Climate Change: Choosing to Fail, with Climate Scientist Kevin Anderson
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ส.ค. 2024
- In this Climate Chat episode, we interview climate scientist Kevin Anderson for a 2nd time. Out first, audio-only, interview in May 2021 was one of the most listened to Climate Chat programs. Kevin tells it like it is and does not sugarcoat the situation. We will discuss carbon budgets and global temperatures, the desirability of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and Sunlight Reflection Methods (SRM), and get Kevin's view on James Hansen's recent "Pipeline" paper. We will also discuss why society has so far chosen to fail on addressing climate change and what we can do if we decide to choose to succeed.
Kevin’s website is climateuncenso... and he has an active twitter account at: @KevinClimate
May 2021 interview with Kevin (audio-only) Part 1: • Kevin Anderson Climate...
May 2021 interview with Kevin (audio-only) Part 2: • Kevin Anderson Climate...
For more Climate Chat episodes, see our TH-cam home page: / @climatechat
I've been living my life like a person dying of a terminal disease. I have no confidence in greedy humans, and greed is at the heart of this problem.
Without question, the best I’ve ever heard Prof Anderson expound his viewpoints.
Viewpoints not backed by anything but belief.
@@Sjb-on5xtSays who? A self-proclaimed wannabe-scientist who read some articles on the internet and declared him- or herself an exceptional mind? Or what?
@@adambazso9207 throughout the interview he provided not a shred of evidence. It doesn't matter how beautiful his theory, or how smart he is, if it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Until something better than FF is invented and scaled up to replace it, he's proposing we all suddenly stop using FF and that means going back to the caves on a theory not proven.
@@Sjb-on5xtthe climate "crisis" bedwetters won't like that kind of thinking.
They love to default to their blind faith cult belief system.
Facts and logic just bounce off these people.
@@Sjb-on5xtit clearly does not mean that you drama queen. It means cutting your cloth. Grow up.
We're not only choosing to fail, we're hastening the failure through our warfare
Well... ironically Putin's invasion of Ukraine has accelerated onshore wind, heat pump HVAC, offshore wind, solar PV, etc
Thats not true.
@@wizzyno1566how is that not true?
Some of us came to this point of view decades ago. We have lowered our energy consumption, moved into lightweight housing, bought land, planted trees because they do a million things and we love them, set out the land to harvest water, and chosen to live a resilient and prepared lifestyle that will allow us to get through whatever hellscape the climat (or more probably humans) will throw at us. We call it permaculture. Everything we do works in the short term and gets stronger in the long term. Multitudes of low tech solutions integrated into a web of resilience. It may be extreme but it works. In some places in the world permaculture has reversed desertification. We actually know how to put fertility and water back into the land, so we aren't waiting for carbon capture or for AI or for the eco dicatorship that will inevitably end up in power. We are already living a low carbon lifestyle (only 7000miles a year) and we are healthy and useful. You should give it a look.
bless yer heart
All self regarding, ineffective, indeed it could be argued counterproductive.
@terencefield3204 but it might work on a micro level, which is probably the only level left to us. I've just planted an urban orchard on permaculture principals. Will it survive? Who knows.it won't be mine, but I get a bit of pleasure from it.
@@terencefield3204 as above...so below, and inversely, as below...so above. You should see what a group of Indian farmers have done with their whole valley. What we do is mostly scaleable, but it requires small working models to show to a larger public. Then it scales all on its own
Doing it here in Spain, but drought has really set in. I've got my place on a drip system, but that is with all the neighbours fighting to flood irrigate all at the same time. All trying to get economy out of only one crop and really slow to move away from tractors turning over the dust. Mad world.
Once again, Professor Anderson hits the nail on the head. Saying it like it is. THANK YOU KEVIN - from the Green Gathering composter!!
Delusional thinking if he thinks fossil fuels can be stopped unless the idea is to send us back to the caves.
It has been a lot of fun my friends, and I salute you as we crew this sinking ship together.
1.5 degrees is already here and most of us are still alive.
What? A bump in mid-ocean? But that’s impossible!
@@cyberfunk3793 "1.5 degrees is already here and most of us are still alive." You have to look at where current trajectories lead, and that is toward catastrophic ecological and societal collapse.
@@karlwheatley1244 "You have to look at where current trajectories lead, and that is toward catastrophic ecological and societal collapse."
And what is this based on? Afaik the IPCC report itself expected only something like a few % points of GDP growth damage in 100 years which is same as nothing compared to the growth that will occur in this time and the mitigation is what actually will do much more of the damage. So this collapse is just your personal speculation and what is the difference from a society point of view if the same warming that would happen in 200 years now happens in 100? If we are talking about water level rise, that would happen sooner or later anyway so people will need to move at some point no matter what. If you mean something else like danger from extreme events, how much has that increased in 30 years?
@@cyberfunk3793 Thanks for your reply. "Afaik the IPCC report itself expected only something like a few % points of GDP growth damage in 100 years ... and the mitigation is what actually will do much more of the damage...If we are talking about water level rise," Hmm, well if you still think neoclassical economists are playing with a full deck, sea level rise is the urgent threat, or don't know that we've know for a long time that the costs from the coming damage are far worse than the costs of mitigation, we've got some ground to cover.
More tomorrow, but for now, wouldn't it be weird if GDP was only going to be a few % points off the current trajectory by 2100 given that a Cornell Study found that global heating and climate disruption have already knocked 21% off crop yields compared to the non-AGW trajectory, agricultural researchers are projecting huge losses in crop yields, and demographic trends point to a population peak around 2040. Hmm, pretty hard to square those circles.
I'm 57 and never had a driver's license. Where I live that's no problem. Walking, cycling and public transport.
Kevin is on fire 😍James Hansen, Jason Box etc are all great, but Kevin has been my favourite earth systems scientist since I first came across him. Both because of his clarity, vast knowledge and honesty about his background in the oil industry, and because he is, mostly, the only one who really talks about things like how much of an immediate difference it would make to basically ban billionaires. Or even just some of the most ridiculous excesses of their life styles. Such low-hanging fruit, and zero political will anywhere to ban luxury yachts, private jets and such. Unsurprisingly, of course, but just how few people talk about this in public is very much a missed opportunity to push for real change.
Plus, I so relate to the cycling comment. I've taken to "studying" this sport from a kinda sociological perspective cos it's undergoing fascinating changes from a super macho individual sport, with teams made up of literal (in terminology and tasks) masters and servants, to a much more team oriented one with an emphasis on togetherness in team networks of many different, equally necessary roles even if these networks are built around the best riders as winning and point scoring remain individualised for the most part. But top cycling teams are also built around money. Teams that were second-tier less than a decade ago are now among the best with names like UAE, Bahrain Victorious, Astana... you get the picture. Talking about even the direct impacts of climate change on races is still mostly taboo. So yeah, that requires quite some deliberate cognitive dissonance to follow, but that change from super macho hierarchies to teams focused on everyone's strengths and how to create results much larger than the sum of those is a micro version of the kind of change needed on a global scale to prevent the worst. Even how women's cycling is far behind in terms of resources and hence levels beyond the very top reflects this.
Indeed, the cycling culture is so utterly distorted. You are so completely on point with your comments. It's truly sickening how the sport is bankrolled by our Petrotocracy with sponsors like Ineos, Total Energies, UAE, etc, etc. Meanwhile, most bike riders are folks who are inspired to ride so as not to pollute and be stuck like slaves in the utter insanity of automobile culture. A sticker on all my bikes emphatically states: "Live Free Or Drive!".....
James Hansen is a liar who has manipulated data to suit wildly inaccurate climate models, and a political driven agenda in pursuit of research dollars :)
We need to stop all international competition. Flying people, equipment, horses, spectators all around the earth 🌍. Then golf anywhere, but especially where water is limited.
