Just the usual reminder to keep comments respectful and on topic - i.e. about the specific subjects dealt with in this video. We're not premoderating comments this time, but we won't be giving a platform to denialist misinformation of any kind.
Plenty of that, denialism, head-in-the-sand, or just not looking into it. Visiting my FamilyParty Uncensored, apart from the inevitable contra - refugee remarks, there be numbers of uncles and nephews remarking that this climate thing is way overdone, and that not even half of "what they're saying" is actually going to happen. Bet my relatives wouldn't even believe 5 percent of what these guys bring up. Not too bad, as my family don't hold positions in big finance and company boardrooms, but I'm convinced the tally of climate-wise folks in the corridors of power is just as low - plus that the few decision makers that realize climate _is_ an issue, think things can be easily solved by technology, with even making a profit. Actions in the streets won't reach the powerful, we've gotta find better ways to grab m by the collar and say " Now YOU are going to act"
Excellent discussion. It's great to have those two major figures of the climate change scientist community discussing together. So Great. In a way, this a milestone. "We" need more such discussions between scientists. Very grateful to Professors Rockström and Anderson for this generous discussion. -- Also very happy with the subtitles. I do not actually need them, but I use them as a "support" sometimes, and they are very good and useful in this case (this being a complex topic). Much better than "autogenerated" subtitles. Thank you for that as well. Best wishes!
I hope you guys are ok given the terrible floods last week. Two years ago, the place I live in Qld, Australia, was flooded after receiving 1200mm of rain in 5 days. They called it a 'rain bomb'. The clouds didn't arrive from west and depart to the east as they normally do. Instead, they stayed in the one place and just kept reforming and reforming, sucking up moisture from the ocean and dumping it on the land. One place had 784mm of rain in one day. Lots of flooding and damage, and some people died. Our hearts go out to you and the people of Spain. We're thinking of you. 🙏
Two of my favourite people in the world. Johan's work on planetary boundaries is groundbreaking and fundamental to moving back to sustainability on all fronts. Kevin's honesty, passion and commitment in exposing the climate culprits - those creating the most emissions and sabotaging climate action, which are the wealthy elite, corporations and governments - is crucial to forcefully implement climate action in the immediate future, and build all of the necessary systems and infrastructure to achieve zero emissions well before 2030.
Extinction Rebellion activist here (one of many with a normal job). Fyi: i'm always VERY grateful when i see Scientist Rebellion people in an action or doing an action. I totally understand the dilemma scientist feel about being in an action, but it is SO important to show the public we're not some group believing in a hoax: we're deeply concerned (afraid) about the lack of (swift enough) action to stop climate warming, we love live, and are willing to spent our free time, own money, and risk jail etc in an attempt to get everyone understand the seriousness of the situation and the need for more action. Thank you for this video (although i think it will only be viewed by people already in the know :-| ).
Thank you for the thought provoking discussion. Enjoyed and especially the idea of Rockström in getting the silent mass into the action was good. Shared in fb.
An excellent and well-balanced discussion. I used to work for ICOS (Integrated Carbon Observation System) managing a research station in Northern Sweden measuring GHG's, and we also started to see 'peak growth' in the forests (as mentioned by Johan for Finland). Yet, still many startups are founded on selling carbon credits based on afforestation or protection of an existing forest, despite the fact that a) need to manage that forest for 100+ years to offset the CO2 in the atmosphere and b) additionality, how to prove that the forest would not have existed in the first place without and investment c) reliable methods for measuting the NEE - the best being fluxes - but most startups think satellite data is good enough. Forests should be restored as per Kevin's recommendation as a benefit to natural ecosystems and as an amenity for humans (think afforestation in cities to help provide shade and reduce ambient temp) as opposed to offsets. Alot to think about, and this systems way of thinking is sorely needed.Thanks for posting!
Great point that given the scope and speed of the predicament, the only realistic solutions must come from the top-down, not the bottom-up. But the leaders have not acted for 30 years, and they continue to fail, so we need community engagement.
solutions must come from the top-down, not the bottom-up. Absolutely not. Every top down solution has failed, including globalization, population control, infinite growth economics and the worst forms of capitalism. The bottom is giving out, if you white folks did not realize. There is a mass exodus going on along with the 6th mass extinction. There is not a single known top down policy which can control that.
My best guess is that we implement some type of totalitarian nightmare around the 2040s when famines and crop failures cause billions to die. It will be quite dystopian, but the best ration system to distribute resources fairly and to combine military resources to maintain stability for trade (avoid wars and riots). By the 2070s, I think the elites won't be able to maintain their grip via the military and economic favors because there will not be enough energy. By the 2100s, I think people will be living like the middle ages or in tribal nomadic groups. We will not stop emitting fossil fuels. We hit 2 degrees C by 2050, never achieving net zero-- which will cause us to hit tipping points to eventually warm the earth to 10 degrees C (James Hansen). I don't think we will invent free energy and carbon capture tech-- if we do, then the future will still be difficult, but human survival might be possible. @@donaldrobertson1808
"...the only realistic solutions must come from the top-down, not the bottom-up." This is completely incorrect. Those who only know climate, but do not know regenerative systems/sustainability/TEK, i.e. ecosystem function at all scales, do not know energy reserves, resource curves, Economics, ecosystem destruction, etc., always say this. Once one understands that the *First Principles* underlying current systems versus regenerative systems, it becomes clear top-down has zero chance of solving much at all. Why? Anything being done, virtually EVERYTHING being done, at that level is completely unsustainable.
The documentary really undersells the current impact. For example, biodiversity. They say we 'might' enter the 6th Mass Extinction. Might?!?! We are already in it says 95% of scientists. Was identified Decades ago. Not only that, we ignore the fact that we have altered the soil of the planet which in turn, impacts the food chain. We have no idea about the impact we have had on this planet.
I'm halfway through, and all the discussion around NETs just makes me think of the analogy I have with a terrible Satnav. If you were running late, with roadworks, diversions and your car breaking down, your Satnav would be considered useless if it continued to claim that you'd arrive at your destination on time. That's what it's increasingly seeming like with 1.5c. (Apologies for it being a car-related analogy!) I'd far rather have a blunt "Based on the trends from the last X number of years, this is the temperature we're heading for", rather than "If we somehow U-turn from what we're currently doing, this is where we'll be!"
Listen to professor Guy McPherson if you want an accurate assessment of where things stand now. Watch 'Planet of the Humans' if you want the reality of 'renewables' - the cost of which in resources to build, maintain and replace at approx 30 year intervals. Meanwhile these 'experts' never talk about the Aerosol Masking Effect.....
I think you can see from the discussion that 1.5 was never a viable target we were never going to meet it and we aren't going to meet 2° either that is clear. On top of it all the impacts of what we thought would be 3° plus our happening now at 1.5°. 1.5° is a new 3°
if nothing else, you two have helped to directly shape the trajectory of my life in the desire to become a climate scientist and serve as a net positive to do whatever I can to help us get out of this crisis
Thank you for this discussion. You raised many questions that bat around in my head. Yes, it IS the Thunberg's, Caroline Lucas (Green Party), Greenpeace & XR, JustStopOil voices we are hearing (UK). And I personally have no objections to their message or their methods - all avenues are required. But our Parliament is silencing the vociferous, from jail sentencing for peaceful protest, to resignation of the lone voice in Westminster no doubt through a sore head from brickwall banging! She can only take so much. So I welcome the admission that the academics & researchers aren't nearly visible and vocal enough and need to keep informing and updating -and absolutely publicising when you've changed your minds and why, as you have a right & a necessity to do! (like the rest of us). But journalists & TV arent interested in talking to you or giving you a platform - unless it is to create clicks & sell ads and generally cater to tabloid style headlines & readership, and I include ALL media in this degeneration of broadcasting. So how ARE you to be heard? How will you spread the messages to encourage the Silent Majority to finally stand up to our inept Governments? Elections are meaningless- voting in or out ministers changes nothing as all only interested in supporting the status quo. AI algorithms twist public attention and online viewship in nefarious ways. What are the solutions to being heard?
Thanks for this comment, @isb9073. You raise some important and hard questions. In their discussion, Johan & Kevin touched on this ('Is change driven top-down or bottom-up?' from 49:15). Clearly there was some difference of opinion here, with Johan suggesting that the only way is through directly influencing ('bending') those in positions of power; whereas Kevin argued that those same powerful elites will have to be 'dragged kicking and screaming' by grassroots voices (citizens / activists). Those are not mutually exclusive channels of influence of course. Johan and Kevin agreed that the measures required to cut emissions would actually benefit the silent majority (those below the top 10% wealthiest) in terms of improved health, job security, etc - so this is a message that needs to be pushed hard. The powerful and wealthy high emitters would have us believe that "we're all in it together". Regarding algorithms and visibility - we can all play a role in communicating valuable information, by speaking out and sharing our thoughts within our own networks. We are not powerless.
You got yourself a right-wing cabinet, but even if Labor gets elected, they still have to cater to the half/ two thirds of voters that are convinced the situation is not that bad. Even is they know about climate, they don't watch talks like this, and most don't realize that all the extra carbon added daily is going to make it worse and worse - the problem of understanding the exponential math. On the contrary, the tabloid and populist media will do their utmost best to make decent climate policy look extreme, and to further criminalize activism. We're not in a green wise society, it's the full community, including all folk that can't even ( willingly ) tell the difference between a weather forecast and a climate model. I'm not the only one to think - if only the Big One happened, London, or New York, or Florida flooded. But then, Sandy _did_ hit New York, seriously, over 70 US deaths and 65 bns damages. Harvey and Ian cost over 110 bn each, double that of Sandy, and yet... maybe first a complete metropolis has to burn?
Yours is perhaps the most important comment here. It will be too late when any 'big one' hits. That makes the problem harder because it requires proactivity rather than reactivity. It means people must somehow educate each other about how dire the situation is and then get together to create an unstoppable group that forces through climate action. It's about POWER. Currently, the climate-denying elite - corporations and governments - have all of the power, while climate advocates, activists and anyone who cares about climate and the natural world - have none. We who care must join together to become more powerful than those that don't, and have a plan to then use that power to make the changes we need to survive.
Boreal Northern Forest has reached a tipping point, current research indicates in Canada after 200o-2005 instead net negative cO2, it now through forest fires contributes 3x more co2 per year than the whole Canadian civilization. Which of course doesn't factor into Canada measured contribution or any other nations contribution from my understanding.
I'm a Canadian living among 40-year-old government-subsidized planted pines. Feels more like wildfire risk than the sink maintenance ('forest stewardship') I used to feel.
Both, forthright as ever. And a great follow up to the Greta conversation. I hope this gets a lot of views. Don't forget, three dots, 'Show Transcript', toggle timestamps off, copy and paste. FWIW.
@@philipdavidparker & @nickfosterxx the transcript is simply the captions (subtitles) shown separately from the main video - and are available for this video! A lot of time went into making the subtitles for this video, by the way - the autogenerated ones were junk, they just couldn't catch Johan and Kevin's quick speech!
I was astonished at how much Johan Rockström seems to believe in CCS and that it will have a substantial impact on CO2 reduction. His expression when mentioning it seemed that he would be very apprehensive if this doesn't work as he believes it will.
Businesses manage very well the risks if they are associated with high profit entreprise like aviation transport or financial projects. But for the risks about the environment impact associated with economical project. No precaution principle is made
Great chat guys! I am quite eager to have our first year of emission reductions so there will be something to celebrate. It will be a distinctly unique event for our species. I think we should start an new global calendar. Year One is the point in time where humans take responsibility for our pollution and create opportunities of life instead of diminishing it.
On the other hand - as far as I understood regarding the ‘situation’ -, if ever humankind were suddenly capable, by waving some Harry Potter wand, to make it without depending on any fossil fuel, from today onwards, for example, it would still take at least four decades (but quite possibly much, much longer) until the highest temperatures on the Globe just stabilize, and only then may start finally decreasing - a well-known classic phenomenon in terms of physics, due to the so-called ‘’thermal inertia of the oceans’’. In other words, temperatures will keep rising more and more in the meantime. So, the sooner every single nation around the world (to begin with the US, China, the UK, the members of the EU, and the most industrialized countries) will act seriously in order to get rid of fossil fuels obviously the better, but I’m afraid no one should be excessively impatient about experiencing the very first benefits of such a colossal, unprecendented task. Even a whole life time won’t probably be enough. Meanwhile….
