Being by age on the last lap of my own human experience as I know it. I've seen and experience the insane ignorance of disrespecting natural systems of which we ultimately all depend on for life. Call the crisis what you will. If you don't see it then you are not looking. Imagine if we humans collectively dedicated ourselves to repairing and enhancing natural systems for the benefit of all life. An all inclusive celebration of living systems is in order, this celebrations needs all able hands on deck! "We can choose to hang together or we shall hang separately" -Ben Franklin
Well-stated, Nate. I am shocked and dismayed by much of the ensuing commentary, though. Perhaps one of the parameters you could have included is the diminishment of human gray matter!
Each subsequent COVID-19 infection has been found to lower IQ by 3 points, with infections requiring hospitalization lowering IQ by 6 points. By now, many people have had COVID-19 up to 5 times.
Human brain size has declined by 15% in the last 10,000 years since the advent of agriculture. This is common in domestic animals. Domestic animals typically have a smaller brain size than their wild cousins. Dogs and cattle both have smaller brains than wolves or the ancestors of domesticated cattle. It seems humans have domesticated themselves in the process of civilisation as well as domesticating symbiont animals. We are more compliant and ready to give up freedom under the slightest fear. Thus we do not need such energy expensive brains when so much of our thinking can be outsourced to the collective mob.
@@Jc-ms5vv when I was growing up, they were for save the rainforest because they thought it was our global oxygen. Turns out we get 91% from the ocean.
I wonder what percentage of the skeptic/denier comments are by bots and professional trolls. It's unfortunate that you have to address them. But you do an excellent job as always, though I doubt it will help with the naysayers.
Much like geopolitics, climate change is such a deep and nuanced topic most people just believe the memes their cult'ure pushes on them for instance they say climate has always changed its nothing new, not understanding how current human civilization in (Overshoot) has particular fragilities such as economics, borders, and a very competitive nature and so on and so on
@@mischevious implicit in your condescending reply is the belief that you are undeniably right, and those with whom you disagree are ignorant fools - yet that in itself is the behaviour of a fool, is it not?
@@Spacemonkeymojo My answer to them is “so everything is fine but the lies we’re told?” I also ask if they want to join me in the belly of the beast in rush hour traffic here in LA and tell me that.
Have you heard the story of the boy who cried wolf? If people are continually lied to by the ruling classes, then it's only natural that they will begin to distrust everything they are told. Don't blame the masses for their hesitation, blame the politicians for their lies.
Wrong. Those other things are actually what is causing the temperature rise and species extinction, not AGW. Are you a pollution and urban heat island effect denier?
Operation Berkshire, was a collusion by big tobacco, the goal was not to disprove tobacco was harmful but all they realised they needed to do was create confusion to keep making those profits. Big Oil then hired those same advertisers, I have a pdf somewhere that is very interesting reading about how big oil would fund different grass roots groups, car clubs etc just to maintain sales. To think that they are out there actively paying people to create confusion on this issue should put them in jail but we still seem to be using their product. I usually tell people, there is no way you can input energy into a system without it meaning something, then tell them a tank of diesel has 12-20 weeks of my total electrical energy and that around 70% of diesel and 75% of petrol is lost as heat, telling people who genuinely don't get it, especially older guys about energy into a system and they start to get it.
You can't put energy into a system without it meaning something and 99.97% of the mass of the atmosphere and carbon has mass is only 62 mile or 100 klm's high.
The state of systems thinking , critical thought seems to be disappearing in an age of social media and human attention span shrinking. Can't see the forest for the tree, assuming any forests are left
Most humans on the planet now only know that their food comes from buildings that sell food. They have no knowledge of much less connection to the living world that affords us life.
👍. . . The tricky part of your thought experiment is the same climate denier will dispute your facts about mass and energy too. They will, in their anti-intellectual way, also deny the observations and measurements.
@@PeterLamin-pi6rvOnly we’ve now overpowered the sun and greatly enhanced it’s affect in our climate impact. Our technological prowess has us gobbling up our own life sustaining habitat, turning the living Earth into a desert of concrete. What does concrete do when the sun beats on it all day?
@@PeterLamin-pi6rvOnly we’ve now overpowered the sun and greatly enhanced it’s affect in our climate impact. Our technological prowess has us gobbling up our own life sustaining habitat, turning the living Earth into a desert of concrete. What does concrete do when the sun beats on it all day?
@@PeterLamin-pi6rvOnly we’ve now overpowered the sun and greatly enhanced it’s affect in our climate impact. Our technological prowess has us gobbling up our own life sustaining habitat, turning the living Earth into a desert of concrete. What does concrete do when the sun beats on it all day?
Global warming is not a hoax. Our current biomes at their present locations are unable to survive with 4 degrees of warming. Look at a map of miocene biomes compared to now. Deciduous trees in New York and most boreal trees in Canada will perish at their current location with 4 degrees of warming. Also, I want to say that obesity also reduces fertility.
Just how much can WE change Global Warming? Let’s do the calculations! Have you ever asked, “How much global warming has there been since the START of the industrial revolution?" Ask Google, Ans from NOAA: “1°C since 1750? So how much change is that a year in °F 1.8F/272 years = 0.0066°F /year How much is actually caused by the USA? OK let's ask Google, Ans: 27% So the USA has caused (27%) * .0066° /year or .0017° F /year. Have you ever asked what is the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere? Ans: 120 years WOW!! By using NOAA’s historical records after reaching NETZERO in the USA, the MAXIMUM change expected in global warming is -.0017°F /year And it will take an additional 120 years to realize an actual reduction of -.00085 °F Now Ask: what's the cost to reach NETZERO? Ans: $4 trillion a year for the next 30 years or $120 trillion.
@gadabout694 reducing fossil fuel emissions isn't going to do us any favors as far as warming is concerned (it actually accelerates the damage). That does NOT mean that we can't affect things, though. There are plenty of other things we can do that affect the heat balance, such as changing the albedo with reflective surfaces, or restoring ecosystems that increase water retention and cool the local climate, while also sequestering carbon
@@johncarter1150Already underway. The US recently vetoed a unanimous UN resolution declaring water a human right. Funny since our Constitution cites our right to life and water is life. There’s also a genocide happening in the ME. The underlying goal is the theft of land and critical resources, specifically water, control of the Jordan river.
Nate, I have an idea. Why don't you organize a series of debates on your show, with several of your most respected climate scientists; pitted against several of the following climate scientists, namely Dr Judith Curry, Prof. Richard Lindzen, Bjorn Lomberg, Prof. Dick Linton, Dr. Will Happer, Prof. John Clauser, Dr. Mathew Weilicki, Patrick Moore, Dr. Willie Soon, Dr. Roy Spencer, Tony Heller, Prof. Steven Koonin, Prof. Nir Shaviv, Prof. Henrik Svensmark, Dr. Benny Peiser and Prof. Sallie Baliunas. As much as I've searched the net trying to find such a debate, I've had zero success. Come on Nate, this would be a first!
It's humorous to me when deniers will say, "Follow the money," and take a trail leading them to the uncompensated IPCC scientists rather than fossil lobbyists. Also, side update we are breaking temp records this week in AZ. Lovely "autumn" so far...
@@zeekczup Temperature records. Blah blah. We started recording when? These temperatures are all starting from a really low base on the back of the maunder minimum. The IPCC (governmental panel) have sacrificed any integrity that had by adopting the hockey stick and the rewriting of the temp records to remove the medieval warming period or tye Roman warm period and furthermore they have repeatedly ignored pleas to add solar forcing to the tool set and it’s only recently that they have entrained a modicum of sense and noted the smallest solar effects but they still ignored the galactic cosmic ray forcing.. this is what happens when politicians rule the roost
On recent trip to Perth and the Margaret River in Western Australia, I couldn't help but notice the bird life and that my son in law had to wash down the front of his vehicle after a two-hour drive. It was covered in insects. The two must be connected. I haven't had to wash down any vehicle for insects in the past forty years at least on the east coast of Australia and we don't quite have the birdlife of Western Australia.
I think, Nate, that it would be good to focus less on climate change denying and address instead the legitimate concerns many in the climate change denying camp have about its high tech and society changing solutions. These are perceived as rushed, and forced upon all without carefully considering their impacts. A small example of the latest might be solar dimming tech in an age of growing general mistrust and rushed science. So much more to say but I’ll stop here for lack of time and energy. I will say that as a (former?) progressive I’m now afraid of my own tribe. I am shocked by their - our - unkindness and intolerance.
Thanks Jenny for being a voice of reason in a sea of condescension and superior attitudes - attitudes that only make distrusting people dig their heels in even more. If we have a ruling class that continually lie to their citizens about everything from food safety to international warfare, then naturally their citizens are going to distrust them - they'd be foolhardy not to! We need governmental bodies and spokespeople we can trust for everybody to start pulling in the same direction. Until then, political and economic divisions will only make the problem worse.
@@xiv7477All institutions are inevitably corrupted by an easily corruptible species. This is why we created gods to fear, because self service is our nature. Because we have such a hard time just being good.
I listen to a science podcaster here in Mexico... he keeps on saying climate change is not necessarily caused by human activity... but in the end, even if it isn't we still have to deal with it... and as you say there are plenty of other problems to solve out there... what is true is that the media just concentrates on climate and renewables which is fishy at best!
This change is, no doubt about it. Check that person's degrees and background. Personally, I've found many deniers on staff at private conservative colleges here in the States. DeSmog has a growing list of them if you know his name.
Real field scientist here. I wasn't sure if the 87/88 El Nino was impacted, but I knew for sure with the 97/98 El Nino. No doubt about it in my mind - I was already 40 years old. And year after year, I see ever more changes. Now, those impacts are staring at us with an evil eye, and yet our governments (both democratic and otherwise) are still issuing fossil fuel permits! I began meeting with the politicians around 2008 after a research project in the reversibility of climate change - I was running scared. Both sides of the aisle blew me off in our meetings. Even governors and senators! As a result, my partner, a P.E. and I did a climate risk analysis and moved in '18 to the Great Lakes region. People will need to know about risks as they too begin to move north and away from the oceans. Might I suggest you interview Dr. Schoerning with the American Resiliency Org??? I did ours before the project was formed, but she catches the biggest risks in each state. Thanks. People will need help now.
Well done,thank's for the presentation. I believe there is a sub-culture here in the USA, which I call "Puck-up Cuture". This is the proclaimed right to drive a 3 ton truck in suburbia (adv wt: 5k to 7.5 lbs). Pickup culture does not care about the enviroment or other living creatures. The good new is that fossil fuels are finite. The bad news is that pick-up culture will find some way to fill their tanks.
You mention "Fossil fuels are finite" You're right and the depletion is going on. Our thermo-industrial civilization now burns around 100 million barrels of oil each day, in 2050 this will be cut off by half. There will be residual oil in the ground but the EROI will be too low to exploit it. Fossil fuels count for 82% of energy used and there exist now path to replace its utility. The interdependencies between energy sources are so intertwined that the most willing among us should succeed in solving a web of complexity, a challenge even more complicated than winning at Mikado's game! And what about political and economic leaders, the vast majority of whom are incompetent regarding energy and environmental issues, who blithely confuse an energy carrier such as hydrogen with a primary energy source, who uses oxymorons such as “sustainable development” and “green growth”. In this sense, talking about energy transition remains a delusion. Never did have energies from different sources replace each other, they have intertwined with each other.
