Mark is very courageous to attempt to predict the impacts on human society after around 2 deg Celsius. The big problem I have with Mark's 1 to 6 deg incremental steps to ultimate catastrophe is they reinforce the linear thinking style, when that is going to look rather silly once we get multiple interdependent support systems all beginning to fail at 1.5 - 2 degrees. My expectation is that human extinction will probably come well before 6 degrees, due to widespread radioactive isotope pollution, or more dramatically, nuclear Armageddon. I can easily imagine modern civilized life nearly non-existent sometime before 3 degrees.
That's probably how it will go in my opinion as well....and in a not too distant future either... I used to think it would be well after my children's lifetimes (they are 25 and 27 years old) but have understood lately, that it would be horrifyingly sooner... We must not indulge in false hope anymore but get busy in helping anyone we can, in anyway we can.
We're not talking extinction, 8 billion people? We're talking multiple billion deaths, total societal collapse... perhaps back to the stone age, with that bottle neck ~10,000 breading pairs.. but extinction?
This problem will solve itself like it does with every other species that exhibits niche overshoot - with their material extinction!! I actually don't believe anymore that we can turn this around...if we did, it would be the first case in planetary history where a species has both engineered its own demise and its own resurrection. Hansen et. al. (2023) Global Warming in the Pipeline says that we'll hit 4 degrees C by century's end and the equilibrium climate sensitivity at 4.1 W/m^2 is 10 degrees C. This doesn't consider positive feedbacks which the increase in water vapor and reduced albedo are the two most important. My opinion only...
@DanHelfrichGP --- Mark is very courageous to attempt to predict the impacts on human society after around 2 deg Celsius. Wayne Patterson --- Your "2 deg Celsius" is a fantasy temperature number, because the temperature numbers and temperature datasets used by the Climate Change Alarmists to incite an irrational fear about the Earth's climates are in fact imaginary temperature numbers fabricated by the Climate Change Alarmists. Those temperature numbers fabricated by the Climate Change Alarmists have no scientific validity whatsoever and constitute a fraud upon the world's societies. Your actions to further disseminate the fraudulent fears at the expense of the public well being implicates yourself in the nefarious activities of the Alarmist Climate Change fraudsters. DanHelfrichGP --- The big problem I have with Mark's 1 to 6 deg incremental steps to ultimate catastrophe is they reinforce the linear thinking style, when that is going to look rather silly once we get multiple interdependent support systems all beginning to fail at 1.5 - 2 degrees. My expectation is that human extinction will probably come well before 6 degrees, due to widespread radioactive isotope pollution, or more dramatically, nuclear Armageddon. I can easily imagine modern civilized life nearly non-existent sometime before 3 degrees. Wayne Patterson --- Your prophesied "human extinction will probably come" when the suicidal delusions of people like you result in the genocide of Humans, the extinction of the Animal Kingdom, and the extinction of the Plant Kingdom when they choose to block the Solar energy from the Sun with spaceborne shading or by the premature reduction of Life-giving atmospheric Carbon dioxide to less than the 180 ppm to 150 ppm levels required to continue photosynthesis in the Plant Kingdom. The Biden Administration just released a report which contemplates what amounts to a proposed Crime Against Humanity by blocking the Sun's energy from reaching the Earth at the same time they are destroying the fossil fuel industries and making the insanely failed effort to replace those fossil fueled industries with the Solar Power arrays and Wind Turbines who they are rendering ineffective by blocking the Sun's energy. It seems that these proponents of the suicidal "Green Energy Deal/s" can hardly aspire to be anymore of a greater proposed threat to Humanity and the Earth's environment than they are at the present. Your willfully ignorant and delusional support for their Crimes Against Humanity reflects badly upon you.
Yes. The answer is yes. We have hurt Mother Earth with our toxic waste, trash, and destroying forests, wildlife areas and so much more. We are the form of our own destroyer. We are the worst things to ever happen to this world. We take and destroy life all around us. May mother show no mercy to all who think money and wealth is more important then the planet we live on.
Correct. We have manufactured our own demise. There will be no mercy for anyone, regardless of wealth or status. As a matter of fact the people who survive will live an agonizing existence, until they, too, die.
Toxic waste and trash are bad, but they do not cause climate change and aren’t ruining the planet. Deforestation is not what they’re talking about either, although it does contribute to higher atmospheric GHG concentration. They’re discussing climate change as a threat to humanity, not the poor ways humanity is treating the planet generally.
Lynas is much concerned about Maldives becoming submerged by a couple of meters of sea level rise but never mentions a far more consequential result of such a rise. The rice producing lowlands of the Mekong Delta, etc. which feed more than one billion people will be destroyed by saltwater intrusion and flooding by such a change in sea level. Maybe Musk and Branson’s space travel enterprises will be able to send all who are adversely affected to Mars where they can live happily ever after.
A fair share of china's main agricultural area's are also none too high above sea level, not as to be flooded immediately, but sure susceptible to being swamped by rising sea levels.
True, agricultural output globally is dropping. So Mekong Delta, or Ganges Delta, or Ukraine, food production is going down. And F**K Branson and Elon Stinking White Turds of Late Capitalism.
I don't know where Lynas is getting his info. According to most climate scientists, the risk of a major disruption of human civilization will begin long before we reach 5 degrees C above the preindustrial global average temperature. We are already seeing major problems with droughts, floods, storms, wildfires, accelerated ice melt. warming oceans, etc. With greenhouse gas emissions still increasing, we could reach 1.5 degrees of warming by 2030 and 2 degrees well before 2050. His calm voice may sound reassuring and scholarly, but he is significantly underestimating the severity of the situation we are in. This is an existential crisis, whether or not he realizes it. His reference to past millenarian predictions is pjorative in nature and not evidentiary.
Hi. I think Dr. Lynas is more informed than 99% of the world. If you can read beyond the words, good. I fully understand Dr. Lynas not responding to ignorant trolls. Nor should he.
Once the pollinators are gone humanity is in real trouble. We could see a situation developing where the majority of humanity is starving. People are not going to starve quietly. Combined with a lack of water, food shortages will be a recipe for endless war. Billions of people will also be unable to live in the tropics. In consequence, billions of people will be on the move trying to reach those parts of the World in the Northern and Southern latitudes which are still livable. Mass murder and genocide will become common place. The resulting conflicts in a 4 degree World will make World War 2 look like an elementary school pillow fight. In effect, we will be living in a Solyent Green World. In comparison to what the future holds, the Holocaust of the Jews will be comparable to a light comedy.
The maximum temperature the honeybee can endure is 107° that is where the inside of the honeybee is a ejected from the inside of the thorax. I write an example of the honeybee and had disappeared in a portion or a city in China. I watched a video as the Chinese had installed ladders underneath apple orchards and they were hand pollinating the flowers.
I believe it was the intergovernmental panel on climate change that predicted that based on the future prediction of temperatures of Earth, that I think it was three degrees or four degrees most life on Earth would become extinct Earth has had two greenhouse-gas mass extinction events actually I think the third one was the first one which is the devonian. But I haven't done any research on the devonian era. I know a little bit about the Permian great dying event 242 million years ago. I know 90% of all species on Earth died. Scientists at the rice have possibly a volcanic chamber head pierced to a giant c o a l deposit which increased the CO2 output. It could have been five thousand years carbon emissions. It's very possible that has planet Earth continue to warm, the warming ocean temperatures had migrated down to the bottom of the ocean. Likely it melted methane hydrate deposits and flooded the atmosphere with trillions and trillions of pounds of methane. That event killed off 90% of all biodiversity on planet Earth. Of course there's the 66 million year chicxulub meteor crater explosion that killed off the dinosaurs. And then the last message stiction event was 55 million years ago. That was another volcanic CO2 event. The duration of the event was 10000 to 20000 years. A total of 3 to 7 trillion tons of carbon dioxide was emitted into the atmosphere. Planetary temperatures climb to 5 - 8 degrees Celsius killing off 68% of all biodiversity on planet Earth. Species that were mobile, such as alligators avian Birds, tortoises they all started to migrate into the Arctic. And that's exactly what's happening today with marine species down at the equator. Temperatures of 91° or a 33 to 35 degrees Celsius are occurring at the equator during the peak summer cycle. So surface-dwelling marine species are moving North to the Arctic. During the months of June July August heatstroke temperatures in Cambodia Laos and Vietnam are so high that people can't go outside without risking heatstroke and heat stroke death. So what this is forcing the Vietnamese workers to work outside in the middle of the night doing the rice paddy work.
There is no evidence that humans are intelligent or wise and ethical enough to save Life. In fact, after 40 years of warnings and 26 IPCC COPS, there has been ZERO reductions in emissions. The egos that control the fossil fuels and the billionaire's fortunes that are dependent on it will not sacrifice a single penny for life. That is because they are deeply and profoundly immoral. They must be stopped by force or humanity will perish...within 5 years tops. If every human being on Earth does not fight NOW and band together to demand an end to fossil fuels, the stupid inept politicians, whose offices and careers are dependent on fossil fuels (Joe Manchin et al ) will continue killing us until every last life is gone. This is a battle between good and evil...life and death.
@@Magik1369 Great comment. All we have to do is break the bonds of divide and rule and all stand together and demand action on the climate. 'They got the guns, but we've got the numbers. Gonna win, yeah, we're takin' over. Come on'. Jim Morrison. Rip.
Our emissions are not going to affect the ultimate fate of humans as a sufficient number of significant positive feedback systems are now activated and we have no control over them. Our efforts will only slightly change the timing. Keep doing what we are doing and we end soon. Take extraordinary actions and make huge sacrifices and we get to suffer a bit longer before we go extinct.
I think it's unrealistic to expect the northern countries to accept hundreds of millions of climate refugees. The carrying capacity of the world will also be drastically reduced. Realistically we're looking at mass starvation, war and disease to eliminate 50-90% of the human population over the coming decades.
I think it's unrealistic to expect the native indigenous northern peoples to accept hundreds of millions of genocidal white Westerners invading their lands where they've lived for over ten thousand years.
Northern countries better make sure they're very heavily armed then if they plan to keep those refugees out. Desperate people do desperate things. And you know India and Pakistan have nukes.
I find it odd how discussions about geoengineering and solar radiation management (SRM) seldom mention the fact that a planet with an average temperature of 14C and 270ppm is not at all the same as a planet with 14C and 550ppm and a dimmer sun. A future Earth with SRM and pre-industrial temperatures would have considerably cooler conditions in the tropics and much warmer poles. So the ice would still melt, the ocean currents would be affected, ecosystems would still collapse, mass extinction would still occur, climate zones would still shift and agricultural production would still be severely reduced, leading to widespread warfare and human misery. There are a few climate impacts that would be avoided, though, like wet bulb temperatures making large portions of the globe physically uninhabitable. But all in all SRM wouldn't really be solving the core of the problem, that ecosystems and human infrastructure are where they are because of a certain climate and that any rapid change is bad. An additional risk is that once you're blocking out the sun, you have to keep doing it for decades. Any interruption would cause catastrophic rebound effects. I think that these arguments should convince each and every person with a working brain that SRM is a terrible idea. The only mental process that could push a species that calls itself sapiens to deploy SRM, is the same process which makes people in burning buildings jump out the window from the 60th floor.
It's almost like we're just chimps that don't really understand the intricacies of our planet and should stop pretending that the mechanism that built the time bomb we've triggered, is somehow capable of being reimagined to disable it. I'll believe technology can save the world when I see it undo damage we've done. I'm also tired of listening to experts that clearly live very comfortable lifestyles. Everyone is either bought or too invested in the future because they're parents for them to be honest about the future we've bought and paid for. The hubris of it all... we killed the world and don't even have the decency to feel bad about it.
Why would ecosystems collapse? Are we sure it's really CO2? There's evidence to suggest the solar irradiance data has been screwed with, just like the climategate data selection crap.
@@kayakMike1000 "Are we sure it's really CO2?" Yes, we are megalithically, astronomically sure. And we've been sure for over three decades. "There's evidence to suggest the solar irradiance data has been screwed with". Even if the data had been screwed with, or even if we didn't have any data at all because we didn't know how to measure solar irradiance, we would still know it's not the sun. If the sun were causing the planet to warm, we would see more warming around the equator and less at the poles, more in the daytime and less at night, more in summer and less in winter. In fact we see the opposite, which is a characteristic fingerprint of and increased greenhouse effect. This fingerprint was predicted before we could observe it. This and many other lines of evidence all point at the same conclusion: it's warming, it's us and it's really bad. If these basic conclusions were based only on one dataset, there would be plenty of room for skepticism. But since we have thousands upon thousands of datasets and tens of thousands of scientists who have been working on hundreds of branches of climate-related sciences for over a century, the combined knowledge points to a conclusion which has a probability of 99,99999999% to be accurate. The truth is that there is no more room for doubt or debate on these basic facts. That door closed well over twenty years ago. If you are still in denial, that's the result of an extremely effective and well-funded and well-organized PR campaign initiated by the fossil fuel industry in the 1980's. Climategate is a fake scandal that was a part of this PR effort. It was orchestrated to catch media attention right before the COP15 climate summit in Copenhagen, with enough time to make people doubt, but not enough for the investigations to show that none of the accusations were based on any substance at all. Eight (8!!) independent investigations were carried out and all of them agreed that scientists hadn't committed any fraud. It was indeed extremely selective crap. The result of the organised climate denial campaign is that we didn't reduce our emissions when we knew we had to, but instead emitted more each year. Organized climate denial has resulted in milennia of irreversible change and misery and is as such the most destructive and immoral operation any humans have ever carried out. Please, Michael, look the facts in the eye. Admit that you were wrong. It's okay to be wrong. We need you on the right side of history.
exactly how are near term extinction proponents getting it wrong and exagerating the threat? we could teach pigs to fly but i'll put that in the 0.0001% probability category just above "humans will stop overshoot by choice" and just below "a few thousand will survive the bottleneck."
If you are young enough you will see it. ! The actual mitigation will not really happen until some catastrophic events drive home the risks. So the 1.5 goal will not happen but anything we do will help to some extent. Will not stop the cyclones/hurricanes though, they will increase and so will drought and starvation.
@@linmal2242 i see zero evidence that we could contain global warming below +4°C even if we shut it all down today and neither does the pentagon. as you say when the crisis hits it will be a scramble for survival not emissions. we will see the feedbacks kick-in to dwarf our contribution very soon even the geriatric will get a front row seat.
If we're currently on a worst case trajectory, and never have lowered emissions (exceptions being the Great Recession and the pandemic lock downs), is it not plausible and scientific to suggest that such a reduction in emissions will likely not be realized absent a sustained global economic collapse? Tim Garrett's recent paper suggests renewable energy sources have only added to the energy mix, and have not displaced fossil fuel use, but only increased the demand for all forms of energy - an example of Jevon's Paradox: Garrett, Timothy J., Matheus Grasselli, and Stephen Keen. "Past world economic production constrains current energy demands: Persistent scaling with implications for economic growth and climate change mitigation." Plos one 15.8 (2020): e0237672. At 4C of warming, how is there only a 1 in 10 and 1 in 4 chance that warming will continue to 5C, if Arctic ice is gone in summer at 3 C (as early as 2030 as per CMIP6 even if all emissions stopped now) advancing warming on an estimated order of 25 years: Pistone, Kristina, Ian Eisenman, and Veerabhadran Ramanathan. "Radiative heating of an ice‐free Arctic Ocean." Geophysical Research Letters 46.13 (2019): 7474-7480. Also note, that the IPCC 1.5C plan to cut emissions 50% by 2030 and eliminate them by 2050, then requires negative emissions after that to reach target. So the deployment of likely unscalable negative emissions technology is assumed by IPCC goals, which seems unrealistic and unscientific. Finally, what are "zero carbon aviation fuel" options other than biofuels and hydrogen with break even and negative energy return on energy investment, respectively?
A very good comment. I'm also listening to the presentations/interviews of Kevin Anderson, he is very pragmatic and realistic regarding the "net zero"-lie and "new technologies". He also states that almost all projections of the IPCC include a heavy use of negative emission-technologies, which shows, how desperate our situation is. And I doubt that a global cooperation between nations will be possible. Even inside one country there are so many different societal groups, interests and perspectives - and the leaders of almost every nation are corrupt and strongly influenced by lobby-groups. Equity is key and is hardly mentioned anywhere.
One small example I'm seeing among fellow Green Boomers. They would never install AC (in Canada), but once they have heat pumps for more efficient use of our clean electricity, they go ahead and use the cooling function in summer. And Ontario's right-wing premier has pulled in EV and battery production,but because we don't actually generate enough power for all those electric cars, he's pushing to burn natural gas to generate more power.
