0:48 I was 8 years old n 1973. I learned about "greenhouse gases" in 1974. It was a punch to my gut and I remember reading it in a school magazine in 4th grade. The article said not to worry because we would all have solar and EVs very soon.
That's about when some Anthropologist started to say: 'We did not evolve to live in the societies we have erected" Inverted society: we put the people whit most severe antisocial behavior psychopathy/narcissism/sociopathy in charge, because they care about profits, not people, and certainly not Life.
@3g0st I read a few of his books and saw about a dozen of his videos. I really like him, but I find the expression not self-explanatory. You probably know Prof. Michael Hudson then. He's another wise economist, I really appreciate his knowledge of history. Thanks for the reply ✌
I'm optimistic that we will see a significant reduction in fossil fuel use, but it's too slow. Not that it won't matter, but it's not going from bad to good, it's going from horrible to bad.
The way I put it to family is that 14 years ago we were probably heading for ”Mad Max” bad, and now we’re probably heading for “pretty rough.” Improvement, but lots of work left to do.
This is the sort of rounding error I feel privileged being a part of! OK to be fair, I wasn't alive in 73 either, but on the plus side, my eyesight is still just about good enough to discern that I fall into one of the 0% "45 to 54" brackets on that YT Analytics screen shot...
Wow you have excellent camera presence and rate of information sharing. That’s a hard skill to master that I’m still working on! Thanks for sharing this video!! Looking forward to more!
It is good to see you back, I have missed you. I was born in the early 70s so like a few others have noted, I am in one of those 0% categories of your youtube viewer stats. I would do a similar dance if we have indeed reached peak, which as you rightly pointed out, we'll only know perhaps a year from now, or longer.
I am 25 and I don't think ever before in my life have I heard "line goes down". This made me so happy. The fight goes on but good news happen, sometimes!
This is great news. Even though we actually need net negative, so the climate can actually start improving. But starting to have a negative derivative is good too.
Merci Miriam 🖖 According to 2007's AR4, 93,4% of the warming goes into the oceans and only 2,3% goes into the troposphere (that thin layer of 12 km average thickness in which we live) According g to this 2015 paper Ocean heat uptake and the global surface temperature record Grantham Institute Briefing paper No 14 September 2015 If the warming that went into the oceans went instead to the troposphere, it would be 36°C warmer. I'll leave the link in the reply in case it gets deleted... again!
@@zentouro I know it's not you Miriam. I spend my retirement on youtube and have been retired for many years because a... workectomy. Yes, I lie to them about my age since I've been a sort of privacy advocate since... lets just say some decades. The paper should be easy to find though. Bon courage dans tes études 👍
@@zentouro Also, the 93,4% comes from IPCC AR4 from 2007. 'Global Warming Components' illustration can be found on Skeptical Science, a website dedicated to combat fossil fuel misinformation and other beliefs we see all over. I've been going there since 2015. It is reliable and also has a section on the history of global warming that begins with Louis-Joseph Fourrier who was wondering how come the Earth wasn't frozen. Thanks again for your work. been silently following you for... 4 or 5 years I guess. Keep it up 👍 P.S. I also follow oceanographers, glaciologists, marine biologists and others, not forgetting and James Hansen of course.
“I accepted to come to this meeting to have a sober and mature conversation. I’m not in any way signing up to any discussion that is alarmist. There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5C.” - Sultan Al Jaber, President of COP 28, also CEO of Abu Dhabi National Oil Company Seems more and more likely, scenario SSP5-8.5 of the IPCC assessment may come to fruition (or at least the higher end of the spectrum). I say enjoy what you can, while you still can; pity the generations to come.
Yo just wanted to say I remember you were working on a PhD. Keep it up! The amount I worried seems silly in retrospect. You're the expert on your dissertation. Remember, the D in PhD stands for DONE.
Stand outside in the full sun on a clear day and feel the radiant energy of the sun on your skin as being warmer than the ambient air temperature. This radiant energy your body is absorbing is actually visible light converted to infrared energy known as heat, while the air temperature you feel is the vibratory action (kinetic energy) of air molecules as they’re kept abuzz by wildly gyrating greenhouse gas molecules that have become excited by their absorption of infrared radiant energy. [Oxygen and nitrogen molecules do not absorb heat.] Note: You can copy and paste the above paragraph by first taking a screenshot of such and then working from the photo. Use that as your search parameter for related searches.
