I also see a climate catastrophe narrative being spread with fear being build. Unfortunately also in this podcast. Yes, fossil fuels have a strong lobby, but why apply it? The consultancy for climate issues is earning huge money, as well as wind/solar energy. Oil and gas companies are also making huge profits anyways. It's really complex. When will there be a round table with climate sceptics? E.g. Koonin, Plimer, Curry, etc. Is there any common ground that the clever scientists can agree on?
Sadly, the recent US Supreme Court removal of the last remaining laws against political bribery have left us at the mercy of the greediest and most ravenous among us.
What do you think this jackass is? Science is so broken these days... For example, we haven't been using CFCs enmass for over 35 years, but the hole in the ozone layer at the South Pole was really HUGE last year. You don't hear about that much, but there's likely something else going on.
He hasn't asked him if he had some conflict of interest😉. In science there should be a discussion between all opinions. But, like in the covidscience, there is just 1 narrative. I lost every trust in any science, all research is financed by the wrong people.
Nate Hagens, I cannot thank you enough for these rich, deep, interesting, and enlightening podcasts, you've done it once again, from the bottom of my heart, Nate thank you!
@@Sjb-on5xt, really, how? Writing from an area that's running out of water because it's not raining or snowing, our 4 seasons are 2 nowadays. What's your explanation?
@@begonaRR the experiment mentioned by King carried out 150 years ago has been debunked by William Happer from Princeton University. He found warming effect of CO2 in atmosphere is saturated at 300ppm in a downward logarithmic curve. Virtually no warming effect past this. Climate is 30+ minimum years of weather, so you're talking about weather, not climate. and weather is variable
@@begonaRR weather and climate are never constant and this is caused by many multiple factors that combine in a complex way, as yet not understood. What can certainly be said definitively is that co2 is not the climate control knob, which is a childishly naive idea and is plain false
Sir David King's expression of gratitude warmed my heart. This brilliant man recognizes the benign didactic intentions of the Great Simplification in a typically British understated way. "Good show, old bean'!
I also loved David King's (as always) expressions, however he seemed to go on a fanciful adventure on how whale shit can cure our woes for a proportion of the talk. 'Hopium' came to mind at that point, and never left as the talk seemed to delve further into a hopium abyss.
As for the fires: how about the ones started on purpose by climate activists in order to be able to point fingers to "climate change" as a reason for them! Maybe someone could work out the correct statistics on this? If we are down to science in earnest, let's talk about these as well.
Quite the best! Two very bright gentleman explaining these complex systems in a totally comprehensible way. Brilliant. And David King had chaired Indie- Sage during our Uk Covid crisis. Such a knowledgeable and compassionate man.
The one thing I remember of the 1992 climate conference in Rio was what George H W Bush, the senior, said "The American way of life is not negotiable". That promise has been kept. The promise which was not kept was the one about doing something about global warming. This lays bare the REAL priorities of all governments. All the rest is just music. What too few people understood then what too many do not still understand, including environmentalists, is that of course the "American way of life" HAS to be negotiable. We can not have BOTH BAU and action of global warming, or if you could do some trick of the sort then the environment will only suffer from other effects of BAU.
One or two problems with this podcast. At around 9:20 the experiment conducted by Tyndall cannot take into account the role played by moisture vapour and clouds. Also this year, 2023, were not the largest wild fires on record in Europe. According to publication "EU science hub" this year was only around 60% of the fires in 2022 and of these 80 to 85% were started by either arson or other man made intervention. The area of ice in the arctic is getting smaller but it was not pointed out that the area of ice in Antarctica (according to IPCC AR5) "Antarctic sea ice extent increased 1.2 to 1.8% in the last decade and is getting larger". There are several other, historical facts, the say that what is going on at the moment is not "extreme". I think the problem is that we don’t fully understand what is going on despite what climate scientists say.
Dr. Lindzen says that there are no tipping points in the earth's system because of its many degrees of freedom. Dr. Koonin questions climate science on a more general level (as in his book "Unsettled"). I am quite angry that one half of the scientists presumes that tipping points are real and the other half says "nope". Amounts to "Believe the side which you want to belong to."
Imported emissions and emissions caused by international travel are usually not included in national budgets. This is an essential part of the injustice and inequality that Sir David referred to. It‘s not just the billionaires, it‘s all of us in the global North who drive our biosphere over the edge.
@@achenarmyst2156But not all of us, responsibility is surprisingly limited to the middle and upper classes of North America, Europe and China - and among them heavily weighted to the baby boomers. Effectively, the most prosperous 20% of the world’s population since the 70s/80s. Incidentally the ones with all the wealth and power
@@Rnankn How rather convenient that you would lay blame on those other than your own particular demographic. The truth is everyone lies somewhere along the scale, and if you happen to find yourself living in the modern, developed world, then high-chance you lie within the top end of that scale, with the scale of your cost to the environment reflected proportionally.
Virtually all the reduction is due to switching from coal to CCGT power generation. Dr King was somewhat disingenuous here. There was also the decline of high energy consumers such as metal smelting and other heavy industry. There is also the accounting issue of the DRAX power station which switched from coal to biomass, and now is considered renewable in statistics, even though it's anything but.
Before 2015 I won't be able to understand a word of this conversation! I'm a French Canadian from the province of Québec. I met an incredible Ukrainian lady, sucessful scientist and brave! Now we have 2 young children and I want to have a meaningful way of life that will NOT be working at creating OVERCONSUMPTIONS! BP and other's that create this situation have to pay for revitalization! There's trials for the big oil producers, I hope they BAIL OUT, possibly they will be bankrupt and then everyone realized that we rather haven't used fossils fuels.
WoW!!~ Mind bending. My 20 year old granddaughter spent one week at the Dubai Climate Conference, with 75,000 other science and econ participants. She said that one day she just sat down and was overwhelmed by the presentations she had attended. A lot to chew on. great interview and responses.
Sir David King’s contribution to UK decarbonisation is difficult to overplay. Likewise, his recent work at Cambridge, including the setting up of the CCAG in response to the failings of recent UK governments and their advisors has demonstrated leadership at a critical time. Sadly, his voice is rarely heard on the mainstream media.
What decarbonisation? I still see CO2 levels rising. Economic growth is obviously more important to any and all governments and that priority has prevailed in policy over the decades. Everything else has only been rhetoric.
Decarbonisation is a sick joke being imposed on the public. Good science says that even a doubling of CO2 - expected in about 200 years at current rates of increase - will add maybe as much as 1 deg C.
Decarbonization is a fancy word to get rid of life. We are all carbon based! Ecocide inverted into saving the planet removing carbon from which all life thrives.
@@Innerdiamond Nice strawman you have there as an argument. The strawman is that ecologists "want to get rid of carbon". WRONG! No one ever said any such thing. Global warming is about IMBALANCE in the atmosphere. Here is how your strawman works by way of analogy. We all need glucose in our blood. Without it we would have hypoglycaemia. Therefore glucose is "good". Therefore it follows that the more glucose you have in the blood, the better for your health. This is NOT the case. More sugar and glucose does NOT equal more health. By the same token less CO2 emissions does NOT = "ecocide", a use of emotive language in preference to facts and a strawman in preference to good argumentation.
@@anabolicamaranth7140 Continued burning of coal will push up global temps way further than aerosol masking could ever locally reduce m -_only temporary!_
Exceptionnal dialog and knowledge sharing. I can notice an exception though, in that renewable energy infrastructure and new lights may cost less ££, they cost more mining of certain minerals. Minerals that A. cost a lot in term of human lifes and biodiversity, and B. are less and less concentrated as the market massifies its output. Money is NOT the long term, or even the middle term main criteria.
@@aegisfate117 As true as to say you and I are bacteria beings since we were made of this, or dust since we are made out of star dust. At some point in the past.
I happen to have been the systems admin who built the first GPU system for IPCC models: many more models per unit time became possible. While verifying the system, I saw many many model outputs as versions of proof of concept for the grant. Recalling a situation, a need to rebuild the entire stack to prove function: a Locked Jet Stream became a Static Hurricane. Twice. Think Jupiter. Thank you for all you are doing Nate!
At about 26:45 he is clear that a third tipping point has tipped. Does that not mean runaway climate change is now inevitable? Positive feedback loops cannot be stopped, and once one fires off, the others aren't far behind. Is my understanding correct?
no it’s silly .. warm is good. we can’t have to much water and not enough water at same time. if you are thirsty and your yard is dry and the hose is in the street and you can’t shut it off… what do you do 1st? do you drive to the water source or move the hose to the yard?.
@@nsbd90now more rain in aggregate global. Not seen update since 2021 but trend is solid from charts I've seen. Hard to predict seasonal rain down to zipcode. But aggregate rain really must go up. Logically. Namibia on south west of Africa seems to be worse desert in Hothouse climates. Amazon gets less rain but floods from ocean. Fine line between mangrove and estuaries I suppose. Both considered not great for GDP but for biodiversity are tops.
It‘s repeated over and over by climate sceptics or bystanders that GB or Germany is only contributing 2% of global emissions, and so their decisions didn’t really matter. Sir David nicely laid out that this is far from being correct. GB only could be influential on the global climate action scale because they (at least at that time) were leading in emission reduction and investing heavily. The point is that this principle basically applies to every single one of us. As long as a vast majority of us continues a Northern consumer lifestyle nothing is won for the biosphere. Flying to Greece to watch marvellous statues or flying to Africa to experience the Okavango delta is simply not compatible with the survival of our biosphere. The Great Simplification only works by doing it, not by just discussing it.
Rubbish There is no crisis and CO2 is at historically low levels (geologically speaking) . The great threat comes from lower CO2; not from higher levels. Meanwhile, the realists in China are building coal power stations. Good for them - Europe (and European civilisation) is being deliberately destroyed by the psychopaths promoting the climate hoax.
China’s damming of the Lacang/Mekong is already making salinification in Vietnam a problem. Local rice varieties in Indonesia are salt tolerant. Farmers preserved their traditional varieties
The hopium second half is a bit too much....magical thinking. In what universe does this guy think he can get the funding and support to actually pull this off and is it even possible with an acidifying ocean and an ocean that is warming..."faster than expected."
Do you have any points about the second half, almost an hour, or direction towards one point or something that you think is worthwhile to denigrate? We only have one universe so no need for hyperbole, but imagine a time when we have had 3-4 summers that are 3-4 degrees above normal, then when policy changes money isn't going to be the important issue. The debt is never going to be paid back and we can't afford to not do anything and we have 401k's, superannuation funds, pension funds, around the world that can't find places to put money. The amounts that are in these funds surpass what it would cost to change to completely renewable, there might come a time when govts take deposits in these funds to change to renewable, point is policy changes, if they haven't defaulted by then. To say idea's are magical, might be right, but too much? Well that's your subjective opinion which doesn't offer anything of value so maybe when people are trying to offer solutions people shouldn't try to denigrate them.
@@anabolicamaranth7140 How about a closet doomer, pulling his punches, but without telling lies of any kind. I repect him, for the razors edge he walks.
The only way to make the general public aware of the real costs of polution and carbon emissions is to have those costs incorporated into the costs of consumer goods. In any other way, people will not be aware of it, they will keep flying and buy useless stuff, because it is cheap and affordable under current cost calculations which does not incorporate real costs of environemental and climate damage.
1:26:50 I haven't checked anything, but why do I have the feeling that there is no way 32% of electric power c o n s u m e d worldwide is renewable ? Perhaps nominal installed capacity ... Next time he's on , you might want to have his take on the 'metals' conundrum ...