PART ONE Now let us address the terminology so often misused. The current predominant tendency is to use the term - 'Climate Change'. In point of fact, 'climate change' is merely ONE outcome of the underlying dynamic - Anthropogenic Global Warming [AGW]; the *correct* terminology. Which itself is driven by human population expansion. Media coined the term 'climate change' because it underplays the significance of the grave rammifications of AGW; most especially that of near-term human exintinction. . Human Extinction is only 'controversial' to those who lack the ability to understand the myriad of dynamics involved, or those who are still in the denial or anger stages of grief. . So now let us examine some facts: 1. The ongoing combustion of sequestered carbon - fossil fuels - will continue to release copious amounts of greenhouse gasses [ghgs], specifically carbon dioxide [CO2], methane [CH4] and water vapour [H2O] into the atmosphere. 2. In addition to these ghg emissions, are the aerosol emissions spec; sulphates, nitrates and carbonaceous aerosols [inorganic C, organic C and black C - soot]. Currently these aerosol bi-products are affording a temporary reduction in global warming, by attenuating some of the insolation reaching the Earth's surface. However, the 'aerosol masking effect' as it is widely called, is insufficient in slowing the overall rate of change of average global temperature; which of course is still climbing... 3. Loss of the AME in a short timeframe, induces a global mean surface heating of between 0.5 - 1.1 deg C - in addition to latent anthropogenic and biospheric forcing (historical human and natural emissions - Global Warming Potential - climate inertia), with an increase in precipitation of 2.0 - 4.6%; extreme weather indices also increase (...more climate chaos). 4. The above dynamics thus present humans with a physical (technological) predicament.... And predicaments are considered to have no solutions - an impasse. This has become know in certain circles as the 'McPherson Paradox'. Or as James Hansen has dubbed - the 'Faustian Bargain'... . To quote Hansen et al [IOP Science 2013]: // What is clear is that most of the remaining fossil fuels must be left in the ground if we are to avoid dangerous human-made interference with climate. (re: worse-case scenario - a change of biospheric thermoequilibrium/homeostasis).
The principal implication of our present analysis probably relates to the Faustian bargain. Increased short-term masking of greenhouse gas warming by fossil fuel particulate and nitrogen pollution represents a 'doubling down' of the Faustian bargain, an increase in the stakes. The more we allow the Faustian debt to build, the more unmanageable the eventual consequences will be. Yet globally there are plans to build more than 1000 coal-fired power plants (Yang and Cui 2012) and plans to develop some of the dirtiest oil sources (fracking, CH4 extraction) on the planet (EIA 2011). These plans should be vigorously resisted. We are already in a deep hole-it is time to stop digging. // . The prevailing notion is that humans must reduce their use of fossil fuels as an axiomatic imperative, but that the reduction is managed and phased/staged over a specific timeframe and must start with the heaviest polluters - The GMIC (Global Military Industrial Complex); heavy industry; shipping and transportation. However, calculating/modelling a 'specific timeframe' for a planned reduction in FF emissions may prove to be a moot point at this juncture. Whatever transpires, renewables will need to pick-up-the-slack, as more nuclear energy generation must be avoided at all costs (expanded on below...). . 5. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 08-10-2018: Global Warming of 1.5 deg C. // These global warming events of human-driven change far exceed the rates of change driven by geophysical or biospheric forces that have altered the Earth System trajectory in the past [Summerhayes, 2015; Foster et al., 2017]; even abrupt geophysical events do not approach rates of human-driven change. // Re: Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum [PETM - 55My bce]. The one exception perhaps being the Chicxulub Impactor Event [65My bce], which, in anycase was an extraterrestrial bolide event, resulting in the fifth Mass Extinction. . 6. IPCC 24-09-2019: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate: // Ocean acidification and deoxygenation, ice sheet and glacier mass loss and permafrost degradation are expected to be irreversible on time scales relevant to human societies and ecosystems [Lenton et al., 2008; Soloman et al., 2009; FGrolicher and Joos, 2010; Cal et al, 2016; Kopp et al., 2016] // . Geologists not only advocating a new geophysical strata - Anthropocene [f. Holocene], but designating the current interstadial period as ''indefinite''. Meaning: no return to a glacial maximum [stadial] ( 'ice-age') as would be the case if AGW had not occurred. This recategorisation is supported empirically by a rapidly retreating cryosphere and factoring in the global warming potential of recent/historic atm ghg emissions - latency - oceanic thermal uptake, amongst many other factors including past and imminent tipping points and over 65 self-reinforcing feedbacks. . Global Warming is thus regarded as IRREVERSIBLE. So get used to it... .
Increased CO2 leads to increase plant growth which leads to decreased CO2. Plants also release methane. It's far more nuanced than any of these representations. It's also still completely unknown as to whether AGW influences the end of the interglacial. It would be good if it did - from the human viewpoint - seeing as 5x as many people die from cold as from heat. A return to cold would be absolutely catastrophic.
Great discussion, thank you! I found Mark's comment about how close we are to tipping the Amazon very sobering. Also his comments about how vulnerable our food system is to a "freak" multiple-disaster scenario that would decimate our global bread-basket regions with droughts or floods.
Yes I actually monitor remote sensing satellite data the temperatures of all the continents and yes this year the temperatures in the Amazon in Bolivia in Argentina and other surrounding countries they are for the most part this winter at close to 100° and that's winter what's it going to be like in December oh my God I can't even imagine. It's so distressing that over the last five to ten years I've seen so much change in global temperature. That humans are pushing Earth into another Hothouse mass extinction event. I reiterated this too many people that as a human species wear a f****** over planet and if it's based on Dr Peter Carter who is an expert at reading the ipcc report, between now and the year 2100 up to 1 billion humans could perish and most biodiversity would vanish. That's why carbon dioxide emissions should be priority 40 years ago. Also the United Nations should had it made it mandatory that global overpopulation and capitalism where the other drivers of deforestation and Rapid carbon dioxide emissions
For the last two months I've been monitoring temperatures in the Amazon and they are peeking over 100 degrees Fahrenheit good I've never seen this occur in the middle of the southern hemispheres winter cycle. So I looked up on news on the Amazon and the temperatures already killing biodiversity. River dolphins are dying. Paraguay is having forest fires surprise me anytime temperatures reach over 100 degrees Fahrenheit in a forest, there's always fires it doesn't matter where on Earth that doesn't matter if it's the Arctic it doesn't matter if it's over Louisiana which occurred this summer it almost always happens
Two things are missing for me in this conversation. One of them is the aerosol masking affect. The second one is the impact of temperature rises on the increase frequency of earthquakes and their severity.
Critical climate systems starting to potentially tip permanently into new states: ice sheets, sea ice, permafrost, jet stream, Atlantic overturning circulation, etc. So if those things interact, and they interact like the proverbial dominoes arrayed upright, we could get in the worst case scenario; the domino dynamics where you just tip one thing and then it triggers feedbacks that tip another and we just lose control of the situation. This is the biggest risk in terms of fundamentally shifting the whole nature and state of the climate system potentially into what we called hot house earth; a reference to some past climates that haven't been seen for about 40 or 50 million years and that look completely different. Well we don't want to go there. And we don’t need things to get so bad I think for this to be an existential threat.
Wow this guy is completely off his rocker. This is the kind of bs that gives people the false impression that we are still okay. The data is the data but his Pollyanna interpretation is criminal.
No you live in a bubble.i monitor global tempatures and yes, the tempatures in many cases are from 104 to 120 to as high as 130f Crops die in these tempatures and these high Long lasting heat waves are spreading across the planet. Esrth had also has two green house gas mass extinction events. One was 242 million years ago and the other was 55 million years ago. This first one killed of 90% of all biodiversity and the second one killed off 68% of all biodiversity.
Wow! In the opening moments and the speaker gives all kinds of credits to humanity fixing the problem. “Less stupid”? Gee, the UK government has recently approved dumping raw sewage into drinking water, swimming contact water, etc and no negative response from the public. Fixing Climate Catastrophe? Poop must taste good.
I disagree when it comes to the question that it is not too late. The problem is our way of thinking. The current Capitalist economic system that hold the World in thrall is based on endless growth. The idea that one can have endless growth in a finite system is lunacy. Furthermore, in a classical Capitalist economy the environment is considered an externality. As far as a Capitalist is concerned, a forest habitat has no value until it's converted into consumer products. If this type of thinking remains the norm, we are doomed. Also, with the brewing conflict between the World's major powers the chance of meaningful negotiations to deal with this existential problem looks remote to say the least. At the same time, we may not have decades to solve our environmental problems once positive feedback mechanisms come into play. There exists a possibility that collapse could come with breathtaking speed. The climate might flip within a period as short as ten years if rate of change becomes non linear. The problem talking about risk of extinction, is that most people would rather listen to a big fat reassuring lie rather than face the bitter truth.
I fully understand after reading so many comments why Dr. Lynas is silent. Let me just say , that "Our Final Warning 6 Degrees" is the most informed book about climate. Thank you for writing it. Now, having observed social media I am signing off.
@@chuckmaceanruig I'm polisci. Helped detect certain 'impetus' in climate Discourse shall we say. Lynas and I are like political opponents on 70 80% I also har masters in library science I hope adds to my ability to discern quality tier of publications. Can't be a subject specialist in every subject and be any use in the library. You'd be Lt. Commander Data of Star Trek Eisenhower farewell address also mentions danger of a Science Complex that disregards inputs of the people. I've noted PhD in relevant field unaware of PETM Collaborative process is necessary
Do you really think we have to wait till 4 degrees to have large areas uninhabitable? The models and scientific predictions have consistently been way too conservative so to keep underestimating the situation is crazy.
You do realize acidification is impossible. As the ocean warms CO2 is released into the atmosphere making the water less acidic. The amount of CO2 that can be retained in water decreases with each increase in temperature. The constant is atmospheric pressure.
the movie inbound comet analogy is actually fairly good. There are initially plans to divert or blow up the comet, but these are cancelled/aborted when it is discovered that there is a valuable resource on the comet that can be mined for a profit. So, action to change the comet trajectory is postponed to see if countries/corporations can make some money off it first....
Yeah I don’t think they got the movie - my take it was about abrupt climate change. The valuable resource on the comet is a good analogy. Myopic thinking was well portrayed.
I walked along the twin railway track towards the oncoming traffic, so as i would see the train before it got to me. The train appeared in the distance, its roar became loud and i could now clearly see it was time to change to the other track. The noise roared almost deafening me as i looked behind me, the train going the other way at 120km an hour or so, was right in my face.
One of the arguments for keeping all the fossil fuel industries going is the problem with 'jobs' and worries about causing unemployment...but it would be easy to shut down any planet harming industry if it was simply made financially worthwhile for people to start SHARING the jobs we can agree we NEED people to do and work much LESS...there wouldn't even be such a thing as unemployment if it was made worthwhile to share the jobs we NEED instead of everyone primarily working and doing anything FOR money.
Those ideas have been tried out in the old Soviet Union and it's satellite states, also China, but deemed to be unsuccessful at stimulate ppl to develop new products and businesses. Also put in practice in the Rheinland model and USA New Deal and Great society,a mix of entrepreneur economy and social measures, supported by a solid tax system. Those systems did manage to provide a decent standard of living to workers in the West, so that USSR and China were beat at their own game. Economists mistakenly thought it been free market that won the cold war and kicked out the social democrat model as socialist rubbish that burdened business with too many rules and too steep taxes Now workers in the West make less than half of what net salary they had during the cold war, needing two or three jobs where one would suffice before 1990. Millions of dissatisfied voted in Trump, voted out of EU (Brexit) and go after populist parties in Europe - who disagree with anything in climate policy. If the West had stuck to the actual winning system, wonder where we'd be today
@@peterjol Anarchy works at smaller population levels. I don't know how it could be instituted now given complexity, interdependence, and cultural norms that exist today.
No energy, no jobs. All jobs require using some tools. A car, a delivery truck, a computer, a twenty ton hydraulic press, a CNC machine. Buildings need light, restaurants need an oven to cook with. No fossil fuels, we'll all be doomed to live like they did 150 years ago, just no kerosene lanterns.
Most likely Arctic permafrost will add somewhere around 0,5C temperature rise (100-1000 GtCO2e), so worst case is around doubling our 2C limit carbon in the atmosphere. More worrisome is pure methane releases that may peak temperature in few years. These methane bombs lies under shallow Arctic seabed, as methane hydrates or under permafrost lid on the seafloor, and Arctic seas are rapidly warming.
Currently the total content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and this is by Leading climate scientists is it contains twice as much carbon dioxide then in the atmosphere
The hopium dealers found a trick: they change the baseline. Btw what is the actual average global temp? Any idea where that simple number can be found? Except on arctic-news there's no number I could find.
Glickson says 2.2* above Paper in 2021 says New England warmed by 1.8 from 1960 to 2020 !!! Regardless, the number really means very little to victims of global warming Our leaders need to lead Unfortunate for us that doesn't happen Kinda feels like we all are on our own
@@paulchace2391that includes the faux ice age of late 70s. 1979 broke 1890 lows in Midwest I'd call suspect if started set in say 1976. 1960 sounds more seeking reflective of wanting 'truth' Methodology section will usually explain reasoning
When mountain glaciers melt, that will not only affect on water availability. These glaciers have also weather balancing features, because they absorb and release energy while they grow or reduce ice/snow mass. The local weather patterns most likely will go worse after these glaciers are diminished too much. Even melt water brings needed cooling water to quite large areas and that allows also plants to grow. When this is gone the water source is gone and vegetation is reducing from that area. Also when heavy rains comes, then there is no glacier to keep that snow/rain and it streams down in days instead of months bringing more floods, flash floods and mudslides down hill. Even the permafrost that binds the mountain tops is thawing making them more vulnerable for collapse. Glaciers are also reflecting sunlight, so when they are gone, the ground takes more heat to the area making it even hotter. Recent month has shown extreme drought and rivers without water or at very low levels. Rivers like: Po, Seine, Rhein, Danube, Yangtse, Colorado river, ... All of these have had mountain glaciers in their starting areas. In some parts of the world these drying rivers are generating wars (Kashmir area, Middle East). These impacts will be hard for locals, but will also affect globally, because ie. agriculture and industrial production will suffer. Prices are jumping already.
But glacial water can be captured & stored like in a dam so there is no effect on water supply; in fact it provides drinking water. In addition glacial water is better tasting esp if it is situated over limestone.
Yes glaciers and the Arctic Ice Sheets reflect 90% of all the photon energy back into space. What's the ice sheets in the Arctic continue to disappear more and more ocean surface continues to absorb more Photon energy converting it into heat. That intern continues to warm the atmosphere in the Arctic. That will cause the Hadley cell circulations to slow across the mid-latitudes curated that will cause the jet stream to slow even more and a slow jet stream will have more severe rossby waves and will equate in more severe heat waves and possibly Polar Arctic Outburst from the Arctic
@@kimlibera663 that may be true but also remember this about snowfields that cover Mountain terrain it hydrates the forest floor keeps it moist provides moisture for trees and bushes keeps them hydrated. A wet moist Forest is a forest that doesn't spread fires. Those fires will smolder and stay extremely self-contained and barely migrate from tree to tree. If you want to see an example of a force that has been completely dried out from a heatwave look no further than Fort McMurray Alberta win the Omega Heatwave occurred over the city and over the region. You'll see several different examples on UA-cam where the fires were at least 1/2 to watch full-length over the height of the tree. That is the dry Christmas tree effect and that will actually incinerate towns especially with high winds. It's not the flames it's the firebrands that make contact with the homes high wind that pushes the Flames from one house into the next house
Mark's comment at 54:00 re temperatures levelling off quickly after stabilizing emissions: What about 'warming in the pipeline' without any further carbon emissions due to the now excessive ocean heat content (OHC) and associated inertia in expressed atmospheric warming? OHC is now quantified at about 0.9W/m2 which equals about an additional 0.71 oC of warming based on 0.75oC of atmospheric warming per W/m2 of energy imbalance (Hansen). Also, what about the warming that short-lived aerosols are masking, at about -1.3W/m2, or about 0.98oC of warming, if fossil-fuel based aerosol emissions are reduced? Are these 'hidden' but inevitable temperature increases accounted for in the 'temperature levelling-off' scenario at net-zero carbon emissions? Accounting for this on top of the 1.1oC to date blows us right past 2oC - almost to 3oC with no further carbon emissions from today, let alone the 2050 net-zero target. Thanks.
My understanding of the ocean heat is its not relevant to the time scales we are concerned with short term due to an updated approach to the physics of heat interchange over ocean/land having been applied in current zecimp modeling. It forces new milankovich cycles but those are on the matter of hundreds of thousands of years and is in much more of a stasis with surface temp than hansen eluded to. Aerosolization presents a threat but the claim of 1C of masking is, to my basic knowledge, a misunderstanding of the application of the physics and in actual surface tempature results in much less entropy in the system, roughly a third of your value. It's been a fairly well repeated line that doesn't have that great of sourcing associated with it though, a simple carbon brief article is the main source I could find.
Little late but I believe CarbonBrief has written in detail on the idea that temperatures should roughly stabilize within a few years of zero emissions. The general idea is that the heating effects (eg less aerosols) and cooling effects (less methane, which is short lived in atmosphere) tend to balance out at zero emissions. An issue with this is that it also depends when we go to zero - eg if permafrost thaw is at a high rate I don’t know if we can say zero warming.
@@Jeff-gq2tq they discuss that in their article. The graph plotting the described scenarios is worth a look. Still just models, and neglects key tipping points, but useful imo.
Very well spoken, and sublimely overconfident for someone for whom it is not literally possible to be more wrong. The esteemed author is in denial. When logic takes him to an answer he doesn't like he simply fabricates a more palatable reality. Technology got us into this mess, more technology will simply make it worse. He gives us his imprimatur for nuclear energy saying "it's worked fine since 1944", glancing right by Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the yet ongoing Fukushima, not to mention the millions of tons of deadly nuclear waste stockpiled ever increasingly at the 440 different sites of its manufacture because we haven't any idea what to do with it other than keep it cool in perpetuity. Go listen to some of Bill Rees' lectures on UA-cam Mark. You are pompous and dangerous. The answers are simple. There are way, way, too many humans, and they are greedy and destructive. If those two things don't change, our extinction will see that they do. The planet will be fine. In short, you are not even addressing the problem, just but one of many "existential" symptoms of the problem. Good luck, stay safe, be well.