And Trudeau bought a pipeline project with tax payer money. Unsurprisingly, they also gave a standing to a real 90 some years old WW2 nutzee in our parliament, who's wanted for war crimes in at least one other country.
I would love to see a statistically significant test taken, Manmade Climate Change Deniers on one side and Manmade Climate Change Believers on the other, graphed by INTELLIGENCE as measured with an IQ test. Any guesses which way the deniers would tip the scales?
If I'm 0% of the audience, does that mean my emissions are down to 0% as well? ;) Thank you for the video! As you note, the peak doesn't mean low, and especially with the shenanigans the fossil fuel producers are up to (especially the moustache-twirling plans to hook the developing nations onto super dirty fuel -- if you want your next Bond villain check out the idea for bunker-fuel powered electricity generating ships that will be rented so they can be floated to the highest bidder) we might float for a while, but fingers crossed that enough momentum and price points are being hit that we're at the top of the lift hill and the thrills of the first roller-coaster drop hill is just before us. (Ok, not sure that was a clearest or best analogy, but I'm going with it for now. :)
Sorry that I'm such a pessimist but I think you're missing the detail that the business cycle is 7-12 years long. We are somewhere near the bottom of the trough right now. Economic activity will pick up again and when it does the demand for energy will increase. And when it does, it's most likely going to bring with it a new and higher peak for energy demand.
hi, i haven't covered that but impact of warming on agriculture is a research question in the labs i'm part of, so maybe i should! thanks for the idea.
you're definitely right, it is very up my alley! one of my colleagues recently wrote a great paper on the topic (although this is global rather than N. America-focused) www.nature.com/articles/s43017-022-00368-8
Let's clarify "peak emissions". The IEA means peak human caused fossil fuel GHG emissions. Great video. And, it's very clear that total GHG emissions are not going to peek, or will only temporarily peak, but are most likely going to continue to rise as permafrost melting & boreal forest burning (eg, Canada's 45m acres in 2023) accelerates, and heated marshlands & rice fields increasingy gurgle GHGs, etc., probably inexorably and unstoppably. Never mind that 550ppm CO2-eq bakes in minimum of +2.0C, or the guarantees long-term Arctic BOE & the loss of all land based ice outside East Antartic and (perhaps) some small % of Greenland, or the extra +0.5C to +0.75C Dr. Hansen expects via the Aerosol Effect, or that Bill Gates says we'll be fortunate (aka, shockingly lucky) if we can stay below +3.0C... BIG WIN: peak anthropogenic GHGs by 2024 would be a damn good thing! Next up? SOx geoengineering and MEER programs! What's your PhD focused on?
hiya, okay lot to unpack here. yes, i'm definitely talking about fossil fuel emissions here. but i haven't seen compelling (or rather well accepted by the field) research showing that we have passed a tipping point in permafrost melt and fire that suggests if we reduced point-source emissions those would continue accelerating. this is a super active area of research though, so if you've got more data than me please share. most models using current policies have us under 3º now, which is frankly wonderful, because when i started in this field we were looking at some truly apocalyptic 4+ scenarios. and i don't think SOx geoengineering is the way to go at all. which is in part because of what my PhD research is in. I study extreme precipitation and drought as compound hazards. and the feedback onto precipitation from messing with atmospheric circulation/clouds can be pretty devastating. a solution that could harm as many people from crop failures as it saves by keeping the average cooler is not a solution to me.
@@zentouro thanks for your reply. Happy to share additional data. Will reach out and see if I can find you on LinkedIn, rather than long messages here.
@@zentouro We entered multiple tipping points in 2023. The literature will always lag, but there were multiple records that were literally off the charts as I'm sure you're aware. "Canadian" fires, as Jonathan Logan mentioned, have entered uncharted territory. They've continued to burn all winter. We'll see (hopefully we wont) what happens this summer. Recall coral bleaching in the gulf of mexico. And so on. Your points on sulphur geoengineering are valid, however the geoengineering already happened over the decades that sulphur was being emitted in shipping. I think of it less as geoengineering and more as preventing termination shock from a geoengineering project which has already occurred. Also 3 degrees is apocalyptic. I swear euro/americentrism will be the death of us. Recall suitability change projections under high RCP scenarios from now to 2070 (iirc it was xu et al.'s paper). It looks _alright_ for parts of the eurasian steppe and north america, but then recall the Yuxi circle and look at suitability change for the region where 60%+ of humanity lives. And then recall (rather, study) the british partition of india and learn what mass migration actually looks like. And then juxtapose that with a mass migration that makes 1946/47 India look miniscule. "frankly wonderful". i understand youre trying to be optimistic. and that's a great thing to do. but anything short of near total drawdown by 2030 is catastrophic. we both know that. we both also know that the only way to achieve that is to completely dismantle finance capital from our positions of power within the imperial core. the fundamental disconnect between neoliberal economics and biophysical reality is the root cause of capitalogenic climate omnicide.
