Not really your going to end up with a bunch of desperate suicidal people. Do you really think money will motivate them? As soon as money becomes a non motivator like when society collapses those rich will be turned on and killed.
- We're doomed, now what ? - Well it won't change a thing if I stop eating meat, driving my car around, flying to conferences around the globe aso... 52:14 Am I wrong in seeing the two evoked "massive changes of consciousness" that could germinate some solution for our earth were actually ignited by individuals who walked their talks regardless of their personal comfort as a prerequisite to the momentum they initiated ? Ghandhi at least, afaik.
We were warned in 1988. We had 30 years to turn down the "tea kettle." Now, even if we turned off the gas heat today......the kettle will continue to steam and heat. 350ppm was reached and we sat back and said "its not so bad it won't be so bad." We hit 415ppm today.
How warm was the earth when the CO2 was 4,000 ppm? Wasn't that a time of incredible biodiversity? Centipedes twenty feet long; turtles and alligators and palm trees in the arctic. Different? yes! death of the planet? No!
I grew up on Star Trek and other hopeful sci-fi. I had always believed that humans had the ability to transcend our animal nature and become this great, forward thinking, space faring race. But alas, we're a virus that killed it's host, and ourselves with it.
Exactly, this is it kings. Any animal, when presented with a new area & greater resources, will simply consume & populate this new area until the abundance is no greater than before. It's simply within human nature to act in the way we do, to overpopulate & overconsume. As our tool, we use technology & fossil fuels, because this is the way we reach greater resource production. It's just nature in action.
a lot of so-called Christians will stand in front of God on judgment day and when asked "Why did you destroy the earth and creatures I created?" and they're answer will be "well we can't destroy the economy"
Environmental degradation and climate change sure is sad, but I don't see Roy doing much about it. Just lots of whining and proposing unreasonable ridiculous solutions like a centralized global government. The guy is a fully loaded hypocrite if you take him literally. That is why I interpret his whole persona as a satire. He wants people to prove him wrong, I think his goal is actually to inspire people to just realize that we have a serious problem, not be discouraged, and develop solutions to so that we can coexist with our planet. Please cheer up.
I know it's been said before, but encouraging words like... "Buy Antarctic property before the rush" and "coastal lands are going to flood, so don't live there like Obama and Gore" and "all the other predicted planetary dooms that have passed have failed, so why will this one be any different?" and "When five countries on earth have labs that can produce humanity killing viruses, you're worried about the mean temperature of the earth going up by a half a degree C?" How about words like, "I built a Planetary Air Conditioner on my property for a hundred bucks (one time cost) that undoes the heat footprint of five people for ever; the US government wants to charge you $1,250 per person per year to solve the same problem." How is it not a scam? (Putting it a different way, if I have to rebuild my PAC after a decade, the government is overcharging by 625 to one. For comparison, would you willingly pay over three thousand dollars for a five dollar burger?) (and I was paying retail!) How about words like, "Stand back from this cult of doom, and calmly look at the science!" Because if you do, you'll see they're lying to you. Be calm, and think. You don't have to respond to the fear of a 16 year old girl screaming "How Dare you! You've killed my dreams! I don't want you to be concerned, I want you to be as scared as I am!" She's collected $40 million so far for her crushed dreams. Not a bad return on investment for a kid without a collage degree. Would you (pretend to) run your dreams through a juicer for forty million? (Fade to private life and face the trials of living off a million dollars a year in interest.) Make a nice day! (have a nice day implies that it just randomly comes your way, that you have no control over your life, that you should rejoice when the planets align and smile upon you. Make a nice day means you have the power to make the day nicer for yourself and others. Be empowered!)
Many reasons, actually. It's too small to hold an atmosphere, it's far away from the sun and therefore doesn't get as much light, and it doesn't have a magnetic field to protect it from UV and cosmic rays. We've been into and out of ice ages when the CO2 level on earth was ten times what it is now. CO2 is not the control knob!
Nuclear explosives need to become the collective property of all nations, not any one. Geoengineering (the nukes can deliver the dust) is also be a solution to climate. I just hope we're not clumsy enough to miss the fact that even with our current CO2 levels, we still do have a lot of control.
@@mobilityproject3485 Nuclear weapons should not be used to cool the planet. It would make the planet too radioactive and the dust would just fall out of the atmosphere
@@RayT70 Look at the mount pinatubo eruption. Explosives generate dust. For two years after that eruption, temperatures dropped. This would need to be a constant, biannual or annual (depending on emissions. yes, emissions still matter!) barrage of dozens-megaton explosives. As for the old, weary, and vulnerable, too bad you were born on the wrong side of CRISPER!
Words like "Buy Antarctic property before the rush" and "coastal lands are going to flood, so don't live there like Obama and Gore" and "all the other predicted planetary dooms that have passed have failed, so why will this one be any different?" and "When five countries on earth have labs that can produce humanity killing viruses, you're worried about the mean temperature of the earth going up by a half a degree C?" How about words like, "I built a Planetary Air Conditioner on my property for a hundred bucks (one time cost) that undoes the heat footprint of five people for ever; the US government wants to charge you $1,250 per person per year to solve the same problem." How is it not a scam? (Putting it a different way, if I have to rebuild my PAC after a decade, the government is overcharging by 625 to one. For comparison, would you willingly pay over three thousand dollars for a five dollar burger?) (and I was paying retail!) How about words like, "Stand back from this cult of doom, and calmly look at the science!" Because if you do, you'll see they're lying to you. Be calm, and think. You don't have to respond to the fear of a 16 year old girl screaming "How Dare you! You've killed my dreams! I don't want you to be concerned, I want you to be as scared as I am!" She's collected $40 million so far for her crushed dreams. Not a bad return on investment for a kid without a collage degree. Would you (pretend to) run your dreams through a juicer for forty million? (Fade to private life and face the trials of living off a million dollars a year in interest.) Make a nice day! (have a nice day implies that it just randomly comes your way, that you have no control over your life, that you should rejoice when the planets align and smile upon you. Make a nice day means you have the power to make the day nicer for yourself and others. Be empowered!)