Finally someone saying what needs to be said, there is simply to many people on earth. Also to add to your points about nuclear power plants they need to be maintained long term which people seems to think will happen but looking at Ukraine and a war can throw that out the window quite quickly.
Renewable energy, both solar and wind, are now less expensive than nuclear and far quicker to bring on line and at this point, speed is of the essence. The core problem is the financing of politicians by vested interests (fossil fuel industry for instance). So the politicians refuse to do the obvious, simple things that would make a difference. In how many countries have the politicians stopped all subsidies to fossil fuel companies. This would have made solar and wind cheaper than fossil fuels much earlier and we would now be farther along the road to eliminating fossil fuel.
@@wlhgmk All of the "renewable" infrastructure built to date can not even accommodate the annual increase in energy demand for one calendar year. "Renewables" can only provide electricity for the 20% of our energy demand that can be met that way. What do you intend to do about the 80% of our energy use comprised by shipping, trucking, air travel, and heating? The problem is overshoot. Not climate change. Climate change is but one of the many existential threats caused by overshoot. All of this is just talk that doesn't matter without the attendant actions. Welcome to extinction, enjoy your stay.
@@wlhgmk Renewable energy isn't a fix for climate change. It's not even renewable, it's replaceable and only replaceable in a world with cheap and available materials and a global supply chain. How much would it cost you to make a solar panel, by yourself, starting with raw materials? If that's not possible, it isn't truly renewable or sustainable in any way. The only fix is to live like we did before industry. A lot/most people will starve and the rest will live in a very precarious state, like all life, because a couple generations decided they could have cars and planes and all this other shit that cannot be made sustainable. An electric car has the same emissions attached as a used gas-powered car. Both require wearing tires and other parts made from plastic and otherwise extracted from a non-renewable source. ALLL OF THIS IS MARKETING. ALL OF IT. Even the stuff that's supposedly green is selling you your guilt. There is no way to live this way without causing a mass extinction and that should be enough for all of us to reconsider what it is we're doing and why. No matter who you are, you're just doing what you're told and assuming it's not the worst possible thing because it's legal, and its legal because it uses resources which generates wealth. There is no way to green this paradigm, there's only walking away from it and choosing to do something that doesn't require consumables. It's going to suck but it's the future we paid for.
RAD, yes, technology got us into this mess and more technology will only exacerbate the mess. And yes, there are way too many people for the earth to accommodate, especially high consumers. Sociopaths rule, to our collective demise.
@@jamestiburon443 Anything you'd find satisfying. If you think you can do something useful, do it. Plant trees, push electrification with non fossil fuels, eat vegan. Whatever. Just don't become attached to outcomes.
@@NickDanger0001 They as most of the world's population don't get is that the systems of the planet are intertwined and interconnected. No matter that Arctic has a very small population the warming there does not only affect the Arctic population it affects Amazonian tribes and every other population on the planet. It does not matter where climate change affects every change in the system creates changes in all the systems both chemical, physical and biological changes everywhere.
If it was above +2°C already we'd be having worse Greenland ice melt, a vast cold water area in the N Atlantic and megastorms wreaking havoc and hurling huge boulders into the Bshsmas and Florida with their storm surge
The fear of having to pay for cleaning up this mess will just cause more anti government anti science and anti environmental movements to grow were over the cliff already aren’t we!!!!. Solar wind and battery storage are getting cheaper every day maybe a little conservation thrown in would help but man I don’t see anyone wanting to curtail their high carbon lifestyles
May be the only way at psychologically he could handle studying and writing about this for 20 years- maintaining hope, even for an improbable scenario. I also think scientists have been corralled into sound more dispassionate and “neutral” otherwise they may readily be discredited as alarmist. Being alarmed (often disparagingly called alarmism) however is warranted and rational in a case like this
Population growth is the central issue here. Either we have heavily controlled birth or uncontrolled death. Both are not desirable but that’s the fact Jack.
Yep. The common man doesn't want to hear it, it's too scary and too "freedom averse". The business man doesn't want to hear it, he needs people to continue to be pumped out to profit. It's already game over. We like too look back at previous civilisaitons throughout history and their collapses and we are about to dial it up to 11.
Australian trees/ forests will release seeds with an average/ slow/ cold burn, yes. Though without aboriginal traditional management of the landscape too much fuel/ deadwood builds up and the fires become hot- burn, where all the seeds are also burnt up, resulting in a new landscape more akin to heath, or worse covered in exotic species and weeds, or worse being eroded away entirely. Many of the above leading to aridity and desertification.
Read Mark's book 'High Tide' some 15-16 yrs back. Where now climbing the bell curve quite swiftly.The top is less than 10 yrs away, from there it's going to be downhill all the way.
Sorry, but he is way off track, here's why Look up the milankovitch cycles with CO2 vs temperature vs time, 800k yrs timeline Iceage minimum, CO2 levels are 280ppm and temperatures are 15c, this is 1750 baseline Iceage maximum, CO2 levels were 180ppm and temperatures were-8c below baseline, 7c The global CO2 levels dropped 100ppm which caused temperatures to drop -8c, 7c The global CO2 levels rose 100ppm and temperatures rose 8c For a 100ppm change caused an 8c temperature change This is the global thermostat setting, 1c/12ppm CO2 and or AGGI Today, global CO2 levels are 420ppm, 140ppm above baseline 140ppm ÷1c/12ppm = 11.75c rise above baseline The AGGI, absolute ghg equivalent is 585ppm 585ppm ÷ 1c/12ppm = 25.4c rise above baseline The global temperatures will rise rise 25.4c and as ghgs increase so will the temperature The 2c threshold is 300ppm and the planet blew past that yrs ago Rate of acceleration of global warming 1990 to 2000, global temperatures rose 0.1c 2000 to 2010, global temperatures rose 0.25c 2010 to 2020, global temperatures rose 0.35c This happened during global dimming, 10k commercial flights per day produce alot of condensation trails that helped cool by decreasing sunlight The commercial airlines have been grounded and global brightening is kicking in 2020 to 2030, global temperatures will rise 0.35c + 0.2, 0.3c, 0.4c, increasing global temperatures another 0.5c +, putting global temperature 2c above the preindustrial 1750 baseline Watch on utube, global warming/1 solution It shows the melankovitch cycles with CO2 vs temperature vs time
A couple of quotes to add to the debate - "A temperature increase of 5.2 °C (9.36 °F) above the pre-industrial level at present rates of increase would likely result in mass extinction" - Song 2021. "End-of-century warming outcomes in RCP8.5 range from 3.3 °C to 5.4 °C" - Schwalm 2020. What a risk we are taking!
It was Gaia. And the way Climate Change kills 7 Billion of the world is through loss of Habitat, which means we can NOT produce sufficient agricultural food anymore due to drought, heat. That means loss of Habitat.
For a start off... The recently late James Lovelock (RIP) wasn't the *only* person who articulated the GAIA hypothesis, it was suggested to him by the biologist Lyn Margulis. And I have read most of JL's books and I don't remember him mentioning that the global human population would at some point reach 1 billion sometime within this century... Lovelock would have known for sure, that the human population already reached 1 billion in 1804... Global Human Population timeframe: 1804 - 1 billion 1927 - 2 billion 1960 - 3 billion 1987 - 5 billion 1998 - 6 billion 2010 - 7 billion 2022 - expected to reach 8 billion The above dates, plotted on a graph will show that human population expansion went exponential during the 1800's and became linear in the 1980's. Current expansion is approximately = 1 billion every fourteen years. However, the rate will slow, because male fertility is dropping globally and of course - the existential threat of Anthropgenic Global Warming.
Nevermind the food shortage..nobody talking about Water shortages. That will kill much faster....this is Aug 2022 in Florida. The whole Climate and global warming reminds me so much of the Pandemic 2020 twilight zone. People where in the Hospital's dying, in the meantime people where having Covid parties. Furthermore regarding Global warming and el Nino coming up in our southern hemisphere in the meantime Miami Beach building boom of Million dollars high rises are going up with investment from Dubai. Yes, every human epoch had their doomsday scenarios, it seams something that is deep in our Psychology. However ask a Aztec or Maya or inhabitant of the Easter Islands or countless other civilisations, for their world it definitely was the end of the World. Bottom line, for a mass extinction of the human race it would need a quick impact from either Solar storm's or massive comet impact.
I don’t want to come over arrogant and insensitive. However I do ask myself what problems many researchers, activists and others have with the thought that we will just go extinct. What is your problem? You, me, we will all die anyway. Do you really care about all of humanity, can you even grasp how many humans there are? We are just one species and a million others are at risk. We already live in the sixth mass extinction, we live in the Anthropocene. I’m not denying that we could theoretically live in harmony with nature and the Earth’s resources. But I’m just observing we’re clearly not. It seems even more far-fetched than communism, which has so far only been a philosophy but never worked like it should in big societies. Maybe we should now use science to study the inherent human bias that we are so important. There have already been 5 mass extinctions. Why should the 6th be any worse? Of course it’s emotionally distressing to study something as big and destructive as the literal collapse of the biosphere and human civilization, and of course you want to disprove your own results and find out that something else will happen, maybe you want to study that. But maybe that’s an illusion, part of an Inherent human bias. During the Cold War and now again, many people (according to surveys I know of, you can likely just search for key terms and find them) fear/are aware of the existential threat of a global thermonuclear war and the Armageddon and annihilation that follows, they just accept the risk because it is now an inherent part of our society and civilization and we can’t turn back time and undo it. We need to get there with the climate and ecological risks as well. Some forces are just beyond control once they’re invented. We have invented technology that can wipe out our species and almost all current life on the planet in multiple ways. To me that’s not very worthy for a species, doesn’t show me we deserve survival. I know no evidence of big societies that have lived in harmony with nature and it’s resources, and with other humans. Assuming it is possible based on no historical or any other evidence, but just based on an optimistic vision, seems very unscientific to me. Could we all just split up into several native/indigenous groups and live like them. Seems unlikely, and again unscientific.
Easiest way to pull carbon out of the atmosphere is oceanic iron fertilization. This would also help to replenish biodiversity lost from overfishing etc.
@@SusanBloodgood-o5s reminder standing Hampton is the only one plant that will absorb the carbon dioxide at the fastest rate. It's probably the fastest and quickest way to pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Health could be turned into into concrete help or stored Underground and compressed.
Perhaps a deep dive on the existential probabilities on the modeling front with someone like Dr. Tim Palmer is in order to discuss the tail end scenarios in the modeling world. His discussion with Sabine Hossenfelder was both entertaining and enlightening and I would sincerely enjoy an update discussion with him especially with someone like Dr. Kemp moderating. Throughly enjoying the context and conversations from the channel. Highly informative in my opinion.
Tools 🔧 are needed, drop the circle below the electromagnetic force, onto check valve in water column, Mechanical Equivalent of Heat you have clean energy technology, the Sir Isaac Newton Machine manufactured, the Einstein INCH equation of Grand Unification. DEEP DIVE to Sphere Making.
Yeah lots of good the scientific predictive models have done the world and humanity to this point. Most people are walking around believing that the impacts won't happen until 2050 or 2100. The reality is that impacts predicted to occur in 2100 are happening now except with much greater severity and much sooner than predicted. The models are a little better now. However, the exponential function and the effects of multiple cascading tipping points are nearly impossible to model. Yet, this is exactly what is happening now. Multiple tipping points have already been breached and are now combining exponentially to vastly increase the rate of change. Very soon there will be world wide wet bulb conditions and soon after you will see mass die off of species, and humans will be one of the first to go...vertebrate mammals always succumb first to abrupt loss of habitat.
CDR is not likely to work and is delaying serious urgent action and consideration. SRM might be absolutely needed to avoid extinction. If we can't agree on SRM, can we rely on technology saving us, rather than technology stagnation?
Talking about going to the Maldives illustrates the problem well. There is no time left to innovate are way out of this and stop 3.0. The issue is while everyone would have to sacrifice the wealthy much more. Eliminating all private air travel and yachts and other frivolous CO2 should have been an easy no brainer accomplished at the first COP. Wealth can't equate to the right to use more carbon in society anymore. . Most of the reason above 3.0 is not covered is that it is assumed tipping points will be set off for the planet to hit 4-7C . Mark Lynas says he is not worried about extinction in next 30 years. I agree but the more interesting question is what will the population be. 3 to 4 billion is more likely then 10 imo. Technological innovation has slowed incredibly to keep us above the curve according to limits of growth study.
"you can have one hand in the reezer and one hand on a hot plate, and it still hurts." Imagine a level of climates where the earth's experiences of uniform, hemispherical shifts of heat are dialated on time scales further away from day and night. This is what sets us apart from other planets. Everything spread out. Some parts instant. Some parts gradual. the production of life is essentially slowing heat by the release and transfer of energy throughout every living creature imaginable. The production of a lot of things are like miniature abominable planets. Jupiter will be looking at plastic a few years from now, saying "back then it was called earth"
I’m not sure people are smarter than the movie portrays. Perhaps if it was a comet or asteroid something concrete we could see they would but when it comes to all the damage we do to the planet too many still want to deny it. Or just don’t think it matters right now. It’s a future problem. We are too focused on daily life. And people are very good at ignoring things that scare them. Not believing that something bad will happen until it does. How many that are yearly impacted by hurricanes don’t have supplies on hand to deal with it and rush out at the last minute to get things. Or don’t have snow shovels or food put back when they live in a cold snowy climate. And wait until the day before to get food.
This gentleman referred to 'optimism' and 'pessimism '. Our emotional responses have no place in an assessment of where we are situated. First check the biosphere of which we are a part, in particular the insect and plankton populations. Veey shortly we will experience food shortages due to decreasing crop production caused by pertubations in weather patterns. It looks like this year an El Nino is forming after several La Nina years, this will significantly add to the weather disruption. Civilisation will collapse as the food scarcity increases. This process is in play now and will worsen rapidly. I wish this were not so. There is almost zero chance of getting past 2025 in anything like our current comfortable lifestyle....comfortable for some of our species.
Right, I find it funny that to display information that is scary and alarming and point of that out is “emotional” but that being optimistic despite mounting evidence against you is “rational” merely because you aren’t succumbing to fear or terror. Positive emotions read as more rational to some people
Part One Now let us address the terminology so often misused. The current predominant tendency is to use the term - 'Climate Change'. In point of fact, 'climate change' is merely ONE outcome of the underlying dynamic - Anthropogenic Global Warming [AGW]; the *correct* terminology. Which itself is driven by human population expansion. Media coined the term 'climate change' because it underplays the significance of the grave rammifications of AGW; most especially that of near-term human exintinction. . Human Extinction is only 'controversial' to those who lack the ability to understand the myriad of dynamics involved, or those who are still in the denial or anger stages of grief. . So now let us examine some facts: 1. The ongoing combustion of sequestered carbon - fossil fuels - will continue to release copious amounts of greenhouse gasses [ghgs], specifically carbon dioxide [CO2], methane [CH4] and water vapour [H2O] into the atmosphere. 2. In addition to these ghg emissions, are the aerosol emissions spec; sulphates, nitrates and carbonaceous aerosols [inorganic C, organic C and black C - soot]. Currently these aerosol bi-products are affording a temporary reduction in global warming, by attenuating some of the insolation reaching the Earth's surface. However, the 'aerosol masking effect' as it is widely called, is insufficient in slowing the overall rate of change of average global temperature; which of course is still climbing... 3. Loss of the AME in a short timeframe, induces a global mean surface heating of between 0.5 - 1.1 deg C - in addition to latent anthropogenic and biospheric forcing (historical human and natural emissions - Global Warming Potential - climate inertia), with an increase in precipitation of 2.0 - 4.6%; extreme weather indices also increase (...more climate chaos). 4. The above dynamics thus present humans with a physical (technological) predicament.... And predicaments are considered to have no solutions - an impasse. This has become know in certain circles as the 'McPherson Paradox'. Or as James Hansen has dubbed - the 'Faustian Bargain'... . To quote Hansen et al [IOP Science 2013]: // What is clear is that most of the remaining fossil fuels must be left in the ground if we are to avoid dangerous human-made interference with climate. (re: worse-case scenario - a change of biospheric thermoequilibrium/homeostasis).
The principal implication of our present analysis probably relates to the Faustian bargain. Increased short-term masking of greenhouse gas warming by fossil fuel particulate and nitrogen pollution represents a 'doubling down' of the Faustian bargain, an increase in the stakes. The more we allow the Faustian debt to build, the more unmanageable the eventual consequences will be. Yet globally there are plans to build more than 1000 coal-fired power plants (Yang and Cui 2012) and plans to develop some of the dirtiest oil sources (fracking, CH4 extraction) on the planet (EIA 2011). These plans should be vigorously resisted. We are already in a deep hole-it is time to stop digging. // . The prevailing notion is that humans must reduce their use of fossil fuels as an axiomatic imperative, but that the reduction is managed and phased/staged over a specific timeframe and must start with the heaviest polluters - The GMIC (Global Military Industrial Complex); heavy industry; shipping and transportation. However, calculating/modelling a 'specific timeframe' for a planned reduction in FF emissions may prove to be a moot point at this juncture. Whatever transpires, renewables will need to pick-up-the-slack, as more nuclear energy generation must be avoided at all costs (expanded on below...). . 5. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 08-10-2018: Global Warming of 1.5 deg C. // These global warming events of human-driven change far exceed the rates of change driven by geophysical or biospheric forces that have altered the Earth System trajectory in the past [Summerhayes, 2015; Foster et al., 2017]; even abrupt geophysical events do not approach rates of human-driven change. // Re: Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum [PETM - 55My bce]. The one exception perhaps being the Chicxulub Impactor Event [65My bce], which, in anycase was an extraterrestrial bolide event, resulting in the fifth Mass Extinction. . 6. IPCC 24-09-2019: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate: // Ocean acidification and deoxygenation, ice sheet and glacier mass loss and permafrost degradation are expected to be irreversible on time scales relevant to human societies and ecosystems [Lenton et al., 2008; Soloman et al., 2009; FGrolicher and Joos, 2010; Cal et al, 2016; Kopp et al., 2016] // . Geologists not only advocating a new geophysical strata - Anthropocene [f. Holocene], but designating the current interstadial period as ''indefinite''. Meaning: no return to a glacial maximum [stadial] ( 'ice-age') as would be the case if AGW had not occurred. This recategorisation is supported empirically by a rapidly retreating cryosphere and factoring in the global warming potential of recent/historic atm ghg emissions - latency - oceanic thermal uptake, amongst many other factors including past and imminent tipping points and over 65 self-reinforcing feedbacks. . Global Warming is thus regarded as IRREVERSIBLE. So get used to it...
