The price will be paid in other ways.
Could anyone here respond to what Dr. James Hansen said in an interview in December...? "...I expect that the 12-month average global temperature is going to rise to at least ***1.6 or 1.7 [degrees C]*** and then as the El Nino fades, it will go down a few tenths of a degree, but it's not going down nearly to where it was. In which case, the average over the El Nino-La Nina is going to already be one and a half [1.5] degrees. Within a decade or so, it will probably be 2 degrees." --Dr. James Hansen, Climate Scientist
This is about weather temps, not climate, which is based on 30 year average. However, that just a matter of definition. For real life climate, it seems Hansen could well be right - and he only includes new insights in climate sensitivity (how much the earth warms with doubling co2 content) and decrease of aerosols by maritime shipping (which leads to temp rise). Likely influence of rising methane levels are not considered in his paper. We indeed may hit 2c long before the 2050 net Zero deadline expires - and folks in drought sensitive areas may be caught by surprise, having no measure ready to deal with extreme weather.
Actually the reason we use the 1850 to 1900 base is because we already passed the 1750 baseline by 1.5 degree C. Obviously the solution to climate change is just move the goalposts!
We move it because news media and alarmists promise disaster when we hit those numbers. When disaster doesn't come and we have a dramatically safer environment where climate related deaths are down 99% from what they were a century ago, they need to promise us that disaster will surely come "in the future."
“This is a critical decade” she says. Luckily we are doing absolutely nothing, leaders are doing worse than ignoring the problem but actually making the problem worse. We are FAFO. In the FA period. People scream its fake, or its natural and the planet has always changed or they yell at Greta the girl screaming shes wrong because shes says we passed the tipping point so they say “ha she said we would all be dead last year”. No. No she said last year was a tipping point, we crossed it, you haven’t experienced the consequences yet BUT YOU WILL. Now comes the early consequences, the new flooding, the Wild temperature swings that destroy crops leading to famines food shortages, the people migrating & leaving their dead homes. The odd chaotic “once in a lifetime” weather. It IS 1.5° !! Right now we are there, we will see worse and worse outcomes and your children will ask why you did nothing. Wake up yall.
'Doing absolutely nothing' isn't right. We are doing lots of things, just not enough to actually reduce emissions yet. That might happen next year which would be progress. There is an enormous amount of positive stuff going on around the world, particularly in power decarbonisation, transport and heating. Yes most of our leaders are useless, and many of the people hindering rather than helping going quite well, and transport improving to some extent.
Wake up? Perhaps you should take your own advice here. We are currently not living in a climate crisis. What we should focus on is continue developing our technologies and advance as a society. What we don't need is to slow down our progress because of some hysterical doomsday stories.
@@xxwookey"'Doing absolutely nothing' isn't right. We are doing lots of things, just not enough to actually reduce emissions yet. That might happen next year which would be progress. There is an enormous amount of positive stuff going on around the world, particularly in power decarbonisation, transport and heating. Yes most of our leaders are useless, and many of the people hindering rather than helping going quite well, and transport improving to some extent." Technological advancements will run its course independent on what religious movement is the trend for the moment.
@@yourcrazybear Yeah, that's right. People just made up the climate crisis to wind you up. No-one cares what you idiot deniers think any more. It's pretty obvious that things are changing, and why, so the vast majority of people understand there is a genuine problem, and significant changes are needed to minimise how bad things get.
There is hope that we will limit temperature increase to 1.5C, but hope is not a plan. We need a plan - the best plan we can manage. Now that 1.5C is so unlikely, our best plan now must be built on climate adaptation. There are actually some pretty bright prospects around climate adaptation, and come with the added benefit that climate adaptation makes cutting GHGs easier.
Reality check: 1.5° (and 2°) is now unavoidable due to: 1. Lag between ever increasing greenhouse gases and resultant heating - the heat in the pipeline will easily take us beyond 1.5°. 2. Earth Albedo (reflectivity) reduction resulting from falling land and sea aerosols. 3. Rising Earth Energy Imbalance prompting more atmospheric heat retention. 4. Natural feedback loops generating greenhouse gases and reducing earth Albedo independent of anthropogenic forcing. Collectively, these will ensure the political temperature targets are not met even if human emissions dropped to zero today. They won’t. They’ll keep on rising because the human population is now dependent on fossil fuels to sustain itself and for that matter to make the so called ‘renewables’. Need to focus on Adaptation.. Governments should ensure that the basics of growing food and providing water and shelter are maintained for as long as possible in an increasingly hostile world. I’m a pilot so could summarise our collective predicament as ‘extending the glide slope following an engine failure’.
The 1.5 narrative is so irritating. If you look back a few decades there was “keep 0.8 degrees”. Then keep it to 1 degrees. The effects of Global dimming alone is better understood now and that will deliver 0.5-1.2 degrees alone. We are misunderstanding the issue of how a planet’s temperature works. We have entered a new climate state. We can’t just turn a dial and hold temperature like an oven. We need to start facing the facts, changing our society immediately and preparing for an uncertain future. It will not be pleasant for anyone.
The ongoing collapse of the biosphere is also something many people seem to overlook. Also the fact that you cant grow much food in an unstable climate.
NO. This feels like a way to put aside mitigation efforts. Adaptation will come on its own. If you have a serious condition and you feel pain you do not treat it with painkillers, you address the root causes.
nuclear power is the same mistake as coal, oil and gas : energy transferring via heat and all the lost beside. WE need to stop using waste heat from whatever source !
We passed 1.5 this year...Or are you going to be one of those that need to see it in the 10 year average first...during exponential change... And that is ignoring the fact it should be a 1750 baseline!
@@jeremyjackson7429 Covid became a pandemic because it was not as deadly as ebola. Killing your host kills off a virus's means of spread. Keeping your host alive is a virus's strategy of choice but ebola had a fatality rate of over 60% with some outbreaks being over 80%. That meant it burnt out after periodic outbreaks and never went global pandemic.
I was disappointed that you made no reference to Hansen's contention that the "heating in the pipeline" means that 1.5C will be reached this year. Once we hit some of the more worrisome tipping elements then I fear that all human action will be irrelevant. Time will tell (and it will be well before 2100).
As far as I understand it, that's not the consensus among climate scientists - indeed it's currently a minority view. That doesn't mean it's been dismissed out of hand just that it hasn't yet been robustly proven or disproven as far as I know.
Today Greenland is covered in glaciers, but just 2 million years ago it was covered in a temperate rainforest, and experience temperatures 11 to 19 degrees C warmer on average than today. You can Google the study.
@@antonyjh1234don't you think this has been moderated due to political pressure? If we need a 10 year average then it means that it's 5 years before we really reach 1.5 even though in 5 years we'll be pushing 2. It's just a way to avoid anybody doing anything
"I was disappointed that you made no reference to Hansen's contention that the "heating in the pipeline" means that 1.5C will be reached this year. Once we hit some of the more worrisome tipping elements then I fear that all human action will be irrelevant. Time will tell (and it will be well before 2100)." Human action have been irrelevant all the time. We should focus on important matters instead.
Clear, concise, honest and realistic. We probably won't reach the goal, but we have no choice but to keep trying. Wonderful video, new subscriber here!
@@knarf_on_a_bike "thanks for your advice. I actually make life choices based on decades of research by climate scientists," So if you lived in the past you would have made your life choices based on scientists warning about global cooling? Or if you lived further back in time you would have made your life choices based on scientists that ridiculed Einstein? The world have always been full of scientists that were biased, dishonest, or just plainly wrong. Today scientists are literally being fired for voicing concerns that does not fit the political correct agenda. Making your life decision based on a research field that is unhealthy is a quite bad decision. Others won't however. "along with my almost seven decades on this planet, personally seeing places where I live get warmer each year. Global warming is happening. " Your personal anecdotes are quite meaningless. You know that we have been riding on a warming trend ever since the last ice age, right? ""Business as usual" is already showing dire consequences." Incorrect.
Great video - you have a knack for explaining these really complex issues in a very comprehensive and understandable fashion. Thank you for your efforts to help us all out and for disseminating real and useful information and also tackling those stupid and harmful corporate and political arguments and comments that are floating around out there.
It's a half truth to say "we can go without fossil fuels/plastics without sacrificing living standards" Not in the short term. Which absolutely matters to the people who would have to endure a lower standard of living. This is why this is a complex issue and requires a high degree of political will and supporting those who are at the bottom of the food chart. EDIT: TLDR is IT's really hard to give a damn about the future of the planet, when your own life is barely worth living.
Just watch Paul Beckwiths video regarding that topic. We have already crosssed the 1.5 degrees. It's just that we have to wait now how long it stays that way. If the average temperatures don't just drop randomly the 1.5C goal is already reached.
Also don't think your audience is dumb or so. If you have something to say about the topic, please show data. It's sad that this video comes over as an opinion essay, even though you are at the scientific source being an alleged "climate scientist".
We need to actually fail if we are to learn to change our ways, rather than drop the target quietly as it looks like we will fail - which is what the government usually does.
The 20 year centred mean is sensible but relies on the forecast. I used ERA5 data to the end of 2023 with 2014-2023 growth rate and get current temperature of 1.46 degrees. Meanwhile the planet is not arguing about graphs it's behaving like we are at or beyond 1.5. Take Antarctic sea-ice which models forecast for a +2 world. Tropical methane is growing faster than even RCP8.5. Water carrying capacity of the air which goes up by 7% for every single degree, doesn't wait for 10 years either. If we accept this is an emergency, we won't give up, every fraction counts.
The worst thing about current climate models is... They are not including tipping points or many other known effects that most likely makes things even worse. Ie. permafros thawing will release 100-1000Gt of carbon to the atmosphere by 2100, making 1,5C target even more impossible. Even with IPCC's aerosol estimates, we go well above 1,5C target. Adding 0,6C to current temperature will breach even 2C target. And that is just one component that is warming our planet. (Hansen et al says it is way larger component that leads current temperatures with other forcing to 2,55C...) We should not lose hope of getting things better. But realizing the harm that we have already done is just saying things like they currently are. We just have to act, because our lives depends on stable climate. 1,5C is breached already. We will likely go a bit under it for few years by next La Niña, but then we shoot over it. Because of our continued emissions. So in 5-10 years we will start staying above 1,5C. Permanently.
