Återigen en lysande presentation av Hans Rosling. Tack för att du finns och vill ge oss all denna kunskap. Instämmer helt med tidigare inlägg, att alla jordens medborgare skulle lyssna och ta till sig denna kunskap.
Man borde lagstifta för jordens alla medborgare att lyssna till Hans Rosling i en gång i månaden. Den bästa föreläsningen är ändå "Så ser världen ut 2048" som finns på UR play.
3:28 who decided to start at the year of 1900? When in fact we can start from 10000 bc (facts are in the geological records), this will truely show a timescale pre human industrialization. This looks like cherry picking of data for a predefined conclusion.
I have great respect for Hans Rosling but I strongly disagree with his respect for the IPCC. Climate change is real (always has been and always will be) but CO2 is a very minor contributor to climate change. Why do we ignore the myriad of other variables which affect climate, some we are not even aware or acknowledgeable of?
I think rather that as much as I respect Dr. Rosling, the only part that was weak was a low ball was on how much the effects will be. Most statements go only for the most definite answers and what cannot be definitely said is not said. But in all the unknowns and slightly knowns the opportunity for error is only that it can be a lot worse. Most critical is less co2 and much more methane, the co2 is a long term problem and methane only hundreds of years, but in human terms hundreds of years is what is real. There is gobs of methane sitting quietly doing nothing until the critical temp is reached and like waiting for water to boil, suddenly it all goes at once. Exactly what time that happens, we don't know, but when it does it will be devastating, as methane is hundreds of times more potent than co2 and such a sudden increase would put a real kink in their smooth line, and there is enough ice to get not one meter but a quick 50 meter rise that even Sweden will notice.
_'I strongly disagree with his respect for the IPCC. Climate change is real...but CO2 is a...minor contributor to climate change'_ *Warren Blair* [2years ago] _Why do we ignore the myriad of other variables which affect climate, some we are not even aware or acknowledgeable of?_ *Warren Blair* [2years ago] I agree with your context, *Warren* Our living ecosystem exceeds our species systems by many orders of magnitude. Compared to the planets ecosystem, our human systems are relatively simple. This is a given fact, as Rosling's takes this position in all his talks. Hans Rosling is capable of explaining statistically all the gasses interaction That's a point of fact... But how long is the average attention span for numbers? Last time I looked it was 8 minutes We need to be mindful the human activity is centred around carbon energy emissions, CO2 is no more than a convenient measure. Reduction of CO2 forces a reduction of all the other contributing gasses Remembering that is without going into the chain of events integral to other issues, habitat destruction for mining, bitumen black body surface area globally, etc.etc. almost Infinitum So who would actually be able to grasp the levels of complexity in any IPPC document applying the orders of magnitude actually in our ecosystem? Would greater complexity in IPCC documents just add to the stalling tactics of the vested interest groups fighting for the status quo? Is Han's Rosling doing a good job explaining the overarching public policy direction that is needed? Just saying, there is more than a dystopian outcome to all this, provided our developed nations evolve their value systems. By including, the ecosystem as a priority in CSR, and public policy ...
Indeed there are many factors pushing climate. A new supervolcano could push us into an iceage, but then that would be the least of our problems. I have seen claims that Human CO2 is very minor, and yet actual studies say quite the opposite. The effect is muted some by absorption by oceans so the increases in the air are less than expected, but the water has an upper limit and one that is passed the amount in the air will go up dramatically, in addition there are knock-on effects, but those effects only amplify the real problem, that is the new CO2 that used to be coal and oil.
_'Indeed there are many factors pushing climate...'_ *freedem* Apologies, please don't be offended, but what point are you making? Is it that greater public policy is needed going forward to reduce global warming? Or are you making a dystopian claim to a Malthusian like catastrophe for our species? Perhaps it's both, can you please clarify your premise? ...
Återigen en lysande presentation av Hans Rosling. Tack för att du finns och vill ge oss all denna kunskap.
Instämmer helt med tidigare inlägg,
att alla jordens medborgare skulle lyssna och ta till sig denna kunskap.