Extensive testing has been done that shows high levels of phosphorus and nitrogen has infiltrated our water systems globally and is increasing fast. Animal Ag is the leading cause!
Supplyng the 84% of energy of fossil fuel from low emissions sources before positive feed back loops take over and fossil fuels already in decline are in short supply is a monuments challenged.
Deep cool or cold- water corals have potential also to repopulate near- surface reefs once conditions there return to former conditions. Except in the case of high ocean acidity through the column.
@@kimlibera663 True. Indirect capture being the key. Example, by spreading ground iron ore (Iron Fertilisation) across the least productive part of the oceans, around the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, just off the edges of the continental shelves, the iron feeds algae that turns into a bloom, that sucks enormous amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere. The bloom, before the algae dies, has the potential to draw in tremendous amounts of fish, thus creating new fisheries. Most of the algae simply die, sinking to the bottom of the ocean, taking that carbon out of the atmosphere and putting it into ocean sediment ie. geological deep storage. The stable captured carbon now acts as a pH buffer, bringing down acidity and raising alkalinity. Process carried out at the two Tropics because these areas are marine deserts, thus there will not be current businesses around to complain about algae blooms destroying their business. And complaining to politically sensitive politicians that would then put the kibosh on the project, as has been happening so far. As for expense, this method of indirect carbon capture is by a long shot, by far easily easily the cheapest method, compared to any other. Except, of course, avoiding putting it in in the first place (but we know civilisation and society has no chance of doing that now, don't we). If anything kills this method, it will be political correctness, over the future life of the planet.
Animal agriculture does have significant environmental impacts, and many argue that it contributes to environmental degradation and climate change. 1) Greenhouse gas emissions: Animal agriculture is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Livestock production, particularly cattle, produces methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Additionally, clearing land for grazing or growing animal feed releases carbon dioxide, contributing to deforestation and climate change. 2) Land and water use: Animal agriculture requires vast amounts of land and water. Raising livestock necessitates large areas for grazing or cultivating animal feed crops. This leads to deforestation, habitat loss, and soil degradation. Furthermore, animal agriculture consumes substantial amounts of water for animal hydration and crop irrigation. 3) Water pollution: The concentration of livestock in factory farming operations generates significant amounts of waste. The runoff from these operations can pollute water bodies, contributing to water pollution and eutrophication. 4) Biodiversity loss: The expansion of animal agriculture encroaches on natural habitats, leading to the loss of biodiversity. Deforestation for grazing or feed crop cultivation reduces habitat availability for various plant and animal species, contributing to species extinction. 5) Antibiotic resistance: The routine use of antibiotics in animal agriculture to promote growth and prevent diseases contributes to the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. This poses risks to human health as well.
'Don't Look Up' - was excellent. The film clearly being aimed at the ignorant masses, with the ET bolide metaphor being the most attention grabbing aspect of the script. Mark Lynas clearly didn't get the idea, instead harping on about how different a real ET bolide would eventuate, as compared to Anthropogenic Global Warming. Strawman argument. Like I said before - no imagination. . Now go and watch 'FINCH' and see if you can grasp the metaphorical meaning in that excellent movie starring Tom Hanks....
It's ridiculous to tell the audience that the interviewer has not bothered to watch "Don't Look Up". A well-prepared interviewer would have watched it. "Don't Look Up" is a wonderful movie chock full of satire, with lots of relevant material to use for this interview. We really are doomed, but with much more suffering involved than that experienced by earthlings in the movie.
@@id9139 Some scientists believe we will be lucky to still be here by 2030. The most likely cause of our extinction is starvation. There may still be a small number who survive this. When we are fewer than 1 billion, perhaps the population can stabilize, but that's just my hope.
Most extreme scenarios that I have seen ends up to 16C with a notion, that any further temperature rise is futile. Perhaps because most if not all of the higher organisms are dead. Of course this kind of scenario is extremely unlikely to happen, but can be calculated by adding up worst case scenarios.
@@kimweaver1252 Relax dudes. We can just relocate the wealthiest percent of humanity to Siberia, Alaska, Greenland, Iceland and the Antarctic. No need to worry about extinction. Several thousand humans would survive even in the bleakest of scenarios. And after a few thousand years, the world will be resettled. Problem solved.
Hi Mark Being at COP 26 you may have seen or heard my charismic friend Jamen Shively. I'm curious why at the end of this video you are not mentioning ground and water-based solar radiation management or SRM? You obviously know the score and I really appreciate your video here. Thanks, Bill D
I know and have supported Roger Hallam outside of XR as an organic farmer. I pressed him a while back to give Dr. Ye Tao some airtime in his group and that happened. I'm currently working with Dr. Ye/MEER. Thx again for this video. If you don't know about land-based SRM please contact me or Ye and we can get you up to speed.
You don't know anything about comets so you should NOT comment on them. SMH. You also don't seem to understand that the tundra has already been compromised. Go take a look at CAMS. You are already behind on what the impacts are but you, like most, have been relying on scientific studies that don't understand/appropriately account for the complexities of our climate system. I think your approach of know-it-all does put me off, especially since your information is dated. Then you make all sorts of assumptions about how we are going to save ourselves since we have 'reduced' our fossil fuel use and that is NOT reflected in the economy at all. You also glaze over feedbacks. If you are just basing your presentation on the IPCC, well, that is your first mistake.. Still, slightly informing.
"Permafrost...might be another 30 40 50 ppm, certainly not a thousand..." how does that alone translate in terms of global temperature rise? Shouldn't scientists and others be concerned then about the thawing of Permafrost and the release of CH4 which by all accounts is more potent than CO2? Given that this discussion was posted here 2 months ago, what do you think of the UK government's "new" energy strategy: does it make you less or more optimistic about the future? Do you think the current IPCC Report and the speech by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres too pessimistic? Nuclear energy: isn't that more a long term project? Wwhile that's under development shouldn't we be doing other things in the meantime to reduce the global temperature given that it is now rather urgent? On 'Don't Look Up': I've not seen it, though I've heard about it and seen clips, and it's analogy in terms of human reaction to looming disaster is very like how governments in real life are dragging their feet when dealing with the climate emergency. However, I would love a H G Wells Time Machine- style film, but to do with climate change, especially the cascade events and their effects on us and our surroundings and imaginings of how successive governments and corporations behave in the face of it: so come on J J Abrams!
Michael Barrett signing off. Environmental scientist/ physics lecturer, Sydney. Extraordinarily good interview in scope and depth. Thank you very much. Open to being contacted.
Agreed - 7 years teaching various sciences adjacent to *the* topic at hand, and with recurring student requests I’m likely teaching AP Environmental Science for the first time in the fall - am wondering how to better prepare each year’s students for what lies ahead- have been getting a lot more vocal pessimism this year than in the past, coincidentally or a direct result of my emphasis on the actual involvement with positive efforts (lots of options in nyc)
Current 1,1C. Predicted 1,5C by 2030 (1% chance to stay under), 2,0C 2050 (95% chance to go over), most likely range of temperature rise by 2100 is 2,0-4,9C (including NDC's that are not achived by our gov's). Currrent trend is going over 4,0C (ie. China is not even negotiating and many are stockpiling fossil fuels ensuring future emissions. Emssions are still growing, not reducing. Natural carbon sinks are turninng to sources. Tipping points like Arctic seaice will begone by 2023-2070. ...). And huge areas in our Globe is on Drought. Some have ended drought, but with extreme flooding (Las Vegas, Pakistan, France, ...). Drought has continued in many places for over 3 years and there are no signs for change. Ground water table has dropped so low that even buildings are nearing collapses. Sea water is seeping in ground water reservoirs too making water too salty to use. Major rivers and lakes has dried up. This is the case under 1,1C, think what probable 2C (95% to go over) and beyond will be...
HER-Helicopter Ecoseed Reforestation can plant trillions of trees to reverse global climate change but we lack the backbone to implement the one thing that can make a difference!
If and when we as a species, or nationally, turn to SRM (which I see as most probably happening), it will be seen as a virtual green light to keep emitting CO2, until the oceans are irrevocably turned into crustacean-shell-dissolving saline acidity. Humans are hopeless, yet will always maintain forlorn hope.
I assume you are talking about SMR. Two countries operate some of them. A breakthrough is not expected at the moment. China, one of the countries operating an SMR, is investing much more in renewable energy. Enerdata: >>In 2021, China’s installed capacity for renewables surpassed 1,000 GW (with 391 GW for hydro, 328 GW for wind and 307 GW for solar)
@@Daguerreotypiste No, was actually talking about Solar Radiation Management. If we implement this geo-engineering strategy the CO2 burning will go on ad-infinitum, till the oceans are acidic from carbolic acid from the rain.
In some point there should be food production under ground... We have had some advancements in this area, but it is not going to be enough for large populations. Also it is pretty energy and intelligence greedy production. It is also something that has to be thought if we ever want to make a Mars colonies that does not need constant support from Earth.
minute 57.09: `if we can stabilize atmospheric concentrations, and if we can do that as close to mid century then we`re still within shooting distance of 1,5 degrees and we`re well below 2, and that `s what really matters` I`m so sorry but I can hardly believe you saying this 😨 I am flabbergasted!! This seems like a comforting rub on the head to keep me/us from panicking... What about tipping points, what about global dimming, what about the current co2 doing it`s destructive work for at least 30 more years, what about the methane, the melting permafrost... I do not understand you... It`s like they paid you hush money...
Science is organize knowledge,, wisdom organize life. Science,religion and politics ,all differ in their opinions,maybe its healthy, maybe not. Scientists do research of universe ,planet Earth etc , that has always existed, and don't need humans opinions,to allow it to exist,has its own laws ,and time etc. With science and research,at least one gets a glimpse of this great and powerful universe ,to which nothing can be changed nor altered,like death.
A 10 year lag in the system. The warming doesn't STOP in a few years. Come on buddy. We are deep into the 6 th mass extinction. Unstoppable now. We are hooked on carbon. ❤️❤️🌎❤️❤️
Sadly Professor Guy McPherson predicts we have less than 10 years to live So cherish each day and embrace with love what’s left of our natural world 🕊❤️🙏🏼
Hi. Agree with you. Just wanted to pass along the best spiritual book I have found. It is free on UA-cam and is "Journey of Souls", by Dr. Michael Newton. Ciao
This amazes me. There are so many “scientific” inaccuracies, I can’t even comment on them. One over-riding issue is that the model errors out to 2100 are at least an order of magnitude larger than the scales on the projections indicating that the data estimates are fantasy. Another is the Arctic sea ice extent which has effectively not changed since 2007 in spite of the CO2 rise. Temperature extremes are likely because we are in a solar max and the earths magnetic field has been weakening significantly over the last forty years. This has a huge effect on the earths energy balance easily explaining the current warming trend. Greenland has no inland temperature monitoring stations and coastal Greenland monitors are highly influenced by ocean temperature moderation. There were no monitors in Greenland interior in the early 20th century when rain very likely fell quite often since I’ve levels were lower than now at that time. Also the global average temperature is not being calculated correctly. Weighted averages are not being used causing a warming bias in the data. Satellite data is not accurate because of the measurement zones and misinterpretation of the data. This presentation is just scaring people with no concrete scientific justification.
Dr. Patrick Moore talks about the issue of bleeching of the coral reefs...he says that bleeching is a natural process when the animals that live in the coral release their phytoplankton in unison, it doesn't at all mean that the coral is dying...we all know that we see coral in warmer water...coral likes warm water, logically...warmer seas means more coral, not less...
he also shows that CO2 has been in concentrations of thousands of parts per million in past millennia and Coral survived that just fine, so why would 420 be a problem
Mark is very courageous to attempt to predict the impacts on human society after around 2 deg Celsius. The big problem I have with Mark's 1 to 6 deg incremental steps to ultimate catastrophe is they reinforce the linear thinking style, when that is going to look rather silly once we get multiple interdependent support systems all beginning to fail at 1.5 - 2 degrees. My expectation is that human extinction will probably come well before 6 degrees, due to widespread radioactive isotope pollution, or more dramatically, nuclear Armageddon. I can easily imagine modern civilized life nearly non-existent sometime before 3 degrees.
That's probably how it will go in my opinion as well....and in a not too distant future either... I used to think it would be well after my children's lifetimes (they are 25 and 27 years old) but have understood lately, that it would be horrifyingly sooner... We must not indulge in false hope anymore but get busy in helping anyone we can, in anyway we can.
We're not talking extinction, 8 billion people?
We're talking multiple billion deaths, total societal collapse... perhaps back to the stone age, with that bottle neck ~10,000 breading pairs.. but extinction?
This problem will solve itself like it does with every other species that exhibits niche overshoot - with their material extinction!! I actually don't believe anymore that we can turn this around...if we did, it would be the first case in planetary history where a species has both engineered its own demise and its own resurrection. Hansen et. al. (2023) Global Warming in the Pipeline says that we'll hit 4 degrees C by century's end and the equilibrium climate sensitivity at 4.1 W/m^2 is 10 degrees C. This doesn't consider positive feedbacks which the increase in water vapor and reduced albedo are the two most important. My opinion only...
@DanHelfrichGP --- Mark is very courageous to attempt to predict the impacts on human society after around 2 deg Celsius.
Wayne Patterson --- Your "2 deg Celsius" is a fantasy temperature number, because the temperature numbers and temperature datasets used by the Climate Change Alarmists to incite an irrational fear about the Earth's climates are in fact imaginary temperature numbers fabricated by the Climate Change Alarmists. Those temperature numbers fabricated by the Climate Change Alarmists have no scientific validity whatsoever and constitute a fraud upon the world's societies. Your actions to further disseminate the fraudulent fears at the expense of the public well being implicates yourself in the nefarious activities of the Alarmist Climate Change fraudsters.
DanHelfrichGP --- The big problem I have with Mark's 1 to 6 deg incremental steps to ultimate catastrophe is they reinforce the linear thinking style, when that is going to look rather silly once we get multiple interdependent support systems all beginning to fail at 1.5 - 2 degrees. My expectation is that human extinction will probably come well before 6 degrees, due to widespread radioactive isotope pollution, or more dramatically, nuclear Armageddon. I can easily imagine modern civilized life nearly non-existent sometime before 3 degrees.
Wayne Patterson --- Your prophesied "human extinction will probably come" when the suicidal delusions of people like you result in the genocide of Humans, the extinction of the Animal Kingdom, and the extinction of the Plant Kingdom when they choose to block the Solar energy from the Sun with spaceborne shading or by the premature reduction of Life-giving atmospheric Carbon dioxide to less than the 180 ppm to 150 ppm levels required to continue photosynthesis in the Plant Kingdom. The Biden Administration just released a report which contemplates what amounts to a proposed Crime Against Humanity by blocking the Sun's energy from reaching the Earth at the same time they are destroying the fossil fuel industries and making the insanely failed effort to replace those fossil fueled industries with the Solar Power arrays and Wind Turbines who they are rendering ineffective by blocking the Sun's energy. It seems that these proponents of the suicidal "Green Energy Deal/s" can hardly aspire to be anymore of a greater proposed threat to Humanity and the Earth's environment than they are at the present. Your willfully ignorant and delusional support for their Crimes Against Humanity reflects badly upon you.
@@ashwinisarah Right there with you and my children are only slightly older. It's tragically sad...
Yes. The answer is yes. We have hurt Mother Earth with our toxic waste, trash, and destroying forests, wildlife areas and so much more. We are the form of our own destroyer. We are the worst things to ever happen to this world. We take and destroy life all around us. May mother show no mercy to all who think money and wealth is more important then the planet we live on.
Correct. We have manufactured our own demise. There will be no mercy for anyone, regardless of wealth or status. As a matter of fact the people who survive will live an agonizing existence, until they, too, die.
Toxic waste and trash are bad, but they do not cause climate change and aren’t ruining the planet. Deforestation is not what they’re talking about either, although it does contribute to higher atmospheric GHG concentration. They’re discussing climate change as a threat to humanity, not the poor ways humanity is treating the planet generally.
Lynas is much concerned about Maldives becoming submerged by a couple of meters of sea level rise but never mentions a far more consequential result of such a rise. The rice producing lowlands of the Mekong Delta, etc. which feed more than one billion people will be destroyed by saltwater intrusion and flooding by such a change in sea level. Maybe Musk and Branson’s space travel enterprises will be able to send all who are adversely affected to Mars where they can live happily ever after.