"We should not lose hope of getting things better. But realizing the harm that we have already done is just saying things like they currently are. We just have to act, because our lives depends on stable climate." Nonsense. The human race and other life forms have experience multiple peaks of paradise temperature as well as the longer periods of colder and harsher climate. There have never been a stable climate. Our lives don't' depend on silly doomsday stories being told to children.
Hello, Ella! Thanks for this video! I saw you on Climate Adam's channel today and am really happy that I'll be recommending you to my friends' children. You have the perfect combination of authority, pragmatism and spiciness that will appeal to these eager teens!
I will also be sharing this video with my kids, to show them what not to believe and to always question silly ideas. When scientists can accurately get the 7-day weather forecast correct then I might give your government funded industry a second look, but I'm sick of all the bogus predictions that never come true. If you really want to get some climate education check out Tony Heller
Finally. I am so happy that the real climate scientists are accepting the facts 2023 CO2 output was higest ever 😢 For the 2030 target we should have been lower by a lot already
1.5C is dead imo, keeping it at no more than 2°C is very achievable though. I’m a big supporter of ocean alkalinity enhancement and land based enhanced weathering, and I think this coupled with CCS are necessary in the 2°C goal. Like it or not, we need carbon capture and storage, not just a reduction in CO2 emissions
What we really need is better messaging. The vast majority of people do not understand that 1 degree Celcius increase in average temperature is a LOT of energy. They don't think past their noses; they think "one degree isn't bad, I just have to wear a light sweater." What we need to hammer on is real situations that are coming about because of climate change -- people unable to let their pets go out for walks because the sidewalks were hot enough to give them 2nd degree burns, wildfires burning areas of land the size of flyover states (or some European countries), and we need to show visually what 200mm of rain IN ONE DAY really means. But we have a climate science community whose storytelling skills are... well, anemic. We have pop culture dominated by idiotic pseudo-science in big-budget lackluster movies yet most viewers can't identify the junk science in them... If we don't turn up the volume on the story of climate change, society will only start to respond to climate change when it's facing 6 billion climate refugees. Unless another pandemic fixes the problem in one swell foop.
Hi Doctor, I love your channel. Whilst you and your house plants are undeniably pretty attractive, would it be possible to keep the graphs on the screen for a few seconds longer? Thanks. For what it's worth I suspect you'll be making videos in five years asking if limiting the temp. rise to 3 degrees is achievable.
It is so interesting that Climate Scientists do not mention the possibility that unnecessary manufacturing due to planned obsolescence contributes to CO2 production. Hence they should be talking about the stupidity of consumerism. Have they heard of NDP, Net Domestic Product? Where did the depreciation of durable consumer goods go?
Or we could just determine where we are now by almost every biosphere tipping point (9 out of 16 used to gauge climate) that is crashing now like the inevitable loss of permanent ice in the artic which is the planets air conditioner, the doomed Great Barrier Reef and other reefs, and the fact that weather is so erratic now that farmers have no way to know when to plant which doesn't really matter if it rains for 7 weeks during the growing season, and the millions of climate migrants destabilizing countries now ect, ect, ect, ect, and more,
We are all struggling to pay the bills. The thermometer will have to look after itself. Making us poorer is not a good political strategy when election time comes around
Yeah, no. Staying under 1.5 would require the next 25 years to be no hotter than our current temperature. That could only happen if we were already rapidly decarbonizing. So the window for 1.5 has passed.
Excellent and well researched presentation. The only thing I'd say is that it's a little too optimistic. More recent data suggests that our assumptions underlying many of the models have been insufficiently accurate, and the rapid warming we've seen in just the last 2-3 years would seem to bear this out. And you have clearly identified the main problem with putting the brakes on - mainly rightwing FF-funded politics spread by multinational organisations such as the Atlas Network. The positive feedback loop of migration fuelling populist politics leads to elected governments successively cutting back on climate pledges, leading to accelerating climate change and migration. It's up to all of us to pressure our governments to do more, and call out all the dis- and misinformation out there on social media.
4:46 I'm sceptical of projections that give you an average so far below the current year and below TWO previous years as well. It doesn't look like that's happened much recently and we know the heating is accelerating not slowing (and the gap to equilibrium temperature for our existing emissions is growing) 5:48 no prediction for 2100 is meaningful. Human behaviour will change so radically before 2050 and have such a big impact that the error bars would be absurd even if we understood the natural feedback mechanisms 12:30 "isn't actually a given" -it's an economist-level absurdity of an assumption Otherwise you're absolutely bankg on!
Just taking a 20 year average makes an underlying assumption that the period is "climatic". We know, and Hansen reminded us, the Earth Energy Balance isn't neutral, and is in fact increasing. Therefore, there needs to be some explanation why it's an appropriate assumption to make. I've not seen anybody do this.
From 1850-1900 we have just some reliable data from northern hemisphere. This includes years with only single measurement station. And we miss all southern hemisphere data. We have sets from treerings, bubbles from ice cores, sediments from ocean and lakes, ... But this is not direct temperature data. So. The 1850-1900 datasets are made with simulations. And these simulations gives 2023 a 0,2C variation to the 1850-1900 baseline vs today temperature. Ie. NOAA/NASA gives 1,34-1,36C, while WMO combined temperature is 1,45C. Weord thing on NASA/NOAA announcement was, that Gavin Schmidt did say that WMO temperature was a good estimate instead of boosting their own numbers... Copernicus gave 1,48C (uses 1940's data and estimates earlier temperatures from that...). And Berkeley Earth observatory gives 1,54C. Huge difference because the data estimates southern hemisphere differently. To make situation even worse every single study uses their own baselines and relies on different estimates. Baselines like, 1850-1900, 1880-1920 (volcanic activity ruins this one), 1951-2000, 1901-2000, 2000-2010, 2010-2020, ... These makes it very difficult to keep on track what studies says. This is one of the worst IPCC's failure. They shold have pushed any of the baselines as the referred one. Then all made studies and referrences would be made to point these numbers. And even if you correct these numbers later, it would be much easier than having whatever baselines that you want. When one study says 2,0C will kill the warm water coral reefs, but other says it needs only 1,0C warming with same data, then you may think these are arguing against each other. But when you adjust the baseline to the same you realize that they agree with each other. Baseline changes are extremely bad for the public.
Thank for your clear-eyed, rather chilling take. We all need to keep speaking out and communicating with our representatives. And doing what we can on our own.
"There is always space to make things better while accepting that some things will get worse" Great stuff, thank you. Subscribed and looking forward to hearing more from you.
There’s one way to reverse this. Everybody knows it, but nobody is doing it. It’s not cutting back on carbon or energy or anything that makes sense. Sounds like a riddle
Achieving the critical 1.5°C climate target likely requires rapid societal transformation. Governments alone appear unable to pursue sustainability with the speed and scale needed. However, public community innovations could catalyze the necessary change. Grassroots projects demonstrating localized solutions can drive broader adoption across society. _For example, community renewable energy, bike-sharing, repair cafes, and tool libraries showcase low-carbon lifestyles, while directly engaging people._ To maximize impact, governments must support scaling such initiatives through funding, favorable regulations and infrastructure. Partnerships with universities and businesses can also expand community programs. Regardless ground-up innovation could unlock economy-wide sustainability transition and make 1.5°C possible, "if" strongly backed by policymakers that our children and children's children vote for. With climate catastrophe looming, public innovations deserve urgent support. Rather than worry we need solutions !
Considering the fragility of the global economies and ruinese loss of economic production due to climate change now, it may highly constrain the ability pay for the research and the astronomically costly projects needed to adapt or capture carbon.
Unfortunately many people don't actually care about climate change. They actively express and spread denialist views and mock those who do care. In the west even among those that claim to care, few are willing to give up their high consumption, lavish lifestyles.
We have already failed to do so. We are at 1.5 now. It's just that the start of fossil use use has been moved to 1900, forgetting about 1750 - 1900 by which measure we ARE over 1.5 NOW. The definition change happened quietly and no one noticed.
@@WeylandLabs We can not have sustainable at scale. We can only use LESS energy if that energy is to come from only renewable sources. It's a hard lesson to learn and shocking but BAU is over or we are over. Less of everything or nothing are the 2 stark choices.
So can you explain why Dr James Hansen's papers saying 2c is dead as a target and 4.8c (with a +/- variability of 1.2c) is already "baked in" and in the pipeline are incorrect? A better answer than Dr Michael Manns "most mainstream scientists disagree" would be appreciated
How does aerosol masking factor into the timeline? This phenomenon appears to be extremely problematic if we stop using fossil fuels too quickly. The complexity of this situation is a huge problem.
Good video, and thank you. For a limited period I did some consulting work for an air capture developer. If I look at the research of one of the major past proponents of air capture what I see is a focus on climate modification and geoengineering instead. I think this is where we are going: achieve catastrophic climate change and then try to control things by solar geoengineering. Geoengineering will involve miltary level expenditures and I think it will appeal to many, even though to quote a proverb, there is many a slip...
I mean, the rich and powerful will want to rake in all the possible money before the end comes. And geoengineering will not be paid by them - it will be paid by ALL people, which means the ones that got nothing of the profits from destroying the planet. So, the course you describe is perfect for those who have the money and power to influence political decisions.
Thanks for this just started subscribing I think this kind of glances off the real immediate threat of climate change that the near term effects droughts food shortages inflation etc are going to cause terrible political decisions to be made long before any tipping points are reached and that's not something anyone talks about
We are at least at 1.76 degrees right now! In Ipcc AR6 2021 summary for policymakers page 7 they showed humam induced climate change already at 1.5 degrees. We just can't measure it because SO2 is cooling the planet and without using fossil fuels this 0.3 degrees will get on top what we have right now. Plus at least 0.2 degrees from missing albedo in the Arctic in the following years. Knowing this we have about 15 Years to stop 2 degrees. Also not knowing about what permafrost, rainforests and the ocean will be doing at 1.76 is making me a little nervous.
aka all the feedbacks ignored by the ipcc, methane, aerosols, human behavior, etc. changing our behavior might be possible, first we need to solve global peace problem, end hunger, universal gender equality, racial equality, reform economics and politcs.