Rabble is right. Capitalism *can* stick around if you like it for some reason, but we’re going to need much stronger government involvement based on climate action. At the very least a $230/ton globally enforced carbon tax (or the equivalent in assorted policies). We might be able to do with a lower carbon tax/equivalent that scales up over time, but the $230/ton one seems ideal, for safety’s sake.
It's too late. Not enough people will. Even if you did that, we'd still need to remove CO2 that's already in the atmosphere, which would cost trillions that nobody is willing to spend. I'm sorry, but it's just not going to happen.
@@donaldzepeda4732 Feebates are an idea that works with the carbon tax model. Tax the carbon makers and fund the carbon sink and zero carbon motivators and inventions. Just saying it's good to reward biosphere consciousness and responsible earth citizenship.
I do not own a car, a television or a "smart" phone. This began as poverty, but has turned into a choice. We each need to take some responsibility for our own footprint. However futile this may be on the larger scale, I'm still setting an example.
I may be ahead of you on the wealth curve, but you are doing a good thing. On my property I built a Planetary Air Conditioner, which ejects enough heat into space to save 180 tons of ice from melting per year. I ask you, how many people's heat footprint have I offset? Riddle me that and I'll give you the design specifics.
I suppose if I had a glimmer of hope for human life after our near term extinction, I would consider direct actions appropriate to the gravity of the situation. Writing letters and contacting a representative or holding signs at another protest just don’t cut it.
The Earth is cooler with the atmos/GHGs/albedo not warmer. To perform as advertised the GHGs require “extra” energy upwelling from the surface radiating as a black body. The kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmos molecules render that scenario impossible. No greenhouse effect, no GHG warming, no man/CO2 driven climate change or Gorebal warming. Version 1.0 032122
How long will your stored foods last when growing it yourself can't keep up with your needs ? How many years ? Can you trust the labels on those cans ?
Any person i talk to about roof top solar , only do it to reduce their power bills . None of them are doing it for perceived ecological benefits.Most people are completely oblivious to the natural environment and the enormous damage we are causing.
Thubbbbb! I put a Planetary Air Conditioner on my roof. I've decreased my heat footprint. It doesn't give me any money or power. It's just the right thing to do. I've rejected enough heat from the earth to prevent 180 tons of ice from melting per year. What is your heat footprint?
I built a Planetary Air Conditioner on my property for a hundred bucks (one time cost) that undoes the heat footprint of five people for ever; the US government wants to charge you $1,250 per person per year to solve the same problem. How is it not a scam? (Putting it a different way, if I have to rebuild my PAC after a decade, the government is overcharging by 625 to one. For comparison, would you willingly pay over three thousand dollars for a five dollar burger?) (and I was paying retail!) Make a nice day! (have a nice day implies that it just randomly comes your way, that you have no control over your life, that you should rejoice when the planets align and smile upon you. Make a nice day means you have the power to make the day nicer for yourself and others. Be empowered!)
Just to know a little bit of science. In the Cambrian period, about 500 million years ago CO2 was more than 10 times as high. It was between 3500 and 6000 PPM. We are now at 400 or so. During the Cambrian period there was an absolute explosion of life. It seems that plankton as today's plants need CO2. And the more CO2 the more plants we have. We should worry about pollution, plastics and poisons in the food supply. But CO2 is not the problem It is probably a blessing.
People will only truly worry about global warming and as a consequence sea level rise. When cod and haddock and swimming in their living rooms. With the rise of AI machines and global warming. "If Arnie Schwarzenegger doesn't 'git yeah' the 'ol' briny' probably will. "
Gore and Obama have bought sea level properties. Do you think that these people, these leaders, believe in sea level rise? Was it not simply a politically expedient way to gain power? Whether there is global warming (and sea level increase) is beside the point. Politicians have exploited people's fears, and in many cases they've fanned the flames.
The crux of what Ron Scranton is trying to say is this: What type of political system would be required in order to make the decisions where all the alternatives are either bad or worse. After all as we get closer and closer to the total insolubility of the climate problem (if we aren't there already) the more important it will be to drastically reduce the population, either on a world level or a country level. Climate change will cause mass death, and perhaps the social system could save part of itself by jettisoning significant parts. Given the horrific nature of this possibility it is unlikely that a world dictatorship would be looking out for the interests of equity and fairness when survival of of either "civilized" man or the human species is at stake. Having said that, I think we need moral and ethical tools that can deal with these issues, even though the results will not be either moral or ethical by our current standards. So we have hard questions like: do we sacrifice human individual rights, liberty and existence to (try and) ensure survival of the species? And as always - who gets to make the decisions? These are unpleasant questions, but we are heading there at an accelerating speed, so we need to think this through. Assuming for a second that the world doesn't hurtle toward world war fighting over the last remaining resources, I offer the following scenario as to how the necessary (as being the only way there is even a chance to solve the problem) world government might form. Let's say there are a number of catastrophes, possibly cascading catastrophes that lead to mass migrations of people (10's if not 100's of millions). For better or worse existing governments end up declaring martial law to stop the human flows. At some point the resulting dictatorships decide to work together to battle the climate disaster. I don't necessarily advocate this, but I don't see another way to get sufficient collective strength to mount climate battle. Or does the individual reign supreme over human species survival, whatever the cost? The only way there are 7.6 billion people on the planet is because of energy dense oil. Oil has created this climate problem. I can't tell you what the "answer" to this is, but I am fairly confident that the problem is being stated correctly. How does a political, social system pick the best of bad answers and survive sufficiently long to deal with the climate problem?