A fair share of china's main agricultural area's are also none too high above sea level, not as to be flooded immediately, but sure susceptible to being swamped by rising sea levels.
I have thought the same thing. The reality is that Lynas may open some eyes as to the demise of human beings. That means all of us.
True, agricultural output globally is dropping. So Mekong Delta, or Ganges Delta, or Ukraine, food production is going down. And F**K Branson and Elon Stinking White Turds of Late Capitalism.
River deltas will move inland, and the rice production will move with it.
@@BogenmacherD An important point when when considers the vast majority of the world population live in cities at estuaries of major rivers.
I don't know where Lynas is getting his info. According to most climate scientists, the risk of a major disruption of human civilization will begin long before we reach 5 degrees C above the preindustrial global average temperature. We are already seeing major problems with droughts, floods, storms, wildfires, accelerated ice melt. warming oceans, etc. With greenhouse gas emissions still increasing, we could reach 1.5 degrees of warming by 2030 and 2 degrees well before 2050. His calm voice may sound reassuring and scholarly, but he is significantly underestimating the severity of the situation we are in. This is an existential crisis, whether or not he realizes it. His reference to past millenarian predictions is pjorative in nature and not evidentiary.
We are already beyond 2 Celsius. Check out Dr. Guy McPherson.
Hi. I think Dr. Lynas is more informed than 99% of the world. If you can read beyond the words, good. I fully understand Dr. Lynas not responding to ignorant trolls. Nor should he.
Very optimistic on your part thinking we or anyone else will be alive in 50 years we will be lucky to have 10 years left!
Once the pollinators are gone humanity is in real trouble. We could see a situation developing where the majority of humanity is starving. People are not going to starve quietly. Combined with a lack of water, food shortages will be a recipe for endless war.
Billions of people will also be unable to live in the tropics. In consequence, billions of people will be on the move trying to reach those parts of the World in the Northern and Southern latitudes which are still livable. Mass murder and genocide will become common place. The resulting conflicts in a 4 degree World will make World War 2 look like an elementary school pillow fight. In effect, we will be living in a Solyent Green World. In comparison to what the future holds, the Holocaust of the Jews will be comparable to a light comedy.
You are entirely correct of what will happen. That is why to find our spirituality, NOW
There are 8 billion of us…maybe the carrying capacity for a while will be 0.5-1 billion…yeah gonna be a bloodbath like the world has never seen.
The maximum temperature the honeybee can endure is 107° that is where the inside of the honeybee is a ejected from the inside of the thorax. I write an example of the honeybee and had disappeared in a portion or a city in China. I watched a video as the Chinese had installed ladders underneath apple orchards and they were hand pollinating the flowers.
I believe it was the intergovernmental panel on climate change that predicted that based on the future prediction of temperatures of Earth, that I think it was three degrees or four degrees most life on Earth would become extinct Earth has had two greenhouse-gas mass extinction events actually I think the third one was the first one which is the devonian. But I haven't done any research on the devonian era. I know a little bit about the Permian great dying event 242 million years ago. I know 90% of all species on Earth died. Scientists at the rice have possibly a volcanic chamber head pierced to a giant c o a l deposit which increased the CO2 output. It could have been five thousand years carbon emissions. It's very possible that has planet Earth continue to warm, the warming ocean temperatures had migrated down to the bottom of the ocean. Likely it melted methane hydrate deposits and flooded the atmosphere with trillions and trillions of pounds of methane. That event killed off 90% of all biodiversity on planet Earth. Of course there's the 66 million year chicxulub meteor crater explosion that killed off the dinosaurs. And then the last message stiction event was 55 million years ago. That was another volcanic CO2 event. The duration of the event was 10000 to 20000 years. A total of 3 to 7 trillion tons of carbon dioxide was emitted into the atmosphere. Planetary temperatures climb to 5 - 8 degrees Celsius killing off 68% of all biodiversity on planet Earth. Species that were mobile, such as alligators avian Birds, tortoises they all started to migrate into the Arctic. And that's exactly what's happening today with marine species down at the equator. Temperatures of 91° or a 33 to 35 degrees Celsius are occurring at the equator during the peak summer cycle. So surface-dwelling marine species are moving North to the Arctic. During the months of June July August heatstroke temperatures in Cambodia Laos and Vietnam are so high that people can't go outside without risking heatstroke and heat stroke death. So what this is forcing the Vietnamese workers to work outside in the middle of the night doing the rice paddy work.
Denying humanity's meritorious near-term extinction? PRICELESS
Humanities'. At least spell it right.
@@jamestiburon443 indeed ! - the more accurate term however is misery monkey. aka Homo moronicus rex
How near term? Are we talking 2025, 2030 2040?
@@id9139 Don't hold your breath but don't procreate - live each day to the fullest 'cause it ain't going to get any better than now - ever
I bet you are not a parent.
Sweet summer child still believes humanity would get it together to deal with an incoming comet. 🙃
😄 We know humanity.
It's not going to happen.
An appropriate question would have been “What evidence do you see that the world will reduce emissions any time soon?”
Ehh… Carbon Bombs! No wait…..
Sarcasm put aside, thanks for pointing this out.
So, what's wrong with the question?
It's absolutely bang on, to me.
No time for "appropriate" questions.
"Look up" has nothing to do with comets.
There is no evidence that humans are intelligent or wise and ethical enough to save Life. In fact, after 40 years of warnings and 26 IPCC COPS, there has been ZERO reductions in emissions. The egos that control the fossil fuels and the billionaire's fortunes that are dependent on it will not sacrifice a single penny for life. That is because they are deeply and profoundly immoral. They must be stopped by force or humanity will perish...within 5 years tops. If every human being on Earth does not fight NOW and band together to demand an end to fossil fuels, the stupid inept politicians, whose offices and careers are dependent on fossil fuels (Joe Manchin et al ) will continue killing us until every last life is gone.
This is a battle between good and evil...life and death.
@@Magik1369
Great comment.
All we have to do is break the bonds
of divide and rule and all stand together
and demand action on the climate.
'They got the guns, but we've got
the numbers.
Gonna win, yeah, we're takin' over.
Come on'.
Jim Morrison. Rip.
Our emissions are not going to affect the ultimate fate of humans as a sufficient number of significant positive feedback systems are now activated and we have no control over them. Our efforts will only slightly change the timing.
Keep doing what we are doing and we end soon.
Take extraordinary actions and make huge sacrifices and we get to suffer a bit longer before we go extinct.
I think it's unrealistic to expect the northern countries to accept hundreds of millions of climate refugees. The carrying capacity of the world will also be drastically reduced. Realistically we're looking at mass starvation, war and disease to eliminate 50-90% of the human population over the coming decades.
I think you are very accurate in how things, realistically, will play out.
Northern countries are lifeboats and there is probably too much people in them already.
I think it's unrealistic to expect the native indigenous northern peoples to accept hundreds of millions of genocidal white Westerners invading their lands where they've lived for over ten thousand years.
Northern countries better make sure they're very heavily armed then if they plan to keep those refugees out. Desperate people do desperate things. And you know India and Pakistan have nukes.
@@avii.8075Canada, Russia, Greenland and Alaska are mostly empty. A lot depends on whether warming will expand their agricultural potential.
I find it odd how discussions about geoengineering and solar radiation management (SRM) seldom mention the fact that a planet with an average temperature of 14C and 270ppm is not at all the same as a planet with 14C and 550ppm and a dimmer sun. A future Earth with SRM and pre-industrial temperatures would have considerably cooler conditions in the tropics and much warmer poles. So the ice would still melt, the ocean currents would be affected, ecosystems would still collapse, mass extinction would still occur, climate zones would still shift and agricultural production would still be severely reduced, leading to widespread warfare and human misery. There are a few climate impacts that would be avoided, though, like wet bulb temperatures making large portions of the globe physically uninhabitable. But all in all SRM wouldn't really be solving the core of the problem, that ecosystems and human infrastructure are where they are because of a certain climate and that any rapid change is bad. An additional risk is that once you're blocking out the sun, you have to keep doing it for decades. Any interruption would cause catastrophic rebound effects.
I think that these arguments should convince each and every person with a working brain that SRM is a terrible idea. The only mental process that could push a species that calls itself sapiens to deploy SRM, is the same process which makes people in burning buildings jump out the window from the 60th floor.
It's almost like we're just chimps that don't really understand the intricacies of our planet and should stop pretending that the mechanism that built the time bomb we've triggered, is somehow capable of being reimagined to disable it.
I'll believe technology can save the world when I see it undo damage we've done. I'm also tired of listening to experts that clearly live very comfortable lifestyles. Everyone is either bought or too invested in the future because they're parents for them to be honest about the future we've bought and paid for.
The hubris of it all... we killed the world and don't even have the decency to feel bad about it.
@grindupBaker All right then... I'm really curious now.
Why would ecosystems collapse? Are we sure it's really CO2? There's evidence to suggest the solar irradiance data has been screwed with, just like the climategate data selection crap.
@@kayakMike1000 "Are we sure it's really CO2?" Yes, we are megalithically, astronomically sure. And we've been sure for over three decades.
"There's evidence to suggest the solar irradiance data has been screwed with". Even if the data had been screwed with, or even if we didn't have any data at all because we didn't know how to measure solar irradiance, we would still know it's not the sun. If the sun were causing the planet to warm, we would see more warming around the equator and less at the poles, more in the daytime and less at night, more in summer and less in winter. In fact we see the opposite, which is a characteristic fingerprint of and increased greenhouse effect. This fingerprint was predicted before we could observe it.
This and many other lines of evidence all point at the same conclusion: it's warming, it's us and it's really bad. If these basic conclusions were based only on one dataset, there would be plenty of room for skepticism. But since we have thousands upon thousands of datasets and tens of thousands of scientists who have been working on hundreds of branches of climate-related sciences for over a century, the combined knowledge points to a conclusion which has a probability of 99,99999999% to be accurate.
The truth is that there is no more room for doubt or debate on these basic facts. That door closed well over twenty years ago. If you are still in denial, that's the result of an extremely effective and well-funded and well-organized PR campaign initiated by the fossil fuel industry in the 1980's.
Climategate is a fake scandal that was a part of this PR effort. It was orchestrated to catch media attention right before the COP15 climate summit in Copenhagen, with enough time to make people doubt, but not enough for the investigations to show that none of the accusations were based on any substance at all. Eight (8!!) independent investigations were carried out and all of them agreed that scientists hadn't committed any fraud. It was indeed extremely selective crap.
The result of the organised climate denial campaign is that we didn't reduce our emissions when we knew we had to, but instead emitted more each year. Organized climate denial has resulted in milennia of irreversible change and misery and is as such the most destructive and immoral operation any humans have ever carried out.
Please, Michael, look the facts in the eye. Admit that you were wrong. It's okay to be wrong. We need you on the right side of history.
Fucking brilliant response mate.
exactly how are near term extinction proponents getting it wrong and exagerating the threat? we could teach pigs to fly but i'll put that in the 0.0001% probability category just above "humans will stop overshoot by choice" and just below "a few thousand will survive the bottleneck."
If you are young enough you will see it. ! The actual mitigation will not really happen until some catastrophic events drive home the risks. So the 1.5 goal will not happen but anything we do will help to some extent.
Will not stop the cyclones/hurricanes though, they will increase and so will drought and starvation.
@@linmal2242 i see zero evidence that we could contain global warming below +4°C even if we shut it all down today and neither does the pentagon. as you say when the crisis hits it will be a scramble for survival not emissions. we will see the feedbacks kick-in to dwarf our contribution very soon even the geriatric will get a front row seat.
If we're currently on a worst case trajectory, and never have lowered emissions (exceptions being the Great Recession and the pandemic lock downs), is it not plausible and scientific to suggest that such a reduction in emissions will likely not be realized absent a sustained global economic collapse? Tim Garrett's recent paper suggests renewable energy sources have only added to the energy mix, and have not displaced fossil fuel use, but only increased the demand for all forms of energy - an example of Jevon's Paradox:
Garrett, Timothy J., Matheus Grasselli, and Stephen Keen. "Past world economic production constrains current energy demands: Persistent scaling with implications for economic growth and climate change mitigation." Plos one 15.8 (2020): e0237672.
At 4C of warming, how is there only a 1 in 10 and 1 in 4 chance that warming will continue to 5C, if Arctic ice is gone in summer at 3 C (as early as 2030 as per CMIP6 even if all emissions stopped now) advancing warming on an estimated order of 25 years:
Pistone, Kristina, Ian Eisenman, and Veerabhadran Ramanathan. "Radiative heating of an ice‐free Arctic Ocean." Geophysical Research Letters 46.13 (2019): 7474-7480.
Also note, that the IPCC 1.5C plan to cut emissions 50% by 2030 and eliminate them by 2050, then requires negative emissions after that to reach target. So the deployment of likely unscalable negative emissions technology is assumed by IPCC goals, which seems unrealistic and unscientific.
Finally, what are "zero carbon aviation fuel" options other than biofuels and hydrogen with break even and negative energy return on energy investment, respectively?
A very good comment. I'm also listening to the presentations/interviews of Kevin Anderson, he is very pragmatic and realistic regarding the "net zero"-lie and "new technologies". He also states that almost all projections of the IPCC include a heavy use of negative emission-technologies, which shows, how desperate our situation is. And I doubt that a global cooperation between nations will be possible. Even inside one country there are so many different societal groups, interests and perspectives - and the leaders of almost every nation are corrupt and strongly influenced by lobby-groups. Equity is key and is hardly mentioned anywhere.
One small example I'm seeing among fellow Green Boomers. They would never install AC (in Canada), but once they have heat pumps for more efficient use of our clean electricity, they go ahead and use the cooling function in summer. And Ontario's right-wing premier has pulled in EV and battery production,but because we don't actually generate enough power for all those electric cars, he's pushing to burn natural gas to generate more power.
@@lshwadchuck5643 bad look if grid crashes during prime time television hours because all the commuters are charging.
PART ONE
Now let us address the terminology so often misused. The current predominant tendency is to use the term - 'Climate Change'. In
point of fact, 'climate change' is merely ONE outcome of the underlying dynamic - Anthropogenic Global Warming [AGW]; the
*correct* terminology. Which itself is driven by human population expansion. Media coined the term 'climate change' because it
underplays the significance of the grave rammifications of AGW; most especially that of near-term human exintinction.
.
Human Extinction is only 'controversial' to those who lack the ability to understand the myriad of dynamics involved, or those who
are still in the denial or anger stages of grief.
.
So now let us examine some facts:
1. The ongoing combustion of sequestered carbon - fossil fuels - will continue to release copious amounts of greenhouse gasses
[ghgs], specifically carbon dioxide [CO2], methane [CH4] and water vapour [H2O] into the atmosphere.
2. In addition to these ghg emissions, are the aerosol emissions spec; sulphates, nitrates and carbonaceous aerosols [inorganic C,
organic C and black C - soot]. Currently these aerosol bi-products are affording a temporary reduction in global warming, by
attenuating some of the insolation reaching the Earth's surface. However, the 'aerosol masking effect' as it is widely called, is
insufficient in slowing the overall rate of change of average global temperature; which of course is still climbing...
3. Loss of the AME in a short timeframe, induces a global mean surface heating of between 0.5 - 1.1 deg C - in addition to latent
anthropogenic and biospheric forcing (historical human and natural emissions - Global Warming Potential - climate inertia), with an
increase in precipitation of 2.0 - 4.6%; extreme weather indices also increase (...more climate chaos).
4. The above dynamics thus present humans with a physical (technological) predicament.... And predicaments are considered to
have no solutions - an impasse. This has become know in certain circles as the 'McPherson Paradox'. Or as James Hansen has
dubbed - the 'Faustian Bargain'...
.
To quote Hansen et al [IOP Science 2013]: // What is clear is that most of the remaining fossil fuels must be left in the ground if we
are to avoid dangerous human-made interference with climate. (re: worse-case scenario - a change of biospheric
thermoequilibrium/homeostasis).
The principal implication of our present analysis probably relates to the Faustian bargain. Increased short-term masking of
greenhouse gas warming by fossil fuel particulate and nitrogen pollution represents a 'doubling down' of the Faustian bargain, an
increase in the stakes. The more we allow the Faustian debt to build, the more unmanageable the eventual consequences will be.
Yet globally there are plans to build more than 1000 coal-fired power plants (Yang and Cui 2012) and plans to develop some of the
dirtiest oil sources (fracking, CH4 extraction) on the planet (EIA 2011). These plans should be vigorously resisted. We are already in
a deep hole-it is time to stop digging. //
.
The prevailing notion is that humans must reduce their use of fossil fuels as an axiomatic imperative, but that the reduction is
managed and phased/staged over a specific timeframe and must start with the heaviest polluters - The GMIC (Global Military
Industrial Complex); heavy industry; shipping and transportation. However, calculating/modelling a 'specific timeframe' for a
planned reduction in FF emissions may prove to be a moot point at this juncture. Whatever transpires, renewables will need to
pick-up-the-slack, as more nuclear energy generation must be avoided at all costs (expanded on below...).
.
5. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 08-10-2018: Global Warming of 1.5 deg C. // These global warming events
of human-driven change far exceed the rates of change driven by geophysical or biospheric forces that have altered the Earth
System trajectory in the past [Summerhayes, 2015; Foster et al., 2017]; even abrupt geophysical events do not approach rates of
human-driven change. // Re: Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum [PETM - 55My bce]. The one exception perhaps being the
Chicxulub Impactor Event [65My bce], which, in anycase was an extraterrestrial bolide event, resulting in the fifth Mass Extinction.