Kevin convinced me to take the no-fly pledge and I don't burn anything, fossil or bio-fuels and haven't for 7 years. But, I also listen to Tony Seba and RethinkX. I'm alarmed and have been since 2004. But, I'm focused on the solutions to the extent that I can be at my advanced age. I want to die with some hope for my children and grandchildren. James and Kevin among others changed my views on climate. Tony and Elon gave me focus on fighting for an end to emissions. I live like a church mouse because I've put my retirement savings into energy efficient houses and working to get solar on the grid, reforming the utility system.We're building houses that come equipped with solar and car chargers and storage and heat pumps and no gas. I lobby and put up with the "Oh no, Bob is going off on climate and EVs and heat pumps and getting rid of NG." The EVs aren't going fast enough, but all we can do is try. Also, you can't get rid of GHGs by replacing fossil fuel emissions with bio-fuels emissions and forest fires.
Wow, you are a climate hero. Or at least you think you are
Forest fires are a natural event that is an essential part of forest biology. Do you research before you embarrass yourself in front of your friends and family
@@localpatriot2931 There are several primary sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Bio-fuels is one. Burning trees and brush can and should be controlled. We don't need fossil fuels for heat. We don't need runaway wildfires. The fires in Australia a couple years ago released more CO2 than that emitted by a couple of big countries. Why wouldn't you want to limit GHG emissions? Incidentally, the primary function of "natural" forest fires is to eliminate waste fuel and thin growth. When you have dense growth from not permitting forest fires you end up with monster fires. The trick is to thin forest without fire. Anyway we can keep emissions down is worth the expense. Thining and mulching and returning the mulch to the soil is a solution.
@@localpatriot2931 "Wow, you are a climate hero. Or at least you think you are" Yikes, that was rude.
"Forest fires are a natural event that is an essential part of forest biology. Do you research before you embarrass yourself in front of your friends and family" Globally, forest fires are burning 50% more acreage now than 20 years ago, and a handful of mechanisms of man-made global warming explain why that is so. You have to dig a little deeper than you dig to understand complex issues.
@@karlwheatley1244 Amen Karl. Thanks 🙏
I vote on climate. But my vote makes very little difference, considering I only have two choices in any given vote and neither of them think beyond the time frame of their next term.
Try to persuade someone else, and you double up!
@16:00 Best trees that are planted... No. But there are best trees that are never cut down. Just stop all clear cutting in the world. Lets start with that.
Trees acts as weather regulators. In summer they cool down local areas, but in winter/spring they warm the area. Trees has dark albedo, so they gather loads of energy from sunlight. Trees allows loads of flowing water to their roots in the spring. They are melting the area nearby themself at fast rate. Often the area melted is also permafrost that is below them.
Many forest area is currently drying up and that leads to many problems. Trees are dying for drought, they burn more easily, they are more vulnerable for diseses and pests, the forests itself has become a carbon source, ...
love that Kevin Anderson.
he has said that 1/3 of emissions are luxury, superfluous, unneccessary emissions that we could, in theory, decide to stop tomorrow without any hardship whatsoever, and with great rejoicing for many. We should do this first. It's the biggest piece, has the least resistance (in population terms) and would do a lot to undermine the populist backlash that we see/feel around the world.
#banprivatejetsfirst
@@andywilliams7989 Or at least significantly tax them.
'If' we cease all emissions, after about 5 days the temperature will increase at least another 1-2° C in a very short period of time, due to aerosol masking. The pollution in the atmosphere now is masking part of the sunlight currently that comes to Earth, actually acting as a cooling effect. Also there's a good chance in the next 5 years we could have an ice free arctic, which will be catastrophic. We're also awaiting a 50 Gigaton methane pulse from the Siberian permafrost, that is melting faster then ever. Sounds to me like the game is and has been over.
Sounds the same to me! However, I wonder at which time humans will come to that conclusion, and hopefully also conclude that the only way to go now is to leave without causing too much additional harm. The last bit sounds like a big pipe dream, though...
Fact
@@amberazurescale5617You mean suicide or something similar? Or returning to a more natural lifestyle? I'm asking because I don't understand it completely.
you forgot the AMOC stopping and WW3 plus nuclear meltdown due to blackouts
Any professional gardener should know that we need more carbon for plant growth not less,
Kevin Anderson didn't get to answer whether he supports the use of nuclear energy, but here's what he said in a November 2021 interview with Amy Goodman:
======
AMY GOODMAN: We just have 10 seconds, but I want to get Kevin Anderson’s response. Are you pro-nuclear, even if it’s what he calls, George calls, “fourth-generation”?
KEVIN ANDERSON: Yeah, I’m agnostic about nuclear power. My preference would always be conservation first, then energy efficiency, and then the renewables - basically, solar and wind, tidal, or whatever they may be. But then, if we cannot meet the energy demand, I would prefer nuclear to carbon capture and storage, which I think is a real problem. And so I prefer nuclear to that, yeah.
Most honest and down to earth i've heard in a long time. Kevin Anderson is not a man who follow the other scientists like a cat around a hot green money porridge! Thanks/Sweden!!
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 *🎵 Introduction and Background*
- Dan Miller introduces the episode with climate scientist Kevin Anderson, highlighting the anticipation for an insightful discussion.
- Kevin Anderson provides a brief background on his journey from engineering to climate science, emphasizing his longstanding interest in environmental issues.
03:10 *🔥 Carbon Budgets and Temperature Trends*
- Discussion on carbon budgets and temperature trends, with a focus on the potential crossing of the 1.5-degree Celsius threshold.
- Highlighting the significance of continuous emissions and the need to cease emissions to mitigate temperature rise effectively.
06:34 *💼 Climate Change Challenges and Impacts*
- Addressing the challenges posed by ongoing emissions and the inevitability of surpassing the 2-degree Celsius mark.
- Emphasizing the persisting impacts of climate change even if emissions were to cease immediately due to existing feedback loops and ecological challenges.
09:57 *📉 Lack of Progress and Continued Failure*
- Critiquing the notion of progress in climate change mitigation efforts, highlighting the perpetual increase in emissions despite initiatives like the Paris Agreement.
- Stressing the importance of acknowledging the failure to adequately address climate change and the urgency to take meaningful action.
10:27 *❌ Critique of Net Zero Targets*
- Criticism of Net Zero targets, labeling them as deceptive accounting practices rather than genuine efforts to reduce emissions.
- Highlighting the flaws in relying on Net Zero strategies, including the manipulation of emission figures and the reliance on speculative negative emission technologies.
15:02 *🌳 Tree Planting for Biodiversity, Not Just Carbon*
- Advocating for tree planting for reasons beyond carbon sequestration, emphasizing biodiversity conservation as a primary motivation.
- Cautioning against reducing forests solely to carbon storage units, neglecting their multifaceted ecological benefits.
16:52 *🌍 Impact of Latest Science on Carbon Budgets*
- Discussion on recent scientific findings challenging conventional climate sensitivity estimates and aerosol cooling effects, potentially altering carbon budget calculations.
- Acknowledging the complexity of climate science and the possibility of differing interpretations among researchers.
18:32 *🔍 Assessing Climate Change Projections*
- Climate change projections vary in optimism, with some suggesting smaller emission reduction budgets and others more optimistic assessments.
- Policy decisions should prioritize precautionary measures, considering the potentially severe consequences outlined by pessimistic assessments.
- Regardless of optimism or pessimism, urgent and comprehensive action to mitigate emissions remains imperative.
21:59 *🌍 The Urgency of Emissions Reduction*
- Current focus on emissions reduction is insufficient, with little progress made in mitigating emissions.