i may have engaged in some slight ~number play~ those numbers are just from the last month (and i haven't uploaded a video recently). i suspect the only people watching my videos in between videos are the unfortunate souls who get assigned my ramblings in classes -- an they skew younger. if you look out on a longer timeline the numbers get a bit more spread out.
eep, i do wish all these international bodies had more fun names, it would make talking about them both less confusing with shared initialisms, but also more enjoyable for me personally.
It still is possible that 2022 will be peak CO2 emitting year BUT yeah methane leaks and refrigerants I suppose highly problematic yeah anyway I think if it wasn’t 2022 it will be 2023 anyway Tony Seba’s presentation a few months ago in Saudi Arabia worthwhile UA-cam watch BUT yeah Kigali etc important to pay attention to indeed
I was disheartened to learn that hydrogen leaks impede methane breakdown initial research shows so another reason to avoid most hydrogen uses… biochar preventing N2O emissions excellent if that research continues to be confirmed!
this is for fossil fuel emissions, so agricultural emissions associated with fossil fuels, yes. not methane or NOx from livestock and fertilizer (that i'm aware of)
Some points that are important here one a lot of the ghg emissions for rich nations peaked like 20 years ago due to a mix of coal being replaced with nat gas globalization of particularly dirty or ghg intensive sectors to low wage nations general efficiency gains and aging.The development of middle income nation mainly China was really the thing that has keep the number up for so long. China has mostly finished industrializing. China is in a recession and is facing extreme aging. Finally in the last 10 years or so renewable have finally become something that is market competitive. Im not as optimistic about renewables as most greens for no other reason than once u take into account that most of the areas that are very sunny(usually deserts or seasonally dry) or windy(mountians plains or coastal region) are usually not near the regions of the world that use the most energy with the exception of coastal areas and we still need storage that is better and cheaper than lithium but it can be a significant player. This means the ability to hold the gains are dependant on 4 factors advancement of renewables and nuclear the speed at which poor nations develop and how they develop likely in the short term the availability of nat gas and tech.
blah blah blah blah When The Keeling Curve trends DOWN then and only then are we "reducing emissions." We are fucking doomed. We can fix this and we're not. Simple as that.
Climate denialist here. I have honest questions that need answers. I’m not being facetious, I legitimately want to know/understand. 1.Vostok (look it up) ice core shows temps lead co2 by 600-800 years, during every warming and cooling period over the past 200,000 years. Why do temp trends lead co2 trends, over the past 200,000 years? If co2 caused the change of temps wouldn’t co2 lead and raise before the temps do? 2. If co2 causes warming trends, what caused the elevated co2 levels over every warming trend in the last 200,000 years? 3. If co2 caused warming trends, why did the earth cool 800 years before co2 levels dropped? If co2 warmed the planet, wouldn’t the temps remain high a
.... do you think i don't know what vostok research station is? sigh. anyway, the answers to your questions have been repeatedly answered. and your questions aren't the 'gotchas' you think they are. 1. co2 and temperature are linked, but no CO2 is not the primary cause for warming and cooling historically. co2 increases as temperatures increase, further amplifying warming. skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm 2. see point one. 3. see point one.
sigh: THIS: th.bing.com/th/id/R.f6ef957d6459320ad3db91b30dd4b8ce?rik=C24VnU8OwwAblg&riu=http%3a%2f%2fstatic1.businessinsider.com%2fimage%2f5af0af8419ee865b008b4987-1000%2ftemperature+and+co2.jpg&ehk=F%2b3rj84nggbgkANlFGGXg4Tq5Zq%2fGKfUbRinAzbOPic%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0 is caused by THIS: sustainabilitymath.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/cropped-original.jpg YOU tell why that little blue line will go DOWN?
0:48 I was 8 years old n 1973. I learned about "greenhouse gases" in 1974. It was a punch to my gut and I remember reading it in a school magazine in 4th grade. The article said not to worry because we would all have solar and EVs very soon.