.
6. IPCC 24-09-2019: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate: // Ocean acidification and
deoxygenation, ice sheet and glacier mass loss and permafrost degradation are expected to be irreversible on time scales relevant
to human societies and ecosystems [Lenton et al., 2008; Soloman et al., 2009; FGrolicher and Joos, 2010; Cal et al, 2016; Kopp et
al., 2016] //
.
Geologists not only advocating a new geophysical strata - Anthropocene [f. Holocene], but designating the current interstadial
period as ''indefinite''. Meaning: no return to a glacial maximum [stadial] ( 'ice-age') as would be the case if AGW had not
occurred. This recategorisation is supported empirically by a rapidly retreating cryosphere and factoring in the global warming
potential of recent/historic atm ghg emissions - latency - oceanic thermal uptake, amongst many other factors including past and
imminent tipping points and over 65 self-reinforcing feedbacks.
.
Global Warming is thus regarded as IRREVERSIBLE. So get used to it...
.
Increased CO2 leads to increase plant growth which leads to decreased CO2. Plants also release methane. It's far more nuanced than any of these representations. It's also still completely unknown as to whether AGW influences the end of the interglacial. It would be good if it did - from the human viewpoint - seeing as 5x as many people die from cold as from heat. A return to cold would be absolutely catastrophic.
Great discussion, thank you! I found Mark's comment about how close we are to tipping the Amazon very sobering. Also his comments about how vulnerable our food system is to a "freak" multiple-disaster scenario that would decimate our global bread-basket regions with droughts or floods.
Yes I actually monitor remote sensing satellite data the temperatures of all the continents and yes this year the temperatures in the Amazon in Bolivia in Argentina and other surrounding countries they are for the most part this winter at close to 100° and that's winter what's it going to be like in December oh my God I can't even imagine. It's so distressing that over the last five to ten years I've seen so much change in global temperature. That humans are pushing Earth into another Hothouse mass extinction event. I reiterated this too many people that as a human species wear a f****** over planet and if it's based on Dr Peter Carter who is an expert at reading the ipcc report, between now and the year 2100 up to 1 billion humans could perish and most biodiversity would vanish. That's why carbon dioxide emissions should be priority 40 years ago. Also the United Nations should had it made it mandatory that global overpopulation and capitalism where the other drivers of deforestation and Rapid carbon dioxide emissions
For the last two months I've been monitoring temperatures in the Amazon and they are peeking over 100 degrees Fahrenheit good I've never seen this occur in the middle of the southern hemispheres winter cycle. So I looked up on news on the Amazon and the temperatures already killing biodiversity. River dolphins are dying. Paraguay is having forest fires surprise me anytime temperatures reach over 100 degrees Fahrenheit in a forest, there's always fires it doesn't matter where on Earth that doesn't matter if it's the Arctic it doesn't matter if it's over Louisiana which occurred this summer it almost always happens
@@nicolatesla5786early 2024 update?
Two things are missing for me in this conversation. One of them is the aerosol masking affect. The second one is the impact of temperature rises on the increase frequency of earthquakes and their severity.
Critical climate systems starting to potentially tip permanently into new states: ice sheets, sea ice, permafrost, jet stream, Atlantic overturning circulation, etc.
So if those things interact, and they interact like the proverbial dominoes arrayed upright, we could get in the worst case scenario; the domino dynamics where you just tip one thing and then it triggers feedbacks that tip another and we just lose control of the situation.
This is the biggest risk in terms of fundamentally shifting the whole nature and state of the climate system potentially into what we called hot house earth; a reference to some past climates that haven't been seen for about 40 or 50 million years and that look completely different. Well we don't want to go there.
And we don’t need things to get so bad I think for this to be an existential threat.
That is why you should search and find your spirituality now.
Wow this guy is completely off his rocker. This is the kind of bs that gives people the false impression that we are still okay. The data is the data but his Pollyanna interpretation is criminal.
Self righteousness has no bounds
Indeed, please choose your speakers amongst educated folks, he obviously hasn't read the IPCC. Might even have some vested interests.
Indoctrinated climate catastrophe nuts are funny. Wake up
he's a brown-No$er
No you live in a bubble.i monitor global tempatures and yes, the tempatures in many cases are from 104 to 120 to as high as 130f
Crops die in these tempatures and these high Long lasting heat waves are spreading across the planet. Esrth had also has two green house gas mass extinction events. One was 242 million years ago and the other was 55 million years ago. This first one killed of 90% of all biodiversity and the second one killed off 68% of all biodiversity.
Wow! In the opening moments and the speaker gives all kinds of credits to humanity fixing the problem. “Less stupid”? Gee, the UK government has recently approved dumping raw sewage into drinking water, swimming contact water, etc and no negative response from the public. Fixing Climate Catastrophe? Poop must taste good.
I disagree when it comes to the question that it is not too late. The problem is our way of thinking. The current Capitalist economic system that hold the World in thrall is based on endless growth. The idea that one can have endless growth in a finite system is lunacy. Furthermore, in a classical Capitalist economy the environment is considered an externality. As far as a Capitalist is concerned, a forest habitat has no value until it's converted into consumer products. If this type of thinking remains the norm, we are doomed. Also, with the brewing conflict between the World's major powers the chance of meaningful negotiations to deal with this existential problem looks remote to say the least. At the same time, we may not have decades to solve our environmental problems once positive feedback mechanisms come into play. There exists a possibility that collapse could come with breathtaking speed. The climate might flip within a period as short as ten years if rate of change becomes non linear.
The problem talking about risk of extinction, is that most people would rather listen to a big fat reassuring lie rather than face the bitter truth.
I fully understand after reading so many comments why Dr. Lynas is silent. Let me just say , that "Our Final Warning 6 Degrees" is the most informed book about climate. Thank you for writing it. Now, having observed social media I am signing off.
He is not “Dr. Lynas”. He holds an undergraduate degree in history and politics. He is a communication specialist, not a scientist.
@@chuckmaceanruig So, his book, "6 Degrees: Our Final Warning" is not a very enlightening book?
Fairly simple. No scientist to date has produced any empirical evidence showing any harms from anthropogenic C02 climate change.
@@chuckmaceanruig I'm polisci. Helped detect certain 'impetus' in climate Discourse shall we say.
Lynas and I are like political opponents on 70 80%
I also har masters in library science I hope adds to my ability to discern quality tier of publications. Can't be a subject specialist in every subject and be any use in the library. You'd be Lt. Commander Data of Star Trek
Eisenhower farewell address also mentions danger of a Science Complex that disregards inputs of the people.
I've noted PhD in relevant field unaware of PETM
Collaborative process is necessary
Do you really think we have to wait till 4 degrees to have large areas uninhabitable? The models and scientific predictions have consistently been way too conservative so to keep underestimating the situation is crazy.
Fully agree. Recent ocean temperature rises goes to show how much false optimism is blinding us from the gravity of the situation
It's not just heat killing the coral, (a other shelled creatures), it is ocean acidification.
You do realize acidification is impossible. As the ocean warms CO2 is released into the atmosphere making the water less acidic. The amount of CO2 that can be retained in water decreases with each increase in temperature. The constant is atmospheric pressure.
@@starleyshelton2245When does it turn around then since the ocean has been decreasing in pH as atmospheric CO2 levels have risen.
the movie inbound comet analogy is actually fairly good. There are initially plans to divert or blow up the comet, but these are cancelled/aborted when it is discovered that there is a valuable resource on the comet that can be mined for a profit. So, action to change the comet trajectory is postponed to see if countries/corporations can make some money off it first....
Yup. We have solutions, but they require sacrifices. So we chose to delay them until they are profitable. It's mass suicide.
Drilling for oil in the Arctic. New trans-arctic shipping lanes. 🤦♀️😳💀🌀
Yeah I don’t think they got the movie - my take it was about abrupt climate change. The valuable resource on the comet is a good analogy. Myopic thinking was well portrayed.
Fairly simple. No scientist to date has produced any empirical evidence showing any harms from anthropogenic C02 climate change.
@@raduungureanu2080 Fairly simple. No scientist to date has produced any empirical evidence showing any harms from anthropogenic C02 climate change.
I walked along the twin railway track towards the oncoming traffic, so as i would see the train before it got to me. The train appeared in the distance, its roar became loud and i could now clearly see it was time to change to the other track. The noise roared almost deafening me as i looked behind me, the train going the other way at 120km an hour or so, was right in my face.
That's almost where we are as a species. But we need to add that we seem to have our foot stuck between the points of a switch.
The train has always been deafeningly close 😉
Yes and both trains are non existing fear porn
@@andreaswerdecker287ok exxon
One of the arguments for keeping all the fossil fuel industries going is the problem with 'jobs' and worries about causing unemployment...but it would be easy to shut down any planet harming industry if it was simply made financially worthwhile for people to start SHARING the jobs we can agree we NEED people to do and work much LESS...there wouldn't even be such a thing as unemployment if it was made worthwhile to share the jobs we NEED instead of everyone primarily working and doing anything FOR money.
We should plant and grow rainbows and lollipops, too, while we're at it.
Those ideas have been tried out in the old Soviet Union and it's satellite states, also China, but deemed to be unsuccessful at stimulate ppl to develop new products and businesses.
Also put in practice in the Rheinland model and USA New Deal and Great society,a mix of entrepreneur economy and social measures, supported by a solid tax system. Those systems did manage to provide a decent standard of living to workers in the West, so that USSR and China were beat at their own game. Economists mistakenly thought it been free market that won the cold war and kicked out the social democrat model as socialist rubbish that burdened business with too many rules and too steep taxes Now workers in the West make less than half of what net salary they had during the cold war, needing two or three jobs where one would suffice before 1990. Millions of dissatisfied voted in Trump, voted out of EU (Brexit) and go after populist parties in Europe - who disagree with anything in climate policy.
If the West had stuck to the actual winning system, wonder where we'd be today
@@reuireuiop0 what I suggested has NEVER been tried..
@@peterjol Anarchy works at smaller population levels. I don't know how it could be instituted now given complexity, interdependence, and cultural norms that exist today.
No energy, no jobs. All jobs require using some tools. A car, a delivery truck, a computer, a twenty ton hydraulic press, a CNC machine. Buildings need light, restaurants need an oven to cook with. No fossil fuels, we'll all be doomed to live like they did 150 years ago, just no kerosene lanterns.
Most likely Arctic permafrost will add somewhere around 0,5C temperature rise (100-1000 GtCO2e), so worst case is around doubling our 2C limit carbon in the atmosphere. More worrisome is pure methane releases that may peak temperature in few years. These methane bombs lies under shallow Arctic seabed, as methane hydrates or under permafrost lid on the seafloor, and Arctic seas are rapidly warming.
Yes, that is occuring whilst we waste our time. Spirituality mate
Don't forget the collapse of the gulf stream and others like it.
Currently the total content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and this is by Leading climate scientists is it contains twice as much carbon dioxide then in the atmosphere
We won’t stop. Greed will win. Prepare
Dr Andrew glickson from Australia says that we have already crossed two degrees c, what say you?
The hopium dealers found a trick: they change the baseline.
Btw what is the actual average global temp? Any idea where that simple number can be found?
Except on arctic-news there's no number I could find.
Glickson says 2.2* above
Paper in 2021 says New England warmed by 1.8 from 1960 to 2020 !!!
Regardless, the number really means very little to victims of global warming
Our leaders need to lead
Unfortunate for us that doesn't happen
Kinda feels like we all are on our own
@@paulchace2391that includes the faux ice age of late 70s. 1979 broke 1890 lows in Midwest
I'd call suspect if started set in say 1976. 1960 sounds more seeking reflective of wanting 'truth'
Methodology section will usually explain reasoning
Chock full of dire predictions but then has a pangloss view that somehow we will save ourselves with nothing to back it up.
When mountain glaciers melt, that will not only affect on water availability. These glaciers have also weather balancing features, because they absorb and release energy while they grow or reduce ice/snow mass. The local weather patterns most likely will go worse after these glaciers are diminished too much. Even melt water brings needed cooling water to quite large areas and that allows also plants to grow. When this is gone the water source is gone and vegetation is reducing from that area. Also when heavy rains comes, then there is no glacier to keep that snow/rain and it streams down in days instead of months bringing more floods, flash floods and mudslides down hill.
Even the permafrost that binds the mountain tops is thawing making them more vulnerable for collapse. Glaciers are also reflecting sunlight, so when they are gone, the ground takes more heat to the area making it even hotter.
Recent month has shown extreme drought and rivers without water or at very low levels. Rivers like: Po, Seine, Rhein, Danube, Yangtse, Colorado river, ... All of these have had mountain glaciers in their starting areas. In some parts of the world these drying rivers are generating wars (Kashmir area, Middle East). These impacts will be hard for locals, but will also affect globally, because ie. agriculture and industrial production will suffer. Prices are jumping already.
Yes. That does seem to be down the road.
But glacial water can be captured & stored like in a dam so there is no effect on water supply; in fact it provides drinking water. In addition glacial water is better tasting esp if it is situated over limestone.
Yes glaciers and the Arctic Ice Sheets reflect 90% of all the photon energy back into space. What's the ice sheets in the Arctic continue to disappear more and more ocean surface continues to absorb more Photon energy converting it into heat. That intern continues to warm the atmosphere in the Arctic. That will cause the Hadley cell circulations to slow across the mid-latitudes curated that will cause the jet stream to slow even more and a slow jet stream will have more severe rossby waves and will equate in more severe heat waves and possibly Polar Arctic Outburst from the Arctic
@@kimlibera663 that may be true but also remember this about snowfields that cover Mountain terrain it hydrates the forest floor keeps it moist provides moisture for trees and bushes keeps them hydrated. A wet moist Forest is a forest that doesn't spread fires. Those fires will smolder and stay extremely self-contained and barely migrate from tree to tree. If you want to see an example of a force that has been completely dried out from a heatwave look no further than Fort McMurray Alberta win the Omega Heatwave occurred over the city and over the region. You'll see several different examples on UA-cam where the fires were at least 1/2 to watch full-length over the height of the tree. That is the dry Christmas tree effect and that will actually incinerate towns especially with high winds. It's not the flames it's the firebrands that make contact with the homes high wind that pushes the Flames from one house into the next house
It will all end in tears.
Mark's comment at 54:00 re temperatures levelling off quickly after stabilizing emissions: What about 'warming in the pipeline' without any further carbon emissions due to the now excessive ocean heat content (OHC) and associated inertia in expressed atmospheric warming? OHC is now quantified at about 0.9W/m2 which equals about an additional 0.71 oC of warming based on 0.75oC of atmospheric warming per W/m2 of energy imbalance (Hansen).
Also, what about the warming that short-lived aerosols are masking, at about -1.3W/m2, or about 0.98oC of warming, if fossil-fuel based aerosol emissions are reduced?
Are these 'hidden' but inevitable temperature increases accounted for in the 'temperature levelling-off' scenario at net-zero carbon emissions? Accounting for this on top of the 1.1oC to date blows us right past 2oC - almost to 3oC with no further carbon emissions from today, let alone the 2050 net-zero target. Thanks.
My thoughts exactly
My understanding of the ocean heat is its not relevant to the time scales we are concerned with short term due to an updated approach to the physics of heat interchange over ocean/land having been applied in current zecimp modeling. It forces new milankovich cycles but those are on the matter of hundreds of thousands of years and is in much more of a stasis with surface temp than hansen eluded to. Aerosolization presents a threat but the claim of 1C of masking is, to my basic knowledge, a misunderstanding of the application of the physics and in actual surface tempature results in much less entropy in the system, roughly a third of your value.
It's been a fairly well repeated line that doesn't have that great of sourcing associated with it though, a simple carbon brief article is the main source I could find.
Little late but I believe CarbonBrief has written in detail on the idea that temperatures should roughly stabilize within a few years of zero emissions.
The general idea is that the heating effects (eg less aerosols) and cooling effects (less methane, which is short lived in atmosphere) tend to balance out at zero emissions.
An issue with this is that it also depends when we go to zero - eg if permafrost thaw is at a high rate I don’t know if we can say zero warming.
@@david5h4 Thanks - what about the thermal lag/inertia associated with the Ocean Heat Content - approx. 0.68oC that is in the pipeline?
@@Jeff-gq2tq they discuss that in their article. The graph plotting the described scenarios is worth a look. Still just models, and neglects key tipping points, but useful imo.
Very well spoken, and sublimely overconfident for someone for whom it is not literally possible to be more wrong. The esteemed author is in denial. When logic takes him to an answer he doesn't like he simply fabricates a more palatable reality. Technology got us into this mess, more technology will simply make it worse. He gives us his imprimatur for nuclear energy saying "it's worked fine since 1944", glancing right by Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the yet ongoing Fukushima, not to mention the millions of tons of deadly nuclear waste stockpiled ever increasingly at the 440 different sites of its manufacture because we haven't any idea what to do with it other than keep it cool in perpetuity.
Go listen to some of Bill Rees' lectures on UA-cam Mark. You are pompous and dangerous. The answers are simple. There are way, way, too many humans, and they are greedy and destructive. If those two things don't change, our extinction will see that they do. The planet will be fine. In short, you are not even addressing the problem, just but one of many "existential" symptoms of the problem. Good luck, stay safe, be well.
Finally someone saying what needs to be said, there is simply to many people on earth. Also to add to your points about nuclear power plants they need to be maintained long term which people seems to think will happen but looking at Ukraine and a war can throw that out the window quite quickly.