"even though the results will not be either moral or ethical by our current standards." That's the weirdness of these times. I recently rewatched Donnie Darko from the 90s, this story of a kid who hallucenates a rabbit that tells him to these awful things, which end up saving lives. People with much more info than you or I could find themselves in a similar situation: If the extermination of humanity or life is a possibility, all sorts of dramatically unethical acts that could derail it become ethical in comparison. But what a burden, what a mindf_ck.
"Given the horrific nature of this possibility it is unlikely that a world dictatorship would be looking out for the interests of equity and fairness when survival of of either "civilized" man or the human species is at stake." He's just posting analysis as am I: Getting everyone on the same page when it comes to giving things up means control, the people ruthless enough to get it won't care to preserve all of us, and in certain circumstances that lunatic impulse could save some kernel of humanity. None of this is cool or desireable, I would certainly not be a survivor, but if the ship is sinking it's sinking, if a runaway hothouse earth scenario is happening, it's happening. I don't have the data to say either way.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_bourgeoisie Consume less. "Søren Kierkegaard wrote that "the petty bourgeois is spiritless. Devoid of imagination, as the petty bourgeois always is, he lives within a certain orbit of trivial experiences as to how things come about, what is possible, what usually happens, no matter whether he is a tapster or a prime minister. "
The number of Beyonce views vs this talk shows how much we're doomed. As long as we're fucked up we won't be capable of tackling any existential threat.
How do we live ethically? 00:32:00 Prof. Andrew Bacevich speaks of Consciousness - as do we - www.RepublicOfConscience.com www.ConscienceLAND.com www.SDGchallenge.com
You're clueless it doesn't need to be enforced we need to educate people and give them a tool they can use to fix the problem where they are they can gather water from the air this system already exists in Africa, they can plant trees and fight back the desert areas, they can why aren't you grow Victory Gardens and more. No one needs to enforce this it's not about enforcement it's about education how each person can fix some of this for themselves. China has thousands of bicycles rotting in the Sun. Redistribute the bicycles praise those who are repopulating desert areas with trees. Stop thinking that one machine that gives 1000 homes a Year's worth of electricity is enough. We need to turn off all the electrical extra clocks and circuitry that runs all day everyday all over the world
Smaller numbers of humans living in places such as Greenland, the species will go on in a changed idea of civilization, freeways and Costco meet teees.
A close examination will show that most people make that choice to have a biological child based upon personal cravings, not reason and logic. They may have little concern for what that child will be facing in the future. Since climate scientists began warning the U.S. Congress, over a half-century ago, tens-of-millions of new U.S. citizens have been born. When people get warm fuzzy feelings from looking at a cute baby's face most see no connection between that and the exploding population and our failure to effectively address Anthropogenic Climate Disruption (ACD) effects.
I agree with that. However, this man is not 'most people'. He's got a PhD from Princeton and just published a 'non-fiction book which he entitled; We're Doomed. Now What? Sorry, but we have a disconnect somewhere.
He sort of avoided answering the question. Many people rationalize that hope will come from having that child. Some think that they will have an Einstein that will come up with a solution. Others look to the distractions that that the child will bring them.
And, because he's so highly educated and has loudly proclaimed that we are doomed based upon his own study and research, he must know better. And that's what makes his decision to have a child not only cruel, but borderline criminal as well. IMHO.
irony is .. folks in bangladesh are doomed every year .. year after year in many deadly ways ... those millions who are bigger than any group living in well off nations where such discussions happen ...
Audio Pervert because they don’t have family planning, contraception, and many kids help with the group manual labor bangladeshes must practice to live. Hmmm seems like a plausible explanation doesn’t it?
Everyone who uses the internet is invested in fossil fuels. Everyone who eats food that comes off of a truck is invested in fossil fuels. If you think it is the providers, and not the consumers, that are the problem, then you fail to understand the nature of the problem. In a room full of people with a hand on a gun, only an idiot surrenders their only chance at not being shot.
@@stevenhumphrey868 Lots of other things are indeed going on. But that big hydrogen fusing ball in the sky is twenty orders of magnitude more important than he next one on the list. Thirty orders of magnitude if you are talking about something as trivial as your opinion or mine.
There are two ways to looking at having a child in light of the future we are descending into. First, having a child is purely selfish, and it is difficult for people, despite their beliefs, to forego children as long as they are possible. Second, a child is the parents' legacy to the future. On the first count it is difficult for people to not be hypocrites despite their best intentions. On the second count, "legacy" is exactly what is going away should we wipe ourselves off the globe. Cross reference: Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene.
This guy knows nothing about systematics and furthermore has no idea that the knowledge of systematics is essential to the problem he is playing with. And he is only playing with the problem as 4 year old plays with a plastic toy truck. He is not up to this task.