@fabiengerard8142 , ya... hard to define a future that embodies so many choices. Even magic, or rather alchemy🙂, must play a part for that future to exist. Preceeding all of that is the event, or events, that bring humanity together as Team Human. The chaos of the moment must resolve to some new sort of order. Preferably a state where truth stands above opinions.
@22:30 We tried to shutdown the world during pandemic, but that ment just 7% drop on emissions at that single year. That is the level that needed to be done by EVERY SINGLE year to have a chance for 2C.
In his recent talk with Nate Hagens („The Great Simplification“) Johan Rockström very much stressed the point of technological solutions. He stayed very cautious on the topics of reducing consumption, scaling down, making sacrifices. Kevin is challenging this, and right so. We really need to define and communicate what the 1.5 degree goal demands from the top 75% of Western citizens. It‘s huge and we better start talking about it today…
GHG theory in 1955 was fringe as the people who fret in comments of videos about our current magnetosphere instability. If turns out to be our next biggest threat ¤ going to blame yourself for not {Hypothetically!} lining the rocks in your yard along Magnetic pole to 'help' ? Or see it as something kind of silly to do and worry about? 'Until too late' Reject historic carbon debt as such. Prior to Rio certainly
Ochrona planety 💚💚💚 1 Zaprzestanie emisji CO2 2 Ochrona przyrody 3 Pozostałe 💚💚💚 Edukowanie społeczeństwa Wystarczy że 4 procent ludzi będzie walczyć o planetę i osiągniemy cel 💚💚💚 Kiedy troszczymy się o coś, obdarza nas to pokojem 💚💚💚 Zmiany na lepsze są odczuwalne, zauważalne i doceniane błyskawicznie 💚💚💚 Kiedy zatroszczymy się tylko trochę o środowisko naturalne, ono odzyje w ułamku sekundy... 💚💚💚 Natury nie można powstrzymać, wystarczy jej nie przeszkadzać i trochę się o nią zatroszczyc... 💚💚💚 Wszystko będzie dobrze 💚💚💚 💚💚💚 💚💚💚 💚💚💚
Johan, you are wearing rose-colored glasses WRT any form of mechanical C Capture. Kevin is correct: Ramping up is not simple multiplication. The resources simply do not exist to build out all these technologies. See: Prof. Simon Michaux's analyses.
I continue to believe we’ve misdiagnosed the problem, and that climate change (with other planetary boundaries) are more akin to symptoms. The economy is the problem, perhaps even industrial modernity. It is an organizational, distributional, and demographic problem, which is intuitive to many, but for which there isn’t the same rigorous evidence. Crucially, focusing on emissions isn’t interrogating the questions of energy and materials, our use of them in conflict with natural systems. In lieu of a desirable human social model, nothing will change.
Johan, here's the thing where I think 'we'🙂 er you & most main stream scientists are falling short on messaging.. we have missed the boat for a comfortable livable future. Its dystopian whatever path we now take. You of any other shld KNOW this for sure. Its ESSENTIAL that you tell ppl the truth when talking about situation & 'solutions'. There are no real solutions just less pain suffering & death. The only way forward that will give us a decent chance of a less dystopian future surely hs to be an implemented climate Marshall plan.. something scientists shld be at least presenting as an option in addressing the climate catastrophe.k
As Michael Mann admitted on CBS today (9/17/23), denialists have practically no leg left upon which to stand. His greatest fear (one i suspect is shared by many including Katherine Hayhoe) is that Doomerism is as antithetical to action as is denialism. People have to feel that there is reason to believe there’s Hope… Many, overwhelmed by the enormity of the problem are simply giving up hope. As Edward Abbey, thé désert anarchist pointed out - Action is the antidote to despair.
Kevin, to quote: "Jay Gulledge concluded that to adopt a more risk-sensitive approach, scientists would need in some cases to allow more tolerance of false positives, and less tolerance of false negatives" ... "However, it may be unrealistic and unfair of us to expect scientists to do this on their own. No self-respecting professional wants to violate the cultural norms of their field. For the cultures of science and risk assessment to meet in the middle, they each need to be represented by their own experts. This implies separating out the tasks of information gathering and risk assessment."
And "If scientists provide the raw information for climate change risk assessments, then the processing of that information should also involve those for whom risk assessment is a core part of their professional expertise. Qualified individuals could be drawn from fields such as defence, intelligence, insurance, and public health. All of this could contribute to producing and communicating the science of climate change in a way that, as Jane Lubchenco recommended, would be ‘maximally helpful’for society. But for a full assessment of the risks of climate change, we will still need to go further. We will need to go beyond science."
@garmomedia seventy and seventeen sound very similar said fast. But the correct number is 17% (16.9% to be precise!! - see Fig.2 in the Lucas Chancel paper referenced in the description).
Thanks for a quick reply, I stand corrected! I realize now I had it mixed up with the emissions from the top 10% which are also not 70% but at least more in the same ballpark at 52%. Thanks for a great interview! @@ClimateUncensored
@36:00 if GHG’s where attributed to the importing countries and NOT the exporting countries, China and India’s growing carbon use would decline and production would localize.
Could WE live in harmony with Gaia, IF we lived like they did,....pre 1700 style, using Age of Sail as our main sea going transport system? Thank you for uploading and sharing.
@@melkadmidis4363No one in their rightful mind would want anarchy to ensue, but with such a dramatic shift potentially on the books, that outcome seems plausible? Maybe Russia invading Ukraine is the start of things to come? Not sure how much water this holds, so with a pinch or more of salt Nostradamus did 'foresee' turbulent times around now as did Madame Lablasky. We live in interesting times regardless of what has been predicted. May any change be quick and without bloodshed, but that is wishful thinking on my part. Thank you for replying.
@@felipearbustopotdeven dirigible airships would be a near revolution to travel like that is not vacation. Depend on winds means can't promise boss landlord family that you will be home on a certain date
In the last minutes of the discussion the truth is revealed: there is no reward for academics in supporting the unpalatable measures required. In speaking out. In informing the general public. I have great respect for both speakers, but I demand more. It is this mentality of "not my business", or "what is in it for me" that has allowed nasty things to happen less than a century ago.
If i understand correctly, the NET is not yet close to what it should be, but it is assumed to be there in the 1.5 degrees model. At the same time, emissions are even growing. It sounds to me that this 1.5 model is not realistic anymore and we should prepare for a world with 2 degrees (or more) warming. Both persons in the interview seem to avoid that obvious conclusion, but hinting at it.
I seriously doubt we can stop it wherever we want. Most of the observed warming is caused by feedback loops, less sea ice, less carbon sink. more water vapor (because the extra warming) thawing, permafrost... In all, it's about 75% of the warming comes from feedback loops alone. And that's only ONE of the nine planetary boundaries.
I think academics who actually "get it" are still hesitant to say "we can't make 1.5" because the consequences are unknowable. Would this lead people to throw up their hands and say it's all hopeless? Would it allow O&G and other emitters to drag out their heels even more because now we're reaching for 2, and missing 1.5 didn't cause climate armagedon? IDK, humans are a mixed bag. It's hard to know how people will respond to "truth." So far, instead of galvanizing people to push for strong mitigation, destabilization has given the alt-right and other previously marginal movements the steam to wedge their way into mainstream discourse. Thoughtful ppl like Anderson and Rockstrom are very "tell it like it is," but I think even they are loath to close the door on 1.5, and it rankles me, but I also get it.
There are several high profile climate scientists who have "cherry picked" the small percentage number of climate modelling runs which actually project us as staying within +1.5C. Yet it seems this small number includes many runs constructed & run upon false assumptions - like ignoring instability in other biosphere areas which adversely affect temperature rise. It might have helped mitigation progress if those over-confident scientists had declared, say, "out of the thousands of climate modelling runs carried out using varied parameters, we could only identify with confidence 5 (say) examples which would certainly keep us within +1.5". Had they made such declaration then it might, perhaps, have concentrated minds more on causationm & injected more urgency into the rapid reduction of fossil fuel burning based on the "real" unlikely ability of the Earth system to stabilise below +1.5C. Climate modelling is an exceptional tool but the outputs are still only a guide & our leaders & pathfinders should have paid more attention to Wally Broeker's analysis of the climate system as being volatile and "an angry beast"
Yes. Important points. IPCC is not adding tipping points to their models, even when evidence shows that these tipping elements are already started to happen. Ice loss in Greenland diminishes gravitational pull in northern hemisphere, so more water goes south. And when sea level in the south rises, it adds more risks for Antarctic melting (that is likely accelerating now, 2,3 million square kilometers of sea ice missing, this year!). When Antarctica starts to melt, it adds sea levels in northern hemisphere. While these forces are balanced you may see equatoral coastlines taking worst hits. But if melting continues Antarctica has most mass, so northern hemisphere is hit hardest in coming centuries. We may lose major Antarctic glaciers, like Thwaites in just mere decades (+0,6m from this beast alone), so sea level rise is likely going well over 1 meter by 2100. Has Greenland ice sheet reached a final tipping point where there is no return, but all will melt? That's an open debate in science community these days. All around the world permafrost is melting. We may see permafrost ground gaining higher temperatures. Permafrost melting leads to bacterial activation in the soil and under water that leads to huge methane plumes (permafrost includes loads of water, so areas gets more wet when they thaw). Arctic sea ice could be gone during summers by 2030-2050. And that will change all weather and climate predictions. Everything changes and most changes are not positive for nature or mankind. We are losing rapidly most mountain glaciers and that will lead to a situation where several billion people has not enough water, even some has not enough water to drink. We ARE at 1,5C (august, 2023). El Niño is still gathering its strenght and will become worse in comnig 1-2 years. Climatic 30-year period will go over 1,5C, but not quite yet. We ARE heading toward 3-4C world. Pledges that have been given are failing. When emissions should have been declining 7-8% per year, they are at new record. And oil demand is at new record. G20 hardly even speaks about phasing out fossil fuels, not even mentioning coal burning. Next COP is in oil producing country led by oil CEO. And then we head to Australia, that just opened worlds largest coal mine. And in USA republican party is doing what ever it can to keep fossil burning alive with huge emissions. Even normal discussions are blocked with nonsense. Ukraine war has disrupted most global negotiations. Current science says: Every approx. 0,1C temperature rise will kill 100 million people. And that's without tipping points. UN human right leader has said about current situation that we are at climate dystopia. We see simultanoeus massive floods in Turkiye, Greece, Florida, Brasil and China, we may say that we are living in a climate dystopia. We see simultaneous massive heatwaves and droughts, often causing massive wildfires, in most of the continents, we are living a climate dystopia. Things are not getting better, specially when our leaders are not doing what is needed. Stop ALL (!) fossil burning. Today.
1-4% of Greenland has melted Only tipping point of GL that I've heard of is by 2275: what ice melts on Northern shore won't be replaced by new snow (due to some ice sheet-metrology-sea mechanics) Even if then return to 1850-1900 baseline... north section will be Polar Desert or if lucky; patch of tundra Thwaites Ice Shelf is vulnerable but intact. Thwaites Glacier is pinned on land by the Thwaites Ice Shelf Shelf has to fail before Glacier can affect sea level
I think the words you're looking for are greed, hoarding, name-calling and pushing down everyone else for their own benefit, at their and everyone's cost, sure, but at least they'll mean something
Loving Kevin. Love johans work but my god our enemy is ruthless and they need to be called out and resisted; politicians and fossil fuel CEO’s , bankers and insurers do not care about us . No one I’d coming to save us. It’s desperate. Get out onto the streets - disrupt and resist !
ClaudeWalloon I agree totally. Eloquent talk and cosy chats between scientists, both of whom I personally admire, achieve very little and there's no urgency, insufficient social science input and organisational talk of populations. Without physical boots on the ground action I can't believe governments will change course. Democracy no longer happens and free speech is legislated out of bounds.