@@PACotnoir1 I see a lots of adds touting movement towards net-zero and low-carbon. A potential profitable activity. Remember during WW II Germany survived by converted coal to petrolium. The irony is using renewable energy (or nuclear) to produce carbon-based fuels. Getting to net-zero just stabilized the addict. It is a no win. Net-negative should b the goal.
I like the idea of approaching this topic by assuming it is a grift. It forces the deniers to change lanes and when they do you see more clearly their true motives. The object of most non-professional climate change deniers and similar nonsense peddlers has little to do with exposing any truth. It is simply a way to hide from and or provide a sense of exercising just a little control over forces that seem beyond their individual capacity to manage. A way to quell the psychic pain of their individual helplessness. For others, like Mr. Peterson, it is also an exercise in self aggrandizement and profit making. They are the true grifters in this story.
Fear is much more comfortable to just outright avoid. Plus, living in fear is terrible for our health if we don't know how to deal with it, and most don't. That said, I get where they're coming from, after covid, where outright lies were the norm in mainstream institutions. That makes you think they could lie about just about anything else. It's a logical error, but still a rational consideration
Two days ago, I listened to Kate Raworth give a presentation in Brussels, Belgium. At one point, she reminded the audience of some industry's motto "Doubt is our business". Sowing the seeds of doubt in the minds of people who are already, and most of the time rightfully, angry and, in some ways, have lost their bearings makes them the ideal vector of this twisted Stockholm syndrome. We know that research is not definitive and that, on any given day, science is, for the time being. That is, when pissed off and having become judgmental by essence, some people pollute the conversation in inextricable ways. Do we want to fix this planet, or do we want to debate who is right about climate change? I mean, the other day, I saw Mr. Peterson, about whom my opinion is that he is fascinating when it comes to psychology, and Mr. Trudeau, so I saw him interviewing a "scientist" (quotation marks to be clarified in a second) about debunking climate change. Except that guy, twenty years ago, was live on French TV and defending herbicide, saying he would happily drink it. Except, again, the journalist said, "What a coincidence, we just happen to have a fresh bottle in the studio. Could we serve you a glass?". In five seconds, the now climate change expert went from "sure" to "wait a minute" to "you are setting me up" to tearing off his mike and leaving the studio. This can be found on your favorite video tube. The point is that opinion does not replace research, and if one cannot be a scientist, which I am not, and happily so, it can be helpful to see who is financing your favorite scientist. And do not stop at the first layer. Those guys have had more than 50 years to sow doubt. No wonder so many are falling for it.
They fall for it because they want to fall for it. It makes life so much more comfortable for them and doing any intelligent research is too much effort.
@@coleorum On some level or other of the human mind and motive what you say is true. However, humans are multifaceted, and not as easily summed as we would like. From another perspective, humans are just children. If you can see and grasp that, what does it imply to you?
@@coleorum the average person has a full time job, a mortgage to pay, children to raise, endless taxes to pay, and may not have the time or ability to sift through an endless sea of geographical data to determine who is and who isn't trying to mislead them. It's called information overload, and egotists like you only make the problem worse with your condescending views, instead of trying to find solutions to the problem of mass, justifiable distrust of authority.
One of Nate's previous guests, a professor from Scotland, stated that a human's basal metabolic rate is 100 calories per hour. However, our social metabolic rate is magnitudes higher. I don't know any person on the planet who would be happy living at 100 calories per hour. If you then consider that we were at one billion people around 1800 and around eight billion now... I don't know many people who have anything constructive to say about depopulation. I think the only approach that makes sense to me is to let it run its course because we cannot escape the effects of CC now and the loss of biodiversity is mind boggling. The planet will deal with this problem as surely as Adam Smith's invisible hand will fix the economy.
"Stability"... From what/who's view? Man? Oh, we're so small that we never can take it in, and only here for seconds matched to the whole picture. We'll not be missed or remembered of anyone or anything.
Thanks Nate(if you’ll allow the familiarity) for another sobering look at our ‘dilemma’ ..I’ve seen,in my 71yrs,so much decline and degradation in my life that climate change as a hoax is easy to disregard. We’re in for a ‘rough-ride’ in the near future,we’re all sadled up. I feel for the next generation(s). Thanks for your sobering content.
The graph shown (3:10) in order to claim an unprecedented rate of rise has a number of errors. First, 10C in 50 years. It is actually 1C, not 10C, as I think you correctly stated. The timescale cannot be linear, or 50 years would be invisible. Secondly, it ignores rates possible within the error/probability range. Thirdly, the caption states temperatures shown are averages for geological periods. So not valid for rate comparison with years. That omits the broader issue of types of proxies used and the minimum temporal accuracy of each type and period.
I am worried by a declining sperm at the same time as I am not worried by a declining sperm count. Why am I not worried? 1) 8 billion people is not a shortage of human being. 2) Sperm count is typically far higher than needed for male fertility. Why? Because of other males. Part of the competition between males for their genes to reproduce is at the microscopic level, at the level of sperm. Not only will sperm attack foreign sperm which it may come into contact with but some sperm are produced only to block foreign sperm from other males. In this sperm competition is a numbers game. The more sperm, the better the chances of reproduction. Thus we have so much redundancy in sperm count. Sperm count varies with species depending on the competition between males and the level of sexual promiscuity. Among apes bonobos have the highest sperm count being the most promiscuous ape. It's an arms race. Sperm counts would have to drop to very low levels before threatening the fertility of humans as a whole. Why am I worried about declining sperm count? Because if environmental contamination can have that effect in people what other effects can it have for us and other species in new cancers and other diseases and for the environment as a whole.
I vote for the bonobos. They are the species who embody the saying: "Make love, not war." But why do you automatically assume that having lots of sperm signifies an "arms race?" Maybe it signifies merely that bonobos males are better lovers. After all, opportunities abound, and "practice makes perfect." 😉
You change the background temperature in biology, and everything changes. Same with the weather and other physical systems. We need more discussion on how we can reduce our personal risks from abrupt climate change, including moving if needed. I couldn't help notice that Nate is already in a good spot. So are we. We moved in '18 as part of our climate action plan and then readied the house for weather emergencies in all seasons.
I want to get on the bandwagon if you give me money I will stop the moon from melting as is made of cheese because of climate change we have not long left
Where in the media the discourse of climate skeptics is losing importance to that of decarbonization of which nuclear and renewable energy seems to be the case in Europe where coincidentally the decline of hydrocarbon resources in the North Sea which have made their recent wealth, the end is already approaching.
It's going to be a long goodbye, over many decades, with the many impacts. Somehow we have to help the young people cope now, and prevent it from getting even worse.
We find ourselves separated from the earth's natural cycles of Climate change for the first time by manmade Climate cycle. The Oglala Sioux Holy man, Healer, Visionary Black Elk Said: One cannot dare stand above and outside Natures sacred hoop, for such a stance is the arrogance of fools. Since we can exist only inside the hoop, and must try to direct the flow of power from within. ( Black Elk Speaks, by John Neihardt) Too much to say I will stop here.
Human physiology is sensitive to outdoors CO2 partial pressure, fertilty is one of the main health indicators from a reduction in our efficiency of removing excess CO2 we accumulate in our blood while within structures. At current rate of CO2 accumulatuon all humans will be in permanent CO2 stress within decades. Some are affected sooner. We didn't evolve for this atmosphere.
I use this point whenever anyone tries the old "CO2 is good for plants. Plants were thriving a million years ago when CO2 was double". A million years ago when CO2 was double there were no large mammals, because there was not enough oxygen. Considering humans are large mammals, maybe we do not want to return to those atmospheric conditions.
CO2 is not the only limiter to plant growth - our soils are being rapidly depleted of phosphorus and nitrogen. It doesn't matter how much CO2 is added to the atmosphere if the limiters are not CO2.
The main problem concerning anthropogenic climate change is that this is a very bad news ! The precise kind of truth people prefer to deny: 1- we are all responsible to an extend or another, and our lifestyle is unsustainable 2- we must change which implies investing now (annoying and costly) for real benefits to come only in 50 years from now. Guess what, only responsible people are able to accept this, all others, the childish ones, will flee into denial.
One thing can be seen without any effort or scientific research. That's that old growth forests with trees thousands of years old have been clear cut in just hundreds of years. The new growth burns so hot even the top soil burns. Many species of insects, birds and small plants live only in these old forests and not in younger forests.
You are very connected to some important part of the biosphere and can see things even scientists don't observe - this is how it should be - to live indigenously...
Sadly, the absence of critical thinking, innumeracy and irrationality which facilitate climate denial can and will be applied to the evidence you present here. 😮💨
Humans, behaving like humans, will behave like humans. Is what you said. And I agree, we are what we are. Long winded, self absorbed egotistical creatures that would rather fight to the death than admit when we’re wrong.
Also remember dinosaurs were not mammals. There was not enough oxygen on the planet for large mammals to exist. The atmosphere only supported lizard/bird metabolism, not mammals.
Fair enough, although unclear which direction you think the gas lighting is in !? Over hyping climate change, planetary boundaries etc... or under playing the risks and overstating hope based on low probability scenarios and requiring a lot of luck with technology, feedbacks, lags, tipping points, societal change etc. ... Or just a general comment in the post truth age.
@@ReesCatOphuls when you have Hollywood 'stars' who preach sustainability while travelling by private jet, when you have a mainstream media that specialises in polarisation for ad revenue, when you have a self-serving political class who propose increased taxation on the general population as a solution to environmental issues caused by multinational conglomerates, then surely skepticism is not only inevitable, but actually a rational response, no? The average person doesn't have the time or ability to wade through the mountain of geographical data pertaining to climate change, so they have to make a snap decision - do I trust the media / politicians / WEF bureaucrats telling me climate change is real, or do I not? And quite understandably, a large percentage of them choose not to. Which means the real issue at hand is, assuming humans are indeed creating an ever-worsening climate disaster, how do governments worldwide regain the trust of their citizens? And of course the answer is simple in theory, but almost impossible to implement: they would need to stop being corrupt, hypocritical, self-serving, and dishonest.
The simple truth: Personal, cultural, and ecosystem wellbeing will never win while the primary goal of corporate fiduciary responsibility is growth and profit, regardless of damaging externalities. "We have met the enemy and they is us"
Apart from higher co2 levels having caused both the great dying mass extinction and probably also the slow dinosaur extinction? And it took millions of years to get the co2 back down, which at the time I suppose was possible due to basalt weathering, whereas ocean sequestration probably was severely limited from acidity impact on ocean life. Except this time there won't be a recovery, because now you're also releasing all the permafrost carbon accumulated over the last few millions of years.
We observe the climate changing and the change is faster than any change before, if the anthropogenic impact was not real, than we would be in extrem trouble, for we would not understand the change we experience right now at all.
Deniers who do not believe humans are destroying biosphere thru capitalism overshoot and wars, must have diminished physical and common senses. Climate Scientists validate what a person who actually goes outside observe compared to their memories of how it was in past. I'm 61, my memories of abundance of life in rural Appalachia when I was a child compared to now is heart breaking... the forest, creeks that were once full birds insects fish animals are now nearly empty of life😢
It’s interesting reading the comments here, they are thoughtful, calm, intelligent. I think I would enjoy the company of the commenters. When I read comments from deniers I feel the opposite.
'Not sure how wise Homo Sapiens is as a nomenclature.' Think it was a channel called The Logic Junkie from back in the day. Precautionary Principle is as dead as our chances. Majority of people are just not adaptive enough.