According to latest IEA report 60.6% of power is fossil. Rest is nuclear and renewable. Wind and solar are 11.7%. Sir David is right ( (if you lump hydro and nuclear into renewable). However I disagree w his renewable optimism but didn’t want to derail conversation away from his scientific expertise- which is chemistry/climate
@@thegreatsimplification Right right ... keep forgetting Hydro even though I live in Quebec (!)... always mentally filed that item in the more or less maxed out category and was just kinda' stunted by the number, as if the drift of the conversation simply just implied solar and wind. I listened to the podcast via bluetooth at work but felt compelled to comment when I got home and turned on the computer ;-) 11.7% I'm not too startled by... Thanks for the reply.
Great discussion Nate. Fascinating to learn what I don't know, A very realistic chat on the science , political and economic challenges we face going forward. Thanks for this. cheers
I love almost every interview in "the Great Simplification" and this one is no exception. I hope it helps to make my students understand all those questions about ppm, why C02 and Methane and not other gases, how does the heating work,... etc... I am still at the minute 23 and taking notes.
CO2 is a trace gas, essential to all life on the planet, has very little warming effect past 300ppm. Prof William Happer debunked the 150 year old hypothesis that Sir King is still using for his alarmism.
Methane is a non-issue. It's about 1.9ppm compared to CO2 420 ppm and water vapour at about 12,500 ppm. At the rate of increase over the last 30 years calculated from data in IPCC AR6 Annex III, methane will double in about 400 years. Good science, not science with a vested interest, says if methane doubled it would add less than 0.2C to the temperature. (BTW, a doubling of methane is a 100% increase, or a 1.9ppm increase. An increase in water vapour of 2ppm is 0.016% or less than 2/10,000ths.)
This I think has so far been my "favorite" guest. He has been the most informative as far as actual information or "brass tax" on what is going on. Really wanted to hear more about the krill and the whales.
An important insight you give here: that much of climate change denial is a proxy for disagreeing with the fixed prescription that's being given, and there might be less denial if there were more honest discussion of the several policy options. Thank you for this perceptive remark. It was confirmed by an unusually careful survey years ago. That survey, as I remember it, did extended interviews to find out what people really meant when they gave a "no" to the cursory yes-no question usually asked about global warming. Unfortunately I don't remember what the percentages were for the proxy usage of denial. But it was significant. When warming-denial is used as a proxy for disagreement with the official policy, this has a natural converse effect: many of the deniers see the dominant climate change statements, not as being statements about climate, but as really being a proxy for demanding compliance with the fixed official policy prescription -- and they dislike that prescription, or disagree with it. In other words, the talk about climate change as fixed science is seen as really a proxy for imposing a fixed, costly, and inadequate prescription. Why inadequate? It's to just keep cutting emissions while the warming continues anyway, and keep ramping this up when it keeps failing. And, it seems, make ourselves much poorer in the process, which eventually would destabilize our societies until we get political collapses and civil wars that destroy the whole policy anyway. Without ever stopping the warming. This insistence on sticking solely to a failing program and carrying it to greater extremes the more it fails - this is seen, by some not all deniers (again I'm sorry not to have survey results), as a way of suppressing the necessary discussion of supplementary prescriptions such as geoengineering. Which is something you do commendably discuss; as you know, most people don't discuss it, which is why their talk about the reality of climate change sounds like a proxy for simply demanding more of a failing policy. And which they suppress, quite explicitly, on the argument that it might take people away from their own policy demands. I think you're right that it would have the opposite effect - to bring about more rational discussion and less denial - but rationality has not been in the driver's seat. Sunlight reflection is probably the most promising form of geoengineering, and stratospheric particles are the most promising of the many ways to do it, for the reasons Sir David gives - since we know it will work. But we don't know how serious the side-effects would be, and we ought to know more about this, and also about the many other ways for sunlight reflection such as the marine cloud brightening he's working on. So his conclusion - that we need to do more research on it -- is not just common sense, it's urgently important. It is ridiculously under-researched at this time. The reason we haven't done the research, sadly, is that the research has been suppressed. Suppressed by the same dominant ideological faction that dominates the airwaves on global warming discussion and that claims to be motivated by the science. To a rational observer, this suppression of research, discussion, and information is clear evidence that there are other motivations at work and this is really about something quite different than the opposition that's being presented all the time -- the science versus science-denial. Sunlight reflection research is what needs to be stepped up with the highest priority, by a couple orders of magnitude -- which would still be dirt cheap compared to other things. It we don't get enough of it done soon enough, then the moratorium that we do have on implementation is sure to fail as the warming gets worse. It'll fail for the simple reason Sir David gives here: many actors will become able to defy the moratorium and do it, and some of them will surely go ahead and do it as their society grows despearate from the warming. Conversely, if we find out soon enough the things we need to know about it, then, if the honest scientific information actually turns out too negative, we'll have a legitimate basis for taking stronger measures to make the moratorium on implementation somehow enforceable. I'd have to say that it is really commendable that you discuss solar geoengineering, even courageous on your part - and it's really sad that this requires courage today. Hopefully science and reason will have some effect and the research on it really will get stepped up. Then maybe, just maybe, we'll be able to make it through this crisis.
If AGW were real, the warmists wouldn't have to exaggerate it, deplatform sceptics, and they would have something better than a 100% failure record when it comes to predictions.
Unliked comment when saw a proponent of sulfuric acid haze cloud over planet. All drank kool-aid and I don't even know who started serving it. Acid rain and when the clouds shrink due to glaciation you can't go out after the rain bc no ozone layer. Preposterous
The problem with Sir David King is that he talks in extremes. He speaks of 7m sea level rise if all the ice on Greenland melts. No one, not even the most extreme models that use the ‘business as usual’ scenario predict anything like that. Greenland ice melt currently adds single digit mm to sea level rise. The summer of 2021 was notable for June, just as it was in Europe last year, July and August was near normal for these regions. Vietnam has a history of flooding due to its topography fuelled by typhoon activity. During the typhoon devastation of 1964 parts of the country were under meters of sea water. They are scaling back rice production for economic reasons. Antarctic sea ice extent has been increasing since 2020, including this year, so how can Sir David say that it has lost ice? Because he knows no one will do a simple search. I haven’t got these results from any skeptic websites, they are data freely available if you just look for them. I don’t doubt his credibility but he is an alarmist. He mentioned the Thames Barrier that was built to protect London. When it was constructed they thought it would need to be replaced by 2030 given the predictions of sea level rise. They now think it will do its job until at least 2070, maybe beyond. It is not raised any more today than it was when it opened so how catastrophic is the sea level rise? I know most will dismiss these comments because I’m not a climate scientist. I am cursed with an enquiring mind that does not accept what I am told without verification. I just wish more people would do the same.
I'm going to make my channel refuting the alarmists. Saw Adelie penguins population threatened bc Antca sea ice from 09-14 was too extensive. Agree it is reported data but slightly hidden
Will Happer is the same age as King and probably has an even better CV in atmospheric physics. He disagrees with King. He thinks King is ignoring the principles of equilibria in attributing exclusively positive characteristics to feed back loops. Happer argues that most natural feedbacks are actually negative. From my own point of view I think King underestimates the ability of the planet to dump heat given that there is no lid on the pot (so to speak). I would love to see these chaps have a discussion on the show. I think to ignore people like Happer, Rich Lindzen, Judith Curry, Chris Essex and Steve Koonin is insulting to their professional achievements and just fuels further skepticism with the climate emergency narrative. If you want to defuse resistance, you will have to defuse their arguments, not ignore them. King's belief that the fossil fuel lobby is behind resistance is wrong. The resistance is at the grass roots level (and growing) as far as I can tell.
Great interview, Nate. I've heard Sir David speak a few times and happy that his carbon capture efforts are now focused on naturally seeding the oceans. I also learned about the ecological magnitude of benefit of whale poo. There were a few huge red flags. 1) Claims of Britain reducing carbon emissions by 48% when they exported the vast majority to Chinese manufacturing. 2) Claiming that the UK has transitioned a portion of their energy transmission to green energy. I'm unclear if he is aware of the absolutely disastrous ecological effects from biomass, solar, and wind. You were brilliant in not bogging down the interview on the above mentioned points. On balance, earth would benefit greatly from more David Kings.
Nate, please hold your interviewees to the question asked, regardless of their standing and tenure. There are several occasions of this in this episode, one of the earlier ones regarding lead/lag analysis of CO2 and temp. He redirects to compounding effects of albedo and never answers the question. Another example, we definitely shouldn’t target zero carbon, that would be death, and yes there have been times when the atmosphere was dominated by CO2, but there were no humans then. This is the answer given to the question of what do those ice cores tell us about the past. He’s rephrasing it into the domain of extremes, without providing a meaningful answer. I’ll have to rewatch the remainder later, I kinda tuned out after the strange way things got presented. Great storytelling abilities and does bring ideas together in a way that makes them more approachable than most academics. Like so many in academia, where focus must be niche, 30 plus years at anything gives a wide set of inputs but an ever narrowing lens with which to view them. And as Taleb pointed out (he’s no master either, however this is a good quip), lack of success can detected by name dropping.
Define dominated by CO2? Miocene Climactic Optimum was as high as 800ppm and Age of Apes. Humans as recognizable evolved in response to falling CO2 and Temps from Miocene to Pliocene
We saw a pod of whales today off the east coast of South Africa. I was overjoyed to see them. It is my daughter's 18th bday. It was the smallest glimmer of hope
Amazing man….great podcast Me, Hugen. Over in the US, and most other places actually, need to take money out of politics….nothing you discussed here will ever be discussed in congress properly until that happens. Here in the UK, we have an easier fight me thinks to find the means to change, but Sir King needs help to put pressure on the system. Blows my mind how with such brilliant traditions and number of expert at Oxford and Cambridge don’t actually advise our governments….with proper oversight, that for sure would bring better results. Keep up the good fight both of you!!!
It also hold additional heat creating deeper high and low pressure systems in the air and weather volatility. Thus, fast growing cyclones, heat domes, drought, atmospheric rivers. Also the carbon we kick out from industrialism does not correspond with the carbon plants use, and comes with poisons for soil, water and air. This is all self evident.
In the U.S. people are used to feeling they should always be able to get their way, have what they want. And they want unlimited energy for their personal use, without having to in any way limit their consumption. This is a basic feature of our culture. So even deeper than cognitive dissonance is a kind of cultural narcissism reflected in most American’s personal psychology. I know this because I’m an American!
As a human alive this moment is like we have a wild ride ahead of us, the entire world now is changing, as we change. The strong and fittest only will know a new way of thinking is about to come to life. As we now have to grin and bare it.Goodnight Irene jj57
Ensconced with political circles? That's not a high endorsement seeing how corrupt these said political circles are all over this planet! After this endorsement I don't even feel like continuing to watch this video.