The ideal target should haven been to limit global co2 ppm within 500. This would have prevented a whole host of climate denial theories because unlike temperature that varies between places and also goes up and down, you can't deny that with the co2 ppm.
There are "people" denying the shape of the earth is very close to a sphere. And don't worry, they already deny the ppm - "used to have 4000 ppm" or whatever (a gazillion years before humanity).
The problem is not so much that current leaders have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. However bad I think of many politicians, I think they have only one single vested interest: get reelected! The real problem is thus that nowhere there is a majority of the people in favor of the drastic changes needed! Green parties exists in most of the west, but they don't have a majority anywhere and this isn't likely to change until the perception of people changes. The second big obstacle, is that no government has the option to achieve this, even if they had the absolute majority control or are a dictatorship. You basically need the absolute majority of the world to commit to the same dramatic change, without that it just means a lot of effort and money spend without achieving anything (if my country would stop emitting a gram of CO2 by tomorrow, the effect to global climate will be too small to measure, but all 20 million people would have to die simultaneously to achieve that, so locally there would be huge consequences). In addition, a country that continues using fossil fuel while others stop has a big advantage, so the whole thing is a big Prisoners' Dilemma, where the best solution is if we all cooperate, but everyone has an incentive not to.
Living near the coast I wonder how soon the sea level will rise significantly, is it decades or a century away and how much of the UK would be lost to the sea. Surely if people cared their country they would want to stop huge amounts of it disappearing under the sea.
A slow process, that may or may not speed up. Unfortunately humans are reactive by nature, and that means until we SEE it happening we won't take it seriously. Of course if it does speed up and we do see it we will be hard pressed to move people out of the way. Moving is the only option with sea level rise. The ocean doesn't forgive, it just keeps coming.
We have no real way to stay below 1,5C (Or get there if you use Berkeley Earth Observatory's 1,54C or 1750-1800 baseline...). Even 2,0C is pretty unrealistic. We are still on worst emission level. Emissions are not declining, but creeping up. And taking even fossil burning emissions to zero takes decades. By 2050 we will reach 2,0C. Or way earlier if Hansen et al and their aerosol based estimates, specially SO2 cloud generating effects, are right. Many scientists says that we will go over 2,0C. But then we may have an option to have enough negative emissions to drag us under that limit. There are no signs that supports this view. We have no large scale solutions that takes enough carbon from the air, so we could stay under 2,0C. And even before talking about taking carbon from air, we have to stop emitting more carbon to the air. So, stop burning fossil fuels. Today. But be aware of aerosol effects, that may lead even more rapid warming (additional 3watts/m^2, that is a huge number). Current trend is still pointing at 3-5C warming by 2100.
The temperature rise will continue because of the many self-reinforcing positive feedback mechanisms that have already been triggered. It is already irreversible. The IPCC themselves concluded this in 2019 in their own climate report.
There are negative feed backs too. We already know some of them, and we could even do stuff to augment them. That being said, so far we aren't which honestly shocks me. It isn't that hard to paint a roof, or a road white!
Thank you the best presentation on on the problem. To reach any reasonable goals on climate, a vast majority of the developed worlds people will have to get on board. There are some signs that it's possible, but not imminent.
The thing that I find difficult to communicate is the fact that every small fraction of a degree matters. I try to explain the whole concept of Gaussian bell curves, and what happens to the extreme end when the centre shifts ever so slightly, but I often run into a wall of unwillingness to accept what scientists such as yourself have been telling us for four decases now. People nod as if they understand, but I can see they're not buying it.
It's time to acknowledge that the cheapest option is not to just accept the costs caused by past emissions, but to have large net-negative emissions. Yes, air capture of CO2 is expensive. It would have been much cheaper to get serious about efficiency and renewables starting in the 1980s when the evidence became clear enough to justify the effort. But we can't go back and re-write the 80s, 90s, aughts, and teens. We can spend the resources to take some CO2 out of the atmosphere, or we can take the much, much more expensive option of letting all the effects of past emissions just happen. But that's what it is: expensive. Not existential. The Anthropocene mass extinction is being caused by farming, fishing, and habitat fragmentation (i.e. road building), with climate change as a minor contributing factor. Wars are caused by political systems and human choices, with climate change as, again, a minor contributing factor. The economic impact of hurricanes is caused by building expensive buildings on the coasts, with climate change as a minor contributing factor. People being exposed to extreme heat is caused by the urban heat-island effect, and by poverty that doesn't allow them to have air conditioning. It's not as though 1.5° is a magic number, with no costs at 1.49°. We should do whatever minimizes costs. My guess is that it's about 1°. Deploying renewables as fast as possible is a no-brainer, but we shouldn't pretend that it's good enough.
10 yrs ago it was said that, if the permafrost above the Arctic circle began to melt, that would cause a runaway heating cycle due to the volume of methane it was releasing. That permafrost is melting. This cycle can't be stopped until, as in the past, we reach the point where ocean temps are too high for ocean currents, and an ice age sets in. It's going to get pretty uncomfortable for a minute folks. Sorry.
man, its sure sounding like we're racing towards the end bit of the song 'price of smokes', if we don't want to let the elites boil us alive, wonderful.
What would be the vegetation reaction to the CO2 and temperature increase please? I have yet to see what feedback loops may, positively, benefit from the change, as mainly the negative feedbacks are discussed in the media (methane release, weather extremes increasing, etc…) Thank you for these great video which put science to the heart of the discussion. One Scientist to another.
The botanists are concerned more with drought and temperature extremes over very short (in evolutionary scales) time periods. I'm botanical but not enough to call myself a botanist. You might get a bit more greenery, but, equally, you could get reduced reproduction (food) with increased CO2. Pretty marginal compared to climate fluctuations.
We can’t do anything to gather because we have big argument each other we are living each other’s own babel , .. truth is the only solution as we humans. .. it’s will resolve every thing, I’m working on 🤞🏼That wish me good luck sister I love you too
Honest question, are we or are we not still exiting what was considered an Ice age period? If this is a case wouldnt the planet be getting warmer regardless of us making changes. Question is, how much of a change are we adding to that adjustment. Saying no climate adjustment is ideal is I think a misstatement, because regardless of humans climate changes. Historically it has had periods of drastic changes without humans having any measurable impact.
OMG ...beautiful, intelligent, passionate, articulate, activist, realist. I may be in love. I've worked renewable energy for 40 years...from Iowa...know James Hansen and Bill Mckibben....worked my ass off ...for my entire life...to turn this train around. I failed. You GO girl. You are making a difference. One Love...Hugs.
Scientifically speaking... Almost anything is possible. Having a 0,000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance is still possible. Hardly even happening, but still possible. False hope is a bad idea on matters that needs RAPID ACTIONS.
Talk to research horticulturists anywhere on the planet. Do not focus on SLR and glacier melt …look at plants. Our food crops take a daily “rest” when temps reach about 85F then wake up as it cools down. Used to occur about 2-3pm in breadbaskets…now many days reach 85F by 10am or earlier. BUT if only one or two nights warmer than days plant stop growing completely but do not die so u don’t know it until a few weeks later. Day can be nice but if the nights are warmer the crops are done …zombie crops 100%….any night temp higher than the days. Happened in Rome GA 2 yrs back to back Search Plant DIF for mechanisms
Thanks for this depressingly great video. Unfortunately for me, I have lost belief in us turning this ship around anytime soon. Emissions are still on the rise, and anything else is more important than our survival as long as there's profit in it. There's people in power that still deny it's even happening. Cars and TVs are still getting bigger and thirstier. More and more rockets for bs crap that nobody needs. We can't seem to be able to use energy with reason and do the obvious thing: Save some of it. We're drug addicts, and we need more and more of it every day. The sci-fi Mad Max wasteland where everybody is fighting over resources again? Seems like we're going to make it happen. And in the end this excessiveness is going to kill us.
Yeah, pretty much my conclusion too. My "green" Vermont neighbors are into massive pickups, and all the kids in my small town get driven to school and back, no matter what the weather. Before school lets out, there's a long line of idling cars waiting for the kids. And this is in a town less than a mile in any dimension.
If I understand what you mean, it's probably too late. We would need to stop emissions NOW. Not an agreement to reduce till then end of blah blah ... with loopholes for industrial blah blah... Now! The irreversible stuff is already starting and nobody knows what this might bring on top of the sh*t we already have coming towards us. And even if we did stop, it would still keep going on for a decade or two. That's why we already have run out of time. Islands and coastal cities are already lost, they just don't know yet. DeSantis will be Governor of Waterworld. And btw, if you want to do something: Stop your emissions (!!!) and tell your congressman you won't take this sh*t anymore! What we still can do is keep the planet habitable for a couple of us.
We jetted past that target, we will pass 2C this year, just want to point out, I've never been wrong yet. Time to ramp up your adaptation and vote for eco socialism.
Look, here is an example of how much we care about global warming. To address this b issue, not only has the auto companies pushed big gas guzzling vehicles, now they want to make them bigger. Thus, GM shut down the Bolt and now pushed the Blazer. Also, they want to do away with higher standards for clean exhaust on our vehicles.
The issue is: we are not as selfish as we think. The problem is more, that we think, we are. Humans are natural born altruists and very altruistic. The question is more, why we cannot build upon altruism to solve the problem. First of all, because we are told so. Eg. economics describes the world economy, which is the biggest cooperation network that ever did exist on this planet, under the perspective of individualism and competition. And if we look at the main parts of this network, the companies, internally the people do cooperate. If we look at what is happening between companies, we see well organized supply chains, which means cooperation too. The problem is not, that humans are bad. The problem is, that we think we are.
If you consider "rich" has having lots of things, you have a point, but where do you think the energy and resources came from, or where those things and the pollution which producing them generated went? Wealth is the *capacity* to instantiate material change, ie. the ability (natural and human capital: energy, physical resources and workers) and opportunity (available sinks for waste, the "circular economy" is a myth) to do or make things.
you need a marker. '1.5' might have been a useful goal. but reality is more like '3' or even more. pretty much baked in already. what is to be done? buy land in canada on the newly appearing shipping lane, from atlantic to pacific..