Evidently it is cumbersome and annoying to be explaining every step of the way that whatever science and conclusion being talked about and made aware of might be wrong, object of fraud and deceit by corporate greed and shady interests. Nevertheless these dark interests do exist and they must always be kept in check so, in fact, these are precisely the types of videos that are where the node of civil service and science communication lies. What astounds me is how reluctant and few are the intellectuals and scientists to engage in this practice of challenging their findings with the interested dissenting public. Well, I do understand that main stream media lives off parasiting on contention... Anyway, keep fighting the good fight Nate. I am a big admirer of yours.
Nate, thank you for this Frankly. Being a systems thinker I naturally follow these issues but your wide ranging coverage of so many disparate elements is unique and very informative. A profound rebuttal to those who say “move on, move on, nothing to see here” about climate change, which is visibly happening every day. To provide a small bit of hope, I live in a conservative neighborhood in Arizona and have for seven years. When I moved in my neighbors would reply “climate has always changed” or it is a hoax, or words to that effect when Global Warming was brought up. NOT ANYMORE! Not one of them react that way now. We are slowly moving to a societal tipping point where the demand for action will be undeniable. Again, systems thinking will be essential. People will be demanding things like solar radiation management without fully considering and investigating secondary and tertiary effects. People are not rational about the global ecological situation and they won’t be rational about fixing it unless they are properly prepared. Thanks for doing this work.
Oil and natural gas companies would have a very hard time finding oil and gas. Those companies use paleo climatology to find fossil fuels. If our assumptions about the future are wrong their assumptions about the past are wrong. And we never have an Industrial World.
You know in school how they ‘teach a subject’ is antithetical to the way the mind learns. Basically if you ‘learned’ music in school, it will be an experience of humility without practice. Even the word ‘practice’ is antithetical to the activity of practice and invokes a stage theory, not a life practice. There is no art nor science in school, but there is plenty of teaching.
This is the problem: substituting reasoning for beliefs. Elevatiing opinions to the category of facts. No sir, we should not discuss Physichs or Maths, not at least in those realms where they've been proven right, full stop
@@john1boggity56 ua-cam.com/video/qzyjNltaSZE/v-deo.html&pp=ygUbaWNlIGNvcmVzIGZyb20gY2FtcCBjZW50dXJ5 here is one ,..for some reason google history is NOT pulling up Camp Century ice cores, apparently they were more recently "found" in pretty much excellent condition stored away the bottom 1.5 meters were thru the ice and into the terrain.
Indeed, change is neutral. It's how we respond to it that makes the difference. Peoples fear of change is being used against us, as usual. We need to feel and face the fear, not act on it. Gaia has this. She wants us with her, and trusting her is our best way through this evolutionary leap. Giving up our addiction to war and conflict would be a good start. Releasing us to focus on inventions that are harmonious with all life. xxx
It is not, because, as Goldsmith points out in "The Way", Gaia, being a living being, tends toward homeostasis while the changes wrought by human activity are pushing the planet further from homeostasis.
I'm sceptical about anthropogenic climate change, but am completely onboard with the urgent need to protect the natural environment and reduce polution/waste.
That's because you can see pollution/waste, but you cannot see CO2 and cannot see YET its full impact on our climate. Or else you would be very worried.
How does that make sense? Do you realize just how much ecosystem this one species has destroyed in a few centuries? You don't think turning a forest into a desert affects how warm that climate is? What about when you more or less do that to half the planet?
@@MattAngionothe world has become greener due to increased c02, we also produce more food per area and that’s still trending up, which is also thanks to increased c02 (partly). How these two facts gets rejected by alarmists was a big part in me losing my faith in climate doom.
@findingthereal9052 what do you mean by greener? Clearly, there is far less natural ecosystem than in previous centuries. There's also far less wildlife and lower biomass, especially of mammals. We've converted the life on this planet into more humans and junk. Go to "our world in data," and you can see just how much of the wild planet we've destroyed. You're also making the same mistake that many climate activists do in focusing on carbon, as if that's the only thing that matters in a complex system. Carbon is rarely the limiting variable for green growth. Heat, on the other hand, can be very devastating to trees and ecosystems. So even if there's a spike in green initially, the added heat eventually makes the whole thing collapse. Right now, the ocean has been absorbing the vast majority of heat added to the system. But because of latent heat, that will eventually stop and temperatures will rise abruptly. Just wait until there's no arctic sea ice (could be within a few years) and then see what it's like when we lose the planet's air conditioning.
@findingthereal9052 also, more for per area doesn't matter that much when you waste 1/3 of food and use 4 times the area required because you want animal products. Plus, we've drained the top soil of nutrients so food itself is only a fraction as nutritious
Similarly, when selling climate action, it helps to avoid the demoralising idea of climate change. Instead, it can be sold by promoting healthy lifestyles, less pollution, better and cheaper mobility via public transport, the beauty of nature, better food, intentional living, community, and slow, leisurely travel.
I see what you mean, and you are right. But still some people will always prefer a lifestyle as the one sold us by "influencers" that seem to have a wonderful life, burning thousands of tons of CO2 just for their leisure. So it needs to be explained that this lifestyle (and also OUR current lifestyle) is unfortunately unsustainable. Sad but true.
Why wait, if you wait for the unreasonable to be reasonable & recognise your reasonable point before you do anything about a problem that threatens both of you, then guess what your both be Fkd. I bounce between compulsive big picture deep context understanding for longterm rebuild solutions on firm integrated foundations... to reinforcing my local community via joining existing groups doing amazing things & learning & wheres theres gaps in local sustainability joining with like minded people to fill it. Inspired by the Transition Town Movement & other methods like it, so as & when things surely go to shit - im not inhaling Zyclon B from a shower head or sitting on a pile of bog roll with a shot gun thinking ive prepped or inserted into the merriad dystopias biting our heels. "self - sufficiency" isnt Sufficient- beacuse the small "self" isnt eneough ! We can only sort this $hit together at community scale while hopefully not going individually insane or collectively mad. The Eye of the Needle is small & the collective Ego & conditionings big, forgive & disengage with eyes open, while Pre -Building a better way... This is the Way
Just how much can WE change Global Warming? Let’s do the calculations! Have you ever asked, “How much global warming has there been since the START of the industrial revolution?" Ask Google, Ans from NOAA: “1°C since 1750? So how much change is that a year in °F 1.8F/272 years = 0.0066°F /year How much is actually caused by the USA? OK let's ask Google, Ans: 27% So the USA has caused (27%) * .0066° /year or .0017° F /year. Have you ever asked what is the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere? Ans: 120 years WOW!! By using NOAA’s historical records after reaching NETZERO in the USA, the MAXIMUM change expected in global warming is -.0017°F /year And it will take an additional 120 years to realize an actual reduction of -.00085 °F Now Ask: what's the cost to reach NETZERO? Ans: $4 trillion a year for the next 30 years or $120 trillion.
Interestingly, this video serves equally well to put global heating in perspective for those who take the narrow view that climate change is ALL we need to focus on.
Loss of biodiversity is not related to global warming. Its related to chemical use, soil erosion. Global warming, loss of biodiversity, pollution dont have same cause. You are confusing lots of people.
Err.......reptiles and animals that lived underground survived way back when the climate was 3 degrees warmer. Still, good enough for my mother-in-law and my teenage children. Not sure I could / want to live in these conditions, at least not where I am at the moment. Still, everyone welcome migrants.
There were no large mammals when the climate was 3° warmer. Because there was not enough oxygen for our metabolism. (Hint: dinosaurs were not mammals, they had different metabolism) Considering humans are large mammals maybe we should try to avoid recreating those conditions.
I don't believe that outright denialism is very far spread (anymore?). It gets amplified online because of self selection effects (the ones heavily invested in denialism are much more likely to comment) and bots. I would like to see some commentary on what seems to be much more common to me because I run into these attitudes all the time in real life, in my circle of friends and my family, at work: The notion goes something like this: "Yes climate change is real and horrible, but as long as these Authoritarians are around (pointing at China mainly) we can't hope to do anything about it. Of course they completely ignore the facts of the situation, that our great western democracies still consume way more per capita, that China invests way more into renewables and so on.
Great video and thank you 🙏🌞 The one good thing I can say about climate deniers, in my experience, that are willing to do the flip side of your exercise “what if the climate crisis were real?” is that they will admit bold & urgent change would be necessary IF it were real. Unfortunately we have politicians who wave the flag of climate change saying “believe the science” who then, right under our noses, do the opposite of what science is telling us we MUST do. This leaves us no choice but to hope and prey the deniers are right 🤞😢
Just how much can WE change Global Warming? Let’s do the calculations! Have you ever asked, “How much global warming has there been since the START of the industrial revolution?" Ask Google, Ans from NOAA: “1°C since 1750? So how much change is that a year in °F 1.8F/272 years = 0.0066°F /year How much is actually caused by the USA? OK let's ask Google, Ans: 27% So the USA has caused (27%) * .0066° /year or .0017° F /year. Have you ever asked what is the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere? Ans: 120 years WOW!! By using NOAA’s historical records after reaching NETZERO in the USA, the MAXIMUM change expected in global warming is -.0017°F /year And it will take an additional 120 years to realize an actual reduction of -.00085 °F Now Ask: what's the cost to reach NETZERO? Ans: $4 trillion a year for the next 30 years or $120 trillion.
The problem is that no one quite understands what we must do. Reducing emissions makes the warming accelerate thanks to loss of aerosols. But that's what 99% of people still call a "solution" It's a complex system and the answers to getting out alive are much more complex. We have to modify the albedo (which we've lost from melting ice) and restore A LOT of habitat which can balance the hydrologic cycle
I don’t see much of anything concerning plastic in the MSM or by the scientific community. I’ve got a lot of problems but climate change essentially dominates every conversation.
How do you gauge the biodiveristy of deep history? Its my understanding that only a fraction of species are ever perserve in the fossil record, per paleontologists
It's amazing to live through the rise and fall of this carbon pulse. Out of all the times past and future I could have been born in, how did I get here?
I doubt it will change any minds, but it's possible. In any case, we're past the point of no return, and it no longer matters. The best we can do now is to make our last years as good as possible before we go. Building community seems paramount at this point. I'm guessing most life will be gone by 2030, with wet-bulb temps, famine, and disease the most significant factors. And, frankly, given the what's to come, (aside from global heating,) I'll be glad. Glad that no more children will be born into this dystopian world men have made.
To realise the truth you need to ask WHO IS MAKING MONEY from the theory. Regardless of any research who is being PAID to do it and what is the benefit to THEM. Medical research is done by pharma companies and they gain, global warming research is done by those with a political gain and the grants given to them for the required results. Give the right answer then get the money, give the wrong answer and get thrown to the dustbin of reputation ruination. He who pays most get the results they want.
No eco literacy, especially among the most influential and powerful. No understanding of all of earths dynamic, interconnected systems, or earth’s deep time, and no interest in the lifelong commitment to learning about our earth, either. The hyper focus on climate has been a disaster. “Debating” cherry picked nuggets and tidbits of data and modeling from climate science has become the middle school level playground “intellect” on social media. If we’d started off with mainly ecologists as the public communicators, would it have been any different? Probably not. We are an intractably ridiculous species, inherently a cognitive mess. Wisdom lifeways help with our immaturity. No wisdom lifeways, and disaster ensues. The same pattern, over and over. I wonder if our hominid relatives alive at the same time we were, like Neanderthals, were they also prone to this kind of fuckery?