The hubris of concentrated wealth and its subsequent self-serving exercise of power is a core problem in numerous countries. In a large part this is a systemic condition that inclines towards the tyranny of the miniscule minority in which the needs and desires of the majority are ignored in a culture of manipulation and exploitation. The electoral system plays a part in this. There was a recent study conducted in Canada that determined with its "first pass the post" electoral system a large percentage of the voting public is not represented in the results. The same is probably true in Great Britain and India as well as other parliamentary countries that utilize similar electoral practices. Also, this is certainly true in the United States where we have a "winner take all" electoral system. Even though alternative parties are not excluded, they are not viable as the bulk of voters are most often compelled to align with one of the two strongest parties. Next November we will be compelled to discern which is least egregious, a mishmash of strident authoritarianism or corporate imperialism. No matter who wins most will lose, both domestically and internationally. Some type of proportional electoral system would go a long way in alleviating much of the untethered madness. It would avail giving one's vote to someone who might actually represent wants and needs. Also, one would be much more at liberty to vote out pretenders. For those who value polite society this form of Liberty is most valuable. Redirecting fiduciary responsibility of financial arrangements and corporate chartering away from the death culture of profit-at all-costs and instead towards environmental and social vibrancy is certainly essential, as well. A fee and dividend carbon tax in multiple ways would be auspiciously painless and beneficial. If the reader is not familiar with this, a Google search will illuminate.The concept has been around for a long while. Since it would be a very effective tool for globally transitioning us away from fossil fuels, it has been rigorously opposed by the vested interests. James Hanson has consistently been a proponent
Aerosol masking doesn’t get enough attention. Louisville,Detroit,Pittsburgh,Jackson, Cincinnati,Atlanta and Nashville set a total of 30 summer records 2014-2023. Cheyenne, Seattle,LA,Salt Lake,Boise, El Paso and Las Vegas set 194. 30 Vs 194. Coal burning and therefore sulfates are higher in the East.
But doesn’t atmospheric carbon also have a localized warming effect? Ultimately it disperses evenly throughout the atmosphere, but not immediately. I’m, not sure aerosol masking would significantly overcome heat retention. Isn’t it just as likely Western North America is becoming hotter and dryer from changing flows within the climate system, and the shifting of biomes?
@@RnanknThose are good questions. CO2 does disperse quite evenly around the globe. SO2 from coal burning doesn’t move much from its origin. Dallas is a fairly high sulfate city and has set 17 records in June/Jy/Aug in the last 10 summers. El Paso is a low SO2 city and has set 44. Spain is low SO2, 8 of 10 of its hottest days on record are since 2017. India? Per NASA, minimal warming from 1951-1980 in May, their sunniest, hottest month. India’s burning megatons of coal and scrambling to burn more with each passing minute. Ditto for China. Ditto for Kazakhstan.
For some reason this made me think of overpopulation in relation to the city of Lagos. From Wiki: "By 2100 Lagos is expected to be the largest city in the world with over 88 million people. That's 10 times the current population and more people than the total current population of Germany or twice the population of Argentina." So population scientists are predicting that Lagos is going to undergo explosive population growth. Apparently, they don't take into consideration that there is no way Nigeria can support of population of that size in the city of Lagos. By 2100, all the crude oil will be gone and it's likely Lagos will become a hell on Earth. Scientists often concern themselves exclusively with pure science and totally disregard what is happening in the real world. Nowhere is this more evident than the general consensus that we will have a fully functional colony on Mars by the end of the century -- never mind the cost of such an ill conceived project and how irrelevant it is to ordinary people's lives on this planet.
Well, yesterday morning there was a tropical storm off the coast of Mexico with 50 MPH winds. 24 hours later it hit the coast as a category 5 hurricane with 165 MPH winds. I’ve got a feeling we’ve hit a tipping point. Looks like Gaia is gonna win this one.
The mining companies sure do not believe we are going go electric, because we would use 10X more copper, and they are not permitting more mines! Mines take 10-15 years to start producing, we needed thousands of more mines 5 years ago. BETTER START DIGGING UP MINERALS!!! CHOP CHOP GET TO DIGGING!
Sir David King is a great man, but he is greatly understating the severity of the climate catastrophe. In fact, we are already in runaway greenhouse and the situation is irreversible. Dozens of climate feedbacks have already been triggered and there are 2 trillion tons of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere that shouldnt be there, that we cant remove that will be there for a thousand years even if humans stop all emmissions immediately, and that we are increasing by 40 billion tons per year, with no plans to slow down. Global heating will likely be 3.5c by 2030, 4.5c by 2040, 6c by 2050 and 20c by 2100. Agriculture will start collapsing at 3c. Civilization will collapse at 4c, and there probably wont be any humans left at all at 6c. Many large tipping points are approaching that can greatly increase the rate and severity of global temperature rise.
@@sirrealreal "Just not true" More like complete nonsense. 20c up is completely overstating what is happening. 3C plus it's bad enough, like the man says, quite likely the agricultural system will crash. And if West Antarctica starts sliding, we may well see 2 meters / 7 feet up the sea level. No need to overdo it when it's that bad
Funny that satellite measurements of global surface temperatures are not affected by any heat island effects at all. And of course to calculate the global mean temperature the Earth is divided into a grid and the distribution of temperature stations is weighted in. Also funny that stations far away from any concrete runways also show drastic temperature increases over the last 30-40 years.
@@Andreas-hh9yg Satellite data only began in 1979. The Urban Heat Island effect is well understood, can affect average temperature records by as much as 6C. The Earth is going through a warming period, of course temperatures increase over last 150 years "since records began" are not drastic, are moderate warming from the last mini-ice age. Far better to be warmer than colder.
@@Sjb-on5xt It seems you have no understanding of the matter. Yes, satellite measurements began in the late 70s. So what? The dramatic temperature increase began in the 80s. So the satellite measuremnets are covering exactly this crucial time period. You even said it yourself: The urban heat effect is well understood. And because of that cannot distort the results for the global mean surface temperature.Yes, the Earth is going through a warming period, and we know exactly why.The speed of warming we are causing at the moment is nearly unprecedented in the history of Earth. It's drastic, much faster than any natural warming or cooling. That's one of the major reasons why we are causing the sixth great mass extinction of Earth. And no, we are not coming from a mini-ice-age. The little ice age was NOT a worldwide phenomena. It was limited to Europa and North America. The global mean temperature over the last few hundred years was very constant.
@@Andreas-hh9yg There have been dramatic changes in Earth's climate over the millennia, from one ice age to the next. There is not a single shred of scientific proof in any paper for a trace gas causing it or even if man is causing it. If there was, the IPCC would be singing it from the highest hills.
Lots of really good informtation, and I really liked the history summary of our understanding of how climate change works in the beginning. However I think the comments about China are a little off. It's taken 40 years (not 20) to lift 800 million people out of poverty in China. That's partly due to the definition of poverty not keeping up with inflation over the years. Lots of the growth can be attributed to people moving off the fams and into cities where they're more productive but also use a lot more energy. Also most of new car sales in China are not EV's. It's only about a third and that's only if you include the plug in hybrids. Furthermore that's a really recent development as EV sales are up 40% compared to 2022. The Chinese government is heavily subsidizing the EV industry and that's why the price of EV's in China is low and sales are up. The Chinese economy is no longer expanding but it's certainly not deliberate. China's dependance on coal won't decrease because their switching to renewables, it will only decrease if Australia stops selling so much coal to China. China will probably burn more coal in the future as oil production worldwide fails to keep up with demand.
About 41 mins in. Hang on. 20 million years ago our atmosphere was NOT mainly CO2 as he said. He’s confusing me now.. was that a one off error? Did he mean 2 billion years ago?
Equal distribution of what? talent? height? beauty? intelligence? disability? bad luck? I think if there was equal distribution of everything we wouldn't have evolved beyond slime. There had to be some Better Thing that was selected for and progressed life to the next level. Hmmm so where does that leaves us today? I don't bloody know. But slogans are nice.
Just in case you're implying I'm such a person, I'm not. It's just that slogans - while making you feel good - do next to nothing about working out how or if or to what extent such a thing is possible.Maybe it would have been more just for me to not have purchased this laptop and instead sent the money to someone without food in some part of the world. So maybe I am that person you mention after all, but so might you be. @@MendeMaria-ej8bf
The word collapse can also mean falling together, sharing hasn’t occurred within stoic individualism, we remain impoverished to imagination in the ‘me’ culture.
And even now there is discussions and even evidence that IPCC's carbon doubling number is too low, so it is likely that we end up nearer the Arrhenius higher 5C estimate. Specially how clouds work and what is sulphate role in it, is under heavy discussions. Sulphate acts as a nuclei for droplets that creates clouds. This aerosol cooling effect is estimated to be 0,6C (IPCC) or even as high as 1,35C (Hansen). If either of these currently existing effect is added to current temperatures, that means we are overshooting 2C targets. Many scientists says this outloud today. IPCC's plan is to suck enough carbon from atmosphere to get cooler temperatures, but yet still we lack the tools to do it (science/engineering, money, energy, area, ...). The only real way to limit warming under 3C is stop burning fossil fuels and stop other emissions too. In this direction our governments are failing. 85% of the pledges, that are meant to limit warming to 2,8-3,2C range are failing, some of these are causing even more rising emissions. This means that our governments are simply going for over 4C world, that is causing wide extinctions and dangers us, as every individual human being, too.
And Germany has now closed the final three of their 17 zero carbon nuclear plants, replacing them with coal fired generating stations burning lignite, the dirtiest coal available. "But we'll always have Paris."
You know the big 4 crop producer are US Midwest, India, China and Brazil. 3 out of 4 of these guys have high sulfate levels.2 of these guys are doing everything they can to add more sulfates.
@@dylanthomas12321 Yup, niclear is creating just tiny amount of emissions. And even nuclear waste is a tiny problem when you even start to compare it to fossil fuels. Nuclear's only major problem is whe it is use as nukes. Radiation causes more cancer etc, but yet still lesser problem. Stop burning coal asap. use nuclear next 5 year, and then go with greener solutions only. German coal plants already stopped for a while due to drought causing too low water levels in the Rhein. This is coming a major issue when all alpine glaciers are gone (by 2050-2070). Also this effects nuclear plants that gains their cooling water from alpine glaciers...
@@anabolicamaranth7140 Nope, none that I know is willingly adding sulphates to air. Dirty plants adds sulphates as byproduct in energy production when burning dirty fossil fuels... All of these countries has their own emission and pollution problems. US major overconsumption on all levels. India is choking with its emissions, just hoping they wont continue adding coal plants as they planned earlier. China still adds too many coal burners and has realized that they are choking on pollution. Brazil is killing Amazon rainforest among other SA countries. We won't have plans to ban even most dirty fossil fuel, coal. Zeroing only that is not nearly enough. Failing 85% of governmental pledges means we are heading over 4C warming. And that will extinct many species and perhaps even us. All current farmlands are under climate enhanced stresses along with losing their top soils, nutrients and water.
@@dylanthomas12321 Germany is speeding up renewables and green hydrogen technology. Forget about those three nuclear power plants. Their contribution will soon be replaced by non fossile sources. Quick coal phase out over the next 7 years is implemented.
Nate! I love you bro. You're amazing. Keep doing what you're doing. It's making a difference. It shows seeds that will bloom in years to come. Amazing guest. I think yours and Jim Rutt's podcasts are some of the best technical podcasts there. I'd like to say Lex Friedman but there's just something wrong with him I don't know what it is. Lovely person I'm sure. But he never takes a stance. Never wants to offend.
WOW!.....thank you to you both - whale poo rocks :) Nate, an unrivalled resource...please give the chickens an extra spoon full of scratch in the morning and the dogs an extra pat.......they/we are lucky to have you Regards Pete
Nice interview, when Sir David talks about 48% of carbon dioxide reduction in domestic area in UK, I can't avoid thinking that many things are made in China, just externalizing the emissions.
Yep, that has been a general trend in Europe throughout the decades. Mining and production here diminished, and 'we' just started buying things from other nations.