How about if we'd started decarbonizing the electric grid in 1980? That was happening, until the environmental movement stopped the expansion of nuclear power.
![[DRIP] ‘Love, Maybe’ PREVIEW](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U7hwHp95m1k/mqdefault.jpg)
![โรงเรียนดัดสันดาน นักเรียนเถื่อน..!! [โรงเรียนไดเม่]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vRKPeXn4Fl4/mqdefault.jpg)
Some like Paul Beckwith argue that we are already at 1.5 degrees. The goal posts have been moved. No longer is 1750 the beginning of anthropic global warming but now 1900 in a slight of hand unnoticed and uncommented on by the media.
Yes, but he also is aware that it may likely drop by a fraction at the end of this year, as does Hansen. Obviously, the trend is up, up, up... but let's be factual.
@@ppetal1 It seems to me that the probality of the temperatures dropping again is slim to none.
It’s actually 1850 (when temp recording started) vs 1850-1900 average (used now).
And yes we passed 1.5C and yes it’s El Niño influenced but James Hansen says we have already locked in close to 4.0C.
@@claudiakoning it will be easier to understand over time- and by examining the extensive data. Everyone usually refers to James Hansen.
@@AlignmentCoaching yes. That is a minimum over several decades to 2100, not to 2027, where it could be expected to dip. It doesn't change the need for very drastic reductions in consumption of just about everything, which from my place of relative comfort as my death approaches, seems eminently desirable.
We knew already back in 2015 that keeping global heating below +1.5C was practically impossible. Even keeping below +2C seemed highly implausible for anyone who understands a bit about how the Human System works.
We will not stop until we are stopped.
If nothing else the climate itself WILL stop us, because as the change becomes ever more damaging to civilization, eventually civilization will fall.
If that happens fossil fuels extraction and use will end pretty much over night, and humans will suffer like they've never suffered before.
There in always layed the problem... Humanity is incapable, at scale, in resolving the problem we created for ourselves. Despite many now knowing the problem and what is needed to fix it. Our voracious greed and desires to satisfy short term wants always wins out, on whole.
Today Greenland is covered in glaciers, but just 2 million years ago it was covered in a temperate rainforest, and experience temperatures 11 to 19 degrees C warmer on average than today. You can Google the study.
@@QuitworkBehappywhat's your point? Yes we know that temperatures have been higher, what was the sea level like 2 million years ago?
@@QuitworkBehappy But did you know that 5 billion years ago Earth DIDN'T EXIST?!?!?!
It's true. You can google it.
I remember that back in the eighties,climate scientist James Hansen was telling the world that even 1 degrees of warming would have a big detrimental effect and we don't want to go there.
he was right and we see the consequences now
Unless you absolutely love floods, droughts, wildfires, long periods of extreme cold or extreme heat, he was indeed right.
He was absolutely right, and most people including the maker of this video sell it way to harmless.
Our snowpack is way lower than it would have been in the past. And it melts much sooner. That means we have far less water. That is really bad for farmers and ranchers like me. Our winter sports are badly affected. The lake below my house no longer gets cold enough for ice fishing, in fact it isn't even frozen over at all in mid January. There isn't enough cold or snow for snowmobiling and forget about skiing. Forest fires have caused me to evacuate my home 5 times in the past decade. Yes it is bad and if it gets much worst there won't be enough water to farm or ranch around here at all.
I am entirely off grid with solar energy. I use all the energy I wish including air conditioning and heating with a heat pump. My stovetop is induction which works better than gas ever did. I still use a small amount of propane but even that will end as we get more batteries. I haven't had to use a generator at all for over a year. I was hoping for a Tesla cybertruck but the ranger is too small to replace one of my 1/2 trucks. I hope that changes. I look forward to electric farm tractors which are in development. I could easily put up enough solar to power all of my needs and export lots of excess energy if only the infrastructure and politics allowed it.
Renewable energy doesn't mean sacrifice, quite the contrary. You do have to limit energy usage during times of low production but that is quite minor and the rest of the time you use as much energy as you like.
The temperature is a problematic way of dealing with the problem. Much better to go to the basics, the ppm-level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
I think it was actually James Hansen who wrote about the 350 ppm limit of CO2 in the atmosphere. I shortly wrote about the CO2-level it in a comment here just a couple of hours ago. Hope it is not spamming to copy it in here once more.
----
"See my logo here. It has a number that is a very good measurement of where we are, or actually should be. 350ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Mauna Loa Observatory reported for January 5th 2024 421.86 ppm.
Maybe also it should be made clear for all that we will never come back to 350 ppm (the secure level) in our lifetime.
Around 25% of the CO2 we daily put out will stay in the atmosphere for 100.000 years (David Archer “The long thaw”)."
----
Everything around climate change (well almost) follows by the basics, the CO2-level in the atmosphere. The Keeling Curve is the most important level of human development, much more important then any of the curves of the stock market development.
I bet the dinosaurs are laughing at us from dino heaven right now.
They didn't even have polar ice caps. Do you think it was cooler back then? Haha.
@@-whackd
What?
Dinosaur 🦕 lived in Hothouse heaven
One very important reason not to give up on 1.5 C is the following: There are two temperature limits mentioned in the Paris agreement: 1.5 and 2. If we don´t stay below 1.5, the next temperature limit everybody would focus on would be 2 degrees. 1.6., 1.7. and so on is not part of the agreement, so governements will not be motivated to even try to focus on any temperature limits between 1.5. and 2.
Ah the joys of legal wording.
So many things have already been lost because of poor legal wording.
Funny. The limit was originally based on the 1750 baseline but was later moved to 1850. Now they are trying to say 1.5 degrees is based on a 10-year average (or other variations of on ongiong average). Constantly shifting goalposts.
We exceeded 1.5 degrees for a 12 month average already. El Nino's impact is still not done and this year will be even warmer.
Reality sucks, but it is reality.
Sounds like a very weak reason for me. They can always agree on a new intermediate goal.
@@amberazurescale5617 Uh, do you even read what you post? You are saying, "they can always just pick a new number".
You do understand that makes a goal pointless?
WTF!?
I think the 2°C limit is not a real limit but more a point that could be reach only occasionaly (a kind of overshoot ) but not at all a plateau...
Numerous parts of Earth reached a global average temperate of +1.5 degrees in 2023, some for at least 3 months of the year. With El Niño in full swing this year we will most likely be at or around +1.5 for a longer period than that this year. When La Niña comes back we will probably dip back below 1.5 for maybe a few years but with the general trend-line going up we should consider 1.5 now gone.
The real question is it even possible to stop warming reaching 2 degrees by mid century. Tipping points and feedback loops are starting to kick-in now so run-away warming now seems entirely possible, in not probable.
*Edit: I understand that the warming is done on a 10 year average but we really can’t afford to act based on that data over that long a time period.
Yeah that ten years before and after means you've hit bottom before you realize you've stepped off the cliff.
If you're measuring the state of the climate two and a half decades away or to the end of the century the only _useful_ metric to estimate your carbon budget is the data "over that long a time period". Otherwise, you may as well pick your estimate of the remaining carbon budget by throwing darts at a wall.
Today Greenland is covered in glaciers, but just 2 million years ago it was covered in a temperate rainforest, and experience temperatures 11 to 19 degrees C warmer on average than today. You can Google the study.
How much did the globe warm between 2000 and 2020?
wikipeedia needs updating then unless your wrong
As you say, it's people, and I mean this in the sense that we have a civilisation absolutely allergic to behaviour change (since it's the consumption argument that stands up to scrutiny and not the population argument which is often deployed with thinly veiled prejudice).
I just think that we've been deliberately disempowered from day one of our existence and unless a person is quietly running an oil company on the side, they don't need to beat themselves up too hard - no-one was making it out of this alive in any case. So... strap in. Don't put things off. Recognise that a lot of the safety nets we've grown accustomed to may well be compromised or absent. And try to be halfway nice to those around us whenever possible.
Good luck, everyone.
well... we all carry a lot of responsibility for allowing this to happen. Our power can be inferred by the fossil fuel disinformation campaign -- they knew it was critical to mislead people because they know people have power. We still have that power.
Keeping 1,5C targets in the frontline means, we don't really talk about 2,0C nor 3-5C that we are currently heading.
1,5C gets about 10% probability to succeed by physics, not in our emission fueled society.
90% chance that even physically this target is buried. FFS.
In Costa Rica, we are expected to go 2 C over our dry season average, which is very, very hot. We are also in draught alert. The sea has taken to flooding the highway on the Pacific coast, even tearing off pieces of the seawall. It won’t happen all over the world at once. January has been already crazy hot for us. And our current government is less than committed to keep us a green country.
Sounds like you need to make it more important for the political class to care.
I'm going to bet that relocating that highway to a place the sea can't cause it expensive damage, is going to be even more expensive.
I really don't think many governments have truly grasped what climate change IS going to cost every economy.
If they really understood, then governments, and businesses would be slashing emission ruthlessly.
It's going to be a VERY expensive lesson.
I am terrified to start planting this year. Earthworms have been gone for over 3yrs. 2 yrs in a row vegetables stopped growing after 2 nights warmer than days (d75F, n80F) all my vegetables shut down did not die did not grow. See Plant DIF for mechanism.
I’m a horticulturist in Rome GA my name is Jimmy Greer and I stand by my observations.
There are no fly larvae in trash cans for 3yrs. Birds and insects almost gone in my area compared to 1980’s.
These are facts.
I’ve been commenting everywhere since and was ridiculed but now others are noticing similar horrible things in their own areas.
The time for Gaslighting is over. It’s happening.
Good luck
These are terrifying observations
Where I live your car windscreen would be completely covered by dead bugs while driving around thirty years ago. Now I rarely see any bugs.
I actually moved a few years ago because I got depressed by the lack of animal life and bird sounds where I lived. I lived in the center of the countryside, in between cattle ranches and farmland. I didn’t move a lot but now I have an own garden with a handful of trees where birds actually nest. My garden is full of worms by the way.