Old Boomer here. I'll be exiting this mortal coil before the real shit hits the fan, climatologically speaking. Not sad for myself, but I am sad for the grandnieces and nephews, for the children and grandchildren of my friends, for those youngsters alive around the world, for they will see things so terrible those of us alive can scarcely imagine. To borrow a phrase, the survivors will envy the dead...
OH, come on! I'm 77 and I'm working of sticking around and keeping my wildlife sanctuary going and maintaining a gene pool from which some sort of life can continue. I think homo sapien is finished, but something else will survive.
@@judithmcdonald9001 Agree with your conclusion and admire your work ethic. Inspire the youngers and maybe they can figure it out... or make it to Mars?
True but we like modernity. And modernity makes it more or less impossible to scale down. Witch parts of modernity should be scaled down first? Travel? (but shouldn't youngster see the world ass well), Healthcare is becoming more and more elisstistic ( but its political impossible to scale down?) other sectors?
Just how much can WE change Global Warming? Let’s do the calculations! Have you ever asked, “How much global warming has there been since the START of the industrial revolution?" Ask Google, Ans from NOAA: “1°C since 1750? So how much change is that a year in °F 1.8F/272 years = 0.0066°F /year How much is actually caused by the USA? OK let's ask Google, Ans: 27% So the USA has caused (27%) * .0066° /year or .0017° F /year. Have you ever asked what is the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere? Ans: 120 years WOW!! By using NOAA’s historical records after reaching NETZERO in the USA, the MAXIMUM change expected in global warming is -.0017°F /year And it will take an additional 120 years to realize an actual reduction of -.00085 °F Now Ask: what's the cost to reach NETZERO? Ans: $4 trillion a year for the next 30 years or $120 trillion.
Scaling down doesn't help because that means losing aerosols which increases warming rapidly. We have to SCALE UP restoration of habitat and using mirrors to reflect heat back into space
@@MattAngiono I guess some scaling down will happen. No matter what. Its to late, but down scaling will happen. ua-cam.com/video/nsbtt-6Dpww/v-deo.html
This is an excellent summary, presented in a concise, abbreviated matter of fact form, that even with the many short attention spans, that social media seems to infect peoples brains with, surely makes for digestible, informative, fact based info, that anyone watching should be able to absorb easily .... The only trick is to get them to watch and listen from their little hermetically sealed bubble 😏
The Ozone hole led to a rapid banning of CFCs, Ocean Acidification is even more dire and should be treated with an immediate ban on emitting CO2 for this reason alone, regardless of the other damages caused (real or otherwise). I could not agree with you more.
You can't just ban burning CO2 without committing jen0cide. We rely on these fuels now for food production. Plus, stopping emissions would cause a very abrupt acceleration in the warming because of the loss of aerosols (unless you found a way to just dump all the toxic chemicals without carbon into the atmosphere, also not a great idea) So unless you want to bring about extinction even faster, you can't stop burning carbon. You need to cool the planet FIRST by modifying albedo and restoring habitat that improves the hydrologic cycle
This is the kind of ignorant comment that motivate skeptics of climate doom to post online. What do you think would happen if we actually could, and did, turn off all carbon emissions overnight? There is huge amount of ad hominem in these comments about how stupid and foolish “climate deniers” are, yet a comment like this, which is completely ignorant of energy economics or agriculture or physics gets a free pass? The idea that climate change is a hoax is just as foolish and conspiratorial as the idea that fossil fuel companies are just holding back some clean, green utopia because of profit. Take a realistic look at the so called solutions and you realise that if the deep green have their way billions of people are going to be impoverished, 100s of million will probably starve.
Thank you Nate excellent. I've been thinking constantly of late about this. On the artistic side of life, including living out of doors in the western european mountains (my particular bent), reading and music, I've found some comfort to refocus and settle my mind with The Ministry for The Future - Kim Stanley Robinson, and re-reading Doris Lessing's - The making of the Representative for Planet 8, Book 4 Canopus in Argus. Thanks again. The denial kind of approach to real living is just unthinkable.
It's already too late.. We (observers who know the truth) must facilitate ways to provide for our selves and families. I actually packed my truck and left Tampa Florida 5 years ago and moved to N Carolina where its survivable. I was born in Upstate NY- where I witnessed the snow amounts reduce a little bit each year- And pondered that observation which I actually researched.. I seen animals and insects disappear over time and different animals take their place. Here in N Carolina, I seen houses (now 10) fall into the ocean which literally is creeping upward in the sand reaching areas that at one time had 600 feet of sand and hills in front of them.. We are witnessing a rapid response to our oil based life styles and these changes will absolutely affect everyone. Tipping point? Absolutely. We are the Tipping point.
@@rdallas81 a lot of my relatives are the "I don't see no sea level rise" variety. But they're all on the west coast where the coastline is a mountainside. I'm only in my 30s and can see the decline in animals, especially insects. I don't know how anyone is rationalizing that away
So are you saying you're not a conspiracy theorist? Or just demonizing people who recognize the very real conspiracies? You can believe there are conspiracies but also recognize climate change is real and a threat....
@widget0028 because it's slow at the human scale... People aren't out catching bugs and noticing how many are gone. I caught butterflies when I was a kid and can see the difference for sure, but most people aren't aware. Sad times are well upon us, if you're paying attention. We're witnessing collapse in slow motion (on a human scale).. It's extremely rapid at the geologic scale
Nate, I'm not sure if you think humankind must change its behavior towards our environment or not. I think our behavior towards our environment is heartless and reckless. Our behavior is guided by our heartless, reckless, behavior model. Our behavior model is 'profit = income - expenses'. There are two problems with this behavior model. 1) it says that profit equals money, but this isn't true. Money is only a permission slip that allows us to buy our actual gains which all come from the environment. 2) This sick behavior model says that we can maximize our so-called profit by minimizing as many expenses as possible. In essence this tells us to ignore the damages that we are doing to our environment, and we must keep labor expenses as low as possible. No wonder the planet is on fire and there is so much homelessness. We can correct our behavior! To do so, we must first correct our behavior model. I recommend this new behavior model. "Profit = protecting and enriching the environment". Under this new behavior model, our only major expense is ignoring our obligation to protect and enrich our environment. The new profit model requires us to create millions of new jobs that will come under the heading "Caretakers of the Environment". Caretakers will have many specialized categories: 1. Collecting pollution that is already in the environment 2. Collecting pollution before it gets into the environment 3. Dealing with all of the waste in such ways that are good for the environment, and or good for the production of products 4. Designing new ways of producing products so that those products last for a long time and don't have to be replaced every two years 5. Thoughtful distribution of wealth 6. Economically incentivizing families with two or fewer children There will be many more types of Caretaker jobs. Every company and government will have Caretaker jobs, and everybody will be schooled, from elementary school through university about how to be caretakers of the environment. We will all be caretakers of the environment. What do you think about this idea? How can we transition from our present reckless economy to this entirely new economy that requires us to behave rationally and responsibly. It may already be too late to save our environment, but it is never too late to try.
![[UA] Eternal Fire проти NAVI | EPL Season 20 Malta](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/chvlsDygrZM/mqdefault.jpg)
Being by age on the last lap of my own human experience as I know it. I've seen and experience the insane ignorance of disrespecting natural systems of which we ultimately all depend on for life. Call the crisis what you will. If you don't see it then you are not looking. Imagine if we humans collectively dedicated ourselves to repairing and enhancing natural systems for the benefit of all life.
An all inclusive celebration of living systems is in order, this celebrations needs all able hands on deck! "We can choose to hang together or we shall hang separately"
-Ben Franklin
* cite this quote, please.
@@johncarter1150 Excuse me? It's a well known quote. To his colleagues signing the declaration of independence
You got it Rick O. The future is our dedication to the Living Planet and our true Mother.
@rickobrien1583 not disagreeing with your comment. Simple question, thanks for the reply .
@@johncarter1150Clearly you have fingers, a brain and internet access,
look it up lazy!
Well-stated, Nate. I am shocked and dismayed by much of the ensuing commentary, though. Perhaps one of the parameters you could have included is the diminishment of human gray matter!
Each subsequent COVID-19 infection has been found to lower IQ by 3 points, with infections requiring hospitalization lowering IQ by 6 points. By now, many people have had COVID-19 up to 5 times.
Human brain size has declined by 15% in the last 10,000 years since the advent of agriculture. This is common in domestic animals. Domestic animals typically have a smaller brain size than their wild cousins. Dogs and cattle both have smaller brains than wolves or the ancestors of domesticated cattle. It seems humans have domesticated themselves in the process of civilisation as well as domesticating symbiont animals. We are more compliant and ready to give up freedom under the slightest fear. Thus we do not need such energy expensive brains when so much of our thinking can be outsourced to the collective mob.
@@coweatsmanhow do they determine that? The size of the skull?
Yes
Wow…What about hunter gathers and nomad societies that still survive then 🤔?
A joke? it's 114 in phoenix today. F'n Hot AS FK.
here it is almost freezing: 17° !
Yes it’s a hoax and I used to believe in it
Why anyone is still living in AZ is God's own mystery.
@@RichardTavillawell enjoy denial while it last :)
@@Jc-ms5vv when I was growing up, they were for save the rainforest because they thought it was our global oxygen. Turns out we get 91% from the ocean.
I wonder what percentage of the skeptic/denier comments are by bots and professional trolls. It's unfortunate that you have to address them. But you do an excellent job as always, though I doubt it will help with the naysayers.
People distrust the media and political class - and why wouldn't they?
Much like geopolitics, climate change is such a deep and nuanced topic most people just believe the memes their cult'ure pushes on them
for instance they say climate has always changed its nothing new, not understanding how current human civilization in
(Overshoot) has particular fragilities such as economics, borders, and a very competitive nature and so on and so on
I've stopped trying to rebut those opinions, except when the denier is in person.
Operation Berkshire, all they needed to do was create confusion, Oil companies hired the same advertisers..
@@mischevious implicit in your condescending reply is the belief that you are undeniably right, and those with whom you disagree are ignorant fools - yet that in itself is the behaviour of a fool, is it not?
Climate change deniers: "Well those other things are just hoaxes too!"
@@Spacemonkeymojo My answer to them is “so everything is fine but the lies we’re told?” I also ask if they want to join me in the belly of the beast in rush hour traffic here in LA and tell me that.
Have you heard the story of the boy who cried wolf? If people are continually lied to by the ruling classes, then it's only natural that they will begin to distrust everything they are told. Don't blame the masses for their hesitation, blame the politicians for their lies.
Wrong. Those other things are actually what is causing the temperature rise and species extinction, not AGW. Are you a pollution and urban heat island effect denier?
Operation Berkshire, was a collusion by big tobacco, the goal was not to disprove tobacco was harmful but all they realised they needed to do was create confusion to keep making those profits. Big Oil then hired those same advertisers, I have a pdf somewhere that is very interesting reading about how big oil would fund different grass roots groups, car clubs etc just to maintain sales.
To think that they are out there actively paying people to create confusion on this issue should put them in jail but we still seem to be using their product.
I usually tell people, there is no way you can input energy into a system without it meaning something, then tell them a tank of diesel has 12-20 weeks of my total electrical energy and that around 70% of diesel and 75% of petrol is lost as heat, telling people who genuinely don't get it, especially older guys about energy into a system and they start to get it.
You can't put energy into a system without it meaning something and 99.97% of the mass of the atmosphere and carbon has mass is only 62 mile or 100 klm's high.
The state of systems thinking , critical thought seems to be disappearing in an age of social media and human attention span shrinking. Can't see the forest for the tree, assuming any forests are left
Most humans on the planet now only know that their food comes from buildings that sell food. They have no knowledge of much less connection to the living world that affords us life.