Thank you for all the information. My biggest concern was not addressed in the conversation: the increase of Methan in the atmosphere since 2006. While previous increases can be explained by leakage of pipes and fracking, the increase since 2006 seems to include a significant amount of methane released by nature but induced by human-caused global warming. The methane is released from tropic and subtropic wetlands and increasingly methane and methane and methane hydroxide from thawing permafrost on land and the shelf areas underwater within the Arctic Circle. Comparing the graphs of the current Methane Emissions with those of the previous Interglacials, those are not alike at all. The current emissions look like the start of a termination event. Our logical reaction should be to stop the release of all climate gases immediately and hope that the tipping point hasn't been reached since otherwise the emissions are out of control and will probably result in cascading classic positive feedback loops. Unfortunately, logical solutions are not realistic on this planet.
@thomasd5 Certainly methane emissions are a key issue. The carbon budgets (total amount of the CO2 we can release) provided by the IPCC assume very optimistic reductions in other GHGs, significantly methane. The reality is far from this, and methane concentrations in the atmosphere are continuing to rise.
Atmospheric methane concentration science has 2 flaws. Both residence time and global production are estimates with possible orders of magnitude error. Furthermore it is rather strange that oxidized methane is not represented as a contributor to the CO2 budget in the IPCC reports. It is a geological conundrum that there is any CO2 in our atmosphere at all, because it should all be captured a long time ago in carbonate rocks. In my opinion that cause is upwelling natural abiotic methane and we should be grateful for that, because without CO2 photosynthesising life would be impossible.
I find it absolutely baffling that people still suggest the ice Tipping Points might not be crossed at +1.5C despite the fact that ice has been clearly melting for decades now and time is the only obstacle to it all disappearing (except perhaps a bit at Antarctic and possibly very highest altitudes in Himalayas)
I don't think our science (i.e. models) understands the potential for ocean stratification. 2023 for oceans was, for lack of a better word, inconceivable. This really does call into question our understanding of tipping points. Another example is what is going on with the Amazon rainforest. Right now I feel we are just lying to ourselves. I feel like we are analyzing a fatal car accident as it happens.
I would challenge you both on the failings of the IPCC and policy makers. Yes, scientific conservatism is clearly a sticking point. However, I think the fundamental failure when it comes to the translation of science into policy is this. As scientists we know we are dealing with systems which exhibit inertia and amplifying feedbacks; we also know that our models poorly represent many of these feedback processes. It follows that we must operate within frameworks which explicitly account for uncertainty. As such, risk management should be integral to all policy making. This would ensure that low probability-high impact scenarios are given their due consideration.
Could not agree more. Saying they 'Don't want to criticize the scientists' when there are known non-linearities such as tipping points, *critical* to the future trajectories of the earth system which are simply omitted is quite astonishing. The outputs of the models are simply wrong in any practical sense. The IPCC and the climate community have committed a near criminal failure and in doing so they have done a huge disservice to humanity and frankly failed in their role.
Working from the top down or the bottom up both have major pitfalls, primarily in the legal fallacies of ownership and the destructive concepts of money and government. Did you know that indigenous tribes in South America have poisoned their own rivers which have supported their families for many generations? People offered them something called money for little pieces of metal called gold. The small amount of money they received was not enough to replace the equivalent benefits of the river and it was not distributed equally as some of the tribe refused the deal. This of course led to a division and violence in the tribe. This is not an isolated incident and it has occurred many times in many places. Of course we can sympathize or even empathize with the position of the indigenous people, but we still fail to comprehend the catalysts for these catastrophes.
I'm afraid ocean acidification has definitely passed its boundary just look at the graphs we've increased carbon dioxide more than equivalent of an intercalation and that's definitely swings through boundaries.. And that is reflected in the ocean acidification It's swung way past is boundary already and it still has lots to go
The book Nomad Century by Gaia Vince proposes massive adaptation ideas including creating huge modern purpose built city states in the far north such as Greenland and Scotland….are these ideas viable ?
So surprising how so many people claim to believe in science and know that the modern world has largely been produced by science and yet doubt this climate science. I think most of these people secretly think and believe a God is looking after them. If they were truly spiritual they would know that it is humans that have to be God like and responsible in order to do justice to that idea.
Btw when you say a planetary boundary has been exceeded in my opinion not means it's game over any single boundary that is exceeded on a planetary scale means we we are committed to critical collapse by definition wouldn't you say? And the thing is it's not just the event of passing the boundary but it's also the trend and the commitment of what's coming of pushing it and and we've definitely committed to collapse
A good discussion but you completely lose me when you talk of the possibility of a better world being possible, where everyone has good health services, good prospects, higher standard of living, a more modern attractive life. That prospect may get people on board but it's a lie. The kinds of emissions reduction rates necessary would bring on collapse, perhaps even before the reality of a finite planet clashing with a technological civilisation would result in collapse, so what happens when it becomes clear that the promised beautiful future cannot be attained? Remember that "more sustainable" is not a valid scientific term. A sustainable society is one that consumes resources only at their renewal rate (preferably less), remembering that non-renewable resources have a zero renewal rate, and does not damage the environment beyond it's ability to assimilate that damage. The best we could do is manage the collapse so that suffering is minimised. But which scientists would support such a view? Reality is cruel but pretending that the impossible is possible certainly doesn't help anyone, long term.
I believe you fully recognise your own pessimism but it might as well stem from lack of imagination limited within the frame of today's society. It is clear that what is defined as a 'good' life is not sustainable, but one may still explore and imagine a 'good' life that could be widely achievable within a sustainable future framework free from fossil fuels.
@@gurraaaaaaWhat I might regard as a "good" life is probably of a far lower standard of living than envisaged here. A sustainable framework would still have to be done without not only fossil fuels but also non-renewable resources. Some non-renewable resources could be cannibalised from what we've already plundered but cannot be replaced sustainably.
Depends what we mean by a better, healthier, more modern world. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try and keep trying. Bit we haven't changed the financial-economic-political system. And we haven't agreed what success means exactly. Sustainability in terms of today's growth fossil economy isn't possible, perhaps ever. But we haven't tried anything thus far. And the present systems and people involved require to be changed to seriously commence deep change.
Errr... You don't want to go with high emission pathways? Not even discussing about them? Well, it is pretty obvious that we ARE AT high emission pathway. We have been there since industrialization started. We are there still at least 50 years of scientific warmnings that we end up endangering ourselves. We were at about 10% OVER worst case scenario (RCP 8.5) before pandemic and we regained that position just after pandemic shutdowns ended. Emissions are at record high. Oil demand is at record high. Temperature is at record high. G20 is doing nothing. COP is in oil producing country led by oil CEO. And then we go to Australia that just opened worlds largest coal mine. We SHOULD talk about HIGH EMISSION SCENARIOS, because WE LIVE IN one.
Most of the visible academics on this issue are constrained from speaking the full truth. For fully truthful discussion you have to turn to the several vanishing few academics who quit for activism.
@@kenmystro Knowing the reality is scaring people? The reality and political actions are not there. We have to push out those politicians who are not willing to do what must be done. Knowing what really happens may scare for a while, but it also makes people to act on needed force. If we keep on current emission track, then the needed action is deadly force, because we will die on "business as usual" scenario.
@@martiansoon9092 that is how I see it aswell. The reason that is given for not talking about worst scenarios is the scaring people to inaction factor. I've seen it mentioned for as long as I've been looking climate. I think the research on psychology of a lot of people shows it leads to shut down where as in others it leads to action. Me personally I can't see any change happening globally especially from American unless people get some severe shocks untill then it'll be business as usual, people will deny harder
@@kenmystro Yea, personally I can't see that over 20% of the people are willing to do neccessary changes. Scared or not. They can be forced to do the changes, but that needs leadership that we won't have. But social studies says that even 6-10% of the people may drive changes in society and politics. One real problem is that we won't do the change, even when we have needed majority, but we keep doing the same things with approved system that has been applied previously. And that system is made to ensure the future destruction. One reason is the fear that if we do these changes our system may collapse. But collapse is coming anyway when natural systems are damaged too far. So when we have the positions to change the systems, then we have to do it in the time that we have. If those in power see's the situation as emergency and are willing to do the changes even if it may destroy their careers, then we will most likely see needed changes. Over 50 years of do nothing or do something that does not change anything has only made things worse. I'm still pessimistic that these chages will happen. Almost all indicators says that we will not change enough in the time we have. Avoiding facts, like we have crossed 1,5C and most likely will go far beyond 2C or aprroximation where every 0,1C change will cause 100 million deaths, is just lying to ourselves and to others. Facing the reality that we are on the path of killing ourselves should cause actions that may avoid our extinction. There is no easy path around the facts. Most tries to avoid them anyways. And keep on living with the destructive ways that we have taught them to live. And for the extreme weather events... You are very scared if someone comes at you with raised gun. We have laws against it. It is primal fear. But on climate, we see worse things happening around the globe and even in our neighborhoods. But we still won't act. The threat factor is different when a person threats you and you may just put those to prison. Weather events are just happening and the causes are so distant from our daily lives. If an extreme event happens, who is going to accuse next by oil company for causing it? And who tosses these oil workers to prison for making these events ever worse?
Audio podcast versions are something we're working on for the future. In the meantime, you can listen even with your screen off with a workaround www.androidpolice.com/how-to-listen-youtube-screen-off/
Excellent interview. Unfortunately it confirms what Kevin has already noted in previous discussions. That we will fail. The reason being that the scientists and those doing the modeling and decisions about climate issues and actions/inactions, will never include in their models, scenarios where total elimination of carbon technologies is phased out in a lifetime epoch (25 years), even though needed, because it is too revolutionary. And anything "revolutionary" in terms of economics is strictly verboten. And always will be because "economics is KING". Which is why we are in our mess with climate in the first place.
I don't think we have the luxury of being able to wait the next 30 years for reducing emissions. There's a potential 50 Gt of methane at the East Siberian Arctic shelf in very shallow sea and while the next 30 years are going to be warmer than today, if it vents it's the equivalent of 1.400 Gt of CO2 (35 years emissions) added to the atmosphere in a very short timescale. There's therefore a necessity not only to reduce fossil fuel emissions immediately but also end beef rearing. It takes 1,000 cubic metres of water to produce a tonne of vegetables, 1,450 to produce a tonne of wheat, but 42,500 to produce a tonne of beef. (False Economy by Alan Beattie, Viking/Penguin) From what we've emitted now temperatures are going to increase annually for the next 30 years without massive carbon extraction and countries needing to import their food like the UK for instance are going to have to start paying for the water in it very soon while exporters losing water to the heat are going to be forced to feed their own citizens before they can continue exporting so phasing out domestic animal rearing will be doing everyone a favour in reducing carbon emissions in agriculture - 30% of all GHG emissions. I also think that where coal, gas, and oil have been mined on land, the sea water from the addition of the melting ice will return there so failing to publicise this showing how self-harming increasing emissions really is, especially for home owners, allows politicians opposed to ending the use of fossil fuels for economic reasons the advantage of using their constituents' financial interests as the key to their decision making on the issue; saving people money is always a winner for politicians and for the present generation when all their property is at risk of destruction - within the next 30 years - from climate change politicians that ignore it do so at their peril.
great show. i find it interesting how the word 'conservative' is used in the context of IPCC science. It seems to me 'conservative' of the status quo, or of modenr culture that has existed for a minute... but I think it would be more accurate to call a 'conservative' climate science view as one that takes a strong precautionary approach, one that is conservative in risk tolerance. One could say that a climate scientist that errs on the side of permitting more pollution than is safe, or discounting uncertainties/low probabilities that are extremely high cost... that is a radical scientist. And it sounds like the IPCC is the highest common denomintor of radical science.
Hello? Who said tipping points were centuries away? Not professor Steffard that for sure and not the research I have read. Some scientists reality check has bounced.
In democratic countries we have even one more problem. Our governmant changes in short term cycles. So any meaningful climate policy can be reversed when next government comes. This can be seen in the USA. It shows its scales in Finland. And in many more countries. Having just one good government with appropriate means is not enough. And even those governments are currently handling climate chaos at the level that we need. Bulldoze down ALL fossil burning items, starting with coal plants and oil refineries. Build up the needed infra with more sustainable methods, like wind, solar, geothermal and even nuclear power plants. We need world war 2 like actions against climate change. So far these actions has been pushed sideways (sad about US politics, specially Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders climate driven campaigns, on world stage these could have been huge).