Excellent talk and some fascinating ideas. It is comforting to know that there are some grown ups out there trying to sort things out. Sir David's calmness and humility was a refreshing interlude in a world where immature Great Leaders throwing their toys out of their gilded prams seems to dominate the news.
I recently found this podcast and I have to say it’s given me so much to think about and I happily dive down more and more rabbit holes to expand my understanding of the subject.
Oh! Ha ha! Around the one hour mark it sounds like our only hope is some as yet completely undiscovered technology to remove greenhouse gasses that's gonna save the whales. lol!
I'm delighted to know there is someone like David King out there working hard to educate our leaders and set up programs to respond to this crisis. Sometimes it feels like the world is run by morons but well intentioned and smart people do exist and they can shape the system for the better. I hope they win the day!
Sir David, from Cambridge University (of "hide the decline" and "climategate" fame) and a former advisor to Tony Blair. What's not to trust?!! 🤣🤣🤡🤡 No mention of plants needing more CO2 or atmospheric heat absorption saturation. This was not a balanced discussion, with too many assumptions and not enough proper science.
The very top biggest concern has to be the hard pushback from right leaning political circles, often directly connected to the fossil fuel industry. The Republican Party in the USA in particular seems to want to wreck the effort to stop catastrophic climate change, as do the current Conservative Party in the UK, and that pattern is echoed around the democratic world. Russia seems to have decided a warming world is good for Russia, and obviously are a top player in fossil fuels. We are headed for a hard crash, economically and socially on the current path.
Russia sees climate change as new possibilities for untapped oil but the taiga/tundra is a global sulfur, nitrogen oxide, and carbon monoxide time bomb due to melting permafrost. But the government only sees new oil reserves in the Arctic ocean and upper Russia as possible profits.
Russians have become modern day Neanderthals, with a mindset to fit right in with ushering in a new Stone Age, ready to go with sticks and stones as weapons to control others. Some of them even look the part, and sure know how to behave that way. Yeah, they might do okay, in that kind of a dog eat dog world.
Blaming the fossil fuel industry is oversimplifying the problem. Every time one of my knuckleheaded diesel pickup-driving neighbors rolls coal down South Street, I realize how little chance we have to pull out of this suicidal dive.
The US just hit a new record high for oil extraction. Biden’s war on Big Oil has been about as successful as Project Ukraine. I guess extinction could be considered a crash.
I'm an indigenous person of the world. Why single me out? How is anyone NOT "indigenous"? Ridiculous. Humans will adapt. The argument for change is moot. It will be as it will be.
Creating the new paradigm and moving towards it is a worth doing even if it means making some mistakes along the way. We are part of nature rely on a reasonably stable and healthy environment / climate. Thank you Nate for making discussions such as this happen - we can all learn and make changes in our own ways.
Interesting but not completely sciences based. Sea ice melt doesn’t raise ocean level. The Arctic sea ice extent has been relatively stable with no decrease since around 2007. The global temperature network is not representative and cannot track or even produce a global average temperature temperature measurements.
Nate, the point you make at 1:22:12 is so important. 'We are going to need to allocate the surplus to regenerate the biosphere'. That is what economic 'surplus' should've been used for all along - fixing the problems caused by extraction of resources, then distributing what's left (if any) after accounting for those externalities. The current model has it completely backwards.
Magical thinking. The 'surplus' doesn't exist. All technology advances #overshoot and depletes carrying capacity. Burning energy to grow life is insane!
More likely Siberian and Canadian wildfire smoke reaches Arctic snow/ice surfaces. And may get even to the top of the Greenland glacier. These fires are near or are in the Arctic area. And they are HUGE. Ie. when Australia had its worst fires and billion animals died, Siberia had even larger fires at the same time... In this year, we have had huge fires in Canada, but also in Mediterranean region... Also I see a current constantly happening extreme trend: 1) Heatwave 2) Drought 3) Flash flood. These has caused so many deaths and diffuculties for across the planet. And the worst impact could be losing crops and therefore the food we eat. If current droughts are not enough, then wait few decades (2050-2070) and our mountain glaciers are mostly done. No water from dried up mountains during summertime and droughts go beyond our capabilities. Alpine region gives around 40% of Europe's fresh water, Rocky mountains see what has happened to Colorado region, Andies cities depending on summer melts are drying up, Himalayas may cause 1,5 billion losing their water sources, ... We may still have some water to drink, but no water for factories or even our farms.
Very interesting and lots to think about. I may have missed it but did he answer the issue of decarbonising the 80% of energy demand that isn't electrical?
Well... y'lost me at "I can show you a place in Texas with wind energy" and I guess where the grid hasn't failed repeatedly or something. Sir David King was very interesting in the first hour. Total nutty hopium starting in the second with whales and rice husks. Then that goofy statement about energy utilities in Texas of all places. Almost kind of embarrassing. But... over all... great interview and great questioning!
Do you know that thise issue are from the alternative producers? I was under the impression that Texas ran it's own production systems and it has been crap or falling apart for decades, and these have been brought in quite succesfully more recently. The collapses that have happened are the old crappy systems that are still there and still crappy. This was reported during the quite tragic cold storm that Sir David spoke about. I agree the alternatives are not an answer, but don't mix some PR from old school bigoil into what is happening.
@@nsbd90now 100% edited out. I am 99.999% sure that anyone using the term 'peak dumb' is also not as bright or knowledgeable as they would like to think they are.
@@nsbd90now did you read my original comment? Does that sound republican? I find it disturbing how aggressive, reactive and political Americans can be in the comments sections. I am not even in the US. Thank God. Wishing you the best with your failing infrastructure.
Thanks both for this worthwhile interview. Sir David says certainly there will be a reversion (to under 1.5) after next year (2024). I wouldn't bet on it Sir David. The latest paper on the West Antarctic ice sheet/weddell sea looks more like Thwaites collapse 2025 and greatly increased rate of ice shelf sliding into the warming Antarctic Great Southern Ocean. Using the real preindustrial baseline of 1750 to 1780, New Zealand is already sitting uncomfortably above a 1.5 deg increase with El Nino just starting to kick in. NZ is located between 42 deg south and 35 deg north, surrounded by the Pacific and the Great Southern Oceans that have a hugely moderating influence on temp extremes. But the climate isn't moderate. Rainfall and drought are anything but moderate, and the Pacific and Great Southern are predicted to hold more heat than any other of the world's oceans by mid century. Already we have mass fish die-off and migration of whales, dolphins and the bigger fish able to migrate. A valid alternative view to that of sir David's is that we won't be dipping below 1.5 to any material extent any time soon. Sir David straddles the transition as that other sir David (Attenborough) wh continues to do his utmost to change the 'system' from within. He is of course right about the self harming economic system. Sadly, polite conversation alone has never changed anything. Think "suffragettes". They were anything but polite. Now they they are looked on with affection and admired as heroes. At the time they they were branded criminals. How things change. The suasion of Ed Bernays has much to answer for along with the criminality of some of our political representatives.
No I think NZ is best positioned, RELATIVE to the rest of us. Once we collapse in the US, expect an armada of our warships pulling into Auckland harbor blaring the message, “ok we’ll take that now”.
Outstanding interview, Sir David King is now my new God. Thank you Nate for bringing him to your channel and I can’t wait for his return. Thank you both.
Too many positive feedbacks with multiple negative impacts on our climate and the exponential increase of the rate at which these positive feedbacks occur. Our climate is like a runaway freight train going down a mountain without brakes. There's no way in a million years that we are going to stop the earths climate change. I cant believe people are so oblivious to what's happening and at the rate its happening. How can we undo all the fossil fuels we have used and pollution we have created. It's not happening people. I pretty sure we have reached tipping points in this climate catastrophe we have created an it's just going to get way worse faster than anticipated.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 78 | คู่เอก "ปกรณ์ vs ฟาบิโอ"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LSOmgl0Th2c/mqdefault.jpg)
What a wonderful guest. So knowledgable and a brilliant communicator. A real gentleman. Great discussion Nate
I totally agree. I'm not so fond of the sir title, because it reeks of blue blood, inheritance with no merrit. Sir David merrits his title though
"Lobbying" should be called by its correct name: Bribery. In a properly functioning political system it would be illegal.
I also see a climate catastrophe narrative being spread with fear being build. Unfortunately also in this podcast. Yes, fossil fuels have a strong lobby, but why apply it? The consultancy for climate issues is earning huge money, as well as wind/solar energy. Oil and gas companies are also making huge profits anyways. It's really complex. When will there be a round table with climate sceptics? E.g. Koonin, Plimer, Curry, etc. Is there any common ground that the clever scientists can agree on?
Sadly, the recent US Supreme Court removal of the last remaining laws against political bribery have left us at the mercy of the greediest and most ravenous among us.
What do you think this jackass is? Science is so broken these days... For example, we haven't been using CFCs enmass for over 35 years, but the hole in the ozone layer at the South Pole was really HUGE last year. You don't hear about that much, but there's likely something else going on.
He hasn't asked him if he had some conflict of interest😉. In science there should be a discussion between all opinions. But, like in the covidscience, there is just 1 narrative. I lost every trust in any science, all research is financed by the wrong people.
There is huge lobbying for the climate narrative.
The science is very debatable.
Nate Hagens, I cannot thank you enough for these rich, deep, interesting, and enlightening podcasts, you've done it once again, from the bottom of my heart, Nate thank you!
Good lot of propaganda, based on a 150 year old debunked theory.
@@Sjb-on5xt, really, how? Writing from an area that's running out of water because it's not raining or snowing, our 4 seasons are 2 nowadays. What's your explanation?
@@begonaRR the experiment mentioned by King carried out 150 years ago has been debunked by William Happer from Princeton University. He found warming effect of CO2 in atmosphere is saturated at 300ppm in a downward logarithmic curve. Virtually no warming effect past this.
Climate is 30+ minimum years of weather, so you're talking about weather, not climate. and weather is variable
@@begonaRR weather and climate are never constant and this is caused by many multiple factors that combine in a complex way, as yet not understood. What can certainly be said definitively is that co2 is not the climate control knob, which is a childishly naive idea and is plain false
@@Sjb-on5xt Not a "theory." Not "debunked." Among fossil fuel industry propagandists? Yes. But mainstream science? Absolutely not.
Sir David King is amazing educating the ordinary people!!!
Sir David King's expression of gratitude warmed my heart. This brilliant man recognizes the benign didactic intentions of the Great Simplification in a typically British understated way. "Good show, old bean'!
I also loved David King's (as always) expressions, however he seemed to go on a fanciful adventure on how whale shit can cure our woes for a proportion of the talk. 'Hopium' came to mind at that point, and never left as the talk seemed to delve further into a hopium abyss.
A fantastic interview. Sir David's background as both a scientist and a diplomat makes him almost unique. I learned a lot from this. Thanks so much.
As for the fires: how about the ones started on purpose by climate activists in order to be able to point fingers to "climate change" as a reason for them! Maybe someone could work out the correct statistics on this? If we are down to science in earnest, let's talk about these as well.
Quite the best! Two very bright gentleman explaining these complex systems in a totally comprehensible way. Brilliant.
And David King had chaired Indie- Sage during our Uk Covid crisis. Such a knowledgeable and compassionate man.
The one thing I remember of the 1992 climate conference in Rio was what George H W Bush, the senior, said "The American way of life is not negotiable". That promise has been kept. The promise which was not kept was the one about doing something about global warming. This lays bare the REAL priorities of all governments. All the rest is just music. What too few people understood then what too many do not still understand, including environmentalists, is that of course the "American way of life" HAS to be negotiable. We can not have BOTH BAU and action of global warming, or if you could do some trick of the sort then the environment will only suffer from other effects of BAU.