- Addressing emissions reduction requires a paradigm shift, going beyond conventional strategies and considering wider ecological and social implications.
- Equity and fairness considerations must be central to climate action discussions to ensure effective mitigation efforts.
26:06 *🔥 Impacts of two degrees Celsius of warming*
- Increasing recognition of severe impacts at lower temperature thresholds.
- Disparity in experiencing climate impacts between wealthy and marginalized communities.
26:21 *🔥 Impacts of Two Degrees of Warming*
- Two degrees of warming is increasingly recognized as catastrophic, with significant impacts already observed even at lower temperature increases.
- The rapid pace of temperature rise poses unprecedented risks to ecosystems and human societies, pushing towards uncharted territory.
- Urgent action is needed to address climate change before irreversible damage occurs.
29:04 *💡 Assessing Climate Action Efforts*
- Current climate action efforts are inadequate and lack seriousness, failing to address the urgency of the situation.
- Relying solely on emissions reduction without considering a broader range of mitigation strategies is insufficient.
- There is little evidence to suggest that sufficient action will be taken to combat climate change in the foreseeable future.
29:42 *💡 Exploring future climate action and technological solutions*
- Doubt cast on the likelihood of serious climate action based on current trends.
- Recognition of the potential role of technological solutions like carbon dioxide removal but with cautious optimism.
34:57 *⚠ Critique of Climate Models and IPCC*
- Misuse of climate models and reliance on unrealistic assumptions, particularly regarding negative emissions technologies, undermines the effectiveness of climate action.
- The IPCC, influenced by vested interests, may not serve as an effective body for addressing climate change due to its consensus-based structure.
- Greater accountability and transparency are needed in climate research and policymaking to ensure accurate representation of climate risks and solutions.-
35:23 *🚫 Questioning the efficacy and integrity of climate governance institutions*
- Concerns raised about the influence of fossil fuel executives in climate conference leadership positions.
- Criticism of the IPCC's consensus-based approach and its susceptibility to influence from fossil fuel-producing nations.
36:43 *🌐 Working Groups in IPCC*
- Working Group 1 focuses on science, while Group 2 addresses adaptation and impacts effectively.
- Working Group 3, however, is criticized for being politically biased and influenced by subjective boundaries set to avoid controversy.
39:16 *📉 IPCC's Influence on Climate Policy*
- IPCC's Working Group 3 primarily presents policy options that favor delaying action on climate change.
- The reliance on integrated assessment models has contributed to the delay in implementing effective climate policies.
43:12 *🌍 Equity and Climate Change Action*
- Acknowledging the issue of equity is crucial for effective climate action, as not everyone shares the same responsibility for emissions or impacts.
- Climate change responses should prioritize fairness and address systemic inequalities to ensure meaningful progress.
54:07 *🌍 Climate policy and cultural attitudes towards consumption*
- Climate policies in the UK, EU, and US still approve new fossil fuel infrastructure projects despite climate commitments.
- The celebration of excess consumption, such as large houses and SUVs, reflects societal values and norms.
57:08 *🌐 Considerations of tipping points and geoengineering*
- Climate scientists acknowledge the possibility of tipping points, such as the collapse of the AMOC, requiring urgent action.
- Discussions about geoengineering highlight societal priorities and the focus on technological solutions over systemic change.
01:04:39 *🌱 Individual and collective actions for systemic change*
- Individuals and civil society play crucial roles in driving systemic change towards climate action.
- Leadership in addressing climate change comes from various levels of society, not just traditional political leaders.
01:12:18 *🌍 Climate change urgency and prevention*
- Urgency of addressing climate change.
- Importance of preventive measures, akin to responding to COVID-19 vaccinations.
01:14:18 *🔊 Addressing power dynamics in climate negotiations*
- Different cultural approaches needed for each country.
- Critique of the influence of wealthy nations and fossil fuel lobbyists in international negotiations.
01:19:25 *💡 Critique of IPCC carbon budgets and Net Zero concept*
- Critique of the IPCC's approach to carbon budgeting.
- Advocacy for earlier emissions reduction targets.
01:22:41 *🌐 Democratic institutions and climate change*
- Examination of the capability of democratic institutions to address climate change.
- Speculation on the potential failure of democracies to manage the impacts of climate change.
01:28:27 *🔄 Terminology for climate action*
- Advocacy for clear differentiation and addressing of various emission sources.
01:30:03 *🌍 Energy consumption and equity*
- Discussion on the disproportionate energy consumption between different demographics.
- Emphasis on the need for a significant drop in personal energy use to compensate for industrial energy and material consumption.
01:33:19 *🔄 Future scenarios and societal change*
- Reflection on the inevitability of radical change in the face of climate change.
- Assertion that there are no non-radical futures, with the future being either radically different due to rapid emissions reduction or due to the impacts of climate change.
Made with HARPA AI
That is very useful! Thanks!
Yet not any evidence provided that CO2 emissions causes any of it.
@ChucklesMcGurk that does not sound right. I'm a builder. No. It just doesn't.
Very interesting interview, it gave me a lot to think about and things that I need to reset in my own mind. Thank you Climate Chat team and Kevin Anderson. I subscribed and I will share this interview with everyone.
Any professional gardener should know that we need more carbon for plant growth not less,
@@cochun7 As I posted in reply on another thread, rapidly increasing CO2 causes mostly harmful effects for people and the planet--especially if we continue increasing it. The species and ecosystems now on Earth were well-adapted to much lower CO2 levels and can't adapt this fast.
Thankfully denial of the climate emergency is very faint now, but KA is correct that relatively speaking we are doing effectively nothing to reduce emissions. My own view is that our political leaders will move away soon from the discussion on emissions reduction and switch to discussing DAC, & SRM and also adaptation as the focus of how we are to deal with the climate crisis. By the time it is obvious that those means are either ineffective or out of our grasp we will be dealing with the massive changes that KA described. The breakdown of international order will follow and border protection will occupy the minds of what political and military forces remain. I really don’t think it’s that far off. Certainly by 2040 the World will be very different to what it is in 2024.
Agree!
Co2 is not the problem, the problem are the idiots that want zero Co2
Well the increase in GHGs, primarily CO2 and CH4, is the source of the increase in global average temperature which is leading to dramatic climate change, and is the key problem for mankind and for many other species. No amount of ignorance or denial will change that fact.
@@cochun7 "Co2 is not the problem, the problem are the idiots that want zero Co2" NOBODY wants zero CO2, so it appears you don't understand the public discussion on the topic. What people want is zero EXCESS CO2 added to the Earth's systems via burning fossil fuels.
Starting an agroforestry farm this year. Yet despite US claims to make agriculture changes for climate change, I won't qualify for CRP, CPP. US still gives subsidies for monoculture crops and dairy, etc.
I was trying to find carbon credits to help as well. Models can only accommodate monoculture crops. Also most forest crops like chestnuts, sugar maples, etc are grown on small acres under 30 acres. Carbon credits usually have min acres. The smallest I found was 40. But between the 2 limiting factors on Carbon credits I will earn none.
Keep in mind, with my crops it will take 3-4 years to earn my first income. And about 1 million in investment on only 48 acres.
I'm doing it for climate change. I'm doing it because I love it. I'm doing it to share knowledge. And I'm doing to earn income long term.
I live in the mountains of the Western United States. My home insurance costs have increased by eight times in the last few years and electricity has doubled. Ours is a working class town, so these price rises, along with the frequent and damaging fires that caused these fires, are hurting regular people. Climate change is costing us us thousands of dollars a year right now.