I came here to say a similar thing, except I was much younger and completely unaware of what was going on in the world for another 7-8 years.
@@tsalVlog Understood. Thanks.
@@tsalVlog
Ditto.
That's about when some Anthropologist started to say: 'We did not evolve to live in the societies we have erected"
Inverted society: we put the people whit most severe antisocial behavior psychopathy/narcissism/sociopathy in charge, because they care about profits, not people, and certainly not Life.
@3g0st I read a few of his books and saw about a dozen of his videos. I really like him, but I find the expression not self-explanatory.
You probably know Prof. Michael Hudson then. He's another wise economist, I really appreciate his knowledge of history.
Thanks for the reply ✌
I'm optimistic that we will see a significant reduction in fossil fuel use, but it's too slow. Not that it won't matter, but it's not going from bad to good, it's going from horrible to bad.
The way I put it to family is that 14 years ago we were probably heading for ”Mad Max” bad, and now we’re probably heading for “pretty rough.” Improvement, but lots of work left to do.
@@Randomgen77 Good news though. OPEC seems to be entering a panic. If OPEC, Russia and other jerks get weakened, that might mean more peace.
Progress, or evolution, is a slow process. And it starts in individuals 🙏
Great video Miriam! Always a treat when a lil Zentouro notification pops up :)
Oh hey, apparently I’m 0% of your audience!
Me too. I'm 58 years old.
Me too! Just turned 50!
64
Me too I not only lived through the oil crisis, but I remember the first Earth Day and the Cuyahoga river burning.
This is the sort of rounding error I feel privileged being a part of! OK to be fair, I wasn't alive in 73 either, but on the plus side, my eyesight is still just about good enough to discern that I fall into one of the 0% "45 to 54" brackets on that YT Analytics screen shot...
Wow you have excellent camera presence and rate of information sharing. That’s a hard skill to master that I’m still working on! Thanks for sharing this video!! Looking forward to more!
I was alive for the 1973 oil crisis and I watch your videos. I was not only alive for it, but I remember it well. Take that UA-cam algorithm.
thanks for sharing! it is wonderful to know so many folks of all ages watch these video!
It is good to see you back, I have missed you. I was born in the early 70s so like a few others have noted, I am in one of those 0% categories of your youtube viewer stats. I would do a similar dance if we have indeed reached peak, which as you rightly pointed out, we'll only know perhaps a year from now, or longer.
Thank you for this optimistic video, I honestly needed that.
Happy & healthy 12024, everyone! :)
I am 25 and I don't think ever before in my life have I heard "line goes down". This made me so happy. The fight goes on but good news happen, sometimes!
I'm one of the 0% 50+ yr old viewers 😅💚🙌
Me too. I'm 58 years old.
@@dianewallace6064 Quiet down you kids! 😁
Thanks so much for breaking down what this headline does (and crucially doesn't!) mean 💚
Thanks for another excellent update. Yes, we need to dance for every victory, there are so few.
I was a Freshman in college, 1973.
This is great news. Even though we actually need net negative, so the climate can actually start improving. But starting to have a negative derivative is good too.
This is hopium.
Happy new year Zen, thanks for the news!
Brilliant video, very informative and well-made!
This is very interesting
On a side note i cant wait for the 100th energy report so people can joke that its the 100th gec
gecgecgec
Merci Miriam 🖖
According to 2007's AR4, 93,4% of the warming goes into the oceans and only 2,3% goes into the troposphere (that thin layer of 12 km average thickness in which we live)
According g to this 2015 paper Ocean heat uptake and the global surface temperature record
Grantham Institute Briefing paper No 14 September 2015
If the warming that went into the oceans went instead to the troposphere, it would be 36°C warmer.
I'll leave the link in the reply in case it gets deleted... again!
Well, it was deleted, again... 🤦♂
I don't see the link in the comments being held for review so I'm not sure where it is going (I'm not deleting anything)
@@zentouro I know it's not you Miriam. I spend my retirement on youtube and have been retired for many years because a... workectomy.
Yes, I lie to them about my age since I've been a sort of privacy advocate since... lets just say some decades.
The paper should be easy to find though.
Bon courage dans tes études 👍
@@zentouro Also, the 93,4% comes from IPCC AR4 from 2007.