One or two problems with this podcast. At around 9:20 the experiment conducted by Tyndall cannot take into account the role played by moisture vapour and clouds. Also this year, 2023, were not the largest wild fires on record in Europe. According to publication "EU science hub" this year was only around 60% of the fires in 2022 and of these 80 to 85% were started by either arson or other man made intervention. The area of ice in the arctic is getting smaller but it was not pointed out that the area of ice in Antarctica (according to IPCC AR5) "Antarctic sea ice extent increased 1.2 to 1.8% in the last decade and is getting larger". There are several other, historical facts, the say that what is going on at the moment is not "extreme". I think the problem is that we don’t fully understand what is going on despite what climate scientists say.
Only overthrowing capitalism for a socialist system with market regulation and a circular localised economy will change anything.
Thank you so much, Nate, for your brilliant choice of guests, and your smartest way to interview them. It gives us these moments of grace 😊
Dr. Lindzen says that there are no tipping points in the earth's system because of its many degrees of freedom.
Dr. Koonin questions climate science on a more general level (as in his book "Unsettled").
I am quite angry that one half of the scientists presumes that tipping points are real and the other half says "nope".
Amounts to "Believe the side which you want to belong to."
Now your is the most intelligent comment I have seen so far.
Does the UK reduction of 48% includes anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions imported by products imported from China ?
A Chinese CO2 molecule only has 1/4 the heat trapping effect. Socialism.
Imported emissions and emissions caused by international travel are usually not included in national budgets. This is an essential part of the injustice and inequality that Sir David referred to. It‘s not just the billionaires, it‘s all of us in the global North who drive our biosphere over the edge.
@@achenarmyst2156But not all of us, responsibility is surprisingly limited to the middle and upper classes of North America, Europe and China - and among them heavily weighted to the baby boomers. Effectively, the most prosperous 20% of the world’s population since the 70s/80s. Incidentally the ones with all the wealth and power
@@Rnankn How rather convenient that you would lay blame on those other than your own particular demographic. The truth is everyone lies somewhere along the scale, and if you happen to find yourself living in the modern, developed world, then high-chance you lie within the top end of that scale, with the scale of your cost to the environment reflected proportionally.
Virtually all the reduction is due to switching from coal to CCGT power generation. Dr King was somewhat disingenuous here. There was also the decline of high energy consumers such as metal smelting and other heavy industry.
There is also the accounting issue of the DRAX power station which switched from coal to biomass, and now is considered renewable in statistics, even though it's anything but.
Before 2015 I won't be able to understand a word of this conversation! I'm a French Canadian from the province of Québec. I met an incredible Ukrainian lady, sucessful scientist and brave! Now we have 2 young children and I want to have a meaningful way of life that will NOT be working at creating OVERCONSUMPTIONS! BP and other's that create this situation have to pay for revitalization! There's trials for the big oil producers, I hope they BAIL OUT, possibly they will be bankrupt and then everyone realized that we rather haven't used fossils fuels.
Thank you so much for broadcasting such an awesome interview with Sir David King!
WoW!!~ Mind bending. My 20 year old granddaughter spent one week at the Dubai Climate Conference, with 75,000 other science and econ participants. She said that one day she just sat down and was overwhelmed by the presentations she had attended. A lot to chew on. great interview and responses.
This will be a good one!
😂
Sir David King’s contribution to UK decarbonisation is difficult to overplay. Likewise, his recent work at Cambridge, including the setting up of the CCAG in response to the failings of recent UK governments and their advisors has demonstrated leadership at a critical time. Sadly, his voice is rarely heard on the mainstream media.
What decarbonisation? I still see CO2 levels rising. Economic growth is obviously more important to any and all governments and that priority has prevailed in policy over the decades. Everything else has only been rhetoric.
@@coweatsman The OP does state _UK decarbonisation_ not global decarbonisation.
Decarbonisation is a sick joke being imposed on the public. Good science says that even a doubling of CO2 - expected in about 200 years at current rates of increase - will add maybe as much as 1 deg C.
Decarbonization is a fancy word to get rid of life. We are all carbon based! Ecocide inverted into saving the planet removing carbon from which all life thrives.
@@Innerdiamond Nice strawman you have there as an argument. The strawman is that ecologists "want to get rid of carbon".
WRONG! No one ever said any such thing. Global warming is about IMBALANCE in the atmosphere.
Here is how your strawman works by way of analogy. We all need glucose in our blood. Without it we would have hypoglycaemia. Therefore glucose is "good". Therefore it follows that the more glucose you have in the blood, the better for your health. This is NOT the case. More sugar and glucose does NOT equal more health.
By the same token less CO2 emissions does NOT = "ecocide", a use of emotive language in preference to facts and a strawman in preference to good argumentation.
Thanks, Nate. Sir David King, what a beautiful garden of knowledge. Nice to hear that we Europeans got the edge on this science.
Your reward for embracing renewable energy has been a barrage of record breaking summer temperatures. Never do the right thing.
i assume somebody has to make a start@@anabolicamaranth7140
@@anabolicamaranth7140 your reward for embracing fossil industry will be a never ending caravan of such records.
@@reuireuiop0Yes but not quite as many as the non coal burning regions. Aerosol masking.
@@anabolicamaranth7140 Continued burning of coal will push up global temps way further than aerosol masking could ever locally reduce m -_only temporary!_
Exceptionnal dialog and knowledge sharing. I can notice an exception though, in that renewable energy infrastructure and new lights may cost less ££, they cost more mining of certain minerals. Minerals that A. cost a lot in term of human lifes and biodiversity, and B. are less and less concentrated as the market massifies its output. Money is NOT the long term, or even the middle term main criteria.
All energy is solar energy, oil is stored solar in liquid form.
@@aegisfate117 As true as to say you and I are bacteria beings since we were made of this, or dust since we are made out of star dust. At some point in the past.
I happen to have been the systems admin who built the first GPU system for IPCC models: many more models per unit time became possible. While verifying the system, I saw many many model outputs as versions of proof of concept for the grant. Recalling a situation, a need to rebuild the entire stack to prove function: a Locked Jet Stream became a Static Hurricane. Twice. Think Jupiter. Thank you for all you are doing Nate!
What exactly are you referring to when you say "Locked Jet Stream became a Static Hurricane. Twice."?
Can you elaborate please?
Garbage In. Garbage Out. Mann’s hockey stick
Assumptions feeding speculation. Science ?
Self explanatory isn't it? A hurricane that doesn't stop, static, doesn't change from being a hurricane @@dbadagna
At about 26:45 he is clear that a third tipping point has tipped. Does that not mean runaway climate change is now inevitable? Positive feedback loops cannot be stopped, and once one fires off, the others aren't far behind. Is my understanding correct?
no it’s silly .. warm is good. we can’t have to much water and not enough water at same time.
if you are thirsty and your yard is dry and the hose is in the street and you can’t shut it off… what do you do 1st? do you drive to the water source or move the hose to the yard?.
@@Think-dont-believe Oh my. It's embarrassing you think that is somehow analogous, assuming you are an adult.
@@nsbd90nowI didn't get analogy but was correct that warm us good. Hothouse climate states have more rain
@@DrSmooth2000 Yes. Warmer air holds more moisture, thus... floods in some areas, droughts in others.
@@nsbd90now more rain in aggregate global. Not seen update since 2021 but trend is solid from charts I've seen.
Hard to predict seasonal rain down to zipcode. But aggregate rain really must go up. Logically.
Namibia on south west of Africa seems to be worse desert in Hothouse climates. Amazon gets less rain but floods from ocean. Fine line between mangrove and estuaries I suppose. Both considered not great for GDP but for biodiversity are tops.
It‘s repeated over and over by climate sceptics or bystanders that GB or Germany is only contributing 2% of global emissions, and so their decisions didn’t really matter.
Sir David nicely laid out that this is far from being correct. GB only could be influential on the global climate action scale because they (at least at that time) were leading in emission reduction and investing heavily.
The point is that this principle basically applies to every single one of us. As long as a vast majority of us continues a Northern consumer lifestyle nothing is won for the biosphere.
Flying to Greece to watch marvellous statues or flying to Africa to experience the Okavango delta is simply not compatible with the survival of our biosphere.
The Great Simplification only works by doing it, not by just discussing it.
Rubbish
There is no crisis and CO2 is at historically low levels (geologically speaking) . The great threat comes from lower CO2; not from higher levels.
Meanwhile, the realists in China are building coal power stations. Good for them - Europe (and European civilisation) is being deliberately destroyed by the psychopaths promoting the climate hoax.
China’s damming of the Lacang/Mekong is already making salinification in Vietnam a problem. Local rice varieties in Indonesia are salt tolerant. Farmers preserved their traditional varieties
...exceptional talk... simply exceptional. Thank you so much.
The hopium second half is a bit too much....magical thinking. In what universe does this guy think he can get the funding and support to actually pull this off and is it even possible with an acidifying ocean and an ocean that is warming..."faster than expected."
Nate is a closet hopium addict.
Do you have any points about the second half, almost an hour, or direction towards one point or something that you think is worthwhile to denigrate?
We only have one universe so no need for hyperbole, but imagine a time when we have had 3-4 summers that are 3-4 degrees above normal, then when policy changes money isn't going to be the important issue. The debt is never going to be paid back and we can't afford to not do anything and we have 401k's, superannuation funds, pension funds, around the world that can't find places to put money. The amounts that are in these funds surpass what it would cost to change to completely renewable, there might come a time when govts take deposits in these funds to change to renewable, point is policy changes, if they haven't defaulted by then.
To say idea's are magical, might be right, but too much? Well that's your subjective opinion which doesn't offer anything of value so maybe when people are trying to offer solutions people shouldn't try to denigrate them.
@@anabolicamaranth7140 How about a closet doomer, pulling his punches, but without telling lies of any kind. I repect him, for the razors edge he walks.
@@mrrecluse7002 I suspect he’s a little more dire in private, I could be wrong. I agree, he’s doing great work.
The only way to make the general public aware of the real costs of polution and carbon emissions is to have those costs incorporated into the costs of consumer goods. In any other way, people will not be aware of it, they will keep flying and buy useless stuff, because it is cheap and affordable under current cost calculations which does not incorporate real costs of environemental and climate damage.
Great discussion. Rejuvenating the oceanic ecosphere and using it to sequester carbon is a great idea.
Need to have this man back on the show. He's brilliant.
1:26:50
I haven't checked anything, but why do I have the feeling that there is no way 32% of electric power c o n s u m e d worldwide is renewable ?
Perhaps nominal installed capacity ...
Next time he's on , you might want to have his take on the 'metals' conundrum ...
According to latest IEA report 60.6% of power is fossil. Rest is nuclear and renewable. Wind and solar are 11.7%. Sir David is right ( (if you lump hydro and nuclear into renewable). However I disagree w his renewable optimism but didn’t want to derail conversation away from his scientific expertise- which is chemistry/climate
@@thegreatsimplification
Right right ... keep forgetting Hydro even though I live in Quebec (!)... always mentally filed that item in the more or less maxed out category and was just kinda' stunted by the number, as if the drift of the conversation simply just implied solar and wind.
I listened to the podcast via bluetooth at work but felt compelled to comment when I got home and turned on the computer ;-)
11.7% I'm not too startled by...
Thanks for the reply.