@@roninsdog261 Allow me to paint a different picture. Picture a world with 4,800 ppm CO2. The north pole is ice free year round. So is the south pole. There is no ice, and the earth's temperature has gone up by 12 degrees C on an average. I say "on average" because the main change will be at the poles, where you'll see alligators and palm trees. At the equator the temperature hasn't changed much. Incoming sunlight and outgoing radiation mean the temperature is about the same as it ever was, maybe 1 degree C warmer. This slowly transitions to the poles, where the summers are tropical as well, but those winters, oh those horrid winters, have months of darkness. There will still be snow on the ground. It melts quickly, not even lasting till the spring as the land goes back to tropical. Think of it as a tropical forest that gets snow a few times in the winter. The wind from the sunlit tropics brings heat that melts the snow from ground after just a few hours (and those hours are dark, so most large animals are hibernating anyway). Do you have this picture firmly in your mind? Good! Because it isn't the future, it's what the earth was like in the past! If you think humans can't adapt to a future like this, then you don't understand humans. We humans live from the arctic to the equator, from rain forests to deserts; we're every(f'ing)where! It may become be a different world, but it won't be dead, and the humans will thrive. The earth's total biomass will actually increase. Whether the number of humans will increase or not is beside the point. We'll survive.
And l live fossil fuels. It has improved our quality of life. If you want a noble cause stop throwing trash into the Sea. Stop blaming man for the earths temp.
Mike Ladnun mike, you’re quality of life is so much better that 50 % of Americans will die from cancer from carcinogens extracted by fossil fuel use. How ignorant
@@stevenhumphrey868 Allow me to paint a different picture. Picture a world with 4,800 ppm CO2. The north pole is ice free year round. So is the south pole. There is no ice, and the earth's temperature has gone up by 12 degrees C on an average. I say "on average" because the main change will be at the poles, where you'll see alligators and palm trees. At the equator the temperature hasn't changed much. Incoming sunlight and outgoing radiation mean the temperature is about the same as it ever was, maybe 1 degree C warmer. This slowly transitions to the poles, where the summers are tropical as well, but those winters, oh those horrid winters, have months of darkness. There will still be snow on the ground. It melts quickly, not even lasting till the spring as the land goes back to tropical. Think of it as a tropical forest that gets snow a few times in the winter. The wind from the sunlit tropics brings heat that melts the snow from ground after just a few hours (and those hours are dark, so most large animals are hibernating anyway). Do you have this picture firmly in your mind? Good! Because it isn't the future, it's what the earth was like in the past! If you think humans can't adapt to a future like this, then you don't understand humans. We humans live from the arctic to the equator, from rain forests to deserts; we're every(f'ing)where! It may become be a different world, but it won't be dead, and the humans will thrive. The earth's total biomass will actually increase. Whether the number of humans will increase or not is beside the point. We'll survive.
If you're an author giving a talk about your book could you be so kind as to actually summarize your book?! Please, in the name of all that is holy, could you NOT just read your intro? Esp. those intro's that have no actual info. in them! I get that you're proud of your prose, but we care about what you think, not what you wrote!
That first paragraph says it all. The only person who has the knowledge, authority, and power to remediate the problem, is Jehovah. Period. We all will see very soon.
We are told we are doomed. But we'll survive! Allow me to paint a different picture. Picture a world with 4,800 ppm CO2. The north pole is ice free year round. So is the south pole. There is no ice, and the earth's temperature has gone up by 12 degrees C on an average. I say "on average" because the main change will be at the poles, where you'll see alligators and palm trees. At the equator the temperature hasn't changed much. Incoming sunlight and outgoing radiation mean the temperature is about the same as it ever was, maybe 1 degree C warmer. This slowly transitions to the poles, where the summers are tropical as well, but those winters, oh those horrid winters, have months of darkness. There will still be snow on the ground. It melts quickly, not even lasting till the spring as the land goes back to tropical. Think of it as a tropical forest that gets snow a few times in the winter. The wind from the sunlit tropics brings heat that melts the snow from ground after just a few hours (and those hours are dark, so most large animals are hibernating anyway). Do you have this picture firmly in your mind? Good! Because it isn't the future, it's what the earth was like in the past! If you think humans can't adapt to a future like this, then you don't understand humans. We humans live from the arctic to the equator, from rain forests to deserts; we're every(f'ing)where! It may become be a different world, but it won't be dead, and the humans will thrive. The earth's total biomass will actually increase. Whether the number of humans will increase or not is beside the point. We'll survive. In the mean time, reduce your junk footprint. By not pumping mercury and lead and other long term toxins into the environment you'll be doing the best thing for life that you can. If the humans die (for instance due to bio-war) the CO2 can be sucked out of the system in a decade or two. The new life at the poles would be extinguished. I wouldn't want that on my conscience, but I wouldn't be here to care. Life happens wherever it can. Where it can't, it just takes a bit longer.
To follow up on my last comment, I will say that the abrupt climate change people seem to say that the end will come so quickly that these questions are not relevant. To me that is a form of denialism. I don't think we will get to be so lucky. This process of deterioration will not occur as it would appear in a history book, say. Disaster, quickly followed by another and another until we are done in quickly by starvation. There will be months if not a year or two in between the major disasters (millions + dead), punctuated by smaller disasters. There will be all sorts of times where people might say, "Well we narrowly escaped disaster there!" as we continue to slide inexorably toward our final doom.
@Donald McCarthy If it's already happening, you're kind of supporting longboren's point. The things you mentioned have been happening for years and we're still here. 7.6 billion humans or so. Our downfall is slow and painful.