'Global Warming Components' illustration can be found on Skeptical Science, a website dedicated to combat fossil fuel misinformation and other beliefs we see all over. I've been going there since 2015.
It is reliable and also has a section on the history of global warming that begins with Louis-Joseph Fourrier who was wondering how come the Earth wasn't frozen.
Thanks again for your work. been silently following you for... 4 or 5 years I guess.
Keep it up 👍
P.S. I also follow oceanographers, glaciologists, marine biologists and others, not forgetting and James Hansen of course.
Thanks for a great video with some good news - I'll take it anywhere I can find it!
“I accepted to come to this meeting to have a sober and mature conversation. I’m not in any way signing up to any discussion that is alarmist. There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5C.”
- Sultan Al Jaber, President of COP 28, also CEO of Abu Dhabi National Oil Company
Seems more and more likely, scenario SSP5-8.5 of the IPCC assessment may come to fruition (or at least the higher end of the spectrum). I say enjoy what you can, while you still can; pity the generations to come.
scenarios 5-8.5 is thankfully far worse than any track we're currently on. current policies, not just stated, put us more in the 2-4.5/3-7.0 world.
Loved the video! Good luck on your phd!
thank you!
Yo just wanted to say I remember you were working on a PhD. Keep it up! The amount I worried seems silly in retrospect. You're the expert on your dissertation. Remember, the D in PhD stands for DONE.
Stand outside in the full sun on a clear day and feel the radiant energy of the sun on your skin as being warmer than the ambient air temperature. This radiant energy your body is absorbing is actually visible light converted to infrared energy known as heat, while the air temperature you feel is the vibratory action (kinetic energy) of air molecules as they’re kept abuzz by wildly gyrating greenhouse gas molecules that have become excited by their absorption of infrared radiant energy. [Oxygen and nitrogen molecules do not absorb heat.]
Note: You can copy and paste the above paragraph by first taking a screenshot of such and then working from the photo. Use that as your search parameter for related searches.
Great video! Thank you for that bit of hope :)
China has done much in this effort! Hundred of millions of people are using renewable energy there!
that's true, particularly with solar, china is leading the world on PV development and sales.
See your demographic chart, realize I'm an old man, ponder life.
Love the thumbnail lol. Great face and Excellent video as always.
Thanks 😁
Great Video. I hope we have peaked. I am disappointed (understatement) that Biden is drilling at Willow in Alaska though.
ugh, yes seriously. supremely frustrating he opened that up. i get mad every time i think about it.
@@zentouro Understood, me too.
Good news is it will probably not produce that much and likely become a stranded asset.
And Trudeau bought a pipeline project with tax payer money. Unsurprisingly, they also gave a standing to a real 90 some years old WW2 nutzee in our parliament, who's wanted for war crimes in at least one other country.
And yet I believe Trump would be much worse in that regard.
Say it again but LOUDER!
Ladies and gentlemen we got Peak emissions, gamers crabrave airhorn sounds gritty gangnam style bOOM
dang it I should have started the video like that
I would love to see a statistically significant test taken, Manmade Climate Change Deniers on one side and Manmade Climate Change Believers on the other, graphed by INTELLIGENCE as measured with an IQ test.
Any guesses which way the deniers would tip the scales?
How can I help? How can we help? Any advocacy agencies you would recommend in United States that could use my and my community's support?
If I'm 0% of the audience, does that mean my emissions are down to 0% as well? ;) Thank you for the video! As you note, the peak doesn't mean low, and especially with the shenanigans the fossil fuel producers are up to (especially the moustache-twirling plans to hook the developing nations onto super dirty fuel -- if you want your next Bond villain check out the idea for bunker-fuel powered electricity generating ships that will be rented so they can be floated to the highest bidder) we might float for a while, but fingers crossed that enough momentum and price points are being hit that we're at the top of the lift hill and the thrills of the first roller-coaster drop hill is just before us. (Ok, not sure that was a clearest or best analogy, but I'm going with it for now. :)
i think that's how the math maths :P
@@zentouro Do you think G👀gle/youtube has reached peak censorship?
Sorry that I'm such a pessimist but I think you're missing the detail that the business cycle is 7-12 years long.
We are somewhere near the bottom of the trough right now. Economic activity will pick up again and when it does the demand for energy will increase. And when it does, it's most likely going to bring with it a new and higher peak for energy demand.