Sobering stuff. Totally agree that unproven tech should not be included in the solutions. It's not the job of scientists to pre-suppose what should be done culturally, economically, or politically. But of course, we are all humans. I dislike the concept behind the term, 'stewardship of nature'. That is a western/abrahamic religious view of how we see our relationship with nature. We once, and some indigenous communities still, relate to nature and the commons as part of it, not as rulers dominating it.
Conservatism in IPCC etc seems to be backwards. One would want conservatism to represent the position least likely to have catastrophic consequences. This might mean bringing into focus scenarios which might have lower probability (now) but are nonetheless possible.
Climate change since 1750 , known since 1827 and understood by 1897 yet no actions were taken, are being taken or will be taken to mitigate the host of negative effects. The poor and brown who have little responsibility for climate change will /are suffering and dying first .
Reminding that the pandemic shutdown was merely what we needed to do EVERY single year after that to have even a slight chance for 1,5C. My point is: The ways to go to 1,5C are not there anymore. Not even with total shutdown. Even a single thing says we are not even now at 1,5C world, but well over it. Adding aesol effects, we end up to 1,8C (IPCC) or to 2,55C (Hansen). We have no path to 1,5C (where we are at the fist time, august 2023 [monthly temperature, not yet as 30-year climatic period]). And we don't have a real scalable emission sucktion systems that would be needed. I think that the best suggested solution so far is seaweed/kelp farming (cannot burn, takes lots of carbon and ocean area is larger than land masses + additional benefits). If we won't even shutdown ALL fossil burning, the situation where we are will keep worsening every single day. Every 0,1C warming kills 100 million people.
@@andriesbisschoff4968 From papers that say 1C temperature rise will lead to 1 billion deaths in the future. Divide those numbers by 10 and you get 0,1C and 100 million deaths. There is many other publications that hints to that direction, but are not combining all elements together. Storm deaths, heat stress, floods, hunger (ie. loss of coral reefs and that food source), water scarsity, diseases in new areas, wars (on background lack of resources like water), ... And so on. You may also discuss if fossil fuel burning caused small particle deaths should be included. 8-13 million per year, currently. You may also discuss how much of these events are worsened by climate change, but that's what these papers suggests. Sources: "For every 0.1 °C degree of warming from now on, the world could suffer roughly 100 million deaths." www.sciencealert.com/scientists-warn-1-billion-people-on-track-to-die-from-climate-change Science paper (also note that over 10 billion deaths means extinction): www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02323/full
Fortunately, a couple of heat events in major food growing areas will cause famine and war that destroys humanity before the innafectual dithering of our greedy corporate leaders leads to extinction of almost all life on earth due to runaway heating. This disscusion seemed massively optomistic and somewhat pointless under the circumstances.
Ah, so because the relentless greed of our corporate overlords has put us on a path towards ecological collapse it's 'fortunate' that those who do least to contribute to it perish in horrifying ways, sure sure. Well all I have to say to that is, be a good doomer and begin the annihilation of humanity with yourself.
In fact there are two key processes we must get into place: 1. Introduce a carbon tax, start small and increase rapidly and exponentially over time. This is the key to changing the use of fossil fuels and everything that comes with it. 2. Decrease the population, otherwise any positive development will be negated by an increase in consumption.
I see this suggestion all over the place. Nobody does a better job (on other videos) than Kevin of pointing out that the emissions per capita of the wealthiest few percent of the global population are the low-hanging fruit, not the poor people in the south whose only hedge against destitution is a large family.
If we have been losing the insect bio-mass of the planet, at a rate of 1-2% each year. This means we have lost 30% since 1970’s. What does it mean to lose all insects, and what happens to us? My kids will experience the consequences.
@@a.randomjack6661deforestation, for sure. As soon as house heating oil / gas is no longer available, people will turn to the forest down the road and cut whatever they need. Only an army of rangers could keep m out, but only for so long. All those climate trees will end up in a stove, (much) sooner than later.
The choice of the 9 boundaries is arbitrary. The Earth system is so intercomnected that one can choosen just about anything as a quantitative control variable. Examples could be the total surface area of arable land, or the total remaining volume of aquafer water, or the ratio of sea urchins to kelp forest coverage, or the number and intensity of "atmospheric river" in a single year...the list is endless and a function perspective; what a particular person cares about. In short, the opening statement lacks scientifically rigor and the planetary boundary framework is harmful; it wrongly suggests it is somehow ok that we transgressed some boundaries and retill remain fine, as long as we left others alone. If fact, multiple single planetary boundaries can be chosen, non of which can be crossed without feedback crashing others. And if the humans system is involved, the economic system running the show must also be included as a variable somewhere in the model. Otherwise the model has no value other than publishing a few papers and fooling the untrained persons that the authors knew what thet talk about.
can you provide any peer reviewed evidence to support your views? or are you pulling this out of your nether regions. also please provide your scientific credentials. thank you
The conversation is all rather nice but the train has long left the station. Discussion about pressure for change from above is a none starter. The real pressure will come from below when there are empty stomachs and a sequence of climate disasters that hit the capitalist heart lands of the rich west. And at our present rate of inaction that day is very close. FTT
Johan! Top-down? This indicates you are not thinking in terms of regenerative systems. The principles underlying regenerative systems and the current systems are diametrically opposed.This is partly because you simply do not understand what the degree of change must be. You clearly think it's about laws, regulations, flattening the wealth curve, but all of that will still continue to destroy the ecosystem. Those things cannot be made regenerative. Kevin! Closer to the mark, but still failing to understand what regenerative is. Since the current system **cannot** be made regenerative, the best you can ask of it is to minimally empower changes, BUT those changes will result in the END of those systems, and once the wealth and power holders understand this, they will no longer support these changes. Ultimately, aso, sustainability is local. Think in terms of a quilt. Each community is a square. We don't need big global systems, we need millions of small systems. It is VERY doable. Top down? Impossible.
You can speak honestly on climate and rely on others with regenerative expertise to translate that into policy... but you will not engage if the person is not famous, or has advanced degrees, or is not "connected," or....??? I have been talking to both of you for YEARS.
These guys are looking in the rear view mirror at 1.5 and think they are looking ahead. Next time you are speaking to a room with a hundred people or any multiple of this ask how many own automobiles. Then ask how many are willing to permanently park them as soon as they arrive home from the talk. Then do your calculations again. Even the most progressive spokespeople are living in an ivory tower.
Yes, Indigenous knowledge aka TEK. The non-Indigenous corollary is permaculture. But do either of you listen to anything I say? No. Do you engage? No. So, which is it? You sincerely want to engage with regenerative knowledge holders or you don't?
Actually, I expect that the IPCC might increase the expectations of sea-level rise by another 20 cm due to the thawing in Antarctica. If the AMOC collapses, there will be an additional sea-level rise in middle Europe of about 40cm and in northern Europe of about 80 cm.
We really need to look at earth history far enough back to recognise that C02 levels have been vastly higher without exceeding natural regulatory boundaries for life on earth. The C02 levels aren't closely correlated with temperature either. Next we need to look at the physics of the so called greenhouse effect. In fact if physics shows us that if we double overall C02 concentration in the atmosphere we would get no more than 1% or 0.7degC. There is not enough carbon in all fossil fuel reserves to create this doubling. The positive feedback loop proposed for greenhouse gas emissions is a faulty model as it does not account for clouds that regulate the thermal effects, by modulating albedo. Now look at the climate model predictions. We find that most are significantly over estimates compared to observed temperatures. Having laid the C02 nonsense to rest, we do need to beware of the natural cooling period we are now entering. Add to this the reversing and weakening magnetic field of earth and we really do have something to concern us about climate.
This interview is a lesson in misunderstanding and neglect for human psychology. The "1.5 degrees" and "year 2100" are terrible mistakes in science communication.
i do not think so, it is the educational problem that people do not understand what it means. and educations is broken because of a monetary system and power hierarchies.
@@LightSearch that usually leads to dumbing down the information of manipulation the audience. instead of making the population more informed and better equipped to handle information. or have you found a way around that to tell things as it it without oversimplifications and misleading data? or even emotional leading the targets?
@@LightSearchIf we keep simplifying things to the layman level, we will eventually end up in idiocracy. Look at what the 10 second soundbites and tic tok videos doing to people’s attention span
@@Power_to_the_people567 Using the year 2100 to make forecasts, no matter how grim they are, is useless, no one cares. They treat their audiences like idiots when they just say that we need to keep global temperature under 1.5 degrees without explaining the consequences of failing to do so.
From my perspective, it is intellectual dishonesty to talk about the Anthropocene without mentioning the role of the CAPITALOCENE in the entire process that is leading to the destruction of planet Earth. Colonialist imperialism for profit and wealth accumulation began the process of commodification of literally everything. The enclosure of the commons created artificial scarcity and coerced people into taking useless and destructive jobs to make ends meet. We need a paradigm shift towards a social and ecological political economy (holistic civilization), not the reproduction of the capitalist system and the mindless consumer society. Resorting to the financialization of ecosystem services to maintain the status quo of an anachronistic civilizational paradigm will not solve the problem, but it could pave the way for a techno-fascist transhumanist dystopia.
Angry over the discussion of NbSs. It is completely off-point. The ignorance of how we use and do regenerative systems is incomprehensible. However, they are correct that they should not be used as offsets.... because **nothing should be.*** This is dangerously incorrect framing. I am not just angry, I am shocked and deeply saddened at the lack of knowledge and irresponsible discussion of these things. Clearly, neither of you has ever discussed these issues with those who do regenerative systems/TEK. Really not acceptable in any way, shape or form. This is why nobody should rely first on climate scientists about mitigation and adaptation. It simply is not what they do.
Just the usual reminder to keep comments respectful and on topic - i.e. about the specific subjects dealt with in this video. We're not premoderating comments this time, but we won't be giving a platform to denialist misinformation of any kind.
Plenty of that, denialism, head-in-the-sand, or just not looking into it.
Visiting my FamilyParty Uncensored, apart from the inevitable contra - refugee remarks, there be numbers of uncles and nephews remarking that this climate thing is way overdone, and that not even half of "what they're saying" is actually going to happen. Bet my relatives wouldn't even believe 5 percent of what these guys bring up.
Not too bad, as my family don't hold positions in big finance and company boardrooms, but I'm convinced the tally of climate-wise folks in the corridors of power is just as low - plus that the few decision makers that realize climate _is_ an issue, think things can be easily solved by technology, with even making a profit.
Actions in the streets won't reach the powerful, we've gotta find better ways to grab m by the collar and say " Now YOU are going to act"
Hi. Please include more voices and opinions and science from the Global South. Best wishes from Valencia Spain
Excellent discussion. It's great to have those two major figures of the climate change scientist community discussing together. So Great. In a way, this a milestone. "We" need more such discussions between scientists. Very grateful to Professors Rockström and Anderson for this generous discussion. -- Also very happy with the subtitles. I do not actually need them, but I use them as a "support" sometimes, and they are very good and useful in this case (this being a complex topic). Much better than "autogenerated" subtitles. Thank you for that as well. Best wishes!
It's funny reading that comment and then seeing the channel name right next to it.
I hope you guys are ok given the terrible floods last week. Two years ago, the place I live in Qld, Australia, was flooded after receiving 1200mm of rain in 5 days. They called it a 'rain bomb'. The clouds didn't arrive from west and depart to the east as they normally do. Instead, they stayed in the one place and just kept reforming and reforming, sucking up moisture from the ocean and dumping it on the land. One place had 784mm of rain in one day. Lots of flooding and damage, and some people died. Our hearts go out to you and the people of Spain. We're thinking of you. 🙏
Two of my favourite people in the world. Johan's work on planetary boundaries is groundbreaking and fundamental to moving back to sustainability on all fronts. Kevin's honesty, passion and commitment in exposing the climate culprits - those creating the most emissions and sabotaging climate action, which are the wealthy elite, corporations and governments - is crucial to forcefully implement climate action in the immediate future, and build all of the necessary systems and infrastructure to achieve zero emissions well before 2030.
Extinction Rebellion activist here (one of many with a normal job). Fyi: i'm always VERY grateful when i see Scientist Rebellion people in an action or doing an action. I totally understand the dilemma scientist feel about being in an action, but it is SO important to show the public we're not some group believing in a hoax: we're deeply concerned (afraid) about the lack of (swift enough) action to stop climate warming, we love live, and are willing to spent our free time, own money, and risk jail etc in an attempt to get everyone understand the seriousness of the situation and the need for more action. Thank you for this video (although i think it will only be viewed by people already in the know :-| ).