I wasn’t always a great deciple of your channel Sir. But I have to say this is a very good piece of work. Thank you.
We humans and our greed, tribalism, arrogance, wars, capitalism... Our delirious religions. Our last act on this planet will be tragic and pathetic.
Millions of years of evolution?
@@johncarter1150 … will have been wasted, yes :(
earth‘s ecosystem might *never* recover from the havoc, *H0m0 Stupidens* has caused…
not even *H0m0 Mechanensis* could fix that
@@dot1298 Religions? Like the religion (cult) of computer models?
👍. . . The tricky part of your thought experiment is the same climate denier will dispute your facts about mass and energy too. They will, in their anti-intellectual way, also deny the observations and measurements.
As my neighbor explained to me the other day, the good lord controls the climate.
@@anabolicamaranth7140LOL, pray to the gord!
Evolution even, which unfortunately works too slowly.
Truth they will come up with anything it’s unreal that people can’t see what’s happening
@@anabolicamaranth7140my neighbour said it's the jews😂😂😂
Nate, important to note that many of those comments were likely bots
It's sobering to realize that synthetic plastics didn't exist prior to 1907 with the invention of bakelite. That's only 117 years sgo.
The earth climate is dependent on the Sun cycle. The hotter the sun so does the Earth's surface temperatures, regardless of the altitudes longitudes
@@PeterLamin-pi6rvOnly we’ve now overpowered the sun and greatly enhanced it’s affect in our climate impact. Our technological prowess has us gobbling up our own life sustaining habitat, turning the living Earth into a desert of concrete.
What does concrete do when the sun beats on it all day?
@@PeterLamin-pi6rvOnly we’ve now overpowered the sun and greatly enhanced it’s affect in our climate impact. Our technological prowess has us gobbling up our own life sustaining habitat, turning the living Earth into a desert of concrete.
What does concrete do when the sun beats on it all day?
@@PeterLamin-pi6rvOnly we’ve now overpowered the sun and greatly enhanced it’s affect in our climate impact. Our technological prowess has us gobbling up our own life sustaining habitat, turning the living Earth into a desert of concrete.
What does concrete do when the sun beats on it all day?
Global warming is not a hoax. Our current biomes at their present locations are unable to survive with 4 degrees of warming. Look at a map of miocene biomes compared to now. Deciduous trees in New York and most boreal trees in Canada will perish at their current location with 4 degrees of warming. Also, I want to say that obesity also reduces fertility.
Climate change is absolutely real..
The entire system is changing and it has been changing even before we continually observed it.
Just how much can WE change Global Warming?
Let’s do the calculations!
Have you ever asked, “How much global warming has there been since the START of the industrial revolution?"
Ask Google, Ans from NOAA: “1°C since 1750? So how much change is that a year in °F 1.8F/272 years = 0.0066°F /year
How much is actually caused by the USA?
OK let's ask Google, Ans: 27%
So the USA has caused (27%) * .0066° /year or .0017° F /year.
Have you ever asked what is the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere? Ans: 120 years
WOW!! By using NOAA’s historical records after reaching NETZERO in the USA, the MAXIMUM change expected in global warming is -.0017°F /year
And it will take an additional 120 years to realize an actual reduction of -.00085 °F
Now Ask: what's the cost to reach NETZERO? Ans: $4 trillion a year for the next 30 years or $120 trillion.
@gadabout694 reducing fossil fuel emissions isn't going to do us any favors as far as warming is concerned (it actually accelerates the damage).
That does NOT mean that we can't affect things, though.
There are plenty of other things we can do that affect the heat balance, such as changing the albedo with reflective surfaces, or restoring ecosystems that increase water retention and cool the local climate, while also sequestering carbon
It will never get to 4 degrees via CO2.
Geo engineering, scalar weapons, chem trails 🎯😢
you can’t grow food when you can’t relay on the weather
Mass starvation
Water wars coming
Maybe?
More water vapor means more rain and crops. The sahara is greening.
@@johncarter1150definitely
@@johncarter1150Already underway.
The US recently vetoed a unanimous UN resolution declaring water a human right.
Funny since our Constitution cites our right to life and water is life.
There’s also a genocide happening in the ME. The underlying goal is the theft of land and critical resources, specifically water, control of the Jordan river.
@@johncarter1150 99.9%~~ probability
Nate, I have an idea. Why don't you organize a series of debates on your show, with several of your most respected climate scientists; pitted against several of the following climate scientists, namely Dr Judith Curry, Prof. Richard Lindzen, Bjorn Lomberg, Prof. Dick Linton, Dr. Will Happer, Prof. John Clauser, Dr. Mathew Weilicki, Patrick Moore, Dr. Willie Soon, Dr. Roy Spencer, Tony Heller, Prof. Steven Koonin, Prof. Nir Shaviv, Prof. Henrik Svensmark, Dr. Benny Peiser and Prof. Sallie Baliunas. As much as I've searched the net trying to find such a debate, I've had zero success. Come on Nate, this would be a first!
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 maybe...
And fun.
Debating habitual liars is futile: they just shout the lies louder.
@@davidfookes8989 Well said that man!
It's humorous to me when deniers will say, "Follow the money," and take a trail leading them to the uncompensated IPCC scientists rather than fossil lobbyists. Also, side update we are breaking temp records this week in AZ. Lovely "autumn" so far...
@@zeekczup Temperature records. Blah blah. We started recording when? These temperatures are all starting from a really low base on the back of the maunder minimum. The IPCC (governmental panel) have sacrificed any integrity that had by adopting the hockey stick and the rewriting of the temp records to remove the medieval warming period or tye Roman warm period and furthermore they have repeatedly ignored pleas to add solar forcing to the tool set and it’s only recently that they have entrained a modicum of sense and noted the smallest solar effects but they still ignored the galactic cosmic ray forcing.. this is what happens when politicians rule the roost
Where are the bugs going? Hoax?
They're all in my garden, LOL
Pesticides
On recent trip to Perth and the Margaret River in Western Australia, I couldn't help but notice the bird life and that my son in law had to wash down the front of his vehicle after a two-hour drive. It was covered in insects. The two must be connected. I haven't had to wash down any vehicle for insects in the past forty years at least on the east coast of Australia and we don't quite have the birdlife of Western Australia.
Thanks for "shaking the tree", Nate! You're on a roll with your work!
I think, Nate, that it would be good to focus less on climate change denying and address instead the legitimate concerns many in the climate change denying camp have about its high tech and society changing solutions. These are perceived as rushed, and forced upon all without carefully considering their impacts. A small example of the latest might be solar dimming tech in an age of growing general mistrust and rushed science.
So much more to say but I’ll stop here for lack of time and energy. I will say that as a (former?) progressive I’m now afraid of my own tribe. I am shocked by their - our - unkindness and intolerance.
Thx Jenny. Yes perhaps tolerance needs to come before science…
@@thegreatsimplification Not tolerance. A more considered and balanced view of all the negatives. Societal and environmental.
Thanks Jenny for being a voice of reason in a sea of condescension and superior attitudes - attitudes that only make distrusting people dig their heels in even more.
If we have a ruling class that continually lie to their citizens about everything from food safety to international warfare, then naturally their citizens are going to distrust them - they'd be foolhardy not to! We need governmental bodies and spokespeople we can trust for everybody to start pulling in the same direction. Until then, political and economic divisions will only make the problem worse.
@@xiv7477All institutions are inevitably corrupted by an easily corruptible species.
This is why we created gods to fear, because self service is our nature. Because we have such a hard time just being good.
Brilliant thread.
I listen to a science podcaster here in Mexico... he keeps on saying climate change is not necessarily caused by human activity... but in the end, even if it isn't we still have to deal with it... and as you say there are plenty of other problems to solve out there... what is true is that the media just concentrates on climate and renewables which is fishy at best!
This change is, no doubt about it. Check that person's degrees and background. Personally, I've found many deniers on staff at private conservative colleges here in the States. DeSmog has a growing list of them if you know his name.
The media concentrates on what produces engagement and thereby ultimately sells shit. No more no less.
Humans gonna what if themselves right into extinction
Jordan Peterson and alikes make me really really sad...
I used to like Jordan Peterson around 2016-2017 but now he's just a nutjob.
A person with a big following telling those people what they want to hear and with nothing to say
Charlatans abound preying on the nativity and ignorance of poorly-educated people. Welcome to 21st Century America!
@@Spacemonkeymojo hes trying argue physics.
You sound vaccinated.
Naw, no way my comfort addicted lifestyle and driving my F-350 to pick up my kid from school could have any consequences, right?
RAM is the comfort-king among pickups.
Real field scientist here. I wasn't sure if the 87/88 El Nino was impacted, but I knew for sure with the 97/98 El Nino. No doubt about it in my mind - I was already 40 years old. And year after year, I see ever more changes. Now, those impacts are staring at us with an evil eye, and yet our governments (both democratic and otherwise) are still issuing fossil fuel permits! I began meeting with the politicians around 2008 after a research project in the reversibility of climate change - I was running scared. Both sides of the aisle blew me off in our meetings. Even governors and senators! As a result, my partner, a P.E. and I did a climate risk analysis and moved in '18 to the Great Lakes region. People will need to know about risks as they too begin to move north and away from the oceans. Might I suggest you interview Dr. Schoerning with the American Resiliency Org??? I did ours before the project was formed, but she catches the biggest risks in each state. Thanks. People will need help now.
Yay! Emily! Some folks have sent Nate her content, I was gonna as well (I’m on the leadership team at AR)
Excellent
Well done,thank's for the presentation. I believe there is a sub-culture here in the USA, which I call "Puck-up Cuture". This is the proclaimed right to drive a 3 ton truck in suburbia (adv wt: 5k to 7.5 lbs). Pickup culture does not care about the enviroment or other living creatures. The good new is that fossil fuels are finite. The bad news is that pick-up culture will find some way to fill their tanks.
You mention "Fossil fuels are finite" You're right and the depletion is going on. Our thermo-industrial civilization now burns around 100 million barrels of oil each day, in 2050 this will be cut off by half. There will be residual oil in the ground but the EROI will be too low to exploit it. Fossil fuels count for 82% of energy used and there exist now path to replace its utility. The interdependencies between energy sources are so intertwined that the most willing among us should succeed in solving a web of complexity, a challenge even more complicated than winning at Mikado's game! And what about political and economic leaders, the vast majority of whom are incompetent regarding energy and environmental issues, who blithely confuse an energy carrier such as hydrogen with a primary energy source, who uses oxymorons such as “sustainable development” and “green growth”. In this sense, talking about energy transition remains a delusion. Never did have energies from different sources replace each other, they have intertwined with each other.
@@PACotnoir1
I see a lots of adds touting movement towards net-zero and low-carbon. A potential profitable activity. Remember during WW II Germany survived by converted coal to petrolium. The irony is using renewable energy (or nuclear) to produce carbon-based fuels. Getting to net-zero just stabilized the addict. It is a no win. Net-negative should b the goal.
I like the idea of approaching this topic by assuming it is a grift. It forces the deniers to change lanes and when they do you see more clearly their true motives. The object of most non-professional climate change deniers and similar nonsense peddlers has little to do with exposing any truth. It is simply a way to hide from and or provide a sense of exercising just a little control over forces that seem beyond their individual capacity to manage. A way to quell the psychic pain of their individual helplessness. For others, like Mr. Peterson, it is also an exercise in self aggrandizement and profit making. They are the true grifters in this story.