The editing in this video is amazing! Do you do it all yourself?
yup
hosting a line go down party to kick off 2024 :)
Can you (or have you already) covered how industrial farming in north America is effected by 2°+ warming.
hi, i haven't covered that but impact of warming on agriculture is a research question in the labs i'm part of, so maybe i should! thanks for the idea.
@@zentouro thank you so much for addressing my question. It's a relatively unexplored topic on UA-cam and I thought it may be your kind of topic.
you're definitely right, it is very up my alley! one of my colleagues recently wrote a great paper on the topic (although this is global rather than N. America-focused) www.nature.com/articles/s43017-022-00368-8
Let's clarify "peak emissions". The IEA means peak human caused fossil fuel GHG emissions.
Great video. And, it's very clear that total GHG emissions are not going to peek, or will only temporarily peak, but are most likely going to continue to rise as permafrost melting & boreal forest burning (eg, Canada's 45m acres in 2023) accelerates, and heated marshlands & rice fields increasingy gurgle GHGs, etc., probably inexorably and unstoppably.
Never mind that 550ppm CO2-eq bakes in minimum of +2.0C, or the guarantees long-term Arctic BOE & the loss of all land based ice outside East Antartic and (perhaps) some small % of Greenland, or the extra +0.5C to +0.75C Dr. Hansen expects via the Aerosol Effect, or that Bill Gates says we'll be fortunate (aka, shockingly lucky) if we can stay below +3.0C...
BIG WIN: peak anthropogenic GHGs by 2024 would be a damn good thing!
Next up? SOx geoengineering and MEER programs!
What's your PhD focused on?
hiya, okay lot to unpack here.
yes, i'm definitely talking about fossil fuel emissions here. but i haven't seen compelling (or rather well accepted by the field) research showing that we have passed a tipping point in permafrost melt and fire that suggests if we reduced point-source emissions those would continue accelerating. this is a super active area of research though, so if you've got more data than me please share.
most models using current policies have us under 3º now, which is frankly wonderful, because when i started in this field we were looking at some truly apocalyptic 4+ scenarios.
and i don't think SOx geoengineering is the way to go at all. which is in part because of what my PhD research is in. I study extreme precipitation and drought as compound hazards. and the feedback onto precipitation from messing with atmospheric circulation/clouds can be pretty devastating. a solution that could harm as many people from crop failures as it saves by keeping the average cooler is not a solution to me.
@@zentouro thanks for your reply. Happy to share additional data. Will reach out and see if I can find you on LinkedIn, rather than long messages here.
@@zentouro We entered multiple tipping points in 2023. The literature will always lag, but there were multiple records that were literally off the charts as I'm sure you're aware. "Canadian" fires, as Jonathan Logan mentioned, have entered uncharted territory. They've continued to burn all winter. We'll see (hopefully we wont) what happens this summer. Recall coral bleaching in the gulf of mexico. And so on.
Your points on sulphur geoengineering are valid, however the geoengineering already happened over the decades that sulphur was being emitted in shipping. I think of it less as geoengineering and more as preventing termination shock from a geoengineering project which has already occurred.
Also 3 degrees is apocalyptic. I swear euro/americentrism will be the death of us. Recall suitability change projections under high RCP scenarios from now to 2070 (iirc it was xu et al.'s paper). It looks _alright_ for parts of the eurasian steppe and north america, but then recall the Yuxi circle and look at suitability change for the region where 60%+ of humanity lives. And then recall (rather, study) the british partition of india and learn what mass migration actually looks like. And then juxtapose that with a mass migration that makes 1946/47 India look miniscule.
"frankly wonderful". i understand youre trying to be optimistic. and that's a great thing to do. but anything short of near total drawdown by 2030 is catastrophic. we both know that. we both also know that the only way to achieve that is to completely dismantle finance capital from our positions of power within the imperial core. the fundamental disconnect between neoliberal economics and biophysical reality is the root cause of capitalogenic climate omnicide.
UA-cam is lying to you (re ages... or just rounding down).
i may have engaged in some slight ~number play~ those numbers are just from the last month (and i haven't uploaded a video recently). i suspect the only people watching my videos in between videos are the unfortunate souls who get assigned my ramblings in classes -- an they skew younger. if you look out on a longer timeline the numbers get a bit more spread out.
I'm 58 years old.
Thanks for the news! :) Have a good dance with your dog.
The moment emission reduction takes effect, the majority will accelerate again. Don't have any illusions!