@@RustOnWheels keep an eye on it. I saw the worms decline over 5 yrs before they vanished. Each yr they got paler and skinnier
Different insects same story, Northern Michigan.
@@Atheistbatman I’ll check it out. I’ve two rain barrels and somehow they seem to spawn from water inside of the barrels. Also in any bucket or puddle they seem to just spawn out of nowhere.
I’ve got a big compost bin and every worm I see I add to that bin. Inside of the bin it’s full of insects and the compost is really high quality. I’m very lucky with my small garden but I am also very aware of all the cattle ranches being like green deserts devoid of any life due to cultivated English rye grass.
The numbers on how many people will be affected by life threatening heat, for each degree of warming were really interesting, by which i mean mortifying. Thanks for keeping on spreading the word. And yeah, the Schrodinger spot between "We are already fuckaroo'ed" and "Never give up because there is a chance for complete change" is the place where i sit too.
Ah the words we come up with to get around TH-cam's precious sensitivity censor. That's a good one. 😂
Today Greenland is covered in glaciers, but just 2 million years ago it was covered in a temperate rainforest, and experienced temperatures 11 to 19 degrees C warmer on average than today. You can Google the study.
@@QuitworkBehappy i don't need to google it, i know that. Point is not the fact things change, but how quick the change of average global temp is (quicker than any temp change in the geological record. Even, evidently, the comet extinction event). And the fact that it is due to our action, and the fact we could change our actions, to change it to something less destructive.
there's no evidence that it is "destructive" - that's merely a judgement. Events like the Chicxulub impact or the Mount St Helen's eruption...have shown us that far from being "destructive" these events are "constructive". These events happened in a single day...not centuries like global warming.
obviously the impacts and eruptions changed the climate much much faster than climate change ever will....so your assertion that it's never happened so quickly before is false.@@richardallan2767
Thank heavens you say you are a pragmatist. Presumably you will have read Jim Henson’s global warming in the pipeline paper, which states that we’re in for 10°C rise even with current greenhouse gas levels, owing to slow feedback processes. Unlike most climate scientists, Hansens team don’t just use climate models, they also assess the palaeoclimate record and current observations. He also says 1.5°C is deader then a doornail, with 2°C on its deathbed unless there is some cooling intervention. Unfortunately, the IPCC, who prefer to consider only models disagree with the Hansen team, and it is their voice that governments use to set policy. So we’ll have to wait for another tranche of species to get wiped out before mainstream climate scientists recognise that the warming has indeed accelerated. At that point schemes to re-brighten clouds over the ocean (for example) will need to be considered as a cooling intervention stopgap, while people try to get over their irrational fears of low doses of radiation, and allow regulators to do a proper job of fostering useful innovation to provide the cheap energy that is needed to replace the vast carbon emitting processes that provide the comfortable standard of living to which so many of us have become accustomed, and billions of others others aspire.
Right, small modular reactors, mass produced which can be scaled up more quickly than large plants. Also, there are companies now that claim that they can drill deep enough and then drill horizontally so they can put a geothermal plant anywhere like at a current electrical generation plant eliminating the need for new transmission lines. Whether were at 1.2 or 1.5 is a wasted time argument when rapid decline and danger is all around us now.
The planet might need very low doses of humanity like every other top predator. Focusing on stopgaps and cheap energy has been the way of humanity and we have brought ourselves to this predicament. We poison the planet then say, just a bit more then we can get it right tomorrow.
Or we could just stop to pretend that we can turn the dial of the earth's thermostat and instead focus on the advancement of our civilizations.
Yes, I watched a talk from James Hansen about that too. He said he doesn't think it's noise that temp is up but he says looking at the physics we have passed 1.5 and maybe even 2 because the climate sensitivity is higher he says from research he's done with others. He says this will be confirmed in the next few years cos the temp won't go down.
Fossil fuels release more radioactive materials than nuclear for 2 reasons
(a) Nuclear, barring accidents, is contained
(b) Living things concentrate radioactive material, coal, oil, gas, are all derived from living material.
(The energy obtainable from fossil fuels, by extracting their nuclear material, is greater than the energy which can be obtained by combustion. )
We've been at more than 1.5C above pre-industrial for more than 12 months. We're currently waiting to see if we *aren't* already passed it.
it takes at least 3 years for the averages to match the new paradigm.
One form of climate action doesn’t come with a very high price tag: changing your town or city’s zoning laws. Sounds weird, right? Zoning laws shape your city’s walkability or car-centricity. Walkable neighborhoods are actually far more financially beneficial to a city and residents by saving time, lives, money and energy and improving local business. Here is a shining example of less being more with the kicker that it saves on all the energy and resources needed for cars, from fuel, to roads and parking and cars themselves. The impact of cities adds up. Walkable ones also carve off a chunk of the hydrocarbon economy
100%
So slowing down humans are more financially beneficial?
@@yourcrazybear Think of it rather of putting humans next to the stuff they want to buy or do. They simply cut out the drive and hunt for a parking spot. Foot traffic in mixed used neighborhoods is far higher. Think about, without cars in the way absurdly higher levels of commerce takes place. And all this eschews the expense of car infrastructure.
Multiple studies by Urban3 demonstrate the financial benefit to cities (walkable positive $) over suburbia (negative $).
@@GhostOnTheHalfShell "Think of it rather of putting humans next to the stuff they want to buy or do."
That simple doesn't work. There are many stores and other locations that people are visiting. Forcing them to walk everywhere will just waste their time.
"They simply cut out the drive and hunt for a parking spot."
And instead people will waste walking long distances.
"Foot traffic in mixed used neighborhoods is far higher. Think about, without cars in the way absurdly higher levels of commerce takes place. And all this eschews the expense of car infrastructure."
The price will be paid in other ways.
@@yourcrazybear Except study after study say otherwise.
Could anyone here respond to what Dr. James Hansen said in an interview in December...?
"...I expect that the 12-month average global temperature is going to rise to at least ***1.6 or 1.7 [degrees C]*** and then as the El Nino fades, it will go down a few tenths of a degree, but it's not going down nearly to where it was. In which case, the average over the El Nino-La Nina is going to already be one and a half [1.5] degrees. Within a decade or so, it will probably be 2 degrees."
--Dr. James Hansen, Climate Scientist
This is about weather temps, not climate, which is based on 30 year average.
However, that just a matter of definition.
For real life climate, it seems Hansen could well be right - and he only includes new insights in climate sensitivity (how much the earth warms with doubling co2 content) and decrease of aerosols by maritime shipping (which leads to temp rise).
Likely influence of rising methane levels are not considered in his paper. We indeed may hit 2c long before the 2050 net Zero deadline expires - and folks in drought sensitive areas may be caught by surprise, having no measure ready to deal with extreme weather.
Actually the reason we use the 1850 to 1900 base is because we already passed the 1750 baseline by 1.5 degree C. Obviously the solution to climate change is just move the goalposts!
We move it because news media and alarmists promise disaster when we hit those numbers. When disaster doesn't come and we have a dramatically safer environment where climate related deaths are down 99% from what they were a century ago, they need to promise us that disaster will surely come "in the future."
“This is a critical decade” she says. Luckily we are doing absolutely nothing, leaders are doing worse than ignoring the problem but actually making the problem worse.
We are FAFO. In the FA period. People scream its fake, or its natural and the planet has always changed or they yell at Greta the girl screaming shes wrong because shes says we passed the tipping point so they say “ha she said we would all be dead last year”. No. No she said last year was a tipping point, we crossed it, you haven’t experienced the consequences yet BUT YOU WILL.
Now comes the early consequences, the new flooding, the Wild temperature swings that destroy crops leading to famines food shortages, the people migrating & leaving their dead homes. The odd chaotic “once in a lifetime” weather.
It IS 1.5° !! Right now we are there, we will see worse and worse outcomes and your children will ask why you did nothing. Wake up yall.
MOSTLY these are Republican 'Muricans who don't care about their children anyway ...
'Doing absolutely nothing' isn't right. We are doing lots of things, just not enough to actually reduce emissions yet. That might happen next year which would be progress. There is an enormous amount of positive stuff going on around the world, particularly in power decarbonisation, transport and heating. Yes most of our leaders are useless, and many of the people hindering rather than helping going quite well, and transport improving to some extent.
Wake up? Perhaps you should take your own advice here. We are currently not living in a climate crisis. What we should focus on is continue developing our technologies and advance as a society. What we don't need is to slow down our progress because of some hysterical doomsday stories.
@@xxwookey"'Doing absolutely nothing' isn't right. We are doing lots of things, just not enough to actually reduce emissions yet. That might happen next year which would be progress. There is an enormous amount of positive stuff going on around the world, particularly in power decarbonisation, transport and heating. Yes most of our leaders are useless, and many of the people hindering rather than helping going quite well, and transport improving to some extent."
Technological advancements will run its course independent on what religious movement is the trend for the moment.
@@yourcrazybear Yeah, that's right. People just made up the climate crisis to wind you up.
No-one cares what you idiot deniers think any more. It's pretty obvious that things are changing, and why, so the vast majority of people understand there is a genuine problem, and significant changes are needed to minimise how bad things get.
There is hope that we will limit temperature increase to 1.5C, but hope is not a plan. We need a plan - the best plan we can manage. Now that 1.5C is so unlikely, our best plan now must be built on climate adaptation. There are actually some pretty bright prospects around climate adaptation, and come with the added benefit that climate adaptation makes cutting GHGs easier.
Reality check: 1.5° (and 2°) is now unavoidable due to: 1. Lag between ever increasing greenhouse gases and resultant heating - the heat in the pipeline will easily take us beyond 1.5°. 2. Earth Albedo (reflectivity) reduction resulting from falling land and sea aerosols. 3. Rising Earth Energy Imbalance prompting more atmospheric heat retention. 4. Natural feedback loops generating greenhouse gases and reducing earth Albedo independent of anthropogenic forcing. Collectively, these will ensure the political temperature targets are not met even if human emissions dropped to zero today. They won’t. They’ll keep on rising because the human population is now dependent on fossil fuels to sustain itself and for that matter to make the so called ‘renewables’. Need to focus on Adaptation.. Governments should ensure that the basics of growing food and providing water and shelter are maintained for as long as possible in an increasingly hostile world. I’m a pilot so could summarise our collective predicament as ‘extending the glide slope following an engine failure’.