Great discussion Nate. Fascinating to learn what I don't know, A very realistic chat on the science , political and economic challenges we face going forward. Thanks for this. cheers
I love almost every interview in "the Great Simplification" and this one is no exception. I hope it helps to make my students understand all those questions about ppm, why C02 and Methane and not other gases, how does the heating work,... etc... I am still at the minute 23 and taking notes.
CO2 is a trace gas, essential to all life on the planet, has very little warming effect past 300ppm. Prof William Happer debunked the 150 year old hypothesis that Sir King is still using for his alarmism.
Methane is a non-issue. It's about 1.9ppm compared to CO2 420 ppm and water vapour at about 12,500 ppm. At the rate of increase over the last 30 years calculated from data in IPCC AR6 Annex III, methane will double in about 400 years. Good science, not science with a vested interest, says if methane doubled it would add less than 0.2C to the temperature. (BTW, a doubling of methane is a 100% increase, or a 1.9ppm increase. An increase in water vapour of 2ppm is 0.016% or less than 2/10,000ths.)
This I think has so far been my "favorite" guest. He has been the most informative as far as actual information or "brass tax" on what is going on. Really wanted to hear more about the krill and the whales.
Thank you as always for this and yes Overshoot, it's a tragedy we lost Michael Dowd, recently.
Oh my, I didn’t know about Michael Dowd’s death. Thank you. A great man.
An important insight you give here: that much of climate change denial is a proxy for disagreeing with the fixed prescription that's being given, and there might be less denial if there were more honest discussion of the several policy options.
Thank you for this perceptive remark. It was confirmed by an unusually careful survey years ago. That survey, as I remember it, did extended interviews to find out what people really meant when they gave a "no" to the cursory yes-no question usually asked about global warming.
Unfortunately I don't remember what the percentages were for the proxy usage of denial. But it was significant.
When warming-denial is used as a proxy for disagreement with the official policy, this has a natural converse effect: many of the deniers see the dominant climate change statements, not as being statements about climate, but as really being a proxy for demanding compliance with the fixed official policy prescription -- and they dislike that prescription, or disagree with it.
In other words, the talk about climate change as fixed science is seen as really a proxy for imposing a fixed, costly, and inadequate prescription. Why inadequate? It's to just keep cutting emissions while the warming continues anyway, and keep ramping this up when it keeps failing. And, it seems, make ourselves much poorer in the process, which eventually would destabilize our societies until we get political collapses and civil wars that destroy the whole policy anyway. Without ever stopping the warming.
This insistence on sticking solely to a failing program and carrying it to greater extremes the more it fails - this is seen, by some not all deniers (again I'm sorry not to have survey results), as a way of suppressing the necessary discussion of supplementary prescriptions such as geoengineering. Which is something you do commendably discuss; as you know, most people don't discuss it, which is why their talk about the reality of climate change sounds like a proxy for simply demanding more of a failing policy. And which they suppress, quite explicitly, on the argument that it might take people away from their own policy demands. I think you're right that it would have the opposite effect - to bring about more rational discussion and less denial - but rationality has not been in the driver's seat.
Sunlight reflection is probably the most promising form of geoengineering, and stratospheric particles are the most promising of the many ways to do it, for the reasons Sir David gives - since we know it will work. But we don't know how serious the side-effects would be, and we ought to know more about this, and also about the many other ways for sunlight reflection such as the marine cloud brightening he's working on. So his conclusion - that we need to do more research on it -- is not just common sense, it's urgently important. It is ridiculously under-researched at this time. The reason we haven't done the research, sadly, is that the research has been suppressed. Suppressed by the same dominant ideological faction that dominates the airwaves on global warming discussion and that claims to be motivated by the science. To a rational observer, this suppression of research, discussion, and information is clear evidence that there are other motivations at work and this is really about something quite different than the opposition that's being presented all the time -- the science versus science-denial.
Sunlight reflection research is what needs to be stepped up with the highest priority, by a couple orders of magnitude -- which would still be dirt cheap compared to other things. It we don't get enough of it done soon enough, then the moratorium that we do have on implementation is sure to fail as the warming gets worse. It'll fail for the simple reason Sir David gives here: many actors will become able to defy the moratorium and do it, and some of them will surely go ahead and do it as their society grows despearate from the warming. Conversely, if we find out soon enough the things we need to know about it, then, if the honest scientific information actually turns out too negative, we'll have a legitimate basis for taking stronger measures to make the moratorium on implementation somehow enforceable.
I'd have to say that it is really commendable that you discuss solar geoengineering, even courageous on your part - and it's really sad that this requires courage today. Hopefully science and reason will have some effect and the research on it really will get stepped up. Then maybe, just maybe, we'll be able to make it through this crisis.
If AGW were real, the warmists wouldn't have to exaggerate it, deplatform sceptics, and they would have something better than a 100% failure record when it comes to predictions.
Unliked comment when saw a proponent of sulfuric acid haze cloud over planet.
All drank kool-aid and I don't even know who started serving it.
Acid rain and when the clouds shrink due to glaciation you can't go out after the rain bc no ozone layer.
Preposterous
Thank you, David.
Thank you, Nate.
I learned a lot from this talk.
Well done to you both.
Excellent podcast thank you!
The problem with Sir David King is that he talks in extremes. He speaks of 7m sea level rise if all the ice on Greenland melts. No one, not even the most extreme models that use the ‘business as usual’ scenario predict anything like that. Greenland ice melt currently adds single digit mm to sea level rise.
The summer of 2021 was notable for June, just as it was in Europe last year, July and August was near normal for these regions.
Vietnam has a history of flooding due to its topography fuelled by typhoon activity. During the typhoon devastation of 1964 parts of the country were under meters of sea water. They are scaling back rice production for economic reasons.
Antarctic sea ice extent has been increasing since 2020, including this year, so how can Sir David say that it has lost ice? Because he knows no one will do a simple search.
I haven’t got these results from any skeptic websites, they are data freely available if you just look for them.
I don’t doubt his credibility but he is an alarmist.
He mentioned the Thames Barrier that was built to protect London. When it was constructed they thought it would need to be replaced by 2030 given the predictions of sea level rise. They now think it will do its job until at least 2070, maybe beyond. It is not raised any more today than it was when it opened so how catastrophic is the sea level rise?
I know most will dismiss these comments because I’m not a climate scientist. I am cursed with an enquiring mind that does not accept what I am told without verification. I just wish more people would do the same.
I'm going to make my channel refuting the alarmists. Saw Adelie penguins population threatened bc Antca sea ice from 09-14 was too extensive. Agree it is reported data but slightly hidden
Will Happer is the same age as King and probably has an even better CV in atmospheric physics. He disagrees with King.
He thinks King is ignoring the principles of equilibria in attributing exclusively positive characteristics to feed back loops. Happer argues that most natural feedbacks are actually negative. From my own point of view I think King underestimates the ability of the planet to dump heat given that there is no lid on the pot (so to speak).
I would love to see these chaps have a discussion on the show. I think to ignore people like Happer, Rich Lindzen, Judith Curry, Chris Essex and Steve Koonin is insulting to their professional achievements and just fuels further skepticism with the climate emergency narrative. If you want to defuse resistance, you will have to defuse their arguments, not ignore them.
King's belief that the fossil fuel lobby is behind resistance is wrong. The resistance is at the grass roots level (and growing) as far as I can tell.
Great interview, Nate. I've heard Sir David speak a few times and happy that his carbon capture efforts are now focused on naturally seeding the oceans. I also learned about the ecological magnitude of benefit of whale poo.
There were a few huge red flags. 1) Claims of Britain reducing carbon emissions by 48% when they exported the vast majority to Chinese manufacturing. 2) Claiming that the UK has transitioned a portion of their energy transmission to green energy. I'm unclear if he is aware of the absolutely disastrous ecological effects from biomass, solar, and wind.
You were brilliant in not bogging down the interview on the above mentioned points.
On balance, earth would benefit greatly from more David Kings.
Nate, please hold your interviewees to the question asked, regardless of their standing and tenure. There are several occasions of this in this episode, one of the earlier ones regarding lead/lag analysis of CO2 and temp. He redirects to compounding effects of albedo and never answers the question. Another example, we definitely shouldn’t target zero carbon, that would be death, and yes there have been times when the atmosphere was dominated by CO2, but there were no humans then. This is the answer given to the question of what do those ice cores tell us about the past. He’s rephrasing it into the domain of extremes, without providing a meaningful answer. I’ll have to rewatch the remainder later, I kinda tuned out after the strange way things got presented. Great storytelling abilities and does bring ideas together in a way that makes them more approachable than most academics. Like so many in academia, where focus must be niche, 30 plus years at anything gives a wide set of inputs but an ever narrowing lens with which to view them. And as Taleb pointed out (he’s no master either, however this is a good quip), lack of success can detected by name dropping.
Define dominated by CO2?
Miocene Climactic Optimum was as high as 800ppm and Age of Apes. Humans as recognizable evolved in response to falling CO2 and Temps from Miocene to Pliocene
We saw a pod of whales today off the east coast of South Africa. I was overjoyed to see them. It is my daughter's 18th bday. It was the smallest glimmer of hope
Amazing man….great podcast Me, Hugen.
Over in the US, and most other places actually, need to take money out of politics….nothing you discussed here will ever be discussed in congress properly until that happens.
Here in the UK, we have an easier fight me thinks to find the means to change, but Sir King needs help to put pressure on the system. Blows my mind how with such brilliant traditions and number of expert at Oxford and Cambridge don’t actually advise our governments….with proper oversight, that for sure would bring better results.
Keep up the good fight both of you!!!
yes yes and yes, but remember what the Ores does with cigars....The Venus Project for the youth free the old
Higher CO2 is a blessing, it greens the planet.
CO2 level was too low for optimal plant growth.
Its still low, but its getting better.
It also hold additional heat creating deeper high and low pressure systems in the air and weather volatility. Thus, fast growing cyclones, heat domes, drought, atmospheric rivers.
Also the carbon we kick out from industrialism does not correspond with the carbon plants use, and comes with poisons for soil, water and air. This is all self evident.
Unfortunately under rising CO2 concentrations the Amazon has changed from a Carbon sink to a net producer recently.
How have millions of species survived the last few million years at such low c02?
Yes, and the recent 115F temperatures in Spain have done wonders for olive production.
@@Jc-ms5vvCO2 level was much higher in the past
In the U.S. people are used to feeling they should always be able to get their way, have what they want. And they want unlimited energy for their personal use, without having to in any way limit their consumption. This is a basic feature of our culture. So even deeper than cognitive dissonance is a kind of cultural narcissism reflected in most American’s personal psychology. I know this because I’m an American!
Your over the target expect flack incoming!
As a human alive this moment is like we have a wild ride ahead of us, the entire world now is changing, as we change.
The strong and fittest only will know a new way of thinking is about to come to life. As we now have to grin and bare it.Goodnight Irene jj57
Science and wisdom need to come together. Thank you for bringing in the indigenous people, they show how simple lives can be lived well
Every person on this planet is indigenous to somewhere.
Ensconced with political circles? That's not a high endorsement seeing how corrupt these said political circles are all over this planet! After this endorsement I don't even feel like continuing to watch this video.
The hubris of concentrated wealth and its subsequent self-serving exercise of power is a core problem in numerous countries. In a large part this is a systemic condition that inclines towards the tyranny of the miniscule minority in which the needs and desires of the majority are ignored in a culture of manipulation and exploitation.
The electoral system plays a part in this. There was a recent study conducted in Canada that determined with its "first pass the post" electoral system a large percentage of the voting public is not represented in the results. The same is probably true in Great Britain and India as well as other parliamentary countries that utilize similar electoral practices.