Man borde lagstifta för jordens alla medborgare att lyssna till Hans Rosling i en gång i månaden.
Den bästa föreläsningen är ändå "Så ser världen ut 2048" som finns på UR play.
Very educational. Something else for ignorants in the world to learn. For those making fun of his english, how many languages you speak? nada?
Excellent fact-based presentation
RIP hans. Thanks!
A very factual discussion, intelligently presented.
I like that kind of English speaking. At least I can understand everything with no problem :)
Fantastic!!
3:28 who decided to start at the year of 1900? When in fact we can start from 10000 bc (facts are in the geological records), this will truely show a timescale pre human industrialization. This looks like cherry picking of data for a predefined conclusion.
he had like 20 minutes. and we have no data except, that we didnt burn basically anything in 10kbc.
I have great respect for Hans Rosling but I strongly disagree with his respect for the IPCC. Climate change is real (always has been and always will be) but CO2 is a very minor contributor to climate change. Why do we ignore the myriad of other variables which affect climate, some we are not even aware or acknowledgeable of?
***** Tell me more.
I think rather that as much as I respect Dr. Rosling, the only part that was weak was a low ball was on how much the effects will be. Most statements go only for the most definite answers and what cannot be definitely said is not said. But in all the unknowns and slightly knowns the opportunity for error is only that it can be a lot worse. Most critical is less co2 and much more methane, the co2 is a long term problem and methane only hundreds of years, but in human terms hundreds of years is what is real. There is gobs of methane sitting quietly doing nothing until the critical temp is reached and like waiting for water to boil, suddenly it all goes at once. Exactly what time that happens, we don't know, but when it does it will be devastating, as methane is hundreds of times more potent than co2 and such a sudden increase would put a real kink in their smooth line, and there is enough ice to get not one meter but a quick 50 meter rise that even Sweden will notice.
_'I strongly disagree with his respect for the IPCC. Climate change is real...but CO2 is a...minor contributor to climate change'_ *Warren Blair* [2years ago]
_Why do we ignore the myriad of other variables which affect climate, some we are not even aware or acknowledgeable of?_ *Warren Blair* [2years ago]
I agree with your context, *Warren*
Our living ecosystem exceeds our species systems by many orders of magnitude. Compared to the planets ecosystem, our human systems are relatively simple.
This is a given fact, as Rosling's takes this position in all his talks. Hans Rosling is capable of explaining statistically all the gasses interaction
That's a point of fact...
But how long is the average attention span for numbers?
Last time I looked it was 8 minutes
We need to be mindful the human activity is centred around carbon energy emissions, CO2 is no more than a convenient measure.
Reduction of CO2 forces a reduction of all the other contributing gasses
Remembering that is without going into the chain of events integral to other issues, habitat destruction for mining, bitumen black body surface area globally, etc.etc. almost Infinitum
So who would actually be able to grasp the levels of complexity in any IPPC document applying the orders of magnitude actually in our ecosystem?
Would greater complexity in IPCC documents just add to the stalling tactics of the vested interest groups fighting for the status quo?
Is Han's Rosling doing a good job explaining the overarching public policy direction that is needed?
Just saying, there is more than a dystopian outcome to all this, provided our developed nations evolve their value systems. By including, the ecosystem as a priority in CSR, and public policy
...
Indeed there are many factors pushing climate. A new supervolcano could push us into an iceage, but then that would be the least of our problems. I have seen claims that Human CO2 is very minor, and yet actual studies say quite the opposite. The effect is muted some by absorption by oceans so the increases in the air are less than expected, but the water has an upper limit and one that is passed the amount in the air will go up dramatically, in addition there are knock-on effects, but those effects only amplify the real problem, that is the new CO2 that used to be coal and oil.
_'Indeed there are many factors pushing climate...'_ *freedem*
Apologies, please don't be offended, but what point are you making?
Is it that greater public policy is needed going forward to reduce global warming?
Or are you making a dystopian claim to a Malthusian like catastrophe for our species?
Perhaps it's both, can you please clarify your premise?
...
Absolute dissapontment in Hans to back this political organisation or inability to figure it out.