The 1.5 narrative is so irritating. If you look back a few decades there was “keep 0.8 degrees”. Then keep it to 1 degrees. The effects of Global dimming alone is better understood now and that will deliver 0.5-1.2 degrees alone. We are misunderstanding the issue of how a planet’s temperature works. We have entered a new climate state. We can’t just turn a dial and hold temperature like an oven.
We need to start facing the facts, changing our society immediately and preparing for an uncertain future. It will not be pleasant for anyone.
As long as there are pilots and car owners...
The ongoing collapse of the biosphere is also something many people seem to overlook. Also the fact that you cant grow much food in an unstable climate.
Now retired and car sold! Won’t change anything.. too late.@@ppetal1
NO. This feels like a way to put aside mitigation efforts. Adaptation will come on its own. If you have a serious condition and you feel pain you do not treat it with painkillers, you address the root causes.
If we use a 20 year average realistically we will be hitting years at 2c by the time we are “officially” at 1.5c.
Unless we get serious about nuclear we’ll never address climate change
nuclear power is the same mistake as coal, oil and gas : energy transferring via heat and all the lost beside. WE need to stop using waste heat from whatever source !
We passed 1.5 this year...Or are you going to be one of those that need to see it in the 10 year average first...during exponential change...
And that is ignoring the fact it should be a 1750 baseline!
Watch the freaking video before comments.
@@jeremyjackson7429 Covid became a pandemic because it was not as deadly as ebola. Killing your host kills off a virus's means of spread. Keeping your host alive is a virus's strategy of choice but ebola had a fatality rate of over 60% with some outbreaks being over 80%. That meant it burnt out after periodic outbreaks and never went global pandemic.
I was disappointed that you made no reference to Hansen's contention that the "heating in the pipeline" means that 1.5C will be reached this year. Once we hit some of the more worrisome tipping elements then I fear that all human action will be irrelevant. Time will tell (and it will be well before 2100).
As far as I understand it, that's not the consensus among climate scientists - indeed it's currently a minority view. That doesn't mean it's been dismissed out of hand just that it hasn't yet been robustly proven or disproven as far as I know.
Today Greenland is covered in glaciers, but just 2 million years ago it was covered in a temperate rainforest, and experience temperatures 11 to 19 degrees C warmer on average than today. You can Google the study.
@@antonyjh1234don't you think this has been moderated due to political pressure? If we need a 10 year average then it means that it's 5 years before we really reach 1.5 even though in 5 years we'll be pushing 2. It's just a way to avoid anybody doing anything
"I was disappointed that you made no reference to Hansen's contention that the "heating in the pipeline" means that 1.5C will be reached this year. Once we hit some of the more worrisome tipping elements then I fear that all human action will be irrelevant. Time will tell (and it will be well before 2100)."
Human action have been irrelevant all the time. We should focus on important matters instead.
@@QuitworkBehappy how does that help?
Clear, concise, honest and realistic. We probably won't reach the goal, but we have no choice but to keep trying. Wonderful video, new subscriber here!
Woo! Welcome :)
We have the choice to not let our lives be dictated by doomsday stories being told to children.
@@knarf_on_a_bike "thanks for your advice. I actually make life choices based on decades of research by climate scientists,"
So if you lived in the past you would have made your life choices based on scientists warning about global cooling? Or if you lived further back in time you would have made your life choices based on scientists that ridiculed Einstein? The world have always been full of scientists that were biased, dishonest, or just plainly wrong. Today scientists are literally being fired for voicing concerns that does not fit the political correct agenda. Making your life decision based on a research field that is unhealthy is a quite bad decision. Others won't however.
"along with my almost seven decades on this planet, personally seeing places where I live get warmer each year. Global warming is happening. "
Your personal anecdotes are quite meaningless. You know that we have been riding on a warming trend ever since the last ice age, right?
""Business as usual" is already showing dire consequences."
Incorrect.
Great video - you have a knack for explaining these really complex issues in a very comprehensive and understandable fashion. Thank you for your efforts to help us all out and for disseminating real and useful information and also tackling those stupid and harmful corporate and political arguments and comments that are floating around out there.
thank you :)
Seconding that. Thanks from me as well.
It's a half truth to say "we can go without fossil fuels/plastics without sacrificing living standards" Not in the short term. Which absolutely matters to the people who would have to endure a lower standard of living. This is why this is a complex issue and requires a high degree of political will and supporting those who are at the bottom of the food chart.
EDIT: TLDR is IT's really hard to give a damn about the future of the planet, when your own life is barely worth living.
How much has the globe warmed between 2000 and 2023?
Just watch Paul Beckwiths video regarding that topic. We have already crosssed the 1.5 degrees. It's just that we have to wait now how long it stays that way. If the average temperatures don't just drop randomly the 1.5C goal is already reached.
Also don't think your audience is dumb or so. If you have something to say about the topic, please show data. It's sad that this video comes over as an opinion essay, even though you are at the scientific source being an alleged "climate scientist".
Thankyou for trying to make me feel better, about living amongst the stupid who are killing us all 😢
We need to actually fail if we are to learn to change our ways, rather than drop the target quietly as it looks like we will fail - which is what the government usually does.
We don't need to change our ways to begin with. Just continue to develop our technologies.
We won't have a chance to tackle global heating concerns until the planet crosses 3C. Buckle up.
The 20 year centred mean is sensible but relies on the forecast. I used ERA5 data to the end of 2023 with 2014-2023 growth rate and get current temperature of 1.46 degrees. Meanwhile the planet is not arguing about graphs it's behaving like we are at or beyond 1.5. Take Antarctic sea-ice which models forecast for a +2 world. Tropical methane is growing faster than even RCP8.5. Water carrying capacity of the air which goes up by 7% for every single degree, doesn't wait for 10 years either. If we accept this is an emergency, we won't give up, every fraction counts.
The worst thing about current climate models is... They are not including tipping points or many other known effects that most likely makes things even worse. Ie. permafros thawing will release 100-1000Gt of carbon to the atmosphere by 2100, making 1,5C target even more impossible.
Even with IPCC's aerosol estimates, we go well above 1,5C target. Adding 0,6C to current temperature will breach even 2C target. And that is just one component that is warming our planet. (Hansen et al says it is way larger component that leads current temperatures with other forcing to 2,55C...)
We should not lose hope of getting things better. But realizing the harm that we have already done is just saying things like they currently are. We just have to act, because our lives depends on stable climate.
1,5C is breached already. We will likely go a bit under it for few years by next La Niña, but then we shoot over it. Because of our continued emissions. So in 5-10 years we will start staying above 1,5C. Permanently.
"We should not lose hope of getting things better. But realizing the harm that we have already done is just saying things like they currently are. We just have to act, because our lives depends on stable climate."
Nonsense. The human race and other life forms have experience multiple peaks of paradise temperature as well as the longer periods of colder and harsher climate. There have never been a stable climate. Our lives don't' depend on silly doomsday stories being told to children.
We'll soon be approaching it from above!
Not sure of that either 😄
Hello, Ella!
Thanks for this video! I saw you on Climate Adam's channel today and am really happy that I'll be recommending you to my friends' children. You have the perfect combination of authority, pragmatism and spiciness that will appeal to these eager teens!
Ah amazing, thanks :)
I will also be sharing this video with my kids, to show them what not to believe and to always question silly ideas. When scientists can accurately get the 7-day weather forecast correct then I might give your government funded industry a second look, but I'm sick of all the bogus predictions that never come true. If you really want to get some climate education check out Tony Heller
Finally. I am so happy that the real climate scientists are accepting the facts
2023 CO2 output was higest ever 😢
For the 2030 target we should have been lower by a lot already
1.5C is dead imo, keeping it at no more than 2°C is very achievable though. I’m a big supporter of ocean alkalinity enhancement and land based enhanced weathering, and I think this coupled with CCS are necessary in the 2°C goal. Like it or not, we need carbon capture and storage, not just a reduction in CO2 emissions
What we really need is better messaging.
The vast majority of people do not understand that 1 degree Celcius increase in average temperature is a LOT of energy. They don't think past their noses; they think "one degree isn't bad, I just have to wear a light sweater."
What we need to hammer on is real situations that are coming about because of climate change -- people unable to let their pets go out for walks because the sidewalks were hot enough to give them 2nd degree burns, wildfires burning areas of land the size of flyover states (or some European countries), and we need to show visually what 200mm of rain IN ONE DAY really means.
But we have a climate science community whose storytelling skills are... well, anemic. We have pop culture dominated by idiotic pseudo-science in big-budget lackluster movies yet most viewers can't identify the junk science in them...
If we don't turn up the volume on the story of climate change, society will only start to respond to climate change when it's facing 6 billion climate refugees.
Unless another pandemic fixes the problem in one swell foop.
Hi Doctor, I love your channel. Whilst you and your house plants are undeniably pretty attractive, would it be possible to keep the graphs on the screen for a few seconds longer? Thanks.
For what it's worth I suspect you'll be making videos in five years asking if limiting the temp. rise to 3 degrees is achievable.
It is so interesting that Climate Scientists do not mention the possibility that unnecessary manufacturing due to planned obsolescence contributes to CO2 production.
Hence they should be talking about the stupidity of consumerism.
Have they heard of NDP, Net Domestic Product? Where did the depreciation of durable consumer goods go?
It is time to acknowledge and prepare for the reality, but it is never time to give up on pushing down, down, down on that target.