Also, this is certainly true in the United States where we have a "winner take all" electoral system. Even though alternative parties are not excluded, they are not viable as the bulk of voters are most often compelled to align with one of the two strongest parties. Next November we will be compelled to discern which is least egregious, a mishmash of strident authoritarianism or corporate imperialism. No matter who wins most will lose, both domestically and internationally.
Some type of proportional electoral system would go a long way in alleviating much of the untethered madness. It would avail giving one's vote to someone who might actually represent wants and needs. Also, one would be much more at liberty to vote out pretenders. For those who value polite society this form of Liberty is most valuable.
Redirecting fiduciary responsibility of financial arrangements and corporate chartering away from the death culture of profit-at all-costs and instead towards environmental and social vibrancy is certainly essential, as well.
A fee and dividend carbon tax in multiple ways would be auspiciously painless and beneficial. If the reader is not familiar with this, a Google search will illuminate.The concept has been around for a long while. Since it would be a very effective tool for globally transitioning us away from fossil fuels, it has been rigorously opposed by the vested interests. James Hanson has consistently been a proponent
Aerosol masking doesn’t get enough attention. Louisville,Detroit,Pittsburgh,Jackson, Cincinnati,Atlanta and Nashville set a total of 30 summer records 2014-2023. Cheyenne, Seattle,LA,Salt Lake,Boise, El Paso and Las Vegas set 194. 30 Vs 194. Coal burning and therefore sulfates are higher in the East.
But doesn’t atmospheric carbon also have a localized warming effect? Ultimately it disperses evenly throughout the atmosphere, but not immediately. I’m, not sure aerosol masking would significantly overcome heat retention. Isn’t it just as likely Western North America is becoming hotter and dryer from changing flows within the climate system, and the shifting of biomes?
@@RnanknThose are good questions. CO2 does disperse quite evenly around the globe. SO2 from coal burning doesn’t move much from its origin. Dallas is a fairly high sulfate city and has set 17 records in June/Jy/Aug in the last 10 summers. El Paso is a low SO2 city and has set 44. Spain is low SO2, 8 of 10 of its hottest days on record are since 2017. India? Per NASA, minimal warming from 1951-1980 in May, their sunniest, hottest month. India’s burning megatons of coal and scrambling to burn more with each passing minute. Ditto for China. Ditto for Kazakhstan.
@@Rnankn I’ve done some videos on my channel on this topic. To me the evidence for the aerosol masking effect is undeniable and quite shocking really.
For some reason this made me think of overpopulation in relation to the city of Lagos. From Wiki:
"By 2100 Lagos is expected to be the largest city in the world with over 88 million people. That's 10 times the current population and more people than the total current population of Germany or twice the population of Argentina."
So population scientists are predicting that Lagos is going to undergo explosive population growth. Apparently, they don't take into consideration that there is no way Nigeria can support of population of that size in the city of Lagos. By 2100, all the crude oil will be gone and it's likely Lagos will become a hell on Earth.
Scientists often concern themselves exclusively with pure science and totally disregard what is happening in the real world. Nowhere is this more evident than the general consensus that we will have a fully functional colony on Mars by the end of the century -- never mind the cost of such an ill conceived project and how irrelevant it is to ordinary people's lives on this planet.
Excellent and very informative presentation, thank you both
An amazing talk - an education in itself.
Well, yesterday morning there was a tropical storm off the coast of Mexico with 50 MPH winds. 24 hours later it hit the coast as a category 5 hurricane with 165 MPH winds. I’ve got a feeling we’ve hit a tipping point. Looks like Gaia is gonna win this one.
Sounds like knowledge to me bruh
As she should.
The house always wins.
@@appearance8932not against a cat 5 the house often looses.
@@DanA-nl5uoba-dum tssss!
The mining companies sure do not believe we are going go electric, because we would use 10X more copper, and they are not permitting more mines! Mines take 10-15 years to start producing, we needed thousands of more mines 5 years ago.
BETTER START DIGGING UP MINERALS!!! CHOP CHOP GET TO DIGGING!
Sir David King is a great man, but he is greatly understating the severity of the climate catastrophe. In fact, we are already in runaway greenhouse and the situation is irreversible. Dozens of climate feedbacks have already been triggered and there are 2 trillion tons of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere that shouldnt be there, that we cant remove that will be there for a thousand years even if humans stop all emmissions immediately, and that we are increasing by 40 billion tons per year, with no plans to slow down. Global heating will likely be 3.5c by 2030, 4.5c by 2040, 6c by 2050 and 20c by 2100. Agriculture will start collapsing at 3c. Civilization will collapse at 4c, and there probably wont be any humans left at all at 6c. Many large tipping points are approaching that can greatly increase the rate and severity of global temperature rise.
Bullshit
They haven't predicted much correctly to date.Why do you think they can predict more accurately going forward?
Your temperature predictions are just not true. Completely wrong actually. If you measure someone. Do make sure you are correct yourself.
@@sirrealreal
"Just not true"
More like complete nonsense. 20c up is completely overstating what is happening.
3C plus it's bad enough, like the man says, quite likely the agricultural system will crash. And if West Antarctica starts sliding, we may well see 2 meters / 7 feet up the sea level.
No need to overdo it when it's that bad
Guy McPherson stuff. I sincerely hope, almost every day, that he is not right. But the outlook is quite grim…
Funny how 75% of all the temperature stations are located in urban heat islands and near concrete runways, representing just 2% of the landmass.
Funny that satellite measurements of global surface temperatures are not affected by any heat island effects at all. And of course to calculate the global mean temperature the Earth is divided into a grid and the distribution of temperature stations is weighted in. Also funny that stations far away from any concrete runways also show drastic temperature increases over the last 30-40 years.
@@Andreas-hh9yg Satellite data only began in 1979. The Urban Heat Island effect is well understood, can affect average temperature records by as much as 6C.
The Earth is going through a warming period, of course temperatures increase over last 150 years "since records began" are not drastic, are moderate warming from the last mini-ice age. Far better to be warmer than colder.
@@Sjb-on5xt It seems you have no understanding of the matter. Yes, satellite measurements began in the late 70s. So what? The dramatic temperature increase began in the 80s. So the satellite measuremnets are covering exactly this crucial time period. You even said it yourself: The urban heat effect is well understood. And because of that cannot distort the results for the global mean surface temperature.Yes, the Earth is going through a warming period, and we know exactly why.The speed of warming we are causing at the moment is nearly unprecedented in the history of Earth. It's drastic, much faster than any natural warming or cooling. That's one of the major reasons why we are causing the sixth great mass extinction of Earth. And no, we are not coming from a mini-ice-age. The little ice age was NOT a worldwide phenomena. It was limited to Europa and North America. The global mean temperature over the last few hundred years was very constant.
@@Andreas-hh9yg There have been dramatic changes in Earth's climate over the millennia, from one ice age to the next. There is not a single shred of scientific proof in any paper for a trace gas causing it or even if man is causing it. If there was, the IPCC would be singing it from the highest hills.
@@Andreas-hh9yg Check on the IPCC table 12.1 and see if you can see any crisis.
The world is too busy warring with each other.
Lots of really good informtation, and I really liked the history summary of our understanding of how climate change works in the beginning. However I think the comments about China are a little off. It's taken 40 years (not 20) to lift 800 million people out of poverty in China. That's partly due to the definition of poverty not keeping up with inflation over the years. Lots of the growth can be attributed to people moving off the fams and into cities where they're more productive but also use a lot more energy. Also most of new car sales in China are not EV's. It's only about a third and that's only if you include the plug in hybrids. Furthermore that's a really recent development as EV sales are up 40% compared to 2022. The Chinese government is heavily subsidizing the EV industry and that's why the price of EV's in China is low and sales are up. The Chinese economy is no longer expanding but it's certainly not deliberate. China's dependance on coal won't decrease because their switching to renewables, it will only decrease if Australia stops selling so much coal to China. China will probably burn more coal in the future as oil production worldwide fails to keep up with demand.
About 41 mins in. Hang on. 20 million years ago our atmosphere was NOT mainly CO2 as he said. He’s confusing me now.. was that a one off error? Did he mean 2 billion years ago?
Yes that was a mistake. Edit shd be in show notes. He was getting over an illness
@@thegreatsimplification ok, thanks.
Another great guest Nate. This one was very revealing, well presented David King
Yes, there needs to be equal distribution and justice!
Yes can I be the one who gets to distribute it? I promise I won’t have any bias.
@@jameserswell2161 If I were the legislator and executive in personal union, I would consider you as a distributor. :;)
Equal distribution of what? talent? height? beauty? intelligence? disability? bad luck? I think if there was equal distribution of everything we wouldn't have evolved beyond slime. There had to be some Better Thing that was selected for and progressed life to the next level. Hmmm so where does that leaves us today? I don't bloody know. But slogans are nice.
Well, it was meant to be more than a nice slogan, but of course not everybody wants everybody to have fair chances in life.
Just in case you're implying I'm such a person, I'm not. It's just that slogans - while making you feel good - do next to nothing about working out how or if or to what extent such a thing is possible.Maybe it would have been more just for me to not have purchased this laptop and instead sent the money to someone without food in some part of the world. So maybe I am that person you mention after all, but so might you be. @@MendeMaria-ej8bf
We are already in overshoot! There is no way we can feed & house everyone without drastically increasing heat & degradation to the environment!
The word collapse can also mean falling together, sharing hasn’t occurred within stoic individualism, we remain impoverished to imagination in the ‘me’ culture.
Heating and degrading environmental are not by necessity linked
Thank you both! Incredibly insightful!
Interview Jason Box !
Impressive Climatologist/Glaciologist 🎉
And even now there is discussions and even evidence that IPCC's carbon doubling number is too low, so it is likely that we end up nearer the Arrhenius higher 5C estimate.
Specially how clouds work and what is sulphate role in it, is under heavy discussions. Sulphate acts as a nuclei for droplets that creates clouds. This aerosol cooling effect is estimated to be 0,6C (IPCC) or even as high as 1,35C (Hansen). If either of these currently existing effect is added to current temperatures, that means we are overshooting 2C targets. Many scientists says this outloud today. IPCC's plan is to suck enough carbon from atmosphere to get cooler temperatures, but yet still we lack the tools to do it (science/engineering, money, energy, area, ...).
The only real way to limit warming under 3C is stop burning fossil fuels and stop other emissions too. In this direction our governments are failing. 85% of the pledges, that are meant to limit warming to 2,8-3,2C range are failing, some of these are causing even more rising emissions. This means that our governments are simply going for over 4C world, that is causing wide extinctions and dangers us, as every individual human being, too.
And Germany has now closed the final three of their 17 zero carbon nuclear plants, replacing them with coal fired generating stations burning lignite, the dirtiest coal available. "But we'll always have Paris."
You know the big 4 crop producer are US Midwest, India, China and Brazil. 3 out of 4 of these guys have high sulfate levels.2 of these guys are doing everything they can to add more sulfates.
@@dylanthomas12321 Yup, niclear is creating just tiny amount of emissions. And even nuclear waste is a tiny problem when you even start to compare it to fossil fuels. Nuclear's only major problem is whe it is use as nukes. Radiation causes more cancer etc, but yet still lesser problem. Stop burning coal asap. use nuclear next 5 year, and then go with greener solutions only.
German coal plants already stopped for a while due to drought causing too low water levels in the Rhein. This is coming a major issue when all alpine glaciers are gone (by 2050-2070). Also this effects nuclear plants that gains their cooling water from alpine glaciers...