Renewable energy, both solar and wind, are now less expensive than nuclear and far quicker to bring on line and at this point, speed is of the essence. The core problem is the financing of politicians by vested interests (fossil fuel industry for instance). So the politicians refuse to do the obvious, simple things that would make a difference. In how many countries have the politicians stopped all subsidies to fossil fuel companies. This would have made solar and wind cheaper than fossil fuels much earlier and we would now be farther along the road to eliminating fossil fuel.
@@wlhgmk All of the "renewable" infrastructure built to date can not even accommodate the annual increase in energy demand for one calendar year. "Renewables" can only provide electricity for the 20% of our energy demand that can be met that way. What do you intend to do about the 80% of our energy use comprised by shipping, trucking, air travel, and heating?
The problem is overshoot. Not climate change. Climate change is but one of the many existential threats caused by overshoot.
All of this is just talk that doesn't matter without the attendant actions. Welcome to extinction, enjoy your stay.
@@wlhgmk Renewable energy isn't a fix for climate change. It's not even renewable, it's replaceable and only replaceable in a world with cheap and available materials and a global supply chain. How much would it cost you to make a solar panel, by yourself, starting with raw materials? If that's not possible, it isn't truly renewable or sustainable in any way.
The only fix is to live like we did before industry. A lot/most people will starve and the rest will live in a very precarious state, like all life, because a couple generations decided they could have cars and planes and all this other shit that cannot be made sustainable. An electric car has the same emissions attached as a used gas-powered car. Both require wearing tires and other parts made from plastic and otherwise extracted from a non-renewable source.
ALLL OF THIS IS MARKETING. ALL OF IT. Even the stuff that's supposedly green is selling you your guilt. There is no way to live this way without causing a mass extinction and that should be enough for all of us to reconsider what it is we're doing and why. No matter who you are, you're just doing what you're told and assuming it's not the worst possible thing because it's legal, and its legal because it uses resources which generates wealth. There is no way to green this paradigm, there's only walking away from it and choosing to do something that doesn't require consumables. It's going to suck but it's the future we paid for.
RAD, yes, technology got us into this mess and more technology will only exacerbate the mess. And yes, there are way too many people for the earth to accommodate, especially high consumers.
Sociopaths rule, to our collective demise.
Is it an extinction level event? Yes. Any questions?
When will the last human die?
@@LaburnumDorado May 15, 2042. In a bunker in Queenstown, New Zealand.
Yes. What to do on the time left?
@@jamestiburon443 Anything you'd find satisfying. If you think you can do something useful, do it. Plant trees, push electrification with non fossil fuels, eat vegan. Whatever. Just don't become attached to outcomes.
@@jamestiburon443 Live. Live well. Do no harm. Don't procreate.
We are not okay. Water has a high specific heat so it holds a lot of heat much more than air or land
Fear of the worst case extinction scenario probably drives most researchers into confirmation bias towards sufficient optimism to continue working.
It's sad that the .1% that basically rule this planet do not feel that fear of the worst case scenario to spur them to action.
@@michaelcaraway2305 block the air vents on their bunkers. At the very least
@@NickDanger0001 They as most of the world's population don't get is that the systems of the planet are intertwined and interconnected. No matter that Arctic has a very small population the warming there does not only affect the Arctic population it affects Amazonian tribes and every other population on the planet. It does not matter where climate change affects every change in the system creates changes in all the systems both chemical, physical and biological changes everywhere.
@@volkerengels5298 shaped charges
@@michaelcaraway2305 I live in Alaska, we can see it happening in front of our eyes, but plenty of bozos here still deny it.
ONE DEGREE!? We're very close to if not beyond 2*. He just lost credibility. I'm out. Watch Guy McPherson and Paul Beckwith for the real numbers.
If it was above +2°C already we'd be having worse Greenland ice melt, a vast cold water area in the N Atlantic and megastorms wreaking havoc and hurling huge boulders into the Bshsmas and Florida with their storm surge
@@edwardmiessner6502 Exactly what's happening!
Interesting presentation but hopelessly in reality denial.
The fear of having to pay for cleaning up this mess will just cause more anti government anti science and anti environmental movements to grow were over the cliff already aren’t we!!!!. Solar wind and battery storage are getting cheaper every day maybe a little conservation thrown in would help but man I don’t see anyone wanting to curtail their high carbon lifestyles
This is before The Ukrainian war and Russia starving the third world
Can you be more specific?
@@LaburnumDorado more ? Science more truth? More specific about what pray tell
@@LaburnumDorado What? D'ya wanna LIST?
This presenter seems too optimistic from a reaching net zero standpoint.
May be the only way at psychologically he could handle studying and writing about this for 20 years- maintaining hope, even for an improbable scenario. I also think scientists have been corralled into sound more dispassionate and “neutral” otherwise they may readily be discredited as alarmist. Being alarmed (often disparagingly called alarmism) however is warranted and rational in a case like this
Population growth is the central issue here. Either we have heavily controlled birth or uncontrolled death. Both are not desirable but that’s the fact Jack.
Nature will take care of that.
And domestic animal numbers , we could do double the population without them .
@@MyKharli Nature will take care of that, too, after civilization collapses.
I totally agree with you
Yep. The common man doesn't want to hear it, it's too scary and too "freedom averse". The business man doesn't want to hear it, he needs people to continue to be pumped out to profit. It's already game over. We like too look back at previous civilisaitons throughout history and their collapses and we are about to dial it up to 11.
Australian trees/ forests will release seeds with an average/ slow/ cold burn, yes. Though without aboriginal traditional management of the landscape too much fuel/ deadwood builds up and the fires become hot- burn, where all the seeds are also burnt up, resulting in a new landscape more akin to heath, or worse covered in exotic species and weeds, or worse being eroded away entirely. Many of the above leading to aridity and desertification.
Yes!! Cultural burning is so damn important for keeping country healthy
No mention of nuclear power plants and at what point their water supply which cools them becomes jeopardized. Risks of ozone depletion?
Worse, he's a cheerleader for scaling up nuclear! Vile.
he's obviously never mined uranium.
Read Mark's book 'High Tide' some 15-16 yrs back. Where now climbing the bell curve quite swiftly.The top is less than 10 yrs away, from there it's going to be downhill all the way.
Sorry, but he is way off track, here's why
Look up the milankovitch cycles with CO2 vs temperature vs time, 800k yrs timeline
Iceage minimum, CO2 levels are 280ppm and temperatures are 15c, this is 1750 baseline
Iceage maximum, CO2 levels were 180ppm and temperatures were-8c below baseline, 7c
The global CO2 levels dropped 100ppm which caused temperatures to drop -8c, 7c
The global CO2 levels rose 100ppm and temperatures rose 8c
For a 100ppm change caused an 8c temperature change
This is the global thermostat setting, 1c/12ppm CO2 and or AGGI
Today, global CO2 levels are 420ppm, 140ppm above baseline
140ppm ÷1c/12ppm = 11.75c rise above baseline
The AGGI, absolute ghg equivalent is 585ppm
585ppm ÷ 1c/12ppm = 25.4c rise above baseline
The global temperatures will rise rise 25.4c and as ghgs increase so will the temperature
The 2c threshold is 300ppm and the planet blew past that yrs ago
Rate of acceleration of global warming
1990 to 2000, global temperatures rose 0.1c
2000 to 2010, global temperatures rose 0.25c
2010 to 2020, global temperatures rose 0.35c
This happened during global dimming, 10k commercial flights per day produce alot of condensation trails that helped cool by decreasing sunlight
The commercial airlines have been grounded and global brightening is kicking in
2020 to 2030, global temperatures will rise 0.35c + 0.2, 0.3c, 0.4c, increasing global temperatures another 0.5c +, putting global temperature 2c above the preindustrial 1750 baseline
Watch on utube, global warming/1 solution
It shows the melankovitch cycles with CO2 vs temperature vs time
A couple of quotes to add to the debate - "A temperature increase of 5.2 °C (9.36 °F) above the pre-industrial level at present rates of increase would likely result in mass extinction" - Song 2021. "End-of-century warming outcomes in RCP8.5 range from 3.3 °C to 5.4 °C" - Schwalm 2020. What a risk we are taking!
James Lovelock, the person who articulated the giya hypothesis, predicted that sometime within this century, the world population would be 1 billion.
🧐
It was Gaia. And the way Climate Change kills 7 Billion of the world is through loss of Habitat, which means we can NOT produce sufficient agricultural food anymore due to drought, heat. That means loss of Habitat.
For a start off... The recently late James Lovelock (RIP) wasn't the *only* person who articulated the GAIA hypothesis, it was suggested to him by the biologist Lyn Margulis. And I have read most of JL's books and I don't remember him mentioning that the global human population would at some point reach 1 billion sometime within this century... Lovelock would have known for sure, that the human population already reached 1 billion in 1804...
Global Human Population timeframe:
1804 - 1 billion
1927 - 2 billion
1960 - 3 billion
1987 - 5 billion
1998 - 6 billion
2010 - 7 billion
2022 - expected to reach 8 billion
The above dates, plotted on a graph will show that human population expansion went exponential during the 1800's and became linear in the 1980's. Current expansion is approximately = 1 billion every fourteen years. However, the rate will slow, because male fertility is dropping globally and of course - the existential threat of Anthropgenic Global Warming.
Lovelock was predicting that the population would be REDUCED to at most one billion, that that is the carrying capacity of Earth.
Nevermind the food shortage..nobody talking about Water shortages. That will kill much faster....this is Aug 2022 in Florida. The whole Climate and global warming reminds me so much of the Pandemic 2020 twilight zone. People where in the Hospital's dying, in the meantime people where having Covid parties.
Furthermore regarding Global warming and el Nino coming up in our southern hemisphere in the meantime Miami Beach building boom of Million dollars high rises are going up with investment from Dubai.
Yes, every human epoch had their doomsday scenarios, it seams something that is deep in our Psychology. However ask a Aztec or Maya or inhabitant of the Easter Islands or countless other civilisations, for their world it definitely was the end of the World.
Bottom line, for a mass extinction of the human race it would need a quick impact from either Solar storm's or massive comet impact.
I don’t want to come over arrogant and insensitive. However I do ask myself what problems many researchers, activists and others have with the thought that we will just go extinct. What is your problem? You, me, we will all die anyway. Do you really care about all of humanity, can you even grasp how many humans there are? We are just one species and a million others are at risk. We already live in the sixth mass extinction, we live in the Anthropocene. I’m not denying that we could theoretically live in harmony with nature and the Earth’s resources. But I’m just observing we’re clearly not. It seems even more far-fetched than communism, which has so far only been a philosophy but never worked like it should in big societies. Maybe we should now use science to study the inherent human bias that we are so important. There have already been 5 mass extinctions. Why should the 6th be any worse? Of course it’s emotionally distressing to study something as big and destructive as the literal collapse of the biosphere and human civilization, and of course you want to disprove your own results and find out that something else will happen, maybe you want to study that. But maybe that’s an illusion, part of an Inherent human bias. During the Cold War and now again, many people (according to surveys I know of, you can likely just search for key terms and find them) fear/are aware of the existential threat of a global thermonuclear war and the Armageddon and annihilation that follows, they just accept the risk because it is now an inherent part of our society and civilization and we can’t turn back time and undo it. We need to get there with the climate and ecological risks as well. Some forces are just beyond control once they’re invented. We have invented technology that can wipe out our species and almost all current life on the planet in multiple ways. To me that’s not very worthy for a species, doesn’t show me we deserve survival. I know no evidence of big societies that have lived in harmony with nature and it’s resources, and with other humans. Assuming it is possible based on no historical or any other evidence, but just based on an optimistic vision, seems very unscientific to me. Could we all just split up into several native/indigenous groups and live like them. Seems unlikely, and again unscientific.
Been there with the same RAGE, buddy. I just try to spiritualize it now.
Thanks for such a thoughtful reply.
We are going well beyond 5 degrees.
Easiest way to pull carbon out of the atmosphere is oceanic iron fertilization. This would also help to replenish biodiversity lost from overfishing etc.
The elites have built their bunkers. They have no intention of saving anyone but themselves
Also Regenerative Agriculture, Restoring Prairies, Wetlands growing Hemp
@@SusanBloodgood-o5s reminder standing Hampton is the only one plant that will absorb the carbon dioxide at the fastest rate. It's probably the fastest and quickest way to pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Health could be turned into into concrete help or stored Underground and compressed.
Perhaps a deep dive on the existential probabilities on the modeling front with someone like Dr. Tim Palmer is in order to discuss the tail end scenarios in the modeling world. His discussion with Sabine Hossenfelder was both entertaining and enlightening and I would sincerely enjoy an update discussion with him especially with someone like Dr. Kemp moderating. Throughly enjoying the context and conversations from the channel. Highly informative in my opinion.
Tools 🔧 are needed, drop the circle below the electromagnetic force, onto check valve in water column, Mechanical Equivalent of Heat you have clean energy technology, the Sir Isaac Newton Machine manufactured, the Einstein INCH equation of Grand Unification. DEEP DIVE to Sphere Making.
Yeah lots of good the scientific predictive models have done the world and humanity to this point. Most people are walking around believing that the impacts won't happen until 2050 or 2100. The reality is that impacts predicted to occur in 2100 are happening now except with much greater severity and much sooner than predicted. The models are a little better now. However, the exponential function and the effects of multiple cascading tipping points are nearly impossible to model. Yet, this is exactly what is happening now. Multiple tipping points have already been breached and are now combining exponentially to vastly increase the rate of change. Very soon there will be world wide wet bulb conditions and soon after you will see mass die off of species, and humans will be one of the first to go...vertebrate mammals always succumb first to abrupt loss of habitat.
How can anyone “enjoy” listening to this?!! Look at the freight train coming straight at us. How interesting.
1.5 is missed. Even the IPCC conceded this.
CDR is not likely to work and is delaying serious urgent action and consideration. SRM might be absolutely needed to avoid extinction. If we can't agree on SRM, can we rely on technology saving us, rather than technology stagnation?
Talking about going to the Maldives illustrates the problem well. There is no time left to innovate are way out of this and stop 3.0. The issue is while everyone would have to sacrifice the wealthy much more. Eliminating all private air travel and yachts and other frivolous CO2 should have been an easy no brainer accomplished at the first COP. Wealth can't equate to the right to use more carbon in society anymore.
. Most of the reason above 3.0 is not covered is that it is assumed tipping points will be set off for the planet to hit 4-7C . Mark Lynas says he is not worried about extinction in next 30 years. I agree but the more interesting question is what will the population be. 3 to 4 billion is more likely then 10 imo. Technological innovation has slowed incredibly to keep us above the curve according to limits of growth study.
Dystopia is coming to all. In the final days the greed of mankind will rear it's ugly head!
"you can have one hand in the reezer and one hand on a hot plate, and it still hurts."
Imagine a level of climates where the earth's experiences of uniform, hemispherical shifts of heat are dialated on time scales further away from day and night. This is what sets us apart from other planets. Everything spread out. Some parts instant. Some parts gradual.
the production of life is essentially slowing heat by the release and transfer of energy throughout every living creature imaginable.
The production of a lot of things are like miniature abominable planets.
Jupiter will be looking at plastic a few years from now, saying "back then it was called earth"
I’m not sure people are smarter than the movie portrays. Perhaps if it was a comet or asteroid something concrete we could see they would but when it comes to all the damage we do to the planet too many still want to deny it. Or just don’t think it matters right now. It’s a future problem. We are too focused on daily life. And people are very good at ignoring things that scare them. Not believing that something bad will happen until it does. How many that are yearly impacted by hurricanes don’t have supplies on hand to deal with it and rush out at the last minute to get things. Or don’t have snow shovels or food put back when they live in a cold snowy climate. And wait until the day before to get food.
This gentleman referred to 'optimism' and 'pessimism '. Our emotional responses have no place in an assessment of where we are situated.
First check the biosphere of which we are a part, in particular the insect and plankton populations.
Veey shortly we will experience food shortages due to decreasing crop production caused by pertubations in weather patterns. It looks like this year an El Nino is forming after several La Nina years, this will significantly add to the weather disruption.
Civilisation will collapse as the food scarcity increases. This process is in play now and will worsen rapidly.
I wish this were not so. There is almost zero chance of getting past 2025 in anything like our current comfortable lifestyle....comfortable for some of our species.
Right, I find it funny that to display information that is scary and alarming and point of that out is “emotional” but that being optimistic despite mounting evidence against you is “rational” merely because you aren’t succumbing to fear or terror. Positive emotions read as more rational to some people
"Everything is fine". Peter Isherwell
Part One
Now let us address the terminology so often misused. The current predominant tendency is to use the term - 'Climate Change'. In
point of fact, 'climate change' is merely ONE outcome of the underlying dynamic - Anthropogenic Global Warming [AGW]; the
*correct* terminology. Which itself is driven by human population expansion. Media coined the term 'climate change' because it
underplays the significance of the grave rammifications of AGW; most especially that of near-term human exintinction.
.
Human Extinction is only 'controversial' to those who lack the ability to understand the myriad of dynamics involved, or those who
are still in the denial or anger stages of grief.
.
So now let us examine some facts:
1. The ongoing combustion of sequestered carbon - fossil fuels - will continue to release copious amounts of greenhouse gasses
[ghgs], specifically carbon dioxide [CO2], methane [CH4] and water vapour [H2O] into the atmosphere.