Good talk. The impacts of climate change and species extinction and rapid habitat destruction, pollution, hunting, invasive species, etc. aren’t additive, but exponential. And none of us are willing to talk about human overpopulation, the cause of all of these problems.
it will cost our lives, forget about money, start thinking about food
What a load or rubbish! @@freeheeler09
@@thunderstorm6630that's a good one! 🤪
@andrewcheadle948 had a stroke bro?
Although I don't share Kevin's optimism (anthropocentrism) about what humans should do about IRREVERSIBLE AGW, he still continues to express very interesting threads of thought. He's ONE of the honest interlocutors on the subject.
GOOD INTERVIEW. But I still think that everyone is missing the point that human extinction is now inevitable; humans are NOT EXEMPT from the Trophic order, we are dependant upon it and intrinsically part of it - and there IS a mass extinction event unfolding.
We're on worse case worst case scenario.
Economics Prof. Steve Keen decided about 1.5 years ago and I decided about 7 mon. ago that the only hope now of avoiding the collapse of civilization is to start a drastic rationing program like the ones in the UK and US in WWII. The goal is to reduce the GDP by *at least* 50%. This is for *all* developed nations. The nations will have to take advantage of the insights that follow from Modern Monetary Theory MMT to enable the govs. to provide income to those who lost their jobs as was done during Covid.
Frankly we need to use less energy. Prof. Steve Keen has used data to scientifically show that in developed nations, energy use and GDP have a 1 to 1 ratio. So, using less energy means less GDP, and less GDP means less energy will be used. So, a 50% GDP cut creates a 50% energy cut.
Just like the US in WWII we need to convert most industry from civilian production to producing stuff that we need for the Green New Deal. Also, start making the civilian stuff such that it can be repaired and is meant to last for 20 plus years not 3 years.
The 50% reduction in energy use is not enough. However, the energy cut must be 100% from fossil fuels, so the percentage from other sources will go up a lot.
Then we move on to replace every single use of carbon fuel that can be cut and replace it with energy from other sources.
Alo, we need to use so-called geoengineering. I do NOT care if some regions will be devastated by this. If we let temps reach +3 deg. C then all humans will be devastated. I have no idea what regions would be devastated if some are. As long as I don't know who will suffer, I am just as likely to suffer as anyone else. So, IMHO we must try to cool the earth to buy time for rationing to being CO2 emissions down. Make no mistake we would be just buying time.
Will we do this? Is there any political will to do this? HELL NO!
There's already geoengineering, aka chemtrails going on in America almost every day, it's absolutely obvious, disgusting and insane.
@@QAlba1074 "Chemtrails are an internet myth. The water vapor in jet exhaust simply makes those trails under the right atmospheric conditions. Always have, always will.
I love finding the rare people on the internet who understand the big picture on cutting the economy.
I'm going to disagree with you on geoengineering though: Plant-rich diets can buy us time to de-industrialize and shrink the economies while sequestering boatloads of carbon (over 600 billion tons eventually).
@@karlwheatley1244 Do you always lie?
@@QAlba1074 No, I only tel white lies to protect people's feelings, as in making up a phony excuse for not coming to your party.
I'm a senior university professor and have studied these issues--and the myths around them for decades.
Chemtrails are an internet myth, but thousands of studies prove that ~98% of global warming since 1900 was caused by our emissions. Every time you burn a gallon of gas, you add ~14 pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere.
I very much respect Professor Anderson. His voice has been loud and consistent. I wish more scientists shared his fervor.
I can't help but feel that 'change' coming from below will be a little late to the party.
But yes, it is also in my nature to try.
But Kevin you missed out by far the most important action on your list of
actions individuals should take - HAVE LESS KIDS.
I spent 2 1/2 years in Canada's Arctic, where the nearest tourist destination was actually the north pole. Just 1.5 hours away by twin otter. By the 1990's less then 20 years after I left northern Baffin Island was seeing mud, for the first time. Most of this attributed to mines opening up in Arctic Bay and Pond Inlet. Today it is even worse. Not just in Canada's north but across the straits in Greenland.
If you spent 2 1/2 years in Canada's arctic you will have seen the older treeline stumps 200 km further north than it is today.
@@Sjb-on5xtwe’ve got a live one here
That happens because of natural climate change and not man made, C02 is the gas of life and reducing C02 is suicide.
@@Sjb-on5xt "If you spent 2 1/2 years in Canada's arctic you will have seen the older treeline stumps 200 km further north than it is today." Which is a meaningless point.
@@karlwheatley1244 The arctic treeline is a form of proxy data proving trees grew further north, not just in Canada, but Russia too for long enough to leave behind stumps 5000 years ago during the Holocene Optimum. Trees are temperature sensitive proving it was warmer than today, enough for them to survive 200 km further North.
I was always "shut down" during discussions of Climate Change, because I could offer the solution. There is no solution, so it "can't" even be discussed. No solution that solves still driving private cars and SUVs
Persistent westerly winds have also dragged the current in one direction for over 20 years, increasing the speed and size of the clockwise current and preventing the fresh water from leaving the Arctic Ocean. This decades-long western wind is unusual for the region, where previously, the winds changed direction every five to seven year.
Scientists have been keeping an eye on the Beaufort Gyre in case the wind changes direction again. If the direction were to change, the wind would reverse the current, pulling it counterclockwise and releasing the water it has accumulated all at once.
"If the Beaufort Gyre were to release the excess fresh water into the Atlantic Ocean, it could potentially slow down its circulation. And that would have hemisphere-wide implications for the climate, especially in Western Europe," said Tom Armitage, lead author of the study and polar scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.
Fresh water released from the Arctic Ocean to the North Atlantic can change the density of surface waters. Normally, water from the Arctic loses heat and moisture to the atmosphere and sinks to the bottom of the ocean, where it drives water from the north Atlantic Ocean down to the tropics like a conveyor belt.
This important current is called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and helps regulate the planet's climate by carrying heat from the tropically-warmed water to northern latitudes like Europe and North America. If slowed enough, it could negatively impact marine life and the communities that depend on it.
"We don't expect a shutting down of the Gulf Stream, but we do expect impacts. That's why we're monitoring the Beaufort Gyre so closely," said Alek Petty, a co-author on the paper and polar scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.
The study also found that, although the Beaufort Gyre is out of balance because of the added energy from the wind, the current expels that excess energy by forming small, circular eddies of water. While the increased turbulence has helped keep the system balanced, it has the potential to lead to further ice melt because it mixes layers of cold, fresh water with relatively warm, salt water below. The melting ice could, in turn, lead to changes in how nutrients and organic material in the ocean are mixed, significantly affecting the food chain and wildlife in the Arctic. The results reveal a delicate balance between wind and ocean as the sea ice pack recedes under climate change.
"What this study is showing is that the loss of sea ice has really important impacts on our climate system that we're only just discovering," said Petty
News Media Contacts
Rexana Vizza / Matthew Segal
Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena Calif
818-393-1931 / 818-354-8307
Great post! Thanks.
I became aware of and a believer in climate change back in the 1980's.
Prior to that I was convinced that the population explosion was going to kill us off;
climate change could be linked with population.
Anyway
I didn't have any children because of that knowledge and am so glad that I don't.
Our goose is cooked.
Anyone alive that is forced to live through the ramifications is going to live through very interesting, and probably very difficult, times.
Don't mean to be critical but being a believer sounds like it's a religion?... As I'm sure you understand it's a science not faith based. Sorry if I'm sounding pedantic and i fully understand you not having children. My grandchildren's future is not looking good
19:10 interesting that Kevin calls out Myles Allen as being at the optimistic end. He did a talk for Gresham College recently about tipping points, which IMHO was edging towards being misleading. He skipped the fact that we already entered the zone for 4 tipping points, ended a key graph before 2020, and soft peddled on other issues. He didn't say anything incorrect AFAIK but the overall picture he painted was inadequate.