Allow me to paint a different picture. Picture a world with 4,800 ppm CO2. The north pole is ice free year round. So is the south pole. There is no ice, and the earth's temperature has gone up by 12 degrees C on an average. I say "on average" because the main change will be at the poles, where you'll see alligators and palm trees. At the equator the temperature hasn't changed much. Incoming sunlight and outgoing radiation mean the temperature is about the same as it ever was, maybe 1 degree C warmer. This slowly transitions to the poles, where the summers are tropical as well, but those winters, oh those horrid winters, have months of darkness. There will still be snow on the ground. It melts quickly, not even lasting till the spring as the land goes back to tropical. Think of it as a tropical forest that gets snow a few times in the winter. The wind from the sunlit tropics brings heat that melts the snow from ground after just a few hours (and those hours are dark, so most large animals are hibernating anyway). Do you have this picture firmly in your mind? Good! Because it isn't the future, it's what the earth was like in the past! If you think humans can't adapt to a future like this, then you don't understand humans. We humans live from the arctic to the equator, from rain forests to deserts; we're every(f'ing)where! It may become be a different world, but it won't be dead, and the humans will thrive. The earth's total biomass will actually increase. Whether the number of humans will increase or not is beside the point. We'll survive. In the mean time, reduce your junk footprint. By not pumping mercury and lead and other long term toxins into the environment you'll be doing the best thing for life that you can. If the humans die (for instance due to bio-war) the CO2 can be sucked out of the system in a decade or two. The new life at the poles would be extinguished. I wouldn't want that on my conscience, but I wouldn't be here to care. Life happens wherever it can. Where it can't, it just takes a bit longer.
As a Biologist, the entire Cosmos is in rapid change since the beginning. The Reason why we are here. As Change is not comfortable, we want to make it illegal....The Universe does not care about Comfort..
Another short, simple, enjoyable community act is to form grand juries, indict, prosecute and jail politicians based on their votes, support and words relating to grave global and domestic issues. Why wait 2-4 years to replace them when you can do it in under 30 days?
I've never seen so many doom merchants, for God's sake there is no climate crisis, it doesn't matter if the temp goes up a bit, it's happened in the past and man has flourished in those times.
@@dfs20111984 yet no one completely gives up on their eating of ice-cream. we have this innate will to life, and most would sacrifice anything as long as it means survival. I do agree with you though. It's absolutely insane to wish for immortality, and you should attempt to accept your mortality as best you can. This is however, very difficult, and most people in modern society would never even attempt such a thing.
@@dfs20111984 yeah. i don't feel as if i have experienced the world, but i have a great desire to _know and understand_ the world. and it is a truly depressing endeavor.
The author is exactly right - why can't more see it? We need a layer of world governance overseeing our resources. I'm writing a book on it too. It's just so obvious.
A lot of willful ignorance in the comment section. We are going extinct for two reasons greed and ignorance.
Nuclear power requires humans to maintain. After we're gone our trash will keep killing life forms.
There's just One reason we're headed for extinction, too many humans having too much sex!
Any humans that DO survive will be the super rich greedy bastard politicians who put us in this state!
@@fleshanthos
It will only be temporary. They will suffer just a few years longer. No one is going to be able to dodge this bullet.
Not really your going to end up with a bunch of desperate suicidal people. Do you really think money will motivate them? As soon as money becomes a non motivator like when society collapses those rich will be turned on and killed.
- We're doomed, now what ?
- Well it won't change a thing if I stop eating meat, driving my car around, flying to conferences around the globe aso...
52:14 Am I wrong in seeing the two evoked "massive changes of consciousness" that could germinate some solution for our earth were actually ignited by individuals who walked their talks regardless of their personal comfort as a prerequisite to the momentum they initiated ? Ghandhi at least, afaik.
Gandhi #typos
Starts by saying he flew from x to y and then back again and then talks about how we need to change.... 🤔 🙈
We were warned in 1988. We had 30 years to turn down the "tea kettle." Now, even if we turned off the gas heat today......the kettle will continue to steam and heat. 350ppm was reached and we sat back and said "its not so bad it won't be so bad." We hit 415ppm today.
How warm was the earth when the CO2 was 4,000 ppm? Wasn't that a time of incredible biodiversity? Centipedes twenty feet long; turtles and alligators and palm trees in the arctic. Different? yes! death of the planet? No!
@@geraldfrost4710 No people. We're not going to survive that. But hey, maybe giant centipedes will form a better civilization.
Ever had an ant farm? It’s an enclosed mini system. You feed them and they multiply until they destroy there own system and die.
The Mouse Utopia.
I grew up on Star Trek and other hopeful sci-fi. I had always believed that humans had the ability to transcend our animal nature and become this great, forward thinking, space faring race.
But alas, we're a virus that killed it's host, and ourselves with it.
Exactly, this is it kings. Any animal, when presented with a new area & greater resources, will simply consume & populate this new area until the abundance is no greater than before. It's simply within human nature to act in the way we do, to overpopulate & overconsume. As our tool, we use technology & fossil fuels, because this is the way we reach greater resource production. It's just nature in action.
@@woljangN Then we need something supernatural, like religion, to allow us to transcend our base natures.
@@spackle9999 We haven't killed earth! When she gets bored with us she'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.
a lot of so-called Christians will stand in front of God on judgment day and when asked "Why did you destroy the earth and creatures I created?" and they're answer will be "well we can't destroy the economy"
Environmental degradation and climate change sure is sad, but I don't see Roy doing much about it. Just lots of whining and proposing unreasonable ridiculous solutions like a centralized global government. The guy is a fully loaded hypocrite if you take him literally. That is why I interpret his whole persona as a satire. He wants people to prove him wrong, I think his goal is actually to inspire people to just realize that we have a serious problem, not be discouraged, and develop solutions to so that we can coexist with our planet. Please cheer up.