Spot on !
Fear is much more comfortable to just outright avoid.
Plus, living in fear is terrible for our health if we don't know how to deal with it, and most don't.
That said, I get where they're coming from, after covid, where outright lies were the norm in mainstream institutions.
That makes you think they could lie about just about anything else.
It's a logical error, but still a rational consideration
@arthurbode9237 I do suspect you are right .
Two days ago, I listened to Kate Raworth give a presentation in Brussels, Belgium. At one point, she reminded the audience of some industry's motto "Doubt is our business". Sowing the seeds of doubt in the minds of people who are already, and most of the time rightfully, angry and, in some ways, have lost their bearings makes them the ideal vector of this twisted Stockholm syndrome. We know that research is not definitive and that, on any given day, science is, for the time being. That is, when pissed off and having become judgmental by essence, some people pollute the conversation in inextricable ways. Do we want to fix this planet, or do we want to debate who is right about climate change? I mean, the other day, I saw Mr. Peterson, about whom my opinion is that he is fascinating when it comes to psychology, and Mr. Trudeau, so I saw him interviewing a "scientist" (quotation marks to be clarified in a second) about debunking climate change. Except that guy, twenty years ago, was live on French TV and defending herbicide, saying he would happily drink it. Except, again, the journalist said, "What a coincidence, we just happen to have a fresh bottle in the studio. Could we serve you a glass?". In five seconds, the now climate change expert went from "sure" to "wait a minute" to "you are setting me up" to tearing off his mike and leaving the studio. This can be found on your favorite video tube. The point is that opinion does not replace research, and if one cannot be a scientist, which I am not, and happily so, it can be helpful to see who is financing your favorite scientist. And do not stop at the first layer. Those guys have had more than 50 years to sow doubt. No wonder so many are falling for it.
They fall for it because they want to fall for it. It makes life so much more comfortable for them and doing any intelligent research is too much effort.
@@coleorum On some level or other of the human mind and motive what you say is true. However, humans are multifaceted, and not as easily summed as we would like.
From another perspective, humans are just children. If you can see and grasp that, what does it imply to you?
@@coleorum the average person has a full time job, a mortgage to pay, children to raise, endless taxes to pay, and may not have the time or ability to sift through an endless sea of geographical data to determine who is and who isn't trying to mislead them. It's called information overload, and egotists like you only make the problem worse with your condescending views, instead of trying to find solutions to the problem of mass, justifiable distrust of authority.
One of Nate's previous guests, a professor from Scotland, stated that a human's basal metabolic rate is 100 calories per hour. However, our social metabolic rate is magnitudes higher. I don't know any person on the planet who would be happy living at 100 calories per hour. If you then consider that we were at one billion people around 1800 and around eight billion now... I don't know many people who have anything constructive to say about depopulation. I think the only approach that makes sense to me is to let it run its course because we cannot escape the effects of CC now and the loss of biodiversity is mind boggling. The planet will deal with this problem as surely as Adam Smith's invisible hand will fix the economy.
... but love the 'what if' wandering. Excellent wander.
"Stability"... From what/who's view? Man? Oh, we're so small that we never can take it in, and only here for seconds matched to the whole picture. We'll not be missed or remembered of anyone or anything.
Ps. We're here for now because of chaos. Ds.
Thanks Nate(if you’ll allow the familiarity) for another sobering look at our ‘dilemma’ ..I’ve seen,in my 71yrs,so much decline and degradation in my life that climate change as a hoax is easy to disregard. We’re in for a ‘rough-ride’ in the near future,we’re all sadled up. I feel for the next generation(s). Thanks for your sobering content.
Your short life has seen a lot!!!! I fear also for my grandchildren.
About time this starts to come out.
The graph shown (3:10) in order to claim an unprecedented rate of rise has a number of errors. First, 10C in 50 years. It is actually 1C, not 10C, as I think you correctly stated. The timescale cannot be linear, or 50 years would be invisible. Secondly, it ignores rates possible within the error/probability range. Thirdly, the caption states temperatures shown are averages for geological periods. So not valid for rate comparison with years. That omits the broader issue of types of proxies used and the minimum temporal accuracy of each type and period.
In sum, we've killed our children!
Quite possibly ourselves if we keep changing the climate this quickly.
I am worried by a declining sperm at the same time as I am not worried by a declining sperm count.
Why am I not worried? 1) 8 billion people is not a shortage of human being. 2) Sperm count is typically far higher than needed for male fertility. Why? Because of other males. Part of the competition between males for their genes to reproduce is at the microscopic level, at the level of sperm. Not only will sperm attack foreign sperm which it may come into contact with but some sperm are produced only to block foreign sperm from other males. In this sperm competition is a numbers game. The more sperm, the better the chances of reproduction. Thus we have so much redundancy in sperm count. Sperm count varies with species depending on the competition between males and the level of sexual promiscuity. Among apes bonobos have the highest sperm count being the most promiscuous ape. It's an arms race. Sperm counts would have to drop to very low levels before threatening the fertility of humans as a whole.
Why am I worried about declining sperm count? Because if environmental contamination can have that effect in people what other effects can it have for us and other species in new cancers and other diseases and for the environment as a whole.
Funny how all of the countries with highest average temperature are the ones reproducing at an exponential rate.
I vote for the bonobos. They are the species who embody the saying: "Make love, not war." But why do you automatically assume that having lots of sperm signifies an "arms race?" Maybe it signifies merely that bonobos males are better lovers. After all, opportunities abound, and "practice makes perfect." 😉
You change the background temperature in biology, and everything changes. Same with the weather and other physical systems. We need more discussion on how we can reduce our personal risks from abrupt climate change, including moving if needed. I couldn't help notice that Nate is already in a good spot. So are we. We moved in '18 as part of our climate action plan and then readied the house for weather emergencies in all seasons.
We need honesty, not dishonesty for political purposes. Too many dishonest people for subsidies.
I want to get on the bandwagon if you give me money I will stop the moon from melting as is made of cheese because of climate change we have not long left
Where in the media the discourse of climate skeptics is losing importance to that of decarbonization of which nuclear and renewable energy seems to be the case in Europe where coincidentally the decline of hydrocarbon resources in the North Sea which have made their recent wealth, the end is already approaching.
What if consuming the earth was stupid
1 or 2 degrees does not matter for life, but it matters for our food supply.
It's done... goodbye!
It's going to be a long goodbye, over many decades, with the many impacts. Somehow we have to help the young people cope now, and prevent it from getting even worse.
@OldJackWolf I agree, and sincerely, good luck with that!
@@OldJackWolf Sorry buddy this is denial. Humanity has 5-20 years maximum and the cake is baked.
We find ourselves separated from the earth's natural cycles of Climate change for the first time by manmade Climate cycle. The Oglala Sioux Holy man, Healer, Visionary Black Elk Said: One cannot dare stand above and outside Natures sacred hoop, for such a stance is the arrogance of fools. Since we can exist only inside the hoop, and must try to direct the flow of power from within. ( Black Elk Speaks, by John Neihardt) Too much to say I will stop here.
It's a very apt quote by a man infinitely wiser than our current 'leaders'.
Thanks for this video Nate, big fan from Chile, I listen all you espisodes.
Btw I also notice a decrease in flowers.
Human physiology is sensitive to outdoors CO2 partial pressure, fertilty is one of the main health indicators from a reduction in our efficiency of removing excess CO2 we accumulate in our blood while within structures.
At current rate of CO2 accumulatuon all humans will be in permanent CO2 stress within decades. Some are affected sooner.
We didn't evolve for this atmosphere.
Bottled oxygen it's the next big thing! Get in early, LOL
I use this point whenever anyone tries the old "CO2 is good for plants. Plants were thriving a million years ago when CO2 was double".
A million years ago when CO2 was double there were no large mammals, because there was not enough oxygen. Considering humans are large mammals, maybe we do not want to return to those atmospheric conditions.
CO2 is not the only limiter to plant growth - our soils are being rapidly depleted of phosphorus and nitrogen. It doesn't matter how much CO2 is added to the atmosphere if the limiters are not CO2.
@john1boggity56 if our plants could use all the CO2, the atmospheric CO2 would not be going up.
The main problem concerning anthropogenic climate change is that this is a very bad news ! The precise kind of truth people prefer to deny:
1- we are all responsible to an extend or another, and our lifestyle is unsustainable
2- we must change which implies investing now (annoying and costly) for real benefits to come only in 50 years from now.
Guess what, only responsible people are able to accept this, all others, the childish ones, will flee into denial.
One thing can be seen without any effort or scientific research. That's that old growth forests with trees thousands of years old have been clear cut in just hundreds of years. The new growth burns so hot even the top soil burns. Many species of insects, birds and small plants live only in these old forests and not in younger forests.
You are very connected to some important part of the biosphere and can see things even scientists don't observe - this is how it should be - to live indigenously...
@@john1boggity56 well thankyou!
Great one Nate!!!!
Sadly, the absence of critical thinking, innumeracy and irrationality which facilitate climate denial can and will be applied to the evidence you present here. 😮💨
Humans,
behaving like humans, will behave like humans.
Is what you said.
And I agree, we are what we are. Long winded, self absorbed egotistical creatures that would rather fight to the death than admit when we’re wrong.
You make it sound like declining human fertility is a bad thing 😅hooray for microplastics 😂😂😂
Haha I could get on board with that, except the fertility of many other species is also being negatively impacted.
Forgetting too, that when it was really hot, the dinosaur's lived in the arctic
Also remember dinosaurs were not mammals.
There was not enough oxygen on the planet for large mammals to exist. The atmosphere only supported lizard/bird metabolism, not mammals.
Nate: sees your "climate hoax" bid.
Nate: raises you by "motherload of inconvenient facts"
That are almost all unrelated to climate change.
Me: raises Nate by 'perfectly understandable skeptism by people who are continually lied to and gaslit by those in positions of authority'
Fair enough, although unclear which direction you think the gas lighting is in !? Over hyping climate change, planetary boundaries etc... or under playing the risks and overstating hope based on low probability scenarios and requiring a lot of luck with technology, feedbacks, lags, tipping points, societal change etc. ... Or just a general comment in the post truth age.
@@ReesCatOphuls when you have Hollywood 'stars' who preach sustainability while travelling by private jet, when you have a mainstream media that specialises in polarisation for ad revenue, when you have a self-serving political class who propose increased taxation on the general population as a solution to environmental issues caused by multinational conglomerates, then surely skepticism is not only inevitable, but actually a rational response, no?
The average person doesn't have the time or ability to wade through the mountain of geographical data pertaining to climate change, so they have to make a snap decision - do I trust the media / politicians / WEF bureaucrats telling me climate change is real, or do I not? And quite understandably, a large percentage of them choose not to. Which means the real issue at hand is, assuming humans are indeed creating an ever-worsening climate disaster, how do governments worldwide regain the trust of their citizens? And of course the answer is simple in theory, but almost impossible to implement: they would need to stop being corrupt, hypocritical, self-serving, and dishonest.
The simple truth:
Personal, cultural, and ecosystem wellbeing will never win while the primary goal of corporate fiduciary responsibility is growth and profit, regardless of damaging externalities.
"We have met the enemy and they is us"
Apart from higher co2 levels having caused both the great dying mass extinction and probably also the slow dinosaur extinction? And it took millions of years to get the co2 back down, which at the time I suppose was possible due to basalt weathering, whereas ocean sequestration probably was severely limited from acidity impact on ocean life. Except this time there won't be a recovery, because now you're also releasing all the permafrost carbon accumulated over the last few millions of years.