Thank you for the thought provoking discussion. Enjoyed and especially the idea of Rockström in getting the silent mass into the action was good. Shared in fb.
An excellent and well-balanced discussion. I used to work for ICOS (Integrated Carbon Observation System) managing a research station in Northern Sweden measuring GHG's, and we also started to see 'peak growth' in the forests (as mentioned by Johan for Finland). Yet, still many startups are founded on selling carbon credits based on afforestation or protection of an existing forest, despite the fact that a) need to manage that forest for 100+ years to offset the CO2 in the atmosphere and b) additionality, how to prove that the forest would not have existed in the first place without and investment c) reliable methods for measuting the NEE - the best being fluxes - but most startups think satellite data is good enough. Forests should be restored as per Kevin's recommendation as a benefit to natural ecosystems and as an amenity for humans (think afforestation in cities to help provide shade and reduce ambient temp) as opposed to offsets.
Alot to think about, and this systems way of thinking is sorely needed.Thanks for posting!
Kevin always makes such good sense. Hes very smart, completely honest and capable of seeing the big picture
Absolutely. However, „interview“ is not the correct description for the format. It should be labelled „scientific talk“.
The most important video on youtube today, what could be more important? That the IPCC, which reports are bad enough, still isnt showing whole picture
Great point that given the scope and speed of the predicament, the only realistic solutions must come from the top-down, not the bottom-up. But the leaders have not acted for 30 years, and they continue to fail, so we need community engagement.
Totally agree There is no solution but any action that has any meaningful impact is going to have to come from top down carbon Marshall like plans
solutions must come from the top-down, not the bottom-up.
Absolutely not. Every top down solution has failed, including globalization, population control, infinite growth economics and the worst forms of capitalism.
The bottom is giving out, if you white folks did not realize. There is a mass exodus going on along with the 6th mass extinction. There is not a single known
top down policy which can control that.
Top down solutions will only result in corruption & totalitarian ruin
My best guess is that we implement some type of totalitarian nightmare around the 2040s when famines and crop failures cause billions to die. It will be quite dystopian, but the best ration system to distribute resources fairly and to combine military resources to maintain stability for trade (avoid wars and riots). By the 2070s, I think the elites won't be able to maintain their grip via the military and economic favors because there will not be enough energy. By the 2100s, I think people will be living like the middle ages or in tribal nomadic groups. We will not stop emitting fossil fuels. We hit 2 degrees C by 2050, never achieving net zero-- which will cause us to hit tipping points to eventually warm the earth to 10 degrees C (James Hansen). I don't think we will invent free energy and carbon capture tech-- if we do, then the future will still be difficult, but human survival might be possible. @@donaldrobertson1808
"...the only realistic solutions must come from the top-down, not the bottom-up."
This is completely incorrect. Those who only know climate, but do not know regenerative systems/sustainability/TEK, i.e. ecosystem function at all scales, do not know energy reserves, resource curves, Economics, ecosystem destruction, etc., always say this. Once one understands that the *First Principles* underlying current systems versus regenerative systems, it becomes clear top-down has zero chance of solving much at all. Why? Anything being done, virtually EVERYTHING being done, at that level is completely unsustainable.
This is the best discussion of the issues that are both most vexing and most overlooked issues in the shere of climate mitigation challenges.
I learned of Johan Rockstrom via Breaking Boundaries, a netflix documentary. An excellent scientific presentation for the general public.
The documentary really undersells the current impact. For example, biodiversity. They say we 'might' enter the 6th Mass Extinction. Might?!?! We are already in it says 95% of scientists. Was identified Decades ago. Not only that, we ignore the fact that we have altered the soil of the planet which in turn, impacts the food chain. We have no idea about the impact we have had on this planet.
I'm halfway through, and all the discussion around NETs just makes me think of the analogy I have with a terrible Satnav. If you were running late, with roadworks, diversions and your car breaking down, your Satnav would be considered useless if it continued to claim that you'd arrive at your destination on time. That's what it's increasingly seeming like with 1.5c. (Apologies for it being a car-related analogy!)
I'd far rather have a blunt "Based on the trends from the last X number of years, this is the temperature we're heading for", rather than "If we somehow U-turn from what we're currently doing, this is where we'll be!"
Great analogy, George!
Listen to professor Guy McPherson if you want an accurate assessment of where things stand now. Watch 'Planet of the Humans' if you want the reality of 'renewables' - the cost of which in resources to build, maintain and replace at approx 30 year intervals. Meanwhile these 'experts' never talk about the Aerosol Masking Effect.....
Sorry... what? If you want unscientific doomerist claptrap and denialism, then by all means go ahead and listen to McPherson or Michael Moore.
I think you can see from the discussion that 1.5 was never a viable target we were never going to meet it and we aren't going to meet 2° either that is clear.
On top of it all the impacts of what we thought would be 3° plus our happening now at 1.5°. 1.5° is a new 3°
@@ClimateUncensored Wait what? this whole video is doomerist
What an amazing thought provoking conversation. Thank you
if nothing else, you two have helped to directly shape the trajectory of my life in the desire to become a climate scientist and serve as a net positive to do whatever I can to help us get out of this crisis
Thank you for an interesting talkshow. So much to do while so little time left...
Keep up your great work. Much appreciated!
Thank you for this discussion. You raised many questions that bat around in my head. Yes, it IS the Thunberg's, Caroline Lucas (Green Party), Greenpeace & XR, JustStopOil voices we are hearing (UK). And I personally have no objections to their message or their methods - all avenues are required. But our Parliament is silencing the vociferous, from jail sentencing for peaceful protest, to resignation of the lone voice in Westminster no doubt through a sore head from brickwall banging! She can only take so much.
So I welcome the admission that the academics & researchers aren't nearly visible and vocal enough and need to keep informing and updating -and absolutely publicising when you've changed your minds and why, as you have a right & a necessity to do! (like the rest of us).
But journalists & TV arent interested in talking to you or giving you a platform - unless it is to create clicks & sell ads and generally cater to tabloid style headlines & readership, and I include ALL media in this degeneration of broadcasting.
So how ARE you to be heard? How will you spread the messages to encourage the Silent Majority to finally stand up to our inept Governments? Elections are meaningless- voting in or out ministers changes nothing as all only interested in supporting the status quo.
AI algorithms twist public attention and online viewship in nefarious ways.
What are the solutions to being heard?
Thanks for this comment, @isb9073. You raise some important and hard questions. In their discussion, Johan & Kevin touched on this ('Is change driven top-down or bottom-up?' from 49:15). Clearly there was some difference of opinion here, with Johan suggesting that the only way is through directly influencing ('bending') those in positions of power; whereas Kevin argued that those same powerful elites will have to be 'dragged kicking and screaming' by grassroots voices (citizens / activists). Those are not mutually exclusive channels of influence of course.
Johan and Kevin agreed that the measures required to cut emissions would actually benefit the silent majority (those below the top 10% wealthiest) in terms of improved health, job security, etc - so this is a message that needs to be pushed hard. The powerful and wealthy high emitters would have us believe that "we're all in it together".
Regarding algorithms and visibility - we can all play a role in communicating valuable information, by speaking out and sharing our thoughts within our own networks. We are not powerless.
You got yourself a right-wing cabinet, but even if Labor gets elected, they still have to cater to the half/ two thirds of voters that are convinced the situation is not that bad. Even is they know about climate, they don't watch talks like this, and most don't realize that all the extra carbon added daily is going to make it worse and worse - the problem of understanding the exponential math.
On the contrary, the tabloid and populist media will do their utmost best to make decent climate policy look extreme, and to further criminalize activism.
We're not in a green wise society, it's the full community, including all folk that can't even ( willingly ) tell the difference between a weather forecast and a climate model.
I'm not the only one to think - if only the Big One happened, London, or New York, or Florida flooded.
But then, Sandy _did_ hit New York, seriously, over 70 US deaths and 65 bns damages. Harvey and Ian cost over 110 bn each, double that of Sandy, and yet... maybe first a complete metropolis has to burn?
Yours is perhaps the most important comment here. It will be too late when any 'big one' hits. That makes the problem harder because it requires proactivity rather than reactivity. It means people must somehow educate each other about how dire the situation is and then get together to create an unstoppable group that forces through climate action. It's about POWER. Currently, the climate-denying elite - corporations and governments - have all of the power, while climate advocates, activists and anyone who cares about climate and the natural world - have none. We who care must join together to become more powerful than those that don't, and have a plan to then use that power to make the changes we need to survive.
This was great, thanks for putting it together.
#climateactionow
Boreal Northern Forest has reached a tipping point, current research indicates in Canada after 200o-2005 instead net negative cO2, it now through forest fires contributes 3x more co2 per year than the whole Canadian civilization. Which of course doesn't factor into Canada measured contribution or any other nations contribution from my understanding.
I'm a Canadian living among 40-year-old government-subsidized planted pines. Feels more like wildfire risk than the sink maintenance ('forest stewardship') I used to feel.
A
As Johan stated above, Finnish boreal forest have changed from sink to source
Excellent education on planetary boundaries and the implications of crossing them
Both, forthright as ever. And a great follow up to the Greta conversation. I hope this gets a lot of views.
Don't forget, three dots, 'Show Transcript', toggle timestamps off, copy and paste. FWIW.
Good tip Nick, I use it often, but there is no transcript on this video.
@@philipdavidparker & @nickfosterxx the transcript is simply the captions (subtitles) shown separately from the main video - and are available for this video! A lot of time went into making the subtitles for this video, by the way - the autogenerated ones were junk, they just couldn't catch Johan and Kevin's quick speech!
I was astonished at how much Johan Rockström seems to believe in CCS and that it will have a substantial impact on CO2 reduction. His expression when mentioning it seemed that he would be very apprehensive if this doesn't work as he believes it will.
Exceptional discussion by two realists. Perhaps could have added discussion on how politicians manage the risks identified by scientists.
Businesses manage very well the risks if they are associated with high profit entreprise like aviation transport or financial projects. But for the risks about the environment impact associated with economical project. No precaution principle is made
Great chat guys!
I am quite eager to have our first year of emission reductions so there will be something to celebrate.
It will be a distinctly unique event for our species. I think we should start an new global calendar. Year One is the point in time where humans take responsibility for our pollution and create opportunities of life instead of diminishing it.
On the other hand - as far as I understood regarding the ‘situation’ -, if ever humankind were suddenly capable, by waving some Harry Potter wand, to make it without depending on any fossil fuel, from today onwards, for example, it would still take at least four decades (but quite possibly much, much longer) until the highest temperatures on the Globe just stabilize, and only then may start finally decreasing - a well-known classic phenomenon in terms of physics, due to the so-called ‘’thermal inertia of the oceans’’. In other words, temperatures will keep rising more and more in the meantime. So, the sooner every single nation around the world (to begin with the US, China, the UK, the members of the EU, and the most industrialized countries) will act seriously in order to get rid of fossil fuels obviously the better, but I’m afraid no one should be excessively impatient about experiencing the very first benefits of such a colossal, unprecendented task. Even a whole life time won’t probably be enough. Meanwhile….
@fabiengerard8142 , ya... hard to define a future that embodies so many choices. Even magic, or rather alchemy🙂, must play a part for that future to exist. Preceeding all of that is the event, or events, that bring humanity together as Team Human. The chaos of the moment must resolve to some new sort of order. Preferably a state where truth stands above opinions.
@22:30 We tried to shutdown the world during pandemic, but that ment just 7% drop on emissions at that single year. That is the level that needed to be done by EVERY SINGLE year to have a chance for 2C.
In his recent talk with Nate Hagens („The Great Simplification“) Johan Rockström very much stressed the point of technological solutions. He stayed very cautious on the topics of reducing consumption, scaling down, making sacrifices. Kevin is challenging this, and right so. We really need to define and communicate what the 1.5 degree goal demands from the top 75% of Western citizens. It‘s huge and we better start talking about it today…
GHG theory in 1955 was fringe as the people who fret in comments of videos about our current magnetosphere instability.
If turns out to be our next biggest threat ¤ going to blame yourself for not {Hypothetically!} lining the rocks in your yard along Magnetic pole to 'help' ?