I know it's been said before, but encouraging words like...
"Buy Antarctic property before the rush" and "coastal lands are going to flood, so don't live there like Obama and Gore" and "all the other predicted planetary dooms that have passed have failed, so why will this one be any different?" and "When five countries on earth have labs that can produce humanity killing viruses, you're worried about the mean temperature of the earth going up by a half a degree C?"
How about words like, "I built a Planetary Air Conditioner on my property for a hundred bucks (one time cost) that undoes the heat footprint of five people for ever; the US government wants to charge you $1,250 per person per year to solve the same problem." How is it not a scam? (Putting it a different way, if I have to rebuild my PAC after a decade, the government is overcharging by 625 to one. For comparison, would you willingly pay over three thousand dollars for a five dollar burger?) (and I was paying retail!)
How about words like, "Stand back from this cult of doom, and calmly look at the science!" Because if you do, you'll see they're lying to you. Be calm, and think. You don't have to respond to the fear of a 16 year old girl screaming "How Dare you! You've killed my dreams! I don't want you to be concerned, I want you to be as scared as I am!" She's collected $40 million so far for her crushed dreams. Not a bad return on investment for a kid without a collage degree. Would you (pretend to) run your dreams through a juicer for forty million? (Fade to private life and face the trials of living off a million dollars a year in interest.)
Make a nice day!
(have a nice day implies that it just randomly comes your way, that you have no control over your life, that you should rejoice when the planets align and smile upon you. Make a nice day means you have the power to make the day nicer for yourself and others. Be empowered!)
There's a reason why Mars looks the way that it does. Our next collapse will be our last.
Many reasons, actually. It's too small to hold an atmosphere, it's far away from the sun and therefore doesn't get as much light, and it doesn't have a magnetic field to protect it from UV and cosmic rays. We've been into and out of ice ages when the CO2 level on earth was ten times what it is now. CO2 is not the control knob!
@@geraldfrost4710 Your slight knowledge about Mars is more than you know about Earth.
Nuclear explosives need to become the collective property of all nations, not any one. Geoengineering (the nukes can deliver the dust) is also be a solution to climate. I just hope we're not clumsy enough to miss the fact that even with our current CO2 levels, we still do have a lot of control.
@@mobilityproject3485
Nuclear weapons should not be used to cool the planet. It would make the planet too radioactive and the dust would just fall out of the atmosphere
@@RayT70 Look at the mount pinatubo eruption. Explosives generate dust. For two years after that eruption, temperatures dropped. This would need to be a constant, biannual or annual (depending on emissions. yes, emissions still matter!) barrage of dozens-megaton explosives. As for the old, weary, and vulnerable, too bad you were born on the wrong side of CRISPER!
What can mere words do for a doomed civilization?
Words like "Buy Antarctic property before the rush" and "coastal lands are going to flood, so don't live there like Obama and Gore" and "all the other predicted planetary dooms that have passed have failed, so why will this one be any different?" and "When five countries on earth have labs that can produce humanity killing viruses, you're worried about the mean temperature of the earth going up by a half a degree C?"
How about words like, "I built a Planetary Air Conditioner on my property for a hundred bucks (one time cost) that undoes the heat footprint of five people for ever; the US government wants to charge you $1,250 per person per year to solve the same problem." How is it not a scam? (Putting it a different way, if I have to rebuild my PAC after a decade, the government is overcharging by 625 to one. For comparison, would you willingly pay over three thousand dollars for a five dollar burger?) (and I was paying retail!)
How about words like, "Stand back from this cult of doom, and calmly look at the science!" Because if you do, you'll see they're lying to you. Be calm, and think. You don't have to respond to the fear of a 16 year old girl screaming "How Dare you! You've killed my dreams! I don't want you to be concerned, I want you to be as scared as I am!" She's collected $40 million so far for her crushed dreams. Not a bad return on investment for a kid without a collage degree. Would you (pretend to) run your dreams through a juicer for forty million? (Fade to private life and face the trials of living off a million dollars a year in interest.)
Make a nice day!
(have a nice day implies that it just randomly comes your way, that you have no control over your life, that you should rejoice when the planets align and smile upon you. Make a nice day means you have the power to make the day nicer for yourself and others. Be empowered!)
actions: Stop flying, Stop eating meat, live in smaller homes. focus on the big things in your own lives. set a good example
I am experimenting with living in a house at 15 deg C. Sold my car this summer.
Rabble is right. Capitalism *can* stick around if you like it for some reason, but we’re going to need much stronger government involvement based on climate action. At the very least a $230/ton globally enforced carbon tax (or the equivalent in assorted policies). We might be able to do with a lower carbon tax/equivalent that scales up over time, but the $230/ton one seems ideal, for safety’s sake.
It's too late. Not enough people will. Even if you did that, we'd still need to remove CO2 that's already in the atmosphere, which would cost trillions that nobody is willing to spend. I'm sorry, but it's just not going to happen.
@@spackle9999 might as well at least try to advance the CO2 removal route, right? Worst case scenario we fail and die, best case we succeed and don't.
@@donaldzepeda4732 Feebates are an idea that works with the carbon tax model. Tax the carbon makers and fund the carbon sink and zero carbon motivators and inventions. Just saying it's good to reward biosphere consciousness and responsible earth citizenship.
I do not own a car, a television or a "smart" phone. This began as poverty, but has turned into a choice. We each need to take some responsibility for our own footprint. However futile this may be on the larger scale, I'm still setting an example.