We observe the climate changing and the change is faster than any change before, if the anthropogenic impact was not real, than we would be in extrem trouble, for we would not understand the change we experience right now at all.
( for global warming to be a hoax much of physics would have to be wrong - the whole of the 'black body radiation model' and gas absorbtion spectra)
Deniers who do not believe humans are destroying biosphere thru capitalism overshoot and wars, must have diminished physical and common senses. Climate Scientists validate what a person who actually goes outside observe compared to their memories of how it was in past. I'm 61, my memories of abundance of life in rural Appalachia when I was a child compared to now is heart breaking... the forest, creeks that were once full birds insects fish animals are now nearly empty of life😢
It’s interesting reading the comments here, they are thoughtful, calm, intelligent. I think I would enjoy the company of the commenters. When I read comments from deniers I feel the opposite.
'Not sure how wise Homo Sapiens is as a nomenclature.'
Think it was a channel called The Logic Junkie from back in the day.
Precautionary Principle is as dead as our chances. Majority of people are just not adaptive enough.
Evidently it is cumbersome and annoying to be explaining every step of the way that whatever science and conclusion being talked about and made aware of might be wrong, object of fraud and deceit by corporate greed and shady interests. Nevertheless these dark interests do exist and they must always be kept in check so, in fact, these are precisely the types of videos that are where the node of civil service and science communication lies. What astounds me is how reluctant and few are the intellectuals and scientists to engage in this practice of challenging their findings with the interested dissenting public. Well, I do understand that main stream media lives off parasiting on contention... Anyway, keep fighting the good fight Nate. I am a big admirer of yours.
Nate, thank you for this Frankly. Being a systems thinker I naturally follow these issues but your wide ranging coverage of so many disparate elements is unique and very informative. A profound rebuttal to those who say “move on, move on, nothing to see here” about climate change, which is visibly happening every day. To provide a small bit of hope, I live in a conservative neighborhood in Arizona and have for seven years. When I moved in my neighbors would reply “climate has always changed” or it is a hoax, or words to that effect when Global Warming was brought up. NOT ANYMORE! Not one of them react that way now. We are slowly moving to a societal tipping point where the demand for action will be undeniable. Again, systems thinking will be essential. People will be demanding things like solar radiation management without fully considering and investigating secondary and tertiary effects. People are not rational about the global ecological situation and they won’t be rational about fixing it unless they are properly prepared. Thanks for doing this work.
Oil and natural gas companies would have a very hard time finding oil and gas. Those companies use paleo climatology to find fossil fuels. If our assumptions about the future are wrong their assumptions about the past are wrong. And we never have an Industrial World.
You know in school how they ‘teach a subject’ is antithetical to the way the mind learns.
Basically if you ‘learned’ music in school, it will be an experience of humility without practice.
Even the word ‘practice’ is antithetical to the activity of practice and invokes a stage theory, not a life practice.
There is no art nor science in school, but there is plenty of teaching.
This is the problem: substituting reasoning for beliefs. Elevatiing opinions to the category of facts. No sir, we should not discuss Physichs or Maths, not at least in those realms where they've been proven right, full stop
maybe im reading the chart incorrectly,...
but the recent ice cores from Camp Century and GIS2, 400K and 1.5MillionK were NOT over 300PPM of CO2
I'm interested - can you reference?
@@john1boggity56
ua-cam.com/video/qzyjNltaSZE/v-deo.html&pp=ygUbaWNlIGNvcmVzIGZyb20gY2FtcCBjZW50dXJ5
here is one ,..for some reason google history is NOT pulling up Camp Century ice cores, apparently they were more recently "found" in pretty much excellent condition stored away the bottom 1.5 meters were thru the ice and into the terrain.
We really are like a virus on the earth aren’t we? We will do us to death.
Why is everyone so sure that man's impact on the planet.....is not part of Gaia's evolutionary Plan?
Indeed, change is neutral. It's how we respond to it that makes the difference. Peoples fear of change is being used against us, as usual. We need to feel and face the fear, not act on it. Gaia has this. She wants us with her, and trusting her is our best way through this evolutionary leap. Giving up our addiction to war and conflict would be a good start. Releasing us to focus on inventions that are harmonious with all life. xxx
It is not, because, as Goldsmith points out in "The Way", Gaia, being a living being, tends toward homeostasis while the changes wrought by human activity are pushing the planet further from homeostasis.
I'm sceptical about anthropogenic climate change, but am completely onboard with the urgent need to protect the natural environment and reduce polution/waste.
That's because you can see pollution/waste, but you cannot see CO2 and cannot see YET its full impact on our climate. Or else you would be very worried.
How does that make sense?
Do you realize just how much ecosystem this one species has destroyed in a few centuries?
You don't think turning a forest into a desert affects how warm that climate is?
What about when you more or less do that to half the planet?
@@MattAngionothe world has become greener due to increased c02, we also produce more food per area and that’s still trending up, which is also thanks to increased c02 (partly). How these two facts gets rejected by alarmists was a big part in me losing my faith in climate doom.
@findingthereal9052 what do you mean by greener?
Clearly, there is far less natural ecosystem than in previous centuries.
There's also far less wildlife and lower biomass, especially of mammals.
We've converted the life on this planet into more humans and junk.
Go to "our world in data," and you can see just how much of the wild planet we've destroyed.
You're also making the same mistake that many climate activists do in focusing on carbon, as if that's the only thing that matters in a complex system.
Carbon is rarely the limiting variable for green growth.
Heat, on the other hand, can be very devastating to trees and ecosystems.
So even if there's a spike in green initially, the added heat eventually makes the whole thing collapse.
Right now, the ocean has been absorbing the vast majority of heat added to the system.
But because of latent heat, that will eventually stop and temperatures will rise abruptly.
Just wait until there's no arctic sea ice (could be within a few years) and then see what it's like when we lose the planet's air conditioning.
@findingthereal9052 also, more for per area doesn't matter that much when you waste 1/3 of food and use 4 times the area required because you want animal products.
Plus, we've drained the top soil of nutrients so food itself is only a fraction as nutritious
Wait until the oil runs out.
Similarly, when selling climate action, it helps to avoid the demoralising idea of climate change. Instead, it can be sold by promoting healthy lifestyles, less pollution, better and cheaper mobility via public transport, the beauty of nature, better food, intentional living, community, and slow, leisurely travel.
I see what you mean, and you are right. But still some people will always prefer a lifestyle as the one sold us by "influencers" that seem to have a wonderful life, burning thousands of tons of CO2 just for their leisure. So it needs to be explained that this lifestyle (and also OUR current lifestyle) is unfortunately unsustainable. Sad but true.
Convince Florida and I'm in.
Florida and Arizona, ruined by humans.
Ask Brazil how things are going. Ask Hangzhou China how they enjoyed their 17 inches of rain in one day this summer.
Why wait, if you wait for the unreasonable to be reasonable & recognise your reasonable point before you do anything about a problem that threatens both of you, then guess what your both be Fkd.
I bounce between compulsive big picture deep context understanding for longterm rebuild solutions on firm integrated foundations... to reinforcing my local community via joining existing groups doing amazing things & learning & wheres theres gaps in local sustainability joining with like minded people to fill it. Inspired by the Transition Town Movement & other methods like it, so as & when things surely go to shit - im not inhaling Zyclon B from a shower head or sitting on a pile of bog roll with a shot gun thinking ive prepped or inserted into the merriad dystopias biting our heels.
"self - sufficiency" isnt Sufficient- beacuse the small "self" isnt eneough !
We can only sort this $hit together at community scale while hopefully not going individually insane or collectively mad. The Eye of the Needle is small & the collective Ego & conditionings big, forgive & disengage with eyes open, while Pre -Building a better way...
This is the Way
Just how much can WE change Global Warming?
Let’s do the calculations!
Have you ever asked, “How much global warming has there been since the START of the industrial revolution?"
Ask Google, Ans from NOAA: “1°C since 1750? So how much change is that a year in °F 1.8F/272 years = 0.0066°F /year
How much is actually caused by the USA?
OK let's ask Google, Ans: 27%
So the USA has caused (27%) * .0066° /year or .0017° F /year.
Have you ever asked what is the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere? Ans: 120 years
WOW!! By using NOAA’s historical records after reaching NETZERO in the USA, the MAXIMUM change expected in global warming is -.0017°F /year
And it will take an additional 120 years to realize an actual reduction of -.00085 °F
Now Ask: what's the cost to reach NETZERO? Ans: $4 trillion a year for the next 30 years or $120 trillion.
“ what if it were”
The following an important point because
I had no idea. Thanks for sharing - great post!!!
Interestingly, this video serves equally well to put global heating in perspective for those who take the narrow view that climate change is ALL we need to focus on.
Agree completely. Wish more people could think of more than one variable at a time.
Loss of biodiversity is not related to global warming. Its related to chemical use, soil erosion. Global warming, loss of biodiversity, pollution dont have same cause. You are confusing lots of people.
But, climate change is just starting to impact biodiversity. Yes the two can be confusing.
Err.......reptiles and animals that lived underground survived way back when the climate was 3 degrees warmer. Still, good enough for my mother-in-law and my teenage children. Not sure I could / want to live in these conditions, at least not where I am at the moment. Still, everyone welcome migrants.
There were no large mammals when the climate was 3° warmer. Because there was not enough oxygen for our metabolism. (Hint: dinosaurs were not mammals, they had different metabolism)
Considering humans are large mammals maybe we should try to avoid recreating those conditions.
I don't believe that outright denialism is very far spread (anymore?). It gets amplified online because of self selection effects (the ones heavily invested in denialism are much more likely to comment) and bots. I would like to see some commentary on what seems to be much more common to me because I run into these attitudes all the time in real life, in my circle of friends and my family, at work: The notion goes something like this: "Yes climate change is real and horrible, but as long as these Authoritarians are around (pointing at China mainly) we can't hope to do anything about it. Of course they completely ignore the facts of the situation, that our great western democracies still consume way more per capita, that China invests way more into renewables and so on.
CO2 doesn't care about per capita metrics.
Weakening of our magnetic field, started after the Carrington event.
Please find some aspect of reality!
Not what the data shows. Weakening of the magnetic field has been going on for millions of years. It didn't just happen after the Carrington event.
magnetic field has always been in flux pretty much its an easy google "magnetic field timeline graph"
CO2 goes up - earths average temperature goes up. CO2 levels go down - earths average temperature goes down. Nothing more to say....
It’s been much hotter with much more CO2 but not on a planet with HUMANS ugh people don’t get that.
Nor civilization.
Plus, there was much more habitat and wildlife to sustain us
Great video and thank you 🙏🌞 The one good thing I can say about climate deniers, in my experience, that are willing to do the flip side of your exercise “what if the climate crisis were real?” is that they will admit bold & urgent change would be necessary IF it were real. Unfortunately we have politicians who wave the flag of climate change saying “believe the science” who then, right under our noses, do the opposite of what science is telling us we MUST do. This leaves us no choice but to hope and prey the deniers are right 🤞😢
Humans won't solve this metacrisis, may take a million years or more, but the Earth will. If we don't commit total ecocide.
Just how much can WE change Global Warming?
Let’s do the calculations!
Have you ever asked, “How much global warming has there been since the START of the industrial revolution?"
Ask Google, Ans from NOAA: “1°C since 1750? So how much change is that a year in °F 1.8F/272 years = 0.0066°F /year
How much is actually caused by the USA?