Or see it as something kind of silly to do and worry about? 'Until too late'
Reject historic carbon debt as such. Prior to Rio certainly
Sorry kids, but you might want to pay close attention -- this is about your future. and thank you Kevin Anderson
🙏🙏🙏 great candid chat
Ochrona planety
💚💚💚
1 Zaprzestanie emisji CO2
2 Ochrona przyrody
3 Pozostałe
💚💚💚
Edukowanie społeczeństwa
Wystarczy że 4 procent ludzi będzie walczyć o planetę i osiągniemy cel
💚💚💚
Kiedy troszczymy się o coś, obdarza nas to pokojem
💚💚💚
Zmiany na lepsze są odczuwalne, zauważalne i doceniane błyskawicznie
💚💚💚
Kiedy zatroszczymy się tylko trochę o środowisko naturalne, ono odzyje w ułamku sekundy...
💚💚💚
Natury nie można powstrzymać, wystarczy jej nie przeszkadzać i trochę się o nią zatroszczyc...
💚💚💚
Wszystko będzie dobrze 💚💚💚
💚💚💚
💚💚💚
💚💚💚
Excellent discussion.
Great, important interview - everyone should watch it!
Can you do the podcast version too?
How does any proposed solution account for the constant growth of world economies?
Johan, you are wearing rose-colored glasses WRT any form of mechanical C Capture. Kevin is correct: Ramping up is not simple multiplication. The resources simply do not exist to build out all these technologies. See: Prof. Simon Michaux's analyses.
I continue to believe we’ve misdiagnosed the problem, and that climate change (with other planetary boundaries) are more akin to symptoms. The economy is the problem, perhaps even industrial modernity. It is an organizational, distributional, and demographic problem, which is intuitive to many, but for which there isn’t the same rigorous evidence. Crucially, focusing on emissions isn’t interrogating the questions of energy and materials, our use of them in conflict with natural systems. In lieu of a desirable human social model, nothing will change.
Great interview despite the bad news
Johan, here's the thing where I think 'we'🙂 er you & most main stream scientists are falling short on messaging.. we have missed the boat for a comfortable livable future. Its dystopian whatever path we now take. You of any other shld KNOW this for sure. Its ESSENTIAL that you tell ppl the truth when talking about situation & 'solutions'. There are no real solutions just less pain suffering & death.
The only way forward that will give us a decent chance of a less dystopian future surely hs to be an implemented climate Marshall plan.. something scientists shld be at least presenting as an option in addressing the climate catastrophe.k
As Michael Mann admitted on CBS today (9/17/23), denialists have practically no leg left upon which to stand.
His greatest fear (one i suspect is shared by many including Katherine Hayhoe) is that Doomerism is as antithetical to action as is denialism.
People have to feel that there is reason to believe there’s Hope…
Many, overwhelmed by the enormity of the problem are simply giving up hope.
As Edward Abbey, thé désert anarchist pointed out - Action is the antidote to despair.
This is excellent. Ammunition for my GE hustings next week though I'll be surprised if I get asked a single question about climate 😐
Kevin, to quote: "Jay Gulledge concluded that to adopt a more risk-sensitive approach, scientists would need in some cases to allow more tolerance of false positives, and less tolerance of false negatives"
...
"However, it may be unrealistic and unfair of us to expect scientists to do this on their own. No self-respecting professional wants to violate the cultural norms of their field. For the cultures of science and risk assessment to meet in the middle, they each need to be represented by their own experts. This implies separating out the tasks of information gathering and risk assessment."
And "If scientists provide the raw information for climate change risk assessments, then the processing of that information should also involve those for whom risk assessment is a core part of their professional expertise. Qualified individuals could be drawn from fields such as defence, intelligence, insurance, and public health.
All of this could contribute to producing and communicating the science of climate change in a way that, as Jane Lubchenco recommended, would be ‘maximally helpful’for society. But for a full assessment of the risks of climate change, we will still need to go further. We will need to go beyond science."
At 44:12 there is a typo in the subtitles, pretty sure Johan says 70% emissions from the top 1%, not 17%.
@garmomedia seventy and seventeen sound very similar said fast. But the correct number is 17% (16.9% to be precise!! - see Fig.2 in the Lucas Chancel paper referenced in the description).
Thanks for a quick reply, I stand corrected! I realize now I had it mixed up with the emissions from the top 10% which are also not 70% but at least more in the same ballpark at 52%. Thanks for a great interview! @@ClimateUncensored
@36:00 if GHG’s where attributed to the importing countries and NOT the exporting countries, China and India’s growing carbon use would decline and production would localize.
Could WE live in harmony with Gaia, IF we lived like they did,....pre 1700 style, using
Age of Sail as our main sea going transport system?
Thank you for uploading and sharing.
@@melkadmidis4363No one in their rightful mind would want anarchy to ensue, but with such a dramatic shift potentially on the books, that outcome seems plausible?
Maybe Russia invading Ukraine is the start of things to come?
Not sure how much water this holds, so with a pinch or more of salt Nostradamus did 'foresee' turbulent times around now as did Madame Lablasky.
We live in interesting times regardless of what has been predicted.
May any change be quick and without bloodshed, but that is wishful thinking on my part.
Thank you for replying.
@@felipearbustopotdeven dirigible airships would be a near revolution to travel like that is not vacation.
Depend on winds means can't promise boss landlord family that you will be home on a certain date
In the last minutes of the discussion the truth is revealed: there is no reward for academics in supporting the unpalatable measures required. In speaking out. In informing the general public. I have great respect for both speakers, but I demand more. It is this mentality of "not my business", or "what is in it for me" that has allowed nasty things to happen less than a century ago.
If i understand correctly, the NET is not yet close to what it should be, but it is assumed to be there in the 1.5 degrees model. At the same time, emissions are even growing. It sounds to me that this 1.5 model is not realistic anymore and we should prepare for a world with 2 degrees (or more) warming. Both persons in the interview seem to avoid that obvious conclusion, but hinting at it.
I seriously doubt we can stop it wherever we want. Most of the observed warming is caused by feedback loops, less sea ice, less carbon sink. more water vapor (because the extra warming) thawing, permafrost...
In all, it's about 75% of the warming comes from feedback loops alone.
And that's only ONE of the nine planetary boundaries.
I think academics who actually "get it" are still hesitant to say "we can't make 1.5" because the consequences are unknowable. Would this lead people to throw up their hands and say it's all hopeless? Would it allow O&G and other emitters to drag out their heels even more because now we're reaching for 2, and missing 1.5 didn't cause climate armagedon? IDK, humans are a mixed bag. It's hard to know how people will respond to "truth." So far, instead of galvanizing people to push for strong mitigation, destabilization has given the alt-right and other previously marginal movements the steam to wedge their way into mainstream discourse. Thoughtful ppl like Anderson and Rockstrom are very "tell it like it is," but I think even they are loath to close the door on 1.5, and it rankles me, but I also get it.
Thanks for the upload! Where can I find the Swedish study Kevin Anderson is referring to?
Sorry for the delay... here's a link to the Swedish report mentioned in the interview: klimatriksdagen.se/paverka-4/#omstplan
Swedish only I'm afraid.
Excellent discussion, thank you. Does anyone have a link to the Sweden citizens' report mentioned at about 53 minutes
Here's a link to the citizens' report mentioned in the interview: klimatriksdagen.se/paverka-4/#omstplan
Swedish only I'm afraid.
@@ClimateUncensored Great, thanks very much for the quick and useful reply! Now I just need to learn Swedish...
There are several high profile climate scientists who have "cherry picked" the small percentage number of climate modelling runs which actually project us as staying within +1.5C. Yet it seems this small number includes many runs constructed & run upon false assumptions - like ignoring instability in other biosphere areas which adversely affect temperature rise.
It might have helped mitigation progress if those over-confident scientists had declared, say, "out of the thousands of climate modelling runs carried out using varied parameters, we could only identify with confidence 5 (say) examples which would certainly keep us within +1.5".
Had they made such declaration then it might, perhaps, have concentrated minds more on causationm & injected more urgency into the rapid reduction of fossil fuel burning based on the "real" unlikely ability of the Earth system to stabilise below +1.5C.
Climate modelling is an exceptional tool but the outputs are still only a guide & our leaders & pathfinders should have paid more attention to Wally Broeker's analysis of the climate system as being volatile and "an angry beast"
Yes. Important points.
IPCC is not adding tipping points to their models, even when evidence shows that these tipping elements are already started to happen.
Ice loss in Greenland diminishes gravitational pull in northern hemisphere, so more water goes south. And when sea level in the south rises, it adds more risks for Antarctic melting (that is likely accelerating now, 2,3 million square kilometers of sea ice missing, this year!). When Antarctica starts to melt, it adds sea levels in northern hemisphere. While these forces are balanced you may see equatoral coastlines taking worst hits. But if melting continues Antarctica has most mass, so northern hemisphere is hit hardest in coming centuries. We may lose major Antarctic glaciers, like Thwaites in just mere decades (+0,6m from this beast alone), so sea level rise is likely going well over 1 meter by 2100.
Has Greenland ice sheet reached a final tipping point where there is no return, but all will melt? That's an open debate in science community these days.
All around the world permafrost is melting. We may see permafrost ground gaining higher temperatures. Permafrost melting leads to bacterial activation in the soil and under water that leads to huge methane plumes (permafrost includes loads of water, so areas gets more wet when they thaw).
Arctic sea ice could be gone during summers by 2030-2050. And that will change all weather and climate predictions. Everything changes and most changes are not positive for nature or mankind.
We are losing rapidly most mountain glaciers and that will lead to a situation where several billion people has not enough water, even some has not enough water to drink.
We ARE at 1,5C (august, 2023). El Niño is still gathering its strenght and will become worse in comnig 1-2 years. Climatic 30-year period will go over 1,5C, but not quite yet.
We ARE heading toward 3-4C world. Pledges that have been given are failing. When emissions should have been declining 7-8% per year, they are at new record. And oil demand is at new record. G20 hardly even speaks about phasing out fossil fuels, not even mentioning coal burning. Next COP is in oil producing country led by oil CEO. And then we head to Australia, that just opened worlds largest coal mine. And in USA republican party is doing what ever it can to keep fossil burning alive with huge emissions. Even normal discussions are blocked with nonsense. Ukraine war has disrupted most global negotiations.
Current science says: Every approx. 0,1C temperature rise will kill 100 million people. And that's without tipping points.
UN human right leader has said about current situation that we are at climate dystopia.
We see simultanoeus massive floods in Turkiye, Greece, Florida, Brasil and China, we may say that we are living in a climate dystopia.
We see simultaneous massive heatwaves and droughts, often causing massive wildfires, in most of the continents, we are living a climate dystopia.
Things are not getting better, specially when our leaders are not doing what is needed.
Stop ALL (!) fossil burning. Today.
1-4% of Greenland has melted
Only tipping point of GL that I've heard of is by 2275:
what ice melts on Northern shore won't be replaced by new snow (due to some ice sheet-metrology-sea mechanics)
Even if then return to 1850-1900 baseline... north section will be Polar Desert or if lucky; patch of tundra
Thwaites Ice Shelf is vulnerable but intact. Thwaites Glacier is pinned on land by the Thwaites Ice Shelf
Shelf has to fail before Glacier can affect sea level
The Lack of imagination of those that rule us and do all the investing is tragically devastating and pathetic
I think the words you're looking for are greed, hoarding, name-calling and pushing down everyone else for their own benefit, at their and everyone's cost, sure, but at least they'll mean something
Loving Kevin. Love johans work but my god our enemy is ruthless and they need to be called out and resisted; politicians and fossil fuel CEO’s , bankers and insurers do not care about us . No one I’d coming to save us. It’s desperate. Get out onto the streets - disrupt and resist !
ClaudeWalloon I agree totally. Eloquent talk and cosy chats between scientists, both of whom I personally admire, achieve very little and there's no urgency, insufficient social science input and organisational talk of populations. Without physical boots on the ground action I can't believe governments will change course. Democracy no longer happens and free speech is legislated out of bounds.