I may be ahead of you on the wealth curve, but you are doing a good thing. On my property I built a Planetary Air Conditioner, which ejects enough heat into space to save 180 tons of ice from melting per year. I ask you, how many people's heat footprint have I offset? Riddle me that and I'll give you the design specifics.
I suppose if I had a glimmer of hope for human life after our near term extinction, I would consider direct actions appropriate to the gravity of the situation. Writing letters and contacting a representative or holding signs at another protest just don’t cut it.
I wanted to know why he helped attack Iraq. He talks like he would have known better.
Educate the uniformed wherever you can!!!! Non reading type folks too.
The Earth is cooler with the atmos/GHGs/albedo not warmer.
To perform as advertised the GHGs require “extra” energy upwelling from the surface radiating as a black body.
The kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmos molecules render that scenario impossible.
No greenhouse effect, no GHG warming, no man/CO2 driven climate change or Gorebal warming.
Version 1.0 032122
How long will your stored foods last when growing it yourself can't keep up with your needs ? How many years ? Can you trust the labels on those cans ?
the US Senate voted unanimously against adopting the Kyoto protocols back in 1998. Let that sink in..
which included carbon tithes paid to the UN. How that would have helped is not clear, except to the people drinking from that pot of gold.
As frightening as that movie "The Day After Tomorrow" was, a rapidly forming Ice Age is far better scenario to what we're in store of.
Any person i talk to about roof top solar , only do it to reduce their power bills . None of them are doing it for perceived ecological benefits.Most people are completely oblivious to the natural environment and the enormous damage we are causing.
Thubbbbb!
I put a Planetary Air Conditioner on my roof. I've decreased my heat footprint. It doesn't give me any money or power. It's just the right thing to do. I've rejected enough heat from the earth to prevent 180 tons of ice from melting per year.
What is your heat footprint?
Think globally and act locally, it's the only plausible answer, oh and yea, eat the rich first! SMFH
I built a Planetary Air Conditioner on my property for a hundred bucks (one time cost) that undoes the heat footprint of five people for ever; the US government wants to charge you $1,250 per person per year to solve the same problem. How is it not a scam? (Putting it a different way, if I have to rebuild my PAC after a decade, the government is overcharging by 625 to one. For comparison, would you willingly pay over three thousand dollars for a five dollar burger?) (and I was paying retail!)
Make a nice day!
(have a nice day implies that it just randomly comes your way, that you have no control over your life, that you should rejoice when the planets align and smile upon you. Make a nice day means you have the power to make the day nicer for yourself and others. Be empowered!)
''need a global government'' 1984 all along
Her inflection indicates that she will be very surprised indeed when things rapidly fall apart.
Just to know a little bit of science. In the Cambrian period, about 500 million years ago CO2 was more than 10 times as high.
It was between 3500 and 6000 PPM. We are now at 400 or so. During the Cambrian period there was an absolute explosion of life.
It seems that plankton as today's plants need CO2. And the more CO2 the more plants we have.
We should worry about pollution, plastics and poisons in the food supply. But CO2 is not the problem It is probably a blessing.
yes, if you were a Cambrian life-form....
People will only truly worry about global warming and as a consequence sea level rise.
When cod and haddock and swimming in their living rooms.
With the rise of AI machines and global warming.
"If Arnie Schwarzenegger doesn't 'git yeah' the 'ol' briny' probably will. "
Gore and Obama have bought sea level properties. Do you think that these people, these leaders, believe in sea level rise? Was it not simply a politically expedient way to gain power? Whether there is global warming (and sea level increase) is beside the point. Politicians have exploited people's fears, and in many cases they've fanned the flames.
And now it's here.
If it's so hopeless then what's the point? I wouldn't have brought a child into a world that is doomed.
Probably not intentionally, a lot of things are done unknowingly...
The crux of what Ron Scranton is trying to say is this: What type of political system would be required in order to make the decisions where all the alternatives are either bad or worse. After all as we get closer and closer to the total insolubility of the climate problem (if we aren't there already) the more important it will be to drastically reduce the population, either on a world level or a country level. Climate change will cause mass death, and perhaps the social system could save part of itself by jettisoning significant parts. Given the horrific nature of this possibility it is unlikely that a world dictatorship would be looking out for the interests of equity and fairness when survival of of either "civilized" man or the human species is at stake. Having said that, I think we need moral and ethical tools that can deal with these issues, even though the results will not be either moral or ethical by our current standards. So we have hard questions like: do we sacrifice human individual rights, liberty and existence to (try and) ensure survival of the species? And as always - who gets to make the decisions? These are unpleasant questions, but we are heading there at an accelerating speed, so we need to think this through. Assuming for a second that the world doesn't hurtle toward world war fighting over the last remaining resources, I offer the following scenario as to how the necessary (as being the only way there is even a chance to solve the problem) world government might form. Let's say there are a number of catastrophes, possibly cascading catastrophes that lead to mass migrations of people (10's if not 100's of millions). For better or worse existing governments end up declaring martial law to stop the human flows. At some point the resulting dictatorships decide to work together to battle the climate disaster. I don't necessarily advocate this, but I don't see another way to get sufficient collective strength to mount climate battle. Or does the individual reign supreme over human species survival, whatever the cost? The only way there are 7.6 billion people on the planet is because of energy dense oil. Oil has created this climate problem. I can't tell you what the "answer" to this is, but I am fairly confident that the problem is being stated correctly. How does a political, social system pick the best of bad answers and survive sufficiently long to deal with the climate problem?
"even though the results will not be either moral or ethical by our current standards."