OK let's ask Google, Ans: 27%
So the USA has caused (27%) * .0066° /year or .0017° F /year.
Have you ever asked what is the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere? Ans: 120 years
WOW!! By using NOAA’s historical records after reaching NETZERO in the USA, the MAXIMUM change expected in global warming is -.0017°F /year
And it will take an additional 120 years to realize an actual reduction of -.00085 °F
Now Ask: what's the cost to reach NETZERO? Ans: $4 trillion a year for the next 30 years or $120 trillion.
The problem is that no one quite understands what we must do.
Reducing emissions makes the warming accelerate thanks to loss of aerosols.
But that's what 99% of people still call a "solution"
It's a complex system and the answers to getting out alive are much more complex.
We have to modify the albedo (which we've lost from melting ice) and restore A LOT of habitat which can balance the hydrologic cycle
@@gadabout694 The #1 demand of Extinction Rebellion is that we start telling the truth. I agree with that.
@@MattAngiono Nate’s podcast is called the Great Simplification. That’s the direction we need to go in asap.
Your water is filthy. The land is polluted. What more do u want? How about we stop talking a dump on every thing and clean up.
But we got the chick fillet, the WM supercenter, shamazon...
Start by becoming vegan because animal ag is the main driver of ecosystem destruction
I don’t see much of anything concerning plastic in the MSM or by the scientific community. I’ve got a lot of problems but climate change essentially dominates every conversation.
All references in the show notes
@@thegreatsimplification
Appreciate it. I like the name of your channel. Life has become so complicated or, maybe it always was.
How do you gauge the biodiveristy of deep history? Its my understanding that only a fraction of species are ever perserve in the fossil record, per paleontologists
You are comparing eons to decades. Your willful ignorance betrays itself.
@@treefrog3349 ok. I'm so ignorant, it should be exceedingly easy for you to explain how we gauge the biodiversity of deep history. :)
“The sun is 50% bigger and brighter than ever before”. I’ve never honestly heard that before.
Not then ever before. Than when earth was formed
@@thegreatsimplification
Right, sorry…I hadn’t heard that.
Thanks
It's amazing to live through the rise and fall of this carbon pulse. Out of all the times past and future I could have been born in, how did I get here?
What if pigs could fly?
Pink Floyd concert
I doubt it will change any minds, but it's possible. In any case, we're past the point of no return, and it no longer matters. The best we can do now is to make our last years as good as possible before we go. Building community seems paramount at this point. I'm guessing most life will be gone by 2030, with wet-bulb temps, famine, and disease the most significant factors. And, frankly, given the what's to come, (aside from global heating,) I'll be glad. Glad that no more children will be born into this dystopian world men have made.
To realise the truth you need to ask WHO IS MAKING MONEY from the theory. Regardless of any research who is being PAID to do it and what is the benefit to THEM. Medical research is done by pharma companies and they gain, global warming research is done by those with a political gain and the grants given to them for the required results. Give the right answer then get the money, give the wrong answer and get thrown to the dustbin of reputation ruination. He who pays most get the results they want.
No eco literacy, especially among the most influential and powerful. No understanding of all of earths dynamic, interconnected systems, or earth’s deep time, and no interest in the lifelong commitment to learning about our earth, either. The hyper focus on climate has been a disaster. “Debating” cherry picked nuggets and tidbits of data and modeling from climate science has become the middle school level playground “intellect” on social media. If we’d started off with mainly ecologists as the public communicators, would it have been any different? Probably not. We are an intractably ridiculous species, inherently a cognitive mess. Wisdom lifeways help with our immaturity. No wisdom lifeways, and disaster ensues. The same pattern, over and over. I wonder if our hominid relatives alive at the same time we were, like Neanderthals, were they also prone to this kind of fuckery?
Old Boomer here. I'll be exiting this mortal coil before the real shit hits the fan, climatologically speaking. Not sad for myself, but I am sad for the grandnieces and nephews, for the children and grandchildren of my friends, for those youngsters alive around the world, for they will see things so terrible those of us alive can scarcely imagine. To borrow a phrase, the survivors will envy the dead...
OH, come on! I'm 77 and I'm working of sticking around and keeping my wildlife sanctuary going and maintaining a gene pool from which some sort of life can continue. I think homo sapien is finished, but something else will survive.
@@judithmcdonald9001 Agree with your conclusion and admire your work ethic. Inspire the youngers and maybe they can figure it out... or make it to Mars?
Go ahead and weep for your children because the year 2040 is up in the air for humanity's existence
Glad I never had any kids. At least I got to enjoy some of the good times... planet will be unlivable for people growing up today.
True but we like modernity. And modernity makes it more or less impossible to scale down. Witch parts of modernity should be scaled down first? Travel? (but shouldn't youngster see the world ass well), Healthcare is becoming more and more elisstistic ( but its political impossible to scale down?) other sectors?
Just how much can WE change Global Warming?
Let’s do the calculations!
Have you ever asked, “How much global warming has there been since the START of the industrial revolution?"
Ask Google, Ans from NOAA: “1°C since 1750? So how much change is that a year in °F 1.8F/272 years = 0.0066°F /year
How much is actually caused by the USA?
OK let's ask Google, Ans: 27%
So the USA has caused (27%) * .0066° /year or .0017° F /year.
Have you ever asked what is the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere? Ans: 120 years
WOW!! By using NOAA’s historical records after reaching NETZERO in the USA, the MAXIMUM change expected in global warming is -.0017°F /year
And it will take an additional 120 years to realize an actual reduction of -.00085 °F
Now Ask: what's the cost to reach NETZERO? Ans: $4 trillion a year for the next 30 years or $120 trillion.
Scaling down doesn't help because that means losing aerosols which increases warming rapidly.
We have to SCALE UP restoration of habitat and using mirrors to reflect heat back into space
@@MattAngiono I guess some scaling down will happen. No matter what. Its to late, but down scaling will happen. ua-cam.com/video/nsbtt-6Dpww/v-deo.html
This is an excellent summary, presented in a concise, abbreviated matter of fact form, that even with the many short attention spans, that social media seems to infect peoples brains with, surely makes for digestible, informative, fact based info, that anyone watching should be able to absorb easily ....
The only trick is to get them to watch and listen from their little hermetically sealed bubble 😏
The Ozone hole led to a rapid banning of CFCs, Ocean Acidification is even more dire and should be treated with an immediate ban on emitting CO2 for this reason alone, regardless of the other damages caused (real or otherwise).
I could not agree with you more.
Paul Beckwith has recently pointed out the ozone hole is back and bigger than ever.
You can't just ban burning CO2 without committing jen0cide.
We rely on these fuels now for food production.
Plus, stopping emissions would cause a very abrupt acceleration in the warming because of the loss of aerosols (unless you found a way to just dump all the toxic chemicals without carbon into the atmosphere, also not a great idea)
So unless you want to bring about extinction even faster, you can't stop burning carbon.
You need to cool the planet FIRST by modifying albedo and restoring habitat that improves the hydrologic cycle
This is the kind of ignorant comment that motivate skeptics of climate doom to post online. What do you think would happen if we actually could, and did, turn off all carbon emissions overnight? There is huge amount of ad hominem in these comments about how stupid and foolish “climate deniers” are, yet a comment like this, which is completely ignorant of energy economics or agriculture or physics gets a free pass? The idea that climate change is a hoax is just as foolish and conspiratorial as the idea that fossil fuel companies are just holding back some clean, green utopia because of profit. Take a realistic look at the so called solutions and you realise that if the deep green have their way billions of people are going to be impoverished, 100s of million will probably starve.
Guy, thanks for telling us the good news. Hey you know what to do next with your life, the conlusion is obvious. Good luck to you man.
The time scales I guess are hard to grasp.
Thank you for another sobering reminder of the inevitable. Nature will find its way to include us into a symbiotic relation, one way or the other
Thank you Nate excellent. I've been thinking constantly of late about this. On the artistic side of life, including living out of doors in the western european mountains (my particular bent), reading and music, I've found some comfort to refocus and settle my mind with The Ministry for The Future - Kim Stanley Robinson, and re-reading Doris Lessing's - The making of the Representative for Planet 8, Book 4 Canopus in Argus. Thanks again. The denial kind of approach to real living is just unthinkable.
The conspiracy theorists over all refuse to see this very obvious disaster coming
It's already too late..
We (observers who know the truth) must facilitate ways to provide for our selves and families.
I actually packed my truck and left Tampa Florida 5 years ago and moved to N Carolina where its survivable.
I was born in Upstate NY- where I witnessed the snow amounts reduce a little bit each year- And pondered that observation which I actually researched..
I seen animals and insects disappear over time and different animals take their place.
Here in N Carolina, I seen houses (now 10) fall into the ocean which literally is creeping upward in the sand reaching areas that at one time had 600 feet of sand and hills in front of them..
We are witnessing a rapid response to our oil based life styles and these changes will absolutely affect everyone.
Tipping point? Absolutely. We are the Tipping point.
@@rdallas81 a lot of my relatives are the "I don't see no sea level rise" variety. But they're all on the west coast where the coastline is a mountainside. I'm only in my 30s and can see the decline in animals, especially insects. I don't know how anyone is rationalizing that away
So are you saying you're not a conspiracy theorist?
Or just demonizing people who recognize the very real conspiracies?
You can believe there are conspiracies but also recognize climate change is real and a threat....
@widget0028 because it's slow at the human scale...
People aren't out catching bugs and noticing how many are gone.
I caught butterflies when I was a kid and can see the difference for sure, but most people aren't aware.
Sad times are well upon us, if you're paying attention.
We're witnessing collapse in slow motion (on a human scale)..
It's extremely rapid at the geologic scale
@@MattAngiono what is it you think I'm saying. Please I need that starting pointing to figure out what is even your angle
Nate, I'm not sure if you think humankind must change its behavior towards our environment or not. I think our behavior towards our environment is heartless and reckless.
Our behavior is guided by our heartless, reckless, behavior model. Our behavior model is 'profit = income - expenses'. There are two problems with this behavior model.
1) it says that profit equals money, but this isn't true. Money is only a permission slip that allows us to buy our actual gains which all come from the environment.
2) This sick behavior model says that we can maximize our so-called profit by minimizing as many expenses as possible. In essence this tells us to ignore the damages that we are
doing to our environment, and we must keep labor expenses as low as possible. No wonder the planet is on fire and there is so much homelessness.
We can correct our behavior! To do so, we must first correct our behavior model. I recommend this new behavior model.
"Profit = protecting and enriching the environment".
Under this new behavior model, our only major expense is ignoring our obligation to protect and enrich our environment.
The new profit model requires us to create millions of new jobs that will come under the heading "Caretakers of the Environment".
Caretakers will have many specialized categories:
1. Collecting pollution that is already in the environment
2. Collecting pollution before it gets into the environment
3. Dealing with all of the waste in such ways that are good for the environment, and or good for the production of products
4. Designing new ways of producing products so that those products last for a long time and don't have to be replaced every two years
5. Thoughtful distribution of wealth
6. Economically incentivizing families with two or fewer children
There will be many more types of Caretaker jobs.
Every company and government will have Caretaker jobs, and everybody will be schooled, from elementary school through university about how to be caretakers of the environment.
We will all be caretakers of the environment.
What do you think about this idea? How can we transition from our present reckless economy to this entirely new economy that requires us to behave rationally and responsibly.
It may already be too late to save our environment, but it is never too late to try.
Weve been liveing in the age of the lie since before WW1 . Then liveing with trauma and excuses to expand in every direction to supply our addictions