As a UK Citizen it’s funny seeing the IEA talked about in glowing terms (here a controversial right-wing think tank shares the initialism.)
eep, i do wish all these international bodies had more fun names, it would make talking about them both less confusing with shared initialisms, but also more enjoyable for me personally.
Relax 😆🤪🤪🤪
Sarcasm is awesome tho, keep up the good work, thanks for the vid 🙏
I'd hope Africa would rather invest in solar with all the sun they have
It still is possible that 2022 will be peak CO2 emitting year BUT yeah methane leaks and refrigerants I suppose highly problematic yeah anyway I think if it wasn’t 2022 it will be 2023 anyway Tony Seba’s presentation a few months ago in Saudi Arabia worthwhile UA-cam watch BUT yeah Kigali etc important to pay attention to indeed
I was disheartened to learn that hydrogen leaks impede methane breakdown initial research shows so another reason to avoid most hydrogen uses… biochar preventing N2O emissions excellent if that research continues to be confirmed!
Let’s get to 1000 ppm. The world will only get greener, as it did in going from 300 to 400. GREEN THE PLANET.
Is this just for energy though? What about emissions from agriculture?
this is for fossil fuel emissions, so agricultural emissions associated with fossil fuels, yes. not methane or NOx from livestock and fertilizer (that i'm aware of)
After reading Hansen... do you think that even if we peak emissions this year we can avoid 1.8º-2.2º by the end of the 2030's?
Please never again share your viewership data by age. I already know that I am ancient, thank you very much.
OK olde guy, what will be YOUR legacy?
@@mrunning10: Nothing to be proud of. :(
Some points that are important here one a lot of the ghg emissions for rich nations peaked like 20 years ago due to a mix of coal being replaced with nat gas globalization of particularly dirty or ghg intensive sectors to low wage nations general efficiency gains and aging.The development of middle income nation mainly China was really the thing that has keep the number up for so long. China has mostly finished industrializing. China is in a recession and is facing extreme aging. Finally in the last 10 years or so renewable have finally become something that is market competitive. Im not as optimistic about renewables as most greens for no other reason than once u take into account that most of the areas that are very sunny(usually deserts or seasonally dry) or windy(mountians plains or coastal region) are usually not near the regions of the world that use the most energy with the exception of coastal areas and we still need storage that is better and cheaper than lithium but it can be a significant player. This means the ability to hold the gains are dependant on 4 factors advancement of renewables and nuclear the speed at which poor nations develop and how they develop likely in the short term the availability of nat gas and tech.
blah blah blah blah When The Keeling Curve trends DOWN then and only then are we "reducing emissions." We are fucking doomed. We can fix this and we're not. Simple as that.
Climate denialist here. I have honest questions that need answers. I’m not being facetious, I legitimately want to know/understand.
1.Vostok (look it up) ice core shows temps lead co2 by 600-800 years, during every warming and cooling period over the past 200,000 years. Why do temp trends lead co2 trends, over the past 200,000 years? If co2 caused the change of temps wouldn’t co2 lead and raise before the temps do?
2. If co2 causes warming trends, what caused the elevated co2 levels over every warming trend in the last 200,000 years?
3. If co2 caused warming trends, why did the earth cool 800 years before co2 levels dropped? If co2 warmed the planet, wouldn’t the temps remain high a
.... do you think i don't know what vostok research station is? sigh. anyway, the answers to your questions have been repeatedly answered. and your questions aren't the 'gotchas' you think they are.
1. co2 and temperature are linked, but no CO2 is not the primary cause for warming and cooling historically. co2 increases as temperatures increase, further amplifying warming. skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
2. see point one.
3. see point one.
sigh: THIS: th.bing.com/th/id/R.f6ef957d6459320ad3db91b30dd4b8ce?rik=C24VnU8OwwAblg&riu=http%3a%2f%2fstatic1.businessinsider.com%2fimage%2f5af0af8419ee865b008b4987-1000%2ftemperature+and+co2.jpg&ehk=F%2b3rj84nggbgkANlFGGXg4Tq5Zq%2fGKfUbRinAzbOPic%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0
is caused by THIS: sustainabilitymath.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/cropped-original.jpg
YOU tell why that little blue line will go DOWN?
Temperature increases co2 because of melting permafrost.
@@NashHinton Oh? Increases it where exactly? And exactly where is the source? And, you work for an oil lobby perhaps with your horseshit?
@@NashHinton And what "increases the temperature?"