Very honest talk. Thank you. It should have millions of views.
Just stop! Stop! Just stop everything. That's where we're at. If you understand you just stop. Otherwise you're in cloud cuckoo land. Stop
true
We stop and we heat up even faster. Aerosol masking effect will be lost.
Stop everything? Including breathing?
@@TrivettTurner-ee4rp you're clearly intelligent enough to work that out for yourself
Thank you Kevin. Your comments are right on. As you have always held.
Why can't we get climate catastrophe scientists and non-climate catastrophist scientists together on a podcast? Whether for or against, nobody ever gets challenged on their facts, their reasoning, or their conclusions.
It would be like getting flat-Earth "scientists" to debate regular scientists. It might be entertaining, but it won't be enlightening.
@@climatechat So there is nothing new to learn about climate science? Or, if there is anything new to learn, it can only support climate catastrophism.
@@glennmitchell9107 If you actually listen to the interview, you would see that Kevin says climate scientists are *underplaying* the risks of climate change! There is much to learn about climate change, but if we continue to choose to fail, we will.
@@climatechat How can you underplay catastrophe? We manage risk by reducing the severity and/or the frequency of a hazard. None of the mitigations I've seen implemented or even proposed do either.
The host seems to know more about the significant impacts of aerosol masking (and the removal thereof) than the guest. Also, does Kevin Anderson really think it's possible to maintain industrial activity (like steel or concrete production, trucking, or shipping) using renewable energy sources? Electricity only accounts for 20% of global energy use, and switching even that to renewable sources is unsustainable, since we'd need to mine more metals than exist in the world, and solar panels and wind turbine blades only last for a few decades before they need to be thrown away, and new ones made (with materials that don't exist, and powered by fossil fuels). There are also 8 billion of us.
We don't fail. We just decided to excel in grifting instead of problem solving.
Finally, by 2030 the big car companies will be bankrupted and we'll be driving mainly EVs. My life has been organized around fighting climate change since 2007, first cleaning up my own use with solar panels and super energy-efficient homes and transport. My utility, I served on the board until my wife died, is 100% solar in daylight hours and sells solar to neighboring utilities. My group sponsors an annual EV fair and we're going to have a clean energy home tour. We lobby for Tesla and charging infrastructure. Local Governments should be focused on solar wind and batteries because we have tons of both and it's our economic future.
Fantastic 👍
I watched most of this live!
Congratulations
#No_Action_Distraction
#Its_Effing_Hot_Cool_It
@@thomaspersson688 Thanks, I did feel special for a minute.
@TenneseeJed may I join your specialness? 🤣 I’m limiting my content these days but this was darn good (imo)
Love Prof Anderson’s salty fierceness.
@@Corrie-fd9ww The more the merrier...er doomier I should say.
Considering that all the evidence points to us not eliminating fossil fuel combustion, we should all try to get better at survival, mutual aid, civil disobedience and anti-fascism. So Anarchism.
I am with you on that
Considering that we can’t even stop a genocide or mask up for 15 minutes, i think human solidarity is a pipe dream
Fascinating! Anderson does a fantastic job of exposing the dysfunctionality of the IPCC, Jim Skea's propensity for wishful thinking and the unrealistic modelling of the (somewhat shady) working group 3. An interesting, if somewhat depressing insider view of the hapless IPCC machine.
There are no futures without revolutionary actions.
Elaborate please. And what energy types at scale will make revolutionary change at scale?
There is no game-theoretic way to curb fossil fuel use.
Why is no one talking about how we feed ourselves when scientists discuss climate change? Our obsession with eating other animals is easy to decrease with immediate assistance to climate change.
I just paused at the "can that keep us under 2 degrees C" question and that framing of the question as an example of a metric for choosing to fail. That number is an economic thing adopted by the G7 in 2006. At the time the scientific number was 1 degree C. Nordhause gave the 'justification' for that doubling of an imagined non-existent headroom for significant policy and action, and eventually got Paul Weitzman's Nobel. In my knowledge of all things climate, this was the first BIG LIE that got talked 'till it walked.
This is a damn good interview.
Save Our Planet Now!
Save Our Souls
Thank you for this conversation - packed with information.
Always worth listening to people with a proper risk management approach.
The questions seem to be saying how can we remain smug and work out how to raise awareness and get other people to change without having to change themselves.
They seem to not to have been humbled by the fantastic presentation by Kevin Anderson at all.
Can we feed and house 8 bullion people with a zero carbon budget. I say the answer is NO. What you are saying is bullions of people must starve and/or die of exposure to reach this goal of zero degrees of increase. So I think we are choosing to fail because the consequences of success is so terrible.
Well, you better be wrong then because not stopping global warming is what will lead to famine and billions of people dying. The status quo is not one of the options available to us.
These people are already dying and it will get much much worse
The disruptions coming over the very near future will assure our destruction. So don't worry about over population we are already assuring a quick reduction.
Over 70% of geologic time, the Planet is Hothouse Earth. We're headed back, to remain there for millions of years. We need to adapt for the few that survive, to keep Humanity going. Even massive Olivine mining, crushing, and distribution, won't help, at this point.
Head for the southern hemisphere, ready to move further south, as needed. I am, by sailboat. Trying to preserve some music.
But, everyone thinks I'm crazy. They thought I was, decades ago, but not so much, anymore
All my friends would readily agree humans are imperiling nature and civilization with emissions. Yet all of them are frequent fliers who own gasoline cars. They have changed little or nothing about their lifestyles in response to climate change. People will _say_ they are in favor of drastic action to reduce emissions-as long as it does not inconvenience them in any way.
One thing that might help is discussing, very clearly, what “climate action“ means. Everybody seems to throw around this term “climate action” without articulating the necessary actions, such as rationing of gasoline, rationing of flights/yr, limiting beef/lamb/pork sales and outright banning of certain things such as cruise ships and private jets, etc etc etc.. Until we start talking seriously about ending wasteful fossil-fueled excesses, we are not taking the climate crisis seriously.
rationing?,no no, this is not where we are, it is about: not flying at all, not using gasoline at all, not eating meat at all, we are at that point.
Amen to both of you 👌
Under capitalism, these dramatic changes (IMHO it's too late regardless) are not possible.
I am thinking capitalism is collapsing, I am not sure what the next system will be though, or what it is shifting into already. Something that I need to learn about.
Damn this title inspires me to say that is exactly what i did since i am 12 y/o and i still do choose to fail and will keep doing so until humanity stops failure
Brilliant conversation!
Watching again March 13,...HILARIOUS !!!
Great discussion, but a blind spot with Kevin Anderson, which he always exhibits even though he’s about as good as they get, is the environmental impact and fossil fuel use baked into building billions of solar panels and windmills. I’d love to hear his take on it, hopefully it’s not as blithe as Mkibben.
Yes electricity won't be enough. The West needs to significantly reduced consumption ie energy by a huge amount..
Just keep planting seeds while we still have water. Anyone can. Once you can grow a plant, you can ask it for answers. I've netting some planter to offset the solar storms and will definitely save seed from this year if I can. The impact of solar maximums is pushing our degradation. The survival of plants is urgent. I grow plants for seed because I want the plant to adapt to the change.🎄🎃
Kevin Anderson always telling the truth and correcting all the delusional optimists that think we are on the right track - we’re heading towards the abyss at record pace
So what do we do now?
Put this message out to everyone who will listen, contact forward thinking radio stations, if you love your family get this message out to anyone who will listen 👋🏻
Any professional gardener should know that we need more carbon for plant growth not less,
"deeply colonial models"; Anderson is one of the few who is direct and blunt enough to acknowledge this truth. the models are not flawed in terms of the science or legitimacy, but they are heavily biased and exonerative towards western countries. it's disgusting
It seems to me we will have to do geo-engineering, on purpose from now on.