@@anabolicamaranth7140 Nope, none that I know is willingly adding sulphates to air. Dirty plants adds sulphates as byproduct in energy production when burning dirty fossil fuels...
All of these countries has their own emission and pollution problems. US major overconsumption on all levels. India is choking with its emissions, just hoping they wont continue adding coal plants as they planned earlier. China still adds too many coal burners and has realized that they are choking on pollution. Brazil is killing Amazon rainforest among other SA countries.
We won't have plans to ban even most dirty fossil fuel, coal. Zeroing only that is not nearly enough.
Failing 85% of governmental pledges means we are heading over 4C warming. And that will extinct many species and perhaps even us.
All current farmlands are under climate enhanced stresses along with losing their top soils, nutrients and water.
@@dylanthomas12321 Germany is speeding up renewables and green hydrogen technology. Forget about those three nuclear power plants. Their contribution will soon be replaced by non fossile sources. Quick coal phase out over the next 7 years is implemented.
Nate! I love you bro. You're amazing. Keep doing what you're doing. It's making a difference. It shows seeds that will bloom in years to come.
Amazing guest.
I think yours and Jim Rutt's podcasts are some of the best technical podcasts there. I'd like to say Lex Friedman but there's just something wrong with him I don't know what it is. Lovely person I'm sure. But he never takes a stance. Never wants to offend.
I agree with you about Lex Friedman. And has he ( or Jo Rogan) ever had anyone on of the calibre of Sir David King?
WOW!.....thank you to you both - whale poo rocks :)
Nate, an unrivalled resource...please give the chickens an extra spoon full of scratch in the morning and the dogs an extra pat.......they/we are lucky to have you
Regards
Pete
basically a complete rethinking of our values ... not sure we're capable of that, but maybe
Thank you so much for doing this! So important xxxx
Nice interview, when Sir David talks about 48% of carbon dioxide reduction in domestic area in UK, I can't avoid thinking that many things are made in China, just externalizing the emissions.
Yep, that has been a general trend in Europe throughout the decades. Mining and production here diminished, and 'we' just started buying things from other nations.
Excellent talk and some fascinating ideas. It is comforting to know that there are some grown ups out there trying to sort things out. Sir David's calmness and humility was a refreshing interlude in a world where immature Great Leaders throwing their toys out of their gilded prams seems to dominate the news.
Talk about IPCC fraudulent data
I recently found this podcast and I have to say it’s given me so much to think about and I happily dive down more and more rabbit holes to expand my understanding of the subject.
Oh! Ha ha! Around the one hour mark it sounds like our only hope is some as yet completely undiscovered technology to remove greenhouse gasses that's gonna save the whales. lol!
I'm delighted to know there is someone like David King out there working hard to educate our leaders and set up programs to respond to this crisis. Sometimes it feels like the world is run by morons but well intentioned and smart people do exist and they can shape the system for the better. I hope they win the day!
run by greed, mammon is the god ... we need to embrace our gift, our inheritance, of the earth
what crisis?
There is no crisis. What we have is a crisis of corruption and lies.
So interesting! Thank you.
Enhorabuena por la entrevista!, saludos desde España con esperanza en el cambio de sistema que todos necesitamos.
Fascinating!
Climate change debate pales in comparison to the coming Nuclear WWIII.
Sir David, from Cambridge University (of "hide the decline" and "climategate" fame) and a former advisor to Tony Blair. What's not to trust?!! 🤣🤣🤡🤡
No mention of plants needing more CO2 or atmospheric heat absorption saturation. This was not a balanced discussion, with too many assumptions and not enough proper science.
This is truly informative Nate. I thought you guided the conversation perfectly. I believe that we need more people to listen to this. Thank you
The very top biggest concern has to be the hard pushback from right leaning political circles, often directly connected to the fossil fuel industry. The Republican Party in the USA in particular seems to want to wreck the effort to stop catastrophic climate change, as do the current Conservative Party in the UK, and that pattern is echoed around the democratic world.
Russia seems to have decided a warming world is good for Russia, and obviously are a top player in fossil fuels.
We are headed for a hard crash, economically and socially on the current path.
Russia sees climate change as new possibilities for untapped oil but the taiga/tundra is a global sulfur, nitrogen oxide, and carbon monoxide time bomb due to melting permafrost. But the government only sees new oil reserves in the Arctic ocean and upper Russia as possible profits.
Russians have become modern day Neanderthals, with a mindset to fit right in with ushering in a new Stone Age, ready to go with sticks and stones as weapons to control others. Some of them even look the part, and sure know how to behave that way. Yeah, they might do okay, in that kind of a dog eat dog world.
Blaming the fossil fuel industry is oversimplifying the problem. Every time one of my knuckleheaded diesel pickup-driving neighbors rolls coal down South Street, I realize how little chance we have to pull out of this suicidal dive.
A lot of Canadians agree with Russia - global warming, why is this a problem. The world looks very different when it is minus 40 outside.
The US just hit a new record high for oil extraction. Biden’s war on Big Oil has been about as successful as Project Ukraine. I guess extinction could be considered a crash.
YT should have a “two thumbs up” button. 👍👍
I like learning it all to late in the end...Bye bye!
I'm an indigenous person of the world. Why single me out? How is anyone NOT "indigenous"? Ridiculous. Humans will adapt. The argument for change is moot. It will be as it will be.
Creating the new paradigm and moving towards it is a worth doing even if it means making some mistakes along the way. We are part of nature rely on a reasonably stable and healthy environment / climate. Thank you Nate for making discussions such as this happen - we can all learn and make changes in our own ways.
And what changes would that be to stop the climate from changing?
Interesting but not completely sciences based. Sea ice melt doesn’t raise ocean level. The Arctic sea ice extent has been relatively stable with no decrease since around 2007. The global temperature network is not representative and cannot track or even produce a global average temperature temperature measurements.
What is the connection of Sir David with the WEF and Klaus Schwab?
Nate, the point you make at 1:22:12 is so important. 'We are going to need to allocate the surplus to regenerate the biosphere'. That is what economic 'surplus' should've been used for all along - fixing the problems caused by extraction of resources, then distributing what's left (if any) after accounting for those externalities. The current model has it completely backwards.
Magical thinking. The 'surplus' doesn't exist. All technology advances #overshoot and depletes carrying capacity. Burning energy to grow life is insane!
More likely Siberian and Canadian wildfire smoke reaches Arctic snow/ice surfaces. And may get even to the top of the Greenland glacier. These fires are near or are in the Arctic area. And they are HUGE. Ie. when Australia had its worst fires and billion animals died, Siberia had even larger fires at the same time... In this year, we have had huge fires in Canada, but also in Mediterranean region...
Also I see a current constantly happening extreme trend:
1) Heatwave
2) Drought
3) Flash flood.
These has caused so many deaths and diffuculties for across the planet. And the worst impact could be losing crops and therefore the food we eat.
If current droughts are not enough, then wait few decades (2050-2070) and our mountain glaciers are mostly done. No water from dried up mountains during summertime and droughts go beyond our capabilities. Alpine region gives around 40% of Europe's fresh water, Rocky mountains see what has happened to Colorado region, Andies cities depending on summer melts are drying up, Himalayas may cause 1,5 billion losing their water sources, ... We may still have some water to drink, but no water for factories or even our farms.
In general as ice melts it leaves cryosphere and rejoins hydro/biosphere as rain
Very interesting and lots to think about. I may have missed it but did he answer the issue of decarbonising the 80% of energy demand that isn't electrical?
Well... y'lost me at "I can show you a place in Texas with wind energy" and I guess where the grid hasn't failed repeatedly or something. Sir David King was very interesting in the first hour. Total nutty hopium starting in the second with whales and rice husks. Then that goofy statement about energy utilities in Texas of all places. Almost kind of embarrassing. But... over all... great interview and great questioning!
Do you know that thise issue are from the alternative producers?
I was under the impression that Texas ran it's own production systems and it has been crap or falling apart for decades, and these have been brought in quite succesfully more recently. The collapses that have happened are the old crappy systems that are still there and still crappy. This was reported during the quite tragic cold storm that Sir David spoke about.
I agree the alternatives are not an answer, but don't mix some PR from old school bigoil into what is happening.
@@em945 Anyone insisting on 100% surety in anything is automatically peak dumb.
@@nsbd90now 100% edited out.
I am 99.999% sure that anyone using the term 'peak dumb' is also not as bright or knowledgeable as they would like to think they are.
@@em945 There's that Republican projection confirming it!
@@nsbd90now did you read my original comment? Does that sound republican?
I find it disturbing how aggressive, reactive and political Americans can be in the comments sections.
I am not even in the US.
Thank God.
Wishing you the best with your failing infrastructure.
*Hey Nate.* When scheduling for James Hansen, please try for a full 2 hour interview. I ask on behalf of everyone.
Thanks both for this worthwhile interview. Sir David says certainly there will be a reversion (to under 1.5) after next year (2024). I wouldn't bet on it Sir David. The latest paper on the West Antarctic ice sheet/weddell sea looks more like Thwaites collapse 2025 and greatly increased rate of ice shelf sliding into the warming Antarctic Great Southern Ocean. Using the real preindustrial baseline of 1750 to 1780, New Zealand is already sitting uncomfortably above a 1.5 deg increase with El Nino just starting to kick in. NZ is located between 42 deg south and 35 deg north, surrounded by the Pacific and the Great Southern Oceans that have a hugely moderating influence on temp extremes. But the climate isn't moderate. Rainfall and drought are anything but moderate, and the Pacific and Great Southern are predicted to hold more heat than any other of the world's oceans by mid century. Already we have mass fish die-off and migration of whales, dolphins and the bigger fish able to migrate. A valid alternative view to that of sir David's is that we won't be dipping below 1.5 to any material extent any time soon. Sir David straddles the transition as that other sir David (Attenborough) wh continues to do his utmost to change the 'system' from within. He is of course right about the self harming economic system. Sadly, polite conversation alone has never changed anything. Think "suffragettes". They were anything but polite. Now they they are looked on with affection and admired as heroes. At the time they they were branded criminals. How things change. The suasion of Ed Bernays has much to answer for along with the criminality of some of our political representatives.
No I think NZ is best positioned, RELATIVE to the rest of us. Once we collapse in the US, expect an armada of our warships pulling into Auckland harbor blaring the message, “ok we’ll take that now”.
@@anabolicamaranth7140 As long as they don’t come to the land mass west of NZ starting with T. !
Outstanding interview, Sir David King is now my new God. Thank you Nate for bringing him to your channel and I can’t wait for his return. Thank you both.
Too many positive feedbacks with multiple negative impacts on our climate and the exponential increase of the rate at which these positive feedbacks occur. Our climate is like a runaway freight train going down a mountain without brakes. There's no way in a million years that we are going to stop the earths climate change. I cant believe people are so oblivious to what's happening and at the rate its happening. How can we undo all the fossil fuels we have used and pollution we have created. It's not happening people.
I pretty sure we have reached tipping points in this climate catastrophe we have created an it's just going to get way worse faster than anticipated.
A little hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
@@anabolicamaranth7140 Find out how it got there in the first place 😄
A really helpful and illuminating contribution! Thanks! I subscribe.
OMG Scientific advisor to Tony Blair! That's really not a ringing endorsement!
Playing catch up because of a brief YT fast I just decided to break* ⤵️
* Couldn't resist a CC/GW expert with the great name,...Sir David King.