Thank you for all the information. My biggest concern was not addressed in the conversation: the increase of Methan in the atmosphere since 2006. While previous increases can be explained by leakage of pipes and fracking, the increase since 2006 seems to include a significant amount of methane released by nature but induced by human-caused global warming. The methane is released from tropic and subtropic wetlands and increasingly methane and methane and methane hydroxide from thawing permafrost on land and the shelf areas underwater within the Arctic Circle. Comparing the graphs of the current Methane Emissions with those of the previous Interglacials, those are not alike at all. The current emissions look like the start of a termination event. Our logical reaction should be to stop the release of all climate gases immediately and hope that the tipping point hasn't been reached since otherwise the emissions are out of control and will probably result in cascading classic positive feedback loops.
Unfortunately, logical solutions are not realistic on this planet.
@thomasd5 Certainly methane emissions are a key issue. The carbon budgets (total amount of the CO2 we can release) provided by the IPCC assume very optimistic reductions in other GHGs, significantly methane. The reality is far from this, and methane concentrations in the atmosphere are continuing to rise.
Atmospheric methane concentration science has 2 flaws.
Both residence time and global production are estimates with possible orders of magnitude error.
Furthermore it is rather strange that oxidized methane is not represented as a contributor to the CO2 budget in the IPCC reports.
It is a geological conundrum that there is any CO2 in our atmosphere at all, because it should all be captured a long time ago in carbonate rocks.
In my opinion that cause is upwelling natural abiotic methane and we should be grateful for that, because without CO2 photosynthesising life would be impossible.
Why is there advertising in this video? As far as I know it‘s the decision of the channel owner to accept advertising or ti exclude it….
I find it absolutely baffling that people still suggest the ice Tipping Points might not be crossed at +1.5C despite the fact that ice has been clearly melting for decades now and time is the only obstacle to it all disappearing (except perhaps a bit at Antarctic and possibly very highest altitudes in Himalayas)
I don't think our science (i.e. models) understands the potential for ocean stratification. 2023 for oceans was, for lack of a better word, inconceivable. This really does call into question our understanding of tipping points. Another example is what is going on with the Amazon rainforest. Right now I feel we are just lying to ourselves. I feel like we are analyzing a fatal car accident as it happens.
Is it not fact that all CC projections are too conservative, conservative to the point that "future tipping points" have already been tipped?
I would challenge you both on the failings of the IPCC and policy makers. Yes, scientific conservatism is clearly a sticking point. However, I think the fundamental failure when it comes to the translation of science into policy is this. As scientists we know we are dealing with systems which exhibit inertia and amplifying feedbacks; we also know that our models poorly represent many of these feedback processes. It follows that we must operate within frameworks which explicitly account for uncertainty. As such, risk management should be integral to all policy making. This would ensure that low probability-high impact scenarios are given their due consideration.
Could not agree more. Saying they 'Don't want to criticize the scientists' when there are known non-linearities such as tipping points, *critical* to the future trajectories of the earth system which are simply omitted is quite astonishing. The outputs of the models are simply wrong in any practical sense.
The IPCC and the climate community have committed a near criminal failure and in doing so they have done a huge disservice to humanity and frankly failed in their role.
Working from the top down or the bottom up both have major pitfalls, primarily in the legal fallacies of ownership and the destructive concepts of money and government. Did you know that indigenous tribes in South America have poisoned their own rivers which have supported their families for many generations? People offered them something called money for little pieces of metal called gold. The small amount of money they received was not enough to replace the equivalent benefits of the river and it was not distributed equally as some of the tribe refused the deal. This of course led to a division and violence in the tribe. This is not an isolated incident and it has occurred many times in many places. Of course we can sympathize or even empathize with the position of the indigenous people, but we still fail to comprehend the catalysts for these catastrophes.
I'm afraid ocean acidification has definitely passed its boundary just look at the graphs we've increased carbon dioxide more than equivalent of an intercalation and that's definitely swings through boundaries.. And that is reflected in the ocean acidification It's swung way past is boundary already and it still has lots to go
Globally planned, regionally organized and locally executed, planetary actions.
The book Nomad Century by Gaia Vince proposes massive adaptation ideas including creating huge modern purpose built city states in the far north such as Greenland and Scotland….are these ideas viable ?
Legends
So surprising how so many people claim to believe in science and know that the modern world has largely been produced by science and yet doubt this climate science. I think most of these people secretly think and believe a God is looking after them. If they were truly spiritual they would know that it is humans that have to be God like and responsible in order to do justice to that idea.
Btw when you say a planetary boundary has been exceeded in my opinion not means it's game over any single boundary that is exceeded on a planetary scale means we we are committed to critical collapse by definition wouldn't you say?
And the thing is it's not just the event of passing the boundary but it's also the trend and the commitment of what's coming of pushing it and and we've definitely committed to collapse
A good discussion but you completely lose me when you talk of the possibility of a better world being possible, where everyone has good health services, good prospects, higher standard of living, a more modern attractive life. That prospect may get people on board but it's a lie. The kinds of emissions reduction rates necessary would bring on collapse, perhaps even before the reality of a finite planet clashing with a technological civilisation would result in collapse, so what happens when it becomes clear that the promised beautiful future cannot be attained? Remember that "more sustainable" is not a valid scientific term. A sustainable society is one that consumes resources only at their renewal rate (preferably less), remembering that non-renewable resources have a zero renewal rate, and does not damage the environment beyond it's ability to assimilate that damage. The best we could do is manage the collapse so that suffering is minimised. But which scientists would support such a view? Reality is cruel but pretending that the impossible is possible certainly doesn't help anyone, long term.
Survival requires frugality except for sustainable abundance.
I believe you fully recognise your own pessimism but it might as well stem from lack of imagination limited within the frame of today's society. It is clear that what is defined as a 'good' life is not sustainable, but one may still explore and imagine a 'good' life that could be widely achievable within a sustainable future framework free from fossil fuels.
@@gurraaaaaaWhat I might regard as a "good" life is probably of a far lower standard of living than envisaged here.
A sustainable framework would still have to be done without not only fossil fuels but also non-renewable resources. Some non-renewable resources could be cannibalised from what we've already plundered but cannot be replaced sustainably.
We have the data to show what a one planet life would be like .. it certainly doesn’t involve a collapes
Depends what we mean by a better, healthier, more modern world. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try and keep trying. Bit we haven't changed the financial-economic-political system. And we haven't agreed what success means exactly. Sustainability in terms of today's growth fossil economy isn't possible, perhaps ever. But we haven't tried anything thus far. And the present systems and people involved require to be changed to seriously commence deep change.
Errr... You don't want to go with high emission pathways? Not even discussing about them?
Well, it is pretty obvious that we ARE AT high emission pathway. We have been there since industrialization started. We are there still at least 50 years of scientific warmnings that we end up endangering ourselves.
We were at about 10% OVER worst case scenario (RCP 8.5) before pandemic and we regained that position just after pandemic shutdowns ended.
Emissions are at record high. Oil demand is at record high. Temperature is at record high.
G20 is doing nothing. COP is in oil producing country led by oil CEO. And then we go to Australia that just opened worlds largest coal mine.
We SHOULD talk about HIGH EMISSION SCENARIOS, because WE LIVE IN one.
Most of the visible academics on this issue are constrained from speaking the full truth. For fully truthful discussion you have to turn to the several vanishing few academics who quit for activism.
I think that may be because of the scaring people to a point of inaction factor that they seem really concerned with
@@kenmystro Knowing the reality is scaring people?
The reality and political actions are not there. We have to push out those politicians who are not willing to do what must be done.
Knowing what really happens may scare for a while, but it also makes people to act on needed force.
If we keep on current emission track, then the needed action is deadly force, because we will die on "business as usual" scenario.
@@martiansoon9092 that is how I see it aswell. The reason that is given for not talking about worst scenarios is the scaring people to inaction factor. I've seen it mentioned for as long as I've been looking climate. I think the research on psychology of a lot of people shows it leads to shut down where as in others it leads to action. Me personally I can't see any change happening globally especially from American unless people get some severe shocks untill then it'll be business as usual, people will deny harder
@@kenmystro Yea, personally I can't see that over 20% of the people are willing to do neccessary changes. Scared or not.
They can be forced to do the changes, but that needs leadership that we won't have.
But social studies says that even 6-10% of the people may drive changes in society and politics.
One real problem is that we won't do the change, even when we have needed majority, but we keep doing the same things with approved system that has been applied previously. And that system is made to ensure the future destruction.
One reason is the fear that if we do these changes our system may collapse. But collapse is coming anyway when natural systems are damaged too far.
So when we have the positions to change the systems, then we have to do it in the time that we have. If those in power see's the situation as emergency and are willing to do the changes even if it may destroy their careers, then we will most likely see needed changes.
Over 50 years of do nothing or do something that does not change anything has only made things worse.
I'm still pessimistic that these chages will happen. Almost all indicators says that we will not change enough in the time we have.
Avoiding facts, like we have crossed 1,5C and most likely will go far beyond 2C or aprroximation where every 0,1C change will cause 100 million deaths, is just lying to ourselves and to others. Facing the reality that we are on the path of killing ourselves should cause actions that may avoid our extinction.
There is no easy path around the facts. Most tries to avoid them anyways. And keep on living with the destructive ways that we have taught them to live.
And for the extreme weather events... You are very scared if someone comes at you with raised gun. We have laws against it. It is primal fear. But on climate, we see worse things happening around the globe and even in our neighborhoods. But we still won't act. The threat factor is different when a person threats you and you may just put those to prison. Weather events are just happening and the causes are so distant from our daily lives. If an extreme event happens, who is going to accuse next by oil company for causing it? And who tosses these oil workers to prison for making these events ever worse?
Could you publish an audio feed for Climate Uncensored? Would love to listen to this on the go, but TH-cam won't let me download
Audio podcast versions are something we're working on for the future. In the meantime, you can listen even with your screen off with a workaround www.androidpolice.com/how-to-listen-youtube-screen-off/
Excellent interview. Unfortunately it confirms what Kevin has already noted in previous discussions. That we will fail. The reason being that the scientists and those doing the modeling and decisions about climate issues and actions/inactions, will never include in their models, scenarios where total elimination of carbon technologies is phased out in a lifetime epoch (25 years), even though needed, because it is too revolutionary. And anything "revolutionary" in terms of economics is strictly verboten. And always will be because "economics is KING". Which is why we are in our mess with climate in the first place.
So the earth is about to get selfwarming and our politicians are not knowing? 😮
📍49:15
We are on our way to a warm version of iceage that our nature are not made for. Why dont the
IPCC recognize that fact 😢
I don't think we have the luxury of being able to wait the next 30 years for reducing emissions. There's a potential 50 Gt of methane at the East Siberian Arctic shelf in very shallow sea and while the next 30 years are going to be warmer than today, if it vents it's the equivalent of 1.400 Gt of CO2 (35 years emissions) added to the atmosphere in a very short timescale. There's therefore a necessity not only to reduce fossil fuel emissions immediately but also end beef rearing. It takes 1,000 cubic metres of water to produce a tonne of vegetables, 1,450 to produce a tonne of wheat, but 42,500 to produce a tonne of beef. (False Economy by Alan Beattie, Viking/Penguin) From what we've emitted now temperatures are going to increase annually for the next 30 years without massive carbon extraction and countries needing to import their food like the UK for instance are going to have to start paying for the water in it very soon while exporters losing water to the heat are going to be forced to feed their own citizens before they can continue exporting so phasing out domestic animal rearing will be doing everyone a favour in reducing carbon emissions in agriculture - 30% of all GHG emissions.
I also think that where coal, gas, and oil have been mined on land, the sea water from the addition of the melting ice will return there so failing to publicise this showing how self-harming increasing emissions really is, especially for home owners, allows politicians opposed to ending the use of fossil fuels for economic reasons the advantage of using their constituents' financial interests as the key to their decision making on the issue; saving people money is always a winner for politicians and for the present generation when all their property is at risk of destruction - within the next 30 years - from climate change politicians that ignore it do so at their peril.
great show. i find it interesting how the word 'conservative' is used in the context of IPCC science. It seems to me 'conservative' of the status quo, or of modenr culture that has existed for a minute... but I think it would be more accurate to call a 'conservative' climate science view as one that takes a strong precautionary approach, one that is conservative in risk tolerance.
One could say that a climate scientist that errs on the side of permitting more pollution than is safe, or discounting uncertainties/low probabilities that are extremely high cost... that is a radical scientist. And it sounds like the IPCC is the highest common denomintor of radical science.