We live in an Animal Farm (hattip to Orwell).
Even if you chase the rich away, new masters will emerge.
If Mr.Anderson knows so much he will be happy to debate openly with Mr.William Happer. I know he is too scared to do so. The truth will always win in the end.
Exactly, a debate with William Happer will completely destroy Kevin's argument on CO2 being a driver of climate change.
@Sjb-on5xt @andrewpickard3230 == Absurd crap. William Happer has co-authored published science asserting that CO2 increase causes 81% of the heating that is the average that's used by NASA so Happer's only down by 19% from the average assessment of CO2 increase effect on climate, and no reason why William Van Whatsit & William Happer should be solely selected in preference to the other 6 teams of physicists because they're all as good as William Van Whatsit & William Happer. Also, The Kevin Anderson doesn't seem quite as bright as I am but I would rip Happer to shreds & tatters in a debate by challenging his assertion that ice & snow reflect the same sunlight portion as vegetation, soil & ocean (they actually reflect less) and also challenge Happer's assertion that global warming stopped in 2018 CE (it didn't). Because of those 2 bits of absurd junk-science drivel Happer's just a buffoon. And I bet a well-trained Parrot could out-Parrot the "@Sjb-on5xt" (it's a Parrot, not a human with a human brain).
Who? The utter fraud who is hired to "debunk" science and has absolutely no idea what he is talking about? That man (W.H.) is corrupt and morally rotten to the core. Are you joking? Jesus.
Scientific facts are not a matter of debate. They are facts.
@@Andreas-hh9ygscientific facts are always up for debate especially if fraud and corruption are involved to get results to match a theory. No science is ever settled. If they were we would still think the Sun went around the Earth.
Carbon capture would not only be extremely expensive, pointless, but very dangerous to anyone nearby, if all this storage is suddenly released.
Carbon capture is expensive but much less expensive than the cost of *not* doing it. The chance that significant amounts of CO2 are released from saline aquifers is extremely low and if injected in basalt formations to form carbonates, it's almost zero.
@@climatechat Not doing it costs nothing. More CO2 means higher crop yields and greener planet.
@Sjb-on5xt You don't understand anything Kevin Anderson (or for example Nate Hagens or William Rees)talks about, do you? How can you repeat this totally st*pid sentence over and over again?
@@climatechat Co2 is the gas of life, zero carbon is suicide and the idea of the rich to control and tax the poor. I bet you do not know how much carbon exists in the air, well it is 0.04%, and if it went up to 0.08 it would be fine, zero carbon is the biggest con in the history of man.
No it doesn’t
It would be nice if the interviewer learned how to ask a question.
We, focus on doing what, It is not realistic. No one mentioned The "Aerosol Masking effect" that James Hanson talks about. We live in a Heat Engine Civilization. We are 30-40 years too late. What about the Methane issue. China, Russia and in the U.S. have built large cities underground with roads, food. They know something most people do not. We are in abrupt irreversible Global Warming. Human Habitat will disappear in less than 20 years. We are already at or close to 2 degrees C. and 3 Degrees by 2040.
1:27:00 there are many ways to grow food, more successfully in fact, without any co2 releasing fertilisers or pesticides.
- Firstly, green manures are one of the most effective methods as they build up biological processes deeper in the soil, maintaining stable soil structure and greatly improving plants abilities to capture nutrition
- Secondly, pesticides just aren't needed... blanket mulching, polycultures, sacrificial crops, etc... can greatly control pests and the "one straw revolution" author has demonstrated the importance of keeping some pests around and having partially damaged crops
- Integrating food with the people who eat it IS A MUST, we've moved food production into large fields and the hands of a few - this is just selfish and harmful. Food production needs to be almost everyones responsibility, at least partially... this would create abundance quite easily as production levels are much higher when managed on smaller scales.
The main issue with fossil fuels is plastics, they are only 1 grade of fossil fuels so then you're using only part of the fossil fuel that's being pumped out and that's very wasteful. Plastics are so essential to modern life, just look at the medical industry alone, nevermind almost every other sector
I don't feel like the police deserve to be 'celebrated'.... Certainly not in most countries I've visited or lived in.
We have hit 1.5. There is more than one scientist reviewing data on YT. People will not stop emissions, even those of us that know what will happen and wish we could. Our cultures are built to function around burning fuels. I cannot stop driving, because I can't get what I need to live without it. I grow some of my food, but can't grow it all. I need power in house, and potable water delivery to live. All these things require power. You are broadcasting from comfortable homes on computers. How could you live without? It is not "them." It is us.
Good talk, but in my opinion we re not choosing to fail, we just won't make the decision to succeed. Behaving on autopilot does not require any kind of brain activity and therefore it is not a decision. Halt that autopilot.
Let me add also, that Peter has a very good and adequate insight into all of this. I almost said that he should be travelling around the world give speeches, but I won't.
Carbon budgets , net zero and carbon removal are all wishful thinking
0.4 degrees of current warming was from before CO2 began to rise sharply. 0.4 degrees of warming is attributed to urban heat island effect. Do we blame the rest on Co2 which is about 12% of greenhouse gases. Water vapour which varies widely is the most prevalent GHG but you won’t get a grant to study it. Why on a desert night in the absence of water vapour does Co2 not hold the heat??
You need to read skepticalscience.com. It addresses your myths and 100s of others. For example, skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm and skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
I can see India losing over a million souls, this summer.
The Phillipines are projected to hit 50°C, in May, while 22 hydrolectric plants are still shut down, for lack of water. No AC, and water short, just to keep bodies cool.
Seeing July numbers, already, in the USA.
Bad hurricane projections, and that's by ignoring the unprecedented SST. Horrible, more likely.
A false analysis. Renewables cannot be recycled at scale. Photovoltaic panels are particularly problematic and given that 200 million PVs would come to the end of their life every year, the toxicity issues are enormous. The energy required to salvage even some reusable material from end of life PVs is enormous. Electricity is only 20% of total world energy. Fossil fuels still provide 80% of our approx. 20TWh energy use per year. If we were to replace all that fossil fuel energy with renewables, the economic, social and environmental costs will be enormous if such a transition were possible. Prof Simon Michaux and his team at The Finnish Geological Survey have done detailed modelling which concludes that such a transition is not possible. All this talk of renewable energy is really a business as usual approach that does not deal with the six planetary boundaries which earth system scientists argue we have already exceeded. Renewables with their material intensity and toxicity issues will ensure that we continue to cross more planetary boundaries and drive the endocrine disrupters impacts of our polluted environment. Renewables may have a small place but they are not the main game. The Laws of thermodynamics make clear that circular economy talk is ill-informed. Read the science and do the physics and maths. Work our how many solar panels would be required at a global return of 12% of rated capacity (that is the latest global figure). The area required would cover the whole of the USA just for the solar panels. Why don’t people crunch the numbers and do some realistic thinking. BRIGHT GREEN LIES is a revealing expose of the latest green myths.
Host looks uncomfortable. The truth is absolutely horrifying.
The truth is the climate is boringly stable and even by the IPCC's own reports show no signals of increased extreme weather activity for last 100 years. Forecasts made by models are not science.
The host is likely considering his own lifestyle. Being in North America lifestyles are extremely wasteful of Earth resources, and the level of public transport is completely inadequate, and general quality and sheer quantity of fast food style of living qualify as profligate and atrocious. And that excludes the war economy the US operates (along with the UK).