2. In addition to these ghg emissions, are the aerosol emissions spec; sulphates, nitrates and carbonaceous aerosols [inorganic C,
organic C and black C - soot]. Currently these aerosol bi-products are affording a temporary reduction in global warming, by
attenuating some of the insolation reaching the Earth's surface. However, the 'aerosol masking effect' as it is widely called, is
insufficient in slowing the overall rate of change of average global temperature; which of course is still climbing...
3. Loss of the AME in a short timeframe, induces a global mean surface heating of between 0.5 - 1.1 deg C - in addition to latent
anthropogenic and biospheric forcing (historical human and natural emissions - Global Warming Potential - climate inertia), with an
increase in precipitation of 2.0 - 4.6%; extreme weather indices also increase (...more climate chaos).
4. The above dynamics thus present humans with a physical (technological) predicament.... And predicaments are considered to
have no solutions - an impasse. This has become know in certain circles as the 'McPherson Paradox'. Or as James Hansen has
dubbed - the 'Faustian Bargain'...
.
To quote Hansen et al [IOP Science 2013]: // What is clear is that most of the remaining fossil fuels must be left in the ground if we
are to avoid dangerous human-made interference with climate. (re: worse-case scenario - a change of biospheric
thermoequilibrium/homeostasis).
The principal implication of our present analysis probably relates to the Faustian bargain. Increased short-term masking of
greenhouse gas warming by fossil fuel particulate and nitrogen pollution represents a 'doubling down' of the Faustian bargain, an
increase in the stakes. The more we allow the Faustian debt to build, the more unmanageable the eventual consequences will be.
Yet globally there are plans to build more than 1000 coal-fired power plants (Yang and Cui 2012) and plans to develop some of the
dirtiest oil sources (fracking, CH4 extraction) on the planet (EIA 2011). These plans should be vigorously resisted. We are already in
a deep hole-it is time to stop digging. //
.
The prevailing notion is that humans must reduce their use of fossil fuels as an axiomatic imperative, but that the reduction is
managed and phased/staged over a specific timeframe and must start with the heaviest polluters - The GMIC (Global Military
Industrial Complex); heavy industry; shipping and transportation. However, calculating/modelling a 'specific timeframe' for a
planned reduction in FF emissions may prove to be a moot point at this juncture. Whatever transpires, renewables will need to
pick-up-the-slack, as more nuclear energy generation must be avoided at all costs (expanded on below...).
.
5. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 08-10-2018: Global Warming of 1.5 deg C. // These global warming events
of human-driven change far exceed the rates of change driven by geophysical or biospheric forces that have altered the Earth
System trajectory in the past [Summerhayes, 2015; Foster et al., 2017]; even abrupt geophysical events do not approach rates of
human-driven change. // Re: Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum [PETM - 55My bce]. The one exception perhaps being the
Chicxulub Impactor Event [65My bce], which, in anycase was an extraterrestrial bolide event, resulting in the fifth Mass Extinction.
.
6. IPCC 24-09-2019: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate: // Ocean acidification and
deoxygenation, ice sheet and glacier mass loss and permafrost degradation are expected to be irreversible on time scales relevant
to human societies and ecosystems [Lenton et al., 2008; Soloman et al., 2009; FGrolicher and Joos, 2010; Cal et al, 2016; Kopp et
al., 2016] //
.
Geologists not only advocating a new geophysical strata - Anthropocene [f. Holocene], but designating the current interstadial
period as ''indefinite''. Meaning: no return to a glacial maximum [stadial] ( 'ice-age') as would be the case if AGW had not
occurred. This recategorisation is supported empirically by a rapidly retreating cryosphere and factoring in the global warming
potential of recent/historic atm ghg emissions - latency - oceanic thermal uptake, amongst many other factors including past and
imminent tipping points and over 65 self-reinforcing feedbacks.
.
Global Warming is thus regarded as IRREVERSIBLE. So get used to it...
Extensive testing has been done that shows high levels of phosphorus and nitrogen has infiltrated our water systems globally and is increasing fast. Animal Ag is the leading cause!
Supplyng the 84% of energy of fossil fuel from low emissions sources before positive feed back loops take over and fossil fuels already in decline are in short supply is a monuments challenged.
Deep cool or cold- water corals have potential also to repopulate near- surface reefs once conditions there return to former conditions.
Except in the case of high ocean acidity through the column.
But if one obtains the lime from carbon indirect capture it can be dissipated to the oceans to increase alkalinity.
@@kimlibera663
True. Indirect capture being the key.
Example, by spreading ground iron ore (Iron Fertilisation) across the least productive part of the oceans, around the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, just off the edges of the continental shelves, the iron feeds algae that turns into a bloom, that sucks enormous amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere.
The bloom, before the algae dies, has the potential to draw in tremendous amounts of fish, thus creating new fisheries.
Most of the algae simply die, sinking to the bottom of the ocean, taking that carbon out of the atmosphere and putting it into ocean sediment ie. geological deep storage.
The stable captured carbon now acts as a pH buffer, bringing down acidity and raising alkalinity.
Process carried out at the two Tropics because these areas are marine deserts, thus there will not be current businesses around to complain about algae blooms destroying their business. And complaining to politically sensitive politicians that would then put the kibosh on the project, as has been happening so far.
As for expense, this method of indirect carbon capture is by a long shot, by far easily easily the cheapest method, compared to any other.
Except, of course, avoiding putting it in in the first place (but we know civilisation and society has no chance of doing that now, don't we).
If anything kills this method, it will be political correctness, over the future life of the planet.
Yes, science must be impervious to emotional concerns... follow the logic please.
The title mentions extinction but you refuse to detail the precise mechanism. Typical lax British science. Have another go or give it up.
Heat, starvation, loss of habitat, drought and other loss of water sources
@@christinearmington Meltdown of all nuclear plants and disappearance of ozone layer. Both will ensure humans don’t survive rapid global warming.
Animal agriculture does have significant environmental impacts, and many argue that it contributes to environmental degradation and climate change. 1) Greenhouse gas emissions: Animal agriculture is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Livestock production, particularly cattle, produces methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Additionally, clearing land for grazing or growing animal feed releases carbon dioxide, contributing to deforestation and climate change. 2) Land and water use: Animal agriculture requires vast amounts of land and water. Raising livestock necessitates large areas for grazing or cultivating animal feed crops. This leads to deforestation, habitat loss, and soil degradation. Furthermore, animal agriculture consumes substantial amounts of water for animal hydration and crop irrigation. 3) Water pollution: The concentration of livestock in factory farming operations generates significant amounts of waste. The runoff from these operations can pollute water bodies, contributing to water pollution and eutrophication. 4) Biodiversity loss: The expansion of animal agriculture encroaches on natural habitats, leading to the loss of biodiversity. Deforestation for grazing or feed crop cultivation reduces habitat availability for various plant and animal species, contributing to species extinction. 5) Antibiotic resistance: The routine use of antibiotics in animal agriculture to promote growth and prevent diseases contributes to the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. This poses risks to human health as well.
'Don't Look Up' - was excellent. The film clearly being aimed at the ignorant masses, with the ET bolide metaphor being the most attention grabbing aspect of the script. Mark Lynas clearly didn't get the idea, instead harping on about how different a real ET bolide would eventuate, as compared to Anthropogenic Global Warming. Strawman argument. Like I said before - no imagination.
.
Now go and watch 'FINCH' and see if you can grasp the metaphorical meaning in that excellent movie starring Tom Hanks....
The movie depicts why the powers that be are denying climate change.
It's ridiculous to tell the audience that the interviewer has not bothered to watch "Don't Look Up". A well-prepared interviewer would have watched it. "Don't Look Up" is a wonderful movie chock full of satire, with lots of relevant material to use for this interview. We really are doomed, but with much more suffering involved than that experienced by earthlings in the movie.
When do you think would be a realistic time frame for extinction? e2025 or 2030?
@@id9139 Some scientists believe we will be lucky to still be here by 2030. The most likely cause of our extinction is starvation. There may still be a small number who survive this. When we are fewer than 1 billion, perhaps the population can stabilize, but that's just my hope.
This battle was lost before 2000. Changes to our ecosystem are now inevitable.
Thanks for laying it out like this.
Most extreme scenarios that I have seen ends up to 16C with a notion, that any further temperature rise is futile. Perhaps because most if not all of the higher organisms are dead. Of course this kind of scenario is extremely unlikely to happen, but can be calculated by adding up worst case scenarios.
//Of course this kind of scenario is extremely unlikely to happen...// Really? What comics have you been studying?
No, even the moderate RCP leads to human extinction in decades. The high end yields a GAST of about 23C. in about 65 years.
@@kimweaver1252
Relax dudes. We can just relocate the wealthiest percent of humanity to Siberia, Alaska, Greenland, Iceland and the Antarctic. No need to worry about extinction. Several thousand humans would survive even in the bleakest of scenarios. And after a few thousand years, the world will be resettled. Problem solved.
You all need to talk about Ecosia they are a search engine that plants tress
Nice polar bear shot. You understand they're thriving right?
Hi Mark
Being at COP 26 you may have seen or heard my charismic friend Jamen Shively. I'm curious why at the end of this video you are not mentioning ground and water-based solar radiation management or SRM?
You obviously know the score and I really appreciate your video here. Thanks, Bill D
I know and have supported Roger Hallam outside of XR as an organic farmer. I pressed him a while back to give Dr. Ye Tao some airtime in his group and that happened. I'm currently working with Dr. Ye/MEER.
Thx again for this video.
If you don't know about land-based SRM please contact me or Ye and we can get you up to speed.
I don't think we're gonna make it
You don't know anything about comets so you should NOT comment on them. SMH. You also don't seem to understand that the tundra has already been compromised. Go take a look at CAMS. You are already behind on what the impacts are but you, like most, have been relying on scientific studies that don't understand/appropriately account for the complexities of our climate system. I think your approach of know-it-all does put me off, especially since your information is dated. Then you make all sorts of assumptions about how we are going to save ourselves since we have 'reduced' our fossil fuel use and that is NOT reflected in the economy at all. You also glaze over feedbacks. If you are just basing your presentation on the IPCC, well, that is your first mistake.. Still, slightly informing.
"Permafrost...might be another 30 40 50 ppm, certainly not a thousand..." how does that alone translate in terms of global temperature rise? Shouldn't scientists and others be concerned then about the thawing of Permafrost and the release of CH4 which by all accounts is more potent than CO2?
Given that this discussion was posted here 2 months ago, what do you think of the UK government's "new" energy strategy: does it make you less or more optimistic about the future?
Do you think the current IPCC Report and the speech by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres too pessimistic?
Nuclear energy: isn't that more a long term project? Wwhile that's under development shouldn't we be doing other things in the meantime to reduce the global temperature given that it is now rather urgent?
On 'Don't Look Up': I've not seen it, though I've heard about it and seen clips, and it's analogy in terms of human reaction to looming disaster is very like how governments in real life are dragging their feet when dealing with the climate emergency. However, I would love a H G Wells Time Machine- style film, but to do with climate change, especially the cascade events and their effects on us and our surroundings and imaginings of how successive governments and corporations behave in the face of it: so come on J J Abrams!
This is now 4 months old and the world is still on fire and extreme weather outcomes are displayed daily on the gloom and do nothing news channels
J. J. Abrams would have the heroes of Star Wars or Star Trek save us. 🙄😒
Michael Barrett signing off.
Environmental scientist/ physics lecturer,
Sydney. Extraordinarily good interview in scope and depth. Thank you very much.
Open to being contacted.
Agreed - 7 years teaching various sciences adjacent to *the* topic at hand, and with recurring student requests I’m likely teaching AP Environmental Science for the first time in the fall - am wondering how to better prepare each year’s students for what lies ahead- have been getting a lot more vocal pessimism this year than in the past, coincidentally or a direct result of my emphasis on the actual involvement with positive efforts (lots of options in nyc)
Current 1,1C. Predicted 1,5C by 2030 (1% chance to stay under), 2,0C 2050 (95% chance to go over), most likely range of temperature rise by 2100 is 2,0-4,9C (including NDC's that are not achived by our gov's). Currrent trend is going over 4,0C (ie. China is not even negotiating and many are stockpiling fossil fuels ensuring future emissions. Emssions are still growing, not reducing. Natural carbon sinks are turninng to sources. Tipping points like Arctic seaice will begone by 2023-2070. ...).
And huge areas in our Globe is on Drought. Some have ended drought, but with extreme flooding (Las Vegas, Pakistan, France, ...). Drought has continued in many places for over 3 years and there are no signs for change. Ground water table has dropped so low that even buildings are nearing collapses. Sea water is seeping in ground water reservoirs too making water too salty to use. Major rivers and lakes has dried up. This is the case under 1,1C, think what probable 2C (95% to go over) and beyond will be...
We are already beyond 2 Celsius. And the IPCC has not entered METHANE into its calculations.
Check out Dr. Guy McPherson
HER-Helicopter Ecoseed Reforestation can plant trillions of trees to reverse global climate change but we lack the backbone to implement the one thing that can make a difference!
Nope. Read the book
Well done
I can't listen to Mark for an hour. I guess I'll have to read the book.
If and when we as a species, or nationally, turn to SRM (which I see as most probably happening), it will be seen as a virtual green light to keep emitting CO2, until the oceans are irrevocably turned into crustacean-shell-dissolving saline acidity.
Humans are hopeless, yet will always maintain forlorn hope.
I assume you are talking about SMR. Two countries operate some of them. A breakthrough is not expected at the moment. China, one of the countries operating an SMR, is investing much more in renewable energy.
Enerdata:
>>In 2021, China’s installed capacity for renewables surpassed 1,000 GW (with 391 GW for hydro, 328 GW for wind and 307 GW for solar)
@@Daguerreotypiste
No, was actually talking about Solar Radiation Management.
If we implement this geo-engineering strategy the CO2 burning will go on ad-infinitum, till the oceans are acidic from carbolic acid from the rain.
Loved the Graphics. 🥰
In some point there should be food production under ground... We have had some advancements in this area, but it is not going to be enough for large populations. Also it is pretty energy and intelligence greedy production.
It is also something that has to be thought if we ever want to make a Mars colonies that does not need constant support from Earth.
HOW long do we have - best Guess???
I don’t think 10 years is possible.
Civilisations fall. Some people that call out end- times are right me- thinks.
Try NATURE BATS LAST with Professor Guy McPherson
minute 57.09: `if we can stabilize atmospheric concentrations, and if we can do that as close to mid century then we`re still within shooting distance of 1,5 degrees and we`re well below 2, and that `s what really matters` I`m so sorry but I can hardly believe you saying this 😨 I am flabbergasted!! This seems like a comforting rub on the head to keep me/us from panicking... What about tipping points, what about global dimming, what about the current co2 doing it`s destructive work for at least 30 more years, what about the methane, the melting permafrost... I do not understand you... It`s like they paid you hush money...
Science is organize knowledge,, wisdom organize life.
Science,religion and politics ,all differ in their opinions,maybe its healthy, maybe not.
Scientists do research of universe ,planet Earth etc , that has always existed, and don't need humans opinions,to allow it to exist,has its own laws ,and time etc.
With science and research,at least one gets a glimpse of this great and powerful universe ,to which nothing can be changed nor altered,like death.
Modelling is difficult to do accurately.
Modelling tipping- cascades would be somewhat harder. Exponentially I'd think with each domino added.
What about feedback loops such as the microbes thawing in the nutrient rich Siberian permafrost.. Surely that's going to push us over 2'C
A 10 year lag in the system. The warming doesn't STOP in a few years. Come on buddy. We are deep into the 6 th mass extinction. Unstoppable now. We are hooked on carbon. ❤️❤️🌎❤️❤️
Sadly Professor Guy McPherson predicts we have less than 10 years to live So cherish each day and embrace with love what’s left of our natural world 🕊❤️🙏🏼
Hi. Agree with you. Just wanted to pass along the best spiritual book I have found. It is free on UA-cam and is "Journey of Souls", by Dr. Michael Newton. Ciao
Mad man Guy. No scientist to date has produced any empirical evidence showing any harms from anthropogenic C02 climate change.
This amazes me. There are so many “scientific” inaccuracies, I can’t even comment on them. One over-riding issue is that the model errors out to 2100 are at least an order of magnitude larger than the scales on the projections indicating that the data estimates are fantasy. Another is the Arctic sea ice extent which has effectively not changed since 2007 in spite of the CO2 rise. Temperature extremes are likely because we are in a solar max and the earths magnetic field has been weakening significantly over the last forty years. This has a huge effect on the earths energy balance easily explaining the current warming trend. Greenland has no inland temperature monitoring stations and coastal Greenland monitors are highly influenced by ocean temperature moderation. There were no monitors in Greenland interior in the early 20th century when rain very likely fell quite often since I’ve levels were lower than now at that time. Also the global average temperature is not being calculated correctly. Weighted averages are not being used causing a warming bias in the data. Satellite data is not accurate because of the measurement zones and misinterpretation of the data. This presentation is just scaring people with no concrete scientific justification.
Hundreds of millions of Bangladeshis will not be able to relocate
Dr. Patrick Moore talks about the issue of bleeching of the coral reefs...he says that bleeching is a natural process when the animals that live in the coral release their phytoplankton in unison, it doesn't at all mean that the coral is dying...we all know that we see coral in warmer water...coral likes warm water, logically...warmer seas means more coral, not less...
Coral is also killed by acidification. Acidification is driven by Co2
he also shows that CO2 has been in concentrations of thousands of parts per million in past millennia and Coral survived that just fine, so why would 420 be a problem
Climate change is an issue however, lack of resources is going to be catastrophic for mankind!