WE NEED FOR CONTENT LIKE THIS
Or we could just determine where we are now by almost every biosphere tipping point (9 out of 16 used to gauge climate) that is crashing now like the inevitable loss of permanent ice in the artic which is the planets air conditioner, the doomed Great Barrier Reef and other reefs, and the fact that weather is so erratic now that farmers have no way to know when to plant which doesn't really matter if it rains for 7 weeks during the growing season, and the millions of climate migrants destabilizing countries now ect, ect, ect, ect, and more,
Inevitable like Y4K
As James Hansen said last year, 1.5C is in the pipeline. And 2.0C is almost certainly in the pipeline
We are all struggling to pay the bills. The thermometer will have to look after itself. Making us poorer is not a good political strategy when election time comes around
UK voted for faster net zero
@@DrSmooth2000
@DrSmooth2000
No, UK voted to get rid of the Tories
@@xtc2v labour is full speed ahead
Yeah, no. Staying under 1.5 would require the next 25 years to be no hotter than our current temperature. That could only happen if we were already rapidly decarbonizing. So the window for 1.5 has passed.
Yes, but the longer we delay, the more exponential the horror becomes and the sooner it starts.
Great video report, thank you, Dr Gilbz. Optimistic pragmatism, over dogmatic, destructive, political ideology! Far preferable! Will we learn?
Excellent and well researched presentation. The only thing I'd say is that it's a little too optimistic. More recent data suggests that our assumptions underlying many of the models have been insufficiently accurate, and the rapid warming we've seen in just the last 2-3 years would seem to bear this out. And you have clearly identified the main problem with putting the brakes on - mainly rightwing FF-funded politics spread by multinational organisations such as the Atlas Network. The positive feedback loop of migration fuelling populist politics leads to elected governments successively cutting back on climate pledges, leading to accelerating climate change and migration. It's up to all of us to pressure our governments to do more, and call out all the dis- and misinformation out there on social media.
4:46 I'm sceptical of projections that give you an average so far below the current year and below TWO previous years as well. It doesn't look like that's happened much recently and we know the heating is accelerating not slowing (and the gap to equilibrium temperature for our existing emissions is growing)
5:48 no prediction for 2100 is meaningful. Human behaviour will change so radically before 2050 and have such a big impact that the error bars would be absurd even if we understood the natural feedback mechanisms
12:30 "isn't actually a given" -it's an economist-level absurdity of an assumption
Otherwise you're absolutely bankg on!
Just taking a 20 year average makes an underlying assumption that the period is "climatic". We know, and Hansen reminded us, the Earth Energy Balance isn't neutral, and is in fact increasing. Therefore, there needs to be some explanation why it's an appropriate assumption to make. I've not seen anybody do this.
I do not understand what you are trying to say@@TheUAoB
We are cutting off huge branches of our tree of life, and these are the only species we know exist in this universe. We are more than confused.
From 1850-1900 we have just some reliable data from northern hemisphere. This includes years with only single measurement station. And we miss all southern hemisphere data.
We have sets from treerings, bubbles from ice cores, sediments from ocean and lakes, ... But this is not direct temperature data.
So. The 1850-1900 datasets are made with simulations. And these simulations gives 2023 a 0,2C variation to the 1850-1900 baseline vs today temperature. Ie. NOAA/NASA gives 1,34-1,36C, while WMO combined temperature is 1,45C. Weord thing on NASA/NOAA announcement was, that Gavin Schmidt did say that WMO temperature was a good estimate instead of boosting their own numbers... Copernicus gave 1,48C (uses 1940's data and estimates earlier temperatures from that...). And Berkeley Earth observatory gives 1,54C. Huge difference because the data estimates southern hemisphere differently.
To make situation even worse every single study uses their own baselines and relies on different estimates. Baselines like, 1850-1900, 1880-1920 (volcanic activity ruins this one), 1951-2000, 1901-2000, 2000-2010, 2010-2020, ... These makes it very difficult to keep on track what studies says.
This is one of the worst IPCC's failure. They shold have pushed any of the baselines as the referred one. Then all made studies and referrences would be made to point these numbers. And even if you correct these numbers later, it would be much easier than having whatever baselines that you want.
When one study says 2,0C will kill the warm water coral reefs, but other says it needs only 1,0C warming with same data, then you may think these are arguing against each other. But when you adjust the baseline to the same you realize that they agree with each other.
Baseline changes are extremely bad for the public.
KEEP POSTING
There needs to be a new Agreement that will urge countries all over the world to do more. Still hope❤
This will happen but the poor will have to pay with their lives and displacement for it.
Thank for your clear-eyed, rather chilling take. We all need to keep speaking out and communicating with our representatives. And doing what we can on our own.
"There is always space to make things better while accepting that some things will get worse" Great stuff, thank you. Subscribed and looking forward to hearing more from you.
Thanks for the sub :)
its probably time to give up on climate change at all, have one last big party and let the kids deal with the hellhole they will get in 50 years
There’s one way to reverse this.
Everybody knows it, but nobody is doing it.
It’s not cutting back on carbon or energy or anything that makes sense.
Sounds like a riddle
We're past 1.5.
Achieving the critical 1.5°C climate target likely requires rapid societal transformation. Governments alone appear unable to pursue sustainability with the speed and scale needed. However, public community innovations could catalyze the necessary change. Grassroots projects demonstrating localized solutions can drive broader adoption across society.
_For example, community renewable energy, bike-sharing, repair cafes, and tool libraries showcase low-carbon lifestyles, while directly engaging people._
To maximize impact, governments must support scaling such initiatives through funding, favorable regulations and infrastructure. Partnerships with universities and businesses can also expand community programs.
Regardless ground-up innovation could unlock economy-wide sustainability transition and make 1.5°C possible, "if" strongly backed by policymakers that our children and children's children vote for. With climate catastrophe looming, public innovations deserve urgent support.
Rather than worry we need solutions !
Considering the fragility of the global economies and ruinese loss of economic production due to climate change now, it may highly constrain the ability pay for the research and the astronomically costly projects needed to adapt or capture carbon.
Unfortunately many people don't actually care about climate change. They actively express and spread denialist views and mock those who do care. In the west even among those that claim to care, few are willing to give up their high consumption, lavish lifestyles.
@helenhenthorn4948 You're missing a lot we have the answers. We just need sustainable clean energy at scale.
We have already failed to do so. We are at 1.5 now. It's just that the start of fossil use use has been moved to 1900, forgetting about 1750 - 1900 by which measure we ARE over 1.5 NOW. The definition change happened quietly and no one noticed.
@@WeylandLabs We can not have sustainable at scale. We can only use LESS energy if that energy is to come from only renewable sources. It's a hard lesson to learn and shocking but BAU is over or we are over. Less of everything or nothing are the 2 stark choices.
So can you explain why Dr James Hansen's papers saying 2c is dead as a target and 4.8c (with a +/- variability of 1.2c) is already "baked in" and in the pipeline are incorrect? A better answer than Dr Michael Manns "most mainstream scientists disagree" would be appreciated
His ECS is based on a new technique entirely based on ocean foraminifera evolutionary speed
ALL IPCC 1,5C scenarios include negative emissions.
And these does not excist in large scale. And not refferring even to monetary problems.
How does aerosol masking factor into the timeline? This phenomenon appears to be extremely problematic if we stop using fossil fuels too quickly. The complexity of this situation is a huge problem.
Good video, and thank you. For a limited period I did some consulting work for an air capture developer. If I look at the research of one of the major past proponents of air capture what I see is a focus on climate modification and geoengineering instead. I think this is where we are going: achieve catastrophic climate change and then try to control things by solar geoengineering.
Geoengineering will involve miltary level expenditures and I think it will appeal to many, even though to quote a proverb, there is many a slip...
I mean, the rich and powerful will want to rake in all the possible money before the end comes.
And geoengineering will not be paid by them - it will be paid by ALL people, which means the ones that got nothing of the profits from destroying the planet.
So, the course you describe is perfect for those who have the money and power to influence political decisions.
Thanks for this just started subscribing I think this kind of glances off the real immediate threat of climate change that the near term effects droughts food shortages inflation etc are going to cause terrible political decisions to be made long before any tipping points are reached and that's not something anyone talks about
Short answer yes, long answer yes but we should try anyways
We are at least at 1.76 degrees right now! In Ipcc AR6 2021 summary for policymakers page 7 they showed humam induced climate change already at 1.5 degrees. We just can't measure it because SO2 is cooling the planet and without using fossil fuels this 0.3 degrees will get on top what we have right now. Plus at least 0.2 degrees from missing albedo in the Arctic in the following years. Knowing this we have about 15 Years to stop 2 degrees. Also not knowing about what permafrost, rainforests and the ocean will be doing at 1.76 is making me a little nervous.
aka all the feedbacks ignored by the ipcc, methane, aerosols, human behavior, etc. changing our behavior might be possible, first we need to solve global peace problem, end hunger, universal gender equality, racial equality, reform economics and politcs.
Ice albedo in SPM?
The ideal target should haven been to limit global co2 ppm within 500. This would have prevented a whole host of climate denial theories because unlike temperature that varies between places and also goes up and down, you can't deny that with the co2 ppm.
There are "people" denying the shape of the earth is very close to a sphere. And don't worry, they already deny the ppm - "used to have 4000 ppm" or whatever (a gazillion years before humanity).
The problem is not so much that current leaders have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. However bad I think of many politicians, I think they have only one single vested interest: get reelected! The real problem is thus that nowhere there is a majority of the people in favor of the drastic changes needed! Green parties exists in most of the west, but they don't have a majority anywhere and this isn't likely to change until the perception of people changes. The second big obstacle, is that no government has the option to achieve this, even if they had the absolute majority control or are a dictatorship. You basically need the absolute majority of the world to commit to the same dramatic change, without that it just means a lot of effort and money spend without achieving anything (if my country would stop emitting a gram of CO2 by tomorrow, the effect to global climate will be too small to measure, but all 20 million people would have to die simultaneously to achieve that, so locally there would be huge consequences). In addition, a country that continues using fossil fuel while others stop has a big advantage, so the whole thing is a big Prisoners' Dilemma, where the best solution is if we all cooperate, but everyone has an incentive not to.
Does anyone here actually believe humanity has the collective willpower and / or intelligence to do anything other than run right off the cliff?
It's not only effectively and realistically too late it's too late.
I love the work you do for us, Doc! I can only imagine how difficult it is. Thank you. Thank you. Thank YOU!
Living near the coast I wonder how soon the sea level will rise significantly, is it decades or a century away and how much of the UK would be lost to the sea. Surely if people cared their country they would want to stop huge amounts of it disappearing under the sea.