@@Sjb-on5xtyou need to find something useful to do instead of showing your ass on TH-cam
@@brianwheeldon4643 True, but I feel children and grandchildren weigh into the hopium!
@@Sjb-on5xtAre you for real? Are you joking or what the hell?
Why 'or'? It's radically different from temperature anyway, what do we want to save? We are in it already. Towns have been destroyed like Derna, Acapulco, and Lahaina
I'm interested in "saving" the flora and fauna of the planet, at least try to anyway.
@@jean6453
Countries like China , India have no chance for slowdown fosil fuel 2030 .
I see almost impossible zero emissions at 2030 for poor countries .One reason is that fosil fuels will be much more cheaper, so simple!!!
Would you please comment on the recent passing of a bill in the Tennessee Senate which bans climate engineering, and geoengineering in their state ... ?
To talk about climate change without talking about climate engineering is absolute BS.
You should listen to my interview with Peter Fiekowsky about Climate Restoration this coming Sunday at 10am PT. th-cam.com/users/liveXYX3nkoI3YY
Really interesting stuff from Kevin, especially the stuff about highly polluting people (can we afford the rich?) framing the debate (Noam chomsky talks about that too) to the public.
Paul Beckwith would be a great guest on this channel.
Nice video, thanks
A first step has to be to add a tax on the extraction of more fossil fuels. In the order of twice the total World GDP per pint. Making it financially suicidal to keep extracting it.
See my TEDx talk on that: th-cam.com/video/0k2-SzlDGko/w-d-xo.html
My mentor and Guru the late Jim Lovelock had cautioned me in 2002 that the IPCC is a body of consensus science and in science there can only be the truth or not !! Later I personally encountered the late Dr Pachauri of IPCC in 2015 and raised the flag of CH4 emissions in the ESAS region. The reply I got is we will deal with CH4 when appropriate !!! Really when the shit hits the fan as we are now over the cliff sadly !
Well except that you have no science.
In the past, CO2 levels have been often many times higher than they are now and there was no problem with the climate. Why should there be now?
The Earth will have no problem with a warmer climate, but we humans will. Humans did not exist when the planet was much warmer. Unless you plan on converting humans from being warm blooded to cold blooded, I wouldn't suggest changing the climate to the way it was many millions of years ago. Plus with that warmth comes sea level rise that will wipe out all coastal cities and island nations. And I wouldn't say there was "no problem" in the past. Temperatures spiked 6~8ºC 252 millions years ago (over a much longer time than is happening now) and there was a mass extinction that wiped out 90% of all life on Earth.
"In the past, CO2 levels have been often many times higher than they are now and there was no problem with the climate. Why should there be now?" We are not dinosaurs--all species and especially all ecosystems NOW on Earth are well-adapted to much lower CO2 levels, and when you create big changes in CO2 levels, it creates hundreds of destructive ripple effects for species and ecosystems (we have already done that). If the changes in CO2 levels are big enough and fast enough, it triggers a mass extinction event.
Big changes in CO2 levels were THE main trigger mechanism for most major and minor extinction events, and we have raised CO2 levels by 50% over the baseline that ecosystems were adapted to, and we are currently raising CO2 levels 10X faster than they increased before the worst mass extinction event in Earth's history (end-Permian mass extinction). Most life on Earth would be gone by 2300 on our current trajectory.
@@karlwheatley1244 when I said that CO2 levels have been much higher in the past and there was no problem, I did not mean to imply that temperatures went high at the same time. At the start of every major glaciation CO2 levels were many times their present level and yet we went into ice ages. At no time in the past has climate been driven by CO2 levels.
@@milespostlethwaite1154 Thanks for your reply. "At the start of every major glaciation CO2 levels were many times their present level and yet we went into ice ages."
Where are you getting your information from.... because that is simply and wildly false. CO2 levels had been 300 ppm of lower for the last 800,000 years, until the year the Titanic sunk, and there have been EIGHT glaciation periods during that time.
"when I said that CO2 levels have been much higher in the past and there was no problem, I did not mean to imply that temperatures went high at the same time." My point was that your point is a) misleading, and b) false.
Regarding A) when other species and ecosystems thrived under higher CO2 levels and temps, those were different species and different ecosystems then we now have, so the fact that higher CO2 levels were not a problem for a world largely inhabited by reptiles in ecosystems that evolved around higher CO2 levels have no relevance for us as mammals dependent upon ecosystems that evolved around MUCH lower CO2 levels.
Regarding B), you are forgetting to map extinction events onto those spikes in CO2. Large changes in CO2 levels--usually large increases in CO2 from massive ongoing volcanic eruptions--were THE main "kill mechanism" for most major and minor extinction events in Earth's history. 20%-90% of life on Earth dying out when CO2 levels spiked was not "life doing fine." (But your sources "forgot" to tell you about the mass extinctions part of the history).
"At no time in the past has climate been driven by CO2 levels." At EVERY point in Earth's history, CO2 levels have played a profound role in how warm the Earth was, because CO2 is a heat trapping gas that directly causes warming and because as a non-condensing gas that stays aloft for centuries, CO2 is THE main catalyst of the greenhouse effect via also controlling/affecting water vapor and methane levels. Unless you raise CO2 levels, if you put extra water vapor into the atmosphere, it has to precipitate out, but if you raise CO2 levels, it causes warming that allows the air to hold more water vapor (~7% more water vapor per 1 degree C of global warming). Per million molecules, water vapor cause more warming than CO2, but CO2 is the star because it also controls water vapor levels. And without CO2, the greenhouse effect would collapse, and the Earth would be a frozen, lifeless ball.
Even when long warming periods were triggered by changes in Milankovitch cycles, it is often the case that MOST of the warming that ultimately occurred would not have occurred if CO2 levels had gone up. There is a well-established bi-directional causal relationship between global temps and CO2 levels: All other things being equal, raising either one significantly increases the other one.
I'm sorry, but your sources have misled you by not telling you the whole story or by sharing misleading CO2-temp graphs (like the phony one Patrick Moore shares in his talks).
Take care.
@@karlwheatley1244 Karl, thank you for taking the trouble to give me a detailed reply. I cannot reply to your points immediately as I need time to check on what you have said. The problem here is that we are obviously working from different data sources and if we try and argue like that we will get nowhere.
Regards
Can you guys talk about the ongoing transition to solar, wind and batteries on the grid anf the transition to EVs. It seems there are two intersecting trends, one that can lead to an end to fossil fuel emissions. Tesla will deliver over 2 million EVs this year and the Chinese are deeply committed to transition on the grid and highways. Both those transition have to be supercharged which is what you are saying. From a science point of view we need to look at both the climate and the disrupting technologies.
Cars are about 10% of emissions so while EVs are good (and public transportation and e-bikes are better), a switch to EVs does not solve climate change. Cement alone of about 8% of emissions, with only half of that coming from burning fossil fuels. It's not enough to increase renewable energy, we actually need to eliminate fossil fuels.
Additionally production of the car accounts for half their emissions. So if we completely transferred to eve it might account for a 4 percent reduction in emissions.
But of course a lot of this electricity comes from coal and natural gas. So then we are still emitting in our electric output.
It’s a mess.
"From a science point of view we need to look at both the climate and the disrupting technologies." From a "science" point of view, we must rapidly shrink and de-industrialize our economies while ensuring everyone gets fed--in order to save as many people and species as possible. We are already overshooting Earth's sustainable carrying capacity by over 75%, and creating more man-made stuff just accelerates the destruction of the web of life.
I'm from Melbourne Australia and I've worked out bush in transmission lines all over the country and I've experienced air of every type , the sweetest air is were lots of insects are amongst the trees, the worst air happens when petrol fumes kill all the insects and saturate the trees and waters , we are becoming algea slime oxygen dependant beings , the air hardly lifts our spirits up ,we are ignoring how insects strengthen us via their breathing to the trees . They are dying off from petrol fumes ahead of us .