Hello? Who said tipping points were centuries away? Not professor Steffard that for sure and not the research I have read. Some scientists reality check has bounced.
In democratic countries we have even one more problem. Our governmant changes in short term cycles. So any meaningful climate policy can be reversed when next government comes.
This can be seen in the USA. It shows its scales in Finland. And in many more countries.
Having just one good government with appropriate means is not enough. And even those governments are currently handling climate chaos at the level that we need.
Bulldoze down ALL fossil burning items, starting with coal plants and oil refineries. Build up the needed infra with more sustainable methods, like wind, solar, geothermal and even nuclear power plants.
We need world war 2 like actions against climate change. So far these actions has been pushed sideways (sad about US politics, specially Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders climate driven campaigns, on world stage these could have been huge).
Sobering stuff.
Totally agree that unproven tech should not be included in the solutions. It's not the job of scientists to pre-suppose what should be done culturally, economically, or politically. But of course, we are all humans.
I dislike the concept behind the term, 'stewardship of nature'. That is a western/abrahamic religious view of how we see our relationship with nature. We once, and some indigenous communities still, relate to nature and the commons as part of it, not as rulers dominating it.
Conservatism in IPCC etc seems to be backwards. One would want conservatism to represent the position least likely to have catastrophic consequences. This might mean bringing into focus scenarios which might have lower probability (now) but are nonetheless possible.
You are confusing political conservatism with conservative (low end) estimates.
@@a.randomjack6661 my intention was to equate conservatism to lowest risk. That's not political.
@@peterz53 Sorry, I misunderstood.
"climate Marshall plan is not an option" seriously 🤔😔
Wondered if anyone would pick up on that...
We're going down...no film at 11.
Climate change since 1750 , known since 1827 and understood by 1897 yet no actions were taken, are being taken or will be taken to mitigate the host of negative effects.
The poor and brown who have little responsibility for climate change will /are suffering and dying first .
420 upvotes! *mind struggles*
Equity: In reality, the top 1/10 of 1% must decrease 99% or more. The top 1%, similar. The top 2 - 10%, 97%-ish. The top 11 to 50%, 85 to 97%. etc.
Reminding that the pandemic shutdown was merely what we needed to do EVERY single year after that to have even a slight chance for 1,5C.
My point is: The ways to go to 1,5C are not there anymore. Not even with total shutdown.
Even a single thing says we are not even now at 1,5C world, but well over it. Adding aesol effects, we end up to 1,8C (IPCC) or to 2,55C (Hansen). We have no path to 1,5C (where we are at the fist time, august 2023 [monthly temperature, not yet as 30-year climatic period]).
And we don't have a real scalable emission sucktion systems that would be needed. I think that the best suggested solution so far is seaweed/kelp farming (cannot burn, takes lots of carbon and ocean area is larger than land masses + additional benefits).
If we won't even shutdown ALL fossil burning, the situation where we are will keep worsening every single day.
Every 0,1C warming kills 100 million people.
Where do you get the figures for deaths per 0,1°C?
@@andriesbisschoff4968 From papers that say 1C temperature rise will lead to 1 billion deaths in the future. Divide those numbers by 10 and you get 0,1C and 100 million deaths.
There is many other publications that hints to that direction, but are not combining all elements together. Storm deaths, heat stress, floods, hunger (ie. loss of coral reefs and that food source), water scarsity, diseases in new areas, wars (on background lack of resources like water), ... And so on.
You may also discuss if fossil fuel burning caused small particle deaths should be included. 8-13 million per year, currently.
You may also discuss how much of these events are worsened by climate change, but that's what these papers suggests.
Sources:
"For every 0.1 °C degree of warming from now on, the world could suffer roughly 100 million deaths."
www.sciencealert.com/scientists-warn-1-billion-people-on-track-to-die-from-climate-change
Science paper (also note that over 10 billion deaths means extinction):
www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02323/full
Fortunately, a couple of heat events in major food growing areas will cause famine and war that destroys humanity before the innafectual dithering of our greedy corporate leaders leads to extinction of almost all life on earth due to runaway heating. This disscusion seemed massively optomistic and somewhat pointless under the circumstances.
What evidence supports your assertions? This is doomist crystal- ball-gazing, not scientific analysis.
Ah, so because the relentless greed of our corporate overlords has put us on a path towards ecological collapse it's 'fortunate' that those who do least to contribute to it perish in horrifying ways, sure sure. Well all I have to say to that is, be a good doomer and begin the annihilation of humanity with yourself.
In fact there are two key processes we must get into place:
1. Introduce a carbon tax, start small and increase rapidly and exponentially over time. This is the key to changing the use of fossil fuels and everything that comes with it.
2. Decrease the population, otherwise any positive development will be negated by an increase in consumption.
Decrease which population?
I see this suggestion all over the place. Nobody does a better job (on other videos) than Kevin of pointing out that the emissions per capita of the wealthiest few percent of the global population are the low-hanging fruit, not the poor people in the south whose only hedge against destitution is a large family.
@@lshwadchuck5643 they also murder any native species they encounter
@@ClimateUncensored ALL human population.
@@h.e.hazelhorst9838 and how do you propose that will be done? are you and yours getting in line? i thought not.
"the budget is gone"
And billions of humans are soon to follow.
We can't feed our numbers without FF's
If we have been losing the insect bio-mass of the planet, at a rate of 1-2% each year. This means we have lost 30% since 1970’s.
What does it mean to lose all insects, and what happens to us?
My kids will experience the consequences.
Are trees really going to be carbon sinks, if they are all going to burn ?
Burn, dry out, drown from heavy rains or die from bugs or some other form of infection. Oh, and deforestation.
@@a.randomjack6661deforestation, for sure. As soon as house heating oil / gas is no longer available, people will turn to the forest down the road and cut whatever they need. Only an army of rangers could keep m out, but only for so long. All those climate trees will end up in a stove, (much) sooner than later.
The choice of the 9 boundaries is arbitrary. The Earth system is so intercomnected that one can choosen just about anything as a quantitative control variable. Examples could be the total surface area of arable land, or the total remaining volume of aquafer water, or the ratio of sea urchins to kelp forest coverage, or the number and intensity of "atmospheric river" in a single year...the list is endless and a function perspective; what a particular person cares about.
In short, the opening statement lacks scientifically rigor and the planetary boundary framework is harmful; it wrongly suggests it is somehow ok that we transgressed some boundaries and retill remain fine, as long as we left others alone.
If fact, multiple single planetary boundaries can be chosen, non of which can be crossed without feedback crashing others.
And if the humans system is involved, the economic system running the show must also be included as a variable somewhere in the model. Otherwise the model has no value other than publishing a few papers and fooling the untrained persons that the authors knew what thet talk about.
can you provide any peer reviewed evidence to support your views? or are you pulling this out of your nether regions. also please provide your scientific credentials. thank you
I could not listen to more than a few minutes of this. May as well have been titled "science can cure anything " or "science is safe and effective ".
The conversation is all rather nice but the train has long left the station. Discussion about pressure for change from above is a none starter. The real pressure will come from below when there are empty stomachs and a sequence of climate disasters that hit the capitalist heart lands of the rich west. And at our present rate of inaction that day is very close. FTT
So - *Shut down all NPP's* -
BEFORE it gets really wild??????????
Does overpopulation get a mention?
Two climate topdoggs. One true swede and one bwedish Brit, lots of respect anyways. Peace is important. Be kund. Go vegan. Good stuffskiii
Johan! Top-down? This indicates you are not thinking in terms of regenerative systems. The principles underlying regenerative systems and the current systems are diametrically opposed.This is partly because you simply do not understand what the degree of change must be. You clearly think it's about laws, regulations, flattening the wealth curve, but all of that will still continue to destroy the ecosystem. Those things cannot be made regenerative.
Kevin! Closer to the mark, but still failing to understand what regenerative is. Since the current system **cannot** be made regenerative, the best you can ask of it is to minimally empower changes, BUT those changes will result in the END of those systems, and once the wealth and power holders understand this, they will no longer support these changes. Ultimately, aso, sustainability is local. Think in terms of a quilt. Each community is a square. We don't need big global systems, we need millions of small systems. It is VERY doable.
Top down? Impossible.
You can speak honestly on climate and rely on others with regenerative expertise to translate that into policy... but you will not engage if the person is not famous, or has advanced degrees, or is not "connected," or....??? I have been talking to both of you for YEARS.
These guys are looking in the rear view mirror at 1.5 and think they are looking ahead. Next time you are speaking to a room with a hundred people or any multiple of this ask how many own automobiles. Then ask how many are willing to permanently park them as soon as they arrive home from the talk. Then do your calculations again. Even the most progressive spokespeople are living in an ivory tower.
Yes, Indigenous knowledge aka TEK. The non-Indigenous corollary is permaculture. But do either of you listen to anything I say? No. Do you engage? No. So, which is it? You sincerely want to engage with regenerative knowledge holders or you don't?
So now its kiss your ass goodbye....if you live by the sea
Actually, I expect that the IPCC might increase the expectations of sea-level rise by another 20 cm due to the thawing in Antarctica. If the AMOC collapses, there will be an additional sea-level rise in middle Europe of about 40cm and in northern Europe of about 80 cm.
We really need to look at earth history far enough back to recognise that C02 levels have been vastly higher without exceeding natural regulatory boundaries for life on earth. The C02 levels aren't closely correlated with temperature either. Next we need to look at the physics of the so called greenhouse effect. In fact if physics shows us that if we double overall C02 concentration in the atmosphere we would get no more than 1% or 0.7degC. There is not enough carbon in all fossil fuel reserves to create this doubling. The positive feedback loop proposed for greenhouse gas emissions is a faulty model as it does not account for clouds that regulate the thermal effects, by modulating albedo. Now look at the climate model predictions. We find that most are significantly over estimates compared to observed temperatures. Having laid the C02 nonsense to rest, we do need to beware of the natural cooling period we are now entering. Add to this the reversing and weakening magnetic field of earth and we really do have something to concern us about climate.
This interview is a lesson in misunderstanding and neglect for human psychology. The "1.5 degrees" and "year 2100" are terrible mistakes in science communication.
i do not think so, it is the educational problem that people do not understand what it means.
and educations is broken because of a monetary system and power hierarchies.
@@sudd3660 No, it's just inability to understand your target audience.
@@LightSearch that usually leads to dumbing down the information of manipulation the audience.
instead of making the population more informed and better equipped to handle information.
or have you found a way around that to tell things as it it without oversimplifications and misleading data? or even emotional leading the targets?
@@LightSearchIf we keep simplifying things to the layman level, we will eventually end up in idiocracy. Look at what the 10 second soundbites and tic tok videos doing to people’s attention span
@@Power_to_the_people567 Using the year 2100 to make forecasts, no matter how grim they are, is useless, no one cares.
They treat their audiences like idiots when they just say that we need to keep global temperature under 1.5 degrees without explaining the consequences of failing to do so.
From my perspective, it is intellectual dishonesty to talk about the Anthropocene without mentioning the role of the CAPITALOCENE in the entire process that is leading to the destruction of planet Earth.
Colonialist imperialism for profit and wealth accumulation began the process of commodification of literally everything.
The enclosure of the commons created artificial scarcity and coerced people into taking useless and destructive jobs to make ends meet.
We need a paradigm shift towards a social and ecological political economy (holistic civilization), not the reproduction of the capitalist system and the mindless consumer society.
Resorting to the financialization of ecosystem services to maintain the status quo of an anachronistic civilizational paradigm will not solve the problem, but it could pave the way for a techno-fascist transhumanist dystopia.
Ok. Step 1 ban private jets. Once you have achieved that come back to me and ill listen.
Angry over the discussion of NbSs. It is completely off-point. The ignorance of how we use and do regenerative systems is incomprehensible. However, they are correct that they should not be used as offsets.... because **nothing should be.***
This is dangerously incorrect framing. I am not just angry, I am shocked and deeply saddened at the lack of knowledge and irresponsible discussion of these things. Clearly, neither of you has ever discussed these issues with those who do regenerative systems/TEK.
Really not acceptable in any way, shape or form. This is why nobody should rely first on climate scientists about mitigation and adaptation. It simply is not what they do.