That's the weirdness of these times. I recently rewatched Donnie Darko from the 90s, this story of a kid who hallucenates a rabbit that tells him to these awful things, which end up saving lives. People with much more info than you or I could find themselves in a similar situation: If the extermination of humanity or life is a possibility, all sorts of dramatically unethical acts that could derail it become ethical in comparison. But what a burden, what a mindf_ck.
"Given the horrific nature of this possibility it is unlikely that a world dictatorship would be looking out for the interests of equity and fairness when survival of of either "civilized" man or the human species is at stake."
He's just posting analysis as am I: Getting everyone on the same page when it comes to giving things up means control, the people ruthless enough to get it won't care to preserve all of us, and in certain circumstances that lunatic impulse could save some kernel of humanity. None of this is cool or desireable, I would certainly not be a survivor, but if the ship is sinking it's sinking, if a runaway hothouse earth scenario is happening, it's happening. I don't have the data to say either way.
You know what's not going to help solve climate change? This sort of meandering personal essay aimed at people who don't even need to be convinced...
And yet here you are.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_bourgeoisie Consume less.
"Søren Kierkegaard wrote that "the petty bourgeois is spiritless. Devoid of imagination, as the petty bourgeois always is, he lives within a certain orbit of trivial experiences as to how things come about, what is possible, what usually happens, no matter whether he is a tapster or a prime minister. "
The number of Beyonce views vs this talk shows how much we're doomed. As long as we're fucked up we won't be capable of tackling any existential threat.
How do we live ethically? 00:32:00 Prof. Andrew Bacevich speaks of Consciousness - as do we - www.RepublicOfConscience.com www.ConscienceLAND.com www.SDGchallenge.com
You're clueless it doesn't need to be enforced we need to educate people and give them a tool they can use to fix the problem where they are they can gather water from the air this system already exists in Africa, they can plant trees and fight back the desert areas, they can why aren't you grow Victory Gardens and more. No one needs to enforce this it's not about enforcement it's about education how each person can fix some of this for themselves. China has thousands of bicycles rotting in the Sun. Redistribute the bicycles praise those who are repopulating desert areas with trees. Stop thinking that one machine that gives 1000 homes a Year's worth of electricity is enough. We need to turn off all the electrical extra clocks and circuitry that runs all day everyday all over the world
If he's not God he can't forsee the future any better than a rat. He should humble himself.
Smaller numbers of humans living in places such as Greenland, the species will go on in a changed idea of civilization, freeways and Costco meet teees.
This author just had a baby daughter?! Huh? The hypocrisy is breathtaking. "We're Doomed... so I think I'll have a child!?" @34:00
A close examination will show that most people make that choice to have a biological child based upon personal cravings, not reason and logic. They may have little concern for what that child will be facing in the future. Since climate scientists began warning the U.S. Congress, over a half-century ago, tens-of-millions of new U.S. citizens have been born. When people get warm fuzzy feelings from looking at a cute baby's face most see no connection between that and the exploding population and our failure to effectively address Anthropogenic Climate Disruption (ACD) effects.
I agree with that. However, this man is not 'most people'. He's got a PhD from Princeton and just published a 'non-fiction book which he entitled; We're Doomed. Now What? Sorry, but we have a disconnect somewhere.
He sort of avoided answering the question. Many people rationalize that hope will come from having that child. Some think that they will have an Einstein that will come up with a solution. Others look to the distractions that that the child will bring them.
And, because he's so highly educated and has loudly proclaimed that we are doomed based upon his own study and research, he must know better. And that's what makes his decision to have a child not only cruel, but borderline criminal as well. IMHO.
.
NEMESIS and no , the people using energy did not cause it .
"...Centralised global government... ***big grin*** It is going to happen but we are not going to like it.
Most people on earth will much prefer surviving under possible global tyranny than a guaranteed death under chaotic nationalism.
irony is .. folks in bangladesh are doomed every year .. year after year in many deadly ways ... those millions who are bigger than any group living in well off nations where such discussions happen ...
Audio Pervert because they don’t have family planning, contraception, and many kids help with the group manual labor bangladeshes must practice to live. Hmmm seems like a plausible explanation doesn’t it?
Those who are invested in fossil fuels are those who ignore the effects of climate change....most pension funds.......
Everyone who uses the internet is invested in fossil fuels. Everyone who eats food that comes off of a truck is invested in fossil fuels. If you think it is the providers, and not the consumers, that are the problem, then you fail to understand the nature of the problem.
In a room full of people with a hand on a gun, only an idiot surrenders their only chance at not being shot.
I’m not domed, I just leave our sun to control weather and climate.
hermanwahsletn good luck to you .... there’s quite a bit more going on than just the sun
@@stevenhumphrey868 Lots of other things are indeed going on. But that big hydrogen fusing ball in the sky is twenty orders of magnitude more important than he next one on the list. Thirty orders of magnitude if you are talking about something as trivial as your opinion or mine.
There are two ways to looking at having a child in light of the future we are descending into. First, having a child is purely selfish, and it is difficult for people, despite their beliefs, to forego children as long as they are possible. Second, a child is the parents' legacy to the future. On the first count it is difficult for people to not be hypocrites despite their best intentions. On the second count, "legacy" is exactly what is going away should we wipe ourselves off the globe. Cross reference: Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene.
This guy knows nothing about systematics and furthermore has no idea that the knowledge of systematics is essential to the problem he is playing with. And he is only playing with the problem as 4 year old plays with a plastic toy truck. He is not up to this task.
Well, looking at it he has certainly added a lot more to the discussion than you have. Essentially all you have added is