A slow process, that may or may not speed up.
Unfortunately humans are reactive by nature, and that means until we SEE it happening we won't take it seriously.
Of course if it does speed up and we do see it we will be hard pressed to move people out of the way.
Moving is the only option with sea level rise. The ocean doesn't forgive, it just keeps coming.
UK doesn't police its shore
We have no real way to stay below 1,5C (Or get there if you use Berkeley Earth Observatory's 1,54C or 1750-1800 baseline...).
Even 2,0C is pretty unrealistic.
We are still on worst emission level. Emissions are not declining, but creeping up. And taking even fossil burning emissions to zero takes decades. By 2050 we will reach 2,0C. Or way earlier if Hansen et al and their aerosol based estimates, specially SO2 cloud generating effects, are right.
Many scientists says that we will go over 2,0C. But then we may have an option to have enough negative emissions to drag us under that limit. There are no signs that supports this view. We have no large scale solutions that takes enough carbon from the air, so we could stay under 2,0C. And even before talking about taking carbon from air, we have to stop emitting more carbon to the air. So, stop burning fossil fuels. Today. But be aware of aerosol effects, that may lead even more rapid warming (additional 3watts/m^2, that is a huge number).
Current trend is still pointing at 3-5C warming by 2100.
The temperature rise will continue because of the many self-reinforcing positive feedback mechanisms that have already been triggered. It is already irreversible. The IPCC themselves concluded this in 2019 in their own climate report.
There are negative feed backs too.
We already know some of them, and we could even do stuff to augment them.
That being said, so far we aren't which honestly shocks me.
It isn't that hard to paint a roof, or a road white!
Isn’t this message rather obsolete? At least Paul Beckwith thinks so.
Thank you the best presentation on on the problem. To reach any reasonable goals on climate, a vast majority of the developed worlds people will have to get on board. There are some signs that it's possible, but not imminent.
The thing that I find difficult to communicate is the fact that every small fraction of a degree matters. I try to explain the whole concept of Gaussian bell curves, and what happens to the extreme end when the centre shifts ever so slightly, but I often run into a wall of unwillingness to accept what scientists such as yourself have been telling us for four decases now.
People nod as if they understand, but I can see they're not buying it.
Yep, it's a tough one! 0.1 degrees just sounds so inconsequential... but keep up the good work.
It's time to acknowledge that the cheapest option is not to just accept the costs caused by past emissions, but to have large net-negative emissions. Yes, air capture of CO2 is expensive. It would have been much cheaper to get serious about efficiency and renewables starting in the 1980s when the evidence became clear enough to justify the effort. But we can't go back and re-write the 80s, 90s, aughts, and teens. We can spend the resources to take some CO2 out of the atmosphere, or we can take the much, much more expensive option of letting all the effects of past emissions just happen.
But that's what it is: expensive. Not existential. The Anthropocene mass extinction is being caused by farming, fishing, and habitat fragmentation (i.e. road building), with climate change as a minor contributing factor. Wars are caused by political systems and human choices, with climate change as, again, a minor contributing factor. The economic impact of hurricanes is caused by building expensive buildings on the coasts, with climate change as a minor contributing factor. People being exposed to extreme heat is caused by the urban heat-island effect, and by poverty that doesn't allow them to have air conditioning.
It's not as though 1.5° is a magic number, with no costs at 1.49°. We should do whatever minimizes costs. My guess is that it's about 1°. Deploying renewables as fast as possible is a no-brainer, but we shouldn't pretend that it's good enough.
10 yrs ago it was said that, if the permafrost above the Arctic circle began to melt, that would cause a runaway heating cycle due to the volume of methane it was releasing.
That permafrost is melting. This cycle can't be stopped until, as in the past, we reach the point where ocean temps are too high for ocean currents, and an ice age sets in. It's going to get pretty uncomfortable for a minute folks. Sorry.
man, its sure sounding like we're racing towards the end bit of the song 'price of smokes', if we don't want to let the elites boil us alive, wonderful.
It isn’t impossible until we reach it. And there’s still 1.6, and 1.7, and 1.8, and 1.9, 2.0, 2.1 all these different possibilities
Is it time to give up on all climate targets? Hopefully not. But even 25 years ago I was already sceptical if mankind could get it right.
What would be the vegetation reaction to the CO2 and temperature increase please?
I have yet to see what feedback loops may, positively, benefit from the change, as mainly the negative feedbacks are discussed in the media (methane release, weather extremes increasing, etc…)
Thank you for these great video which put science to the heart of the discussion.
One Scientist to another.
The botanists are concerned more with drought and temperature extremes over very short (in evolutionary scales) time periods. I'm botanical but not enough to call myself a botanist. You might get a bit more greenery, but, equally, you could get reduced reproduction (food) with increased CO2. Pretty marginal compared to climate fluctuations.
We can’t do anything to gather because we have big argument each other we are living each other’s own babel , .. truth is the only solution as we humans. .. it’s will resolve every thing, I’m working on 🤞🏼That wish me good luck sister I love you too
It is a physics problem too. Humanity can't just cause this much warming this quick without consequences which do affect what net zero means.
Good explanation of land vs sea. Didn’t know about that
Honest question, are we or are we not still exiting what was considered an Ice age period? If this is a case wouldnt the planet be getting warmer regardless of us making changes. Question is, how much of a change are we adding to that adjustment. Saying no climate adjustment is ideal is I think a misstatement, because regardless of humans climate changes. Historically it has had periods of drastic changes without humans having any measurable impact.
OMG ...beautiful, intelligent, passionate, articulate, activist, realist. I may be in love. I've worked renewable energy for 40 years...from Iowa...know James Hansen and Bill Mckibben....worked my ass off ...for my entire life...to turn this train around. I failed. You GO girl. You are making a difference. One Love...Hugs.
Scientifically speaking... Almost anything is possible. Having a 0,000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance is still possible. Hardly even happening, but still possible.
False hope is a bad idea on matters that needs RAPID ACTIONS.
Talk to research horticulturists anywhere on the planet. Do not focus on SLR and glacier melt …look at plants.
Our food crops take a daily “rest” when temps reach about 85F then wake up as it cools down. Used to occur about 2-3pm in breadbaskets…now many days reach 85F by 10am or earlier.
BUT if only one or two nights warmer than days plant stop growing completely but do not die so u don’t know it until a few weeks later. Day can be nice but if the nights are warmer the crops are done …zombie crops 100%….any night temp higher than the days. Happened in Rome GA 2 yrs back to back
Search Plant DIF for mechanisms
As 1.52C has been reported over the last 12 months to Jan 24 I think it’s given up on us.
Yes,, it is done.
Thanks for this depressingly great video. Unfortunately for me, I have lost belief in us turning this ship around anytime soon. Emissions are still on the rise, and anything else is more important than our survival as long as there's profit in it. There's people in power that still deny it's even happening. Cars and TVs are still getting bigger and thirstier. More and more rockets for bs crap that nobody needs. We can't seem to be able to use energy with reason and do the obvious thing: Save some of it. We're drug addicts, and we need more and more of it every day. The sci-fi Mad Max wasteland where everybody is fighting over resources again? Seems like we're going to make it happen. And in the end this excessiveness is going to kill us.
Nothing to add.
Yeah, pretty much my conclusion too. My "green" Vermont neighbors are into massive pickups, and all the kids in my small town get driven to school and back, no matter what the weather. Before school lets out, there's a long line of idling cars waiting for the kids. And this is in a town less than a mile in any dimension.
Not disagreeing with you, but we all have to what we can as well as pressure our politicians
If I understand what you mean, it's probably too late. We would need to stop emissions NOW. Not an agreement to reduce till then end of blah blah ... with loopholes for industrial blah blah... Now! The irreversible stuff is already starting and nobody knows what this might bring on top of the sh*t we already have coming towards us. And even if we did stop, it would still keep going on for a decade or two. That's why we already have run out of time. Islands and coastal cities are already lost, they just don't know yet. DeSantis will be Governor of Waterworld. And btw, if you want to do something: Stop your emissions (!!!) and tell your congressman you won't take this sh*t anymore! What we still can do is keep the planet habitable for a couple of us.
@@timothyrussell4445 I replied to that, looks like I got canceled for some reason.
Non binding goals are words without deeds. It’s not until the Hamptons are flooded and burned that anything will change.
We jetted past that target, we will pass 2C this year, just want to point out, I've never been wrong yet. Time to ramp up your adaptation and vote for eco socialism.
Look, here is an example of how much we care about global warming. To address this b issue, not only has the auto companies pushed big gas guzzling vehicles, now they want to make them bigger. Thus, GM shut down the Bolt and now pushed the Blazer. Also, they want to do away with higher standards for clean exhaust on our vehicles.
I think its time to give up on humanity. We are inherently too selfish and too stupid and lack the collective will to do anything.
That's stupid. Why would I give up?
The issue is: we are not as selfish as we think.
The problem is more, that we think, we are. Humans are natural born altruists and very altruistic.
The question is more, why we cannot build upon altruism to solve the problem.
First of all, because we are told so. Eg. economics describes the world economy, which is the biggest cooperation network that ever did exist on this planet, under the perspective of individualism and competition. And if we look at the main parts of this network, the companies, internally the people do cooperate. If we look at what is happening between companies, we see well organized supply chains, which means cooperation too.
The problem is not, that humans are bad. The problem is, that we think we are.
Is there a chance that climate scientists are just.. wrong? I mean, we are already at 1.3° and we live quite fine. We have never been richer
If you consider "rich" has having lots of things, you have a point, but where do you think the energy and resources came from, or where those things and the pollution which producing them generated went? Wealth is the *capacity* to instantiate material change, ie. the ability (natural and human capital: energy, physical resources and workers) and opportunity (available sinks for waste, the "circular economy" is a myth) to do or make things.
you need a marker. '1.5' might have been a useful goal.
but reality is more like '3' or even more. pretty much baked in already.
what is to be done?
buy land in canada on the newly appearing shipping lane, from atlantic to pacific..
How about if we'd started decarbonizing the electric grid in 1980? That was happening, until the environmental movement stopped the expansion of nuclear power.