This is one of the best talks on our predicament that I've listened to. It is tragic but our democracies are incapable of dealing with it, because political parties rely on donations from lobby groups and the rich who push their own agendas. The system needs to change for any real change, which is not happening. The system is not resilient. My conclusion is collapse is coming.
Question for all you climate people. If we put aside the cause of the current global warming. If we say current global average temp is 15 Deg C up from 13.5 Deg C preindustrial age (say 1850). Who is to say that 13.5 Deg C was the optimum temp for the world? I have no idea whether 13.5Deg C was optimum. Perhaps 10 Deg C is optimum (presume this would lead to larger ice caps, lower sea levels, larger uninhabitable areas at the poles. larger habitable areas at the equator etc) or perhaps 18 Deg C is optimum (presume this would lead to no ice caps, higher sea levels, larger uninhabitable areas at the equator, larger habitable areas at the poles etc). Given that whatever the average temp of the globe is, there will always be a temperature gradient between the poles and the equator wont life just mover to the part of that gradient that suits them? I live in the UK and the two bee hives that died on our farm over the winter due to the cold, would certainly have liked it to be warmer!
No one around here will be capable of answering your questions, they're just here to virtue signal and to feed their egos using the opinions of people who they call scientists interpreting flawed models without any dissent allowed.
"Question for all you climate people. If we put aside the cause of the current global warming. If we say current global average temp is 15 Deg C up from 13.5 Deg C preindustrial age (say 1850). Who is to say that 13.5 Deg C was the optimum temp for the world?" I'm a university researcher who has spent more then a decade on the issues of ecological and societal unraveling and how we reduce the degree of collapse (which is already underway). Given that, here's the short answer.
1) All species are dependent on the ecosystems that support them, and all ecosystems NOW on Earth have been well-adapted to cooler temps for the last 120,000+ thousand years and much lower CO2 levels for 13+ million years.
2) Ecosystems (and thus and the species that live in them and depend on them) thrive when long-term average conditions are kept quite stable (climate, chemistry, etc.) and struggle, get sick, break down, and die if there is too much disruption of those basic conditions.
3) Just the 1.2+ degrees C of global warming we have already caused is already causing hundreds of disruptive effects that are wreaking havoc on ecosystems and species all around the world. A big part of the threat/damage is caused by the SPEED of this disruption: We are currently warming the Earth around 20 times faster than it usually warms when coming out of an ice age. Such rapid warming is too fast for most species and especially ecosystems to adapt to.
4) As background on the seriousness of this threat, THE main "kill mechanism" for most major and minor extinction events in Earth's history were triggered by big changes in CO2 levels. Humans have already jacked up CO2 levels 50% since 1776, and are currently raising CO2 levels more than 10 times faster then they increased before the worst mass extinction in Earth's history.
5) Of course, the larger problem is that our large industrialized consumerist civilization is flatly incompatible with Earth's limits and the laws of nature. Currently, humanity's ecological impacts are overshooting Earth's sustainable carrying capacity by over 75% per year, and have exceeded the "safe operating space" for six of Earth's nine planetary boundaries. Until we end that aggregate overshoot and bring global conditions back within all nine boundaries, worsening ecological and societal breakdown are inevitable.
We must solve the global climate crisis, but even if we solved it tomorrow, we'd still be in overshoot and experiencing worsening breakdown. Thus, we have to wind down modern highly-industrialized civilization and consumerist lifestyles as fast as possible--while making sure everyone gets their basic needs met--or billions of people will die and millions of species will go extinct.
Thus, if you want to criticize climate scientists and climate activists, the correct critique would be that the focus on solving the climate crisis is far too narrow, and some people have engendered false hopes that we can carry on with modern civilization if we just switch to renewables.
I hope that helps.
P.S. For thedave7760, plenty of dissent has been allowed and entertained, but the evidence for man-made global warming and climate disruption is absolutely overwhelming... and we've had quite accurate climate models for 40+ years.
@@karlwheatley1244 Thanks for replying. I understand and agree your point "... All species are dependent on the ecosystems that support them" But my point is that there is ( and always was pre industrialized civilization) a temperature gradient between the equator and poles. Why wont species just adjust their latitude to the tempetrature that suits them? Ie if it gets hotter they move north and if it gets colder they move south. Nature is not daft and it moves to the area of least resistance for itself
2023 Canadian wildfire,
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia,
Beginning in March 2023, and with increased intensity starting in June, Canada was affected by a record-setting series of wildfires. All 13 provinces and territories were affected, with large fires in Alberta, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Quebec. The 2023 wildfire season had the most area burned in Canada's recorded history, surpassing the 1989, 1995, and 2014 fire seasons, as well as in recorded North American history, surpassing the 2020 Western US wildfire season.
Hothouse Earth, is when Primates evolved. Proto-horses evolved before, and are still here. It's all in the geologic record. We "can" survive, contrary to Guy M. He won't listen to my arguments, since I don't have any kind of degree.
It'll be nearer Cape Horn, and in New Zealand, plus other southern islands.
Our political leaders are largely in the realm of the absurd. Any look at the IPCC and COP makes me all the more confident in human extinction.
Im confidant that real policy discussions wont even start within public view until the industrial scale human starvation / die offs start (agriculture failure.) If this is set as a known variable, the unknown could be: how many make it through the tightening bottle neck? Extraordinarily complex and impossible equation to solve, but I think the first part is a known.
For Stacey Randecker - I was always angry when my thesis supervisor would tell me that voluntary disempowerment was the only answer to gender inequity, but as angry as I felt then in my 20s I now realize at 50 that voluntary disempowerment is the only answer to the climate crisis. No one will do it for us, consume 9/10th less of literally everything. You have to be the change you want to see. Failing voluntary disempowerment we are just part of the tragedy of the commons.
Have you guys considered the dramatic decline of oil reserves at scale in the next 10 years? How about the minerals constraints needed for transitioning away from fossil energy?, which wont ever happen at scale. The population will have to decrease. I have nothing to add beyond that.
IPCC working group1, 2007 assessment: 'we should recognize that we are dealing with a; coupled, nonlinear, chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.".
'Our' 'democratic' institutions are to some extent controlled by us masses who say 'but I like my car'. Keep riding the bicycles, and hope others follow.
1:07:30 "There's not clear answer to what we need to do"
I speculate with researched climate tech that we have on the shelf on our likely near future outcome. Consider CSVs.
th-cam.com/video/IhwDCSvlP_U/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=ClimateSafeVillages
He was saying that we can not rely on the "experts" to lead us to the resolution, for various reasons.After saying "There's not clear answer to what we need to do" he stated that we ourselves need to come up with the solutions, that is just the reality of the situation. He went on to say that we need to open up the debate to search for these answers, which we have not yet done. Some people might want a dictator telling us what to do, but I am not there yet.
Plenty of answers, if you want to listen and hear.
Well done Jean for paying attention 👍👍 @@jean6453
the politions are to afraid to tax pollution!!!!!! since we are capitaists we must let the money/cost of goods guide us!
I support 7 wild life environmental groups. Amnesty & Labour. I use next to no or extremely low carbon. Until Green Politicians & thinkers accept Nuclear Power is necessary to go along with renewables as James Hanson & James Lovelock I will not vote or support them.
What happens when societies collapse, but they have operating nuclear power plants and can't keep the fuel rods covered because the grid is down?
Set the metrics in advance and then publish the results on a schedule. Nobody heard about this crap.
This is why all the rich people are building underground bunkers
I think you mean building their own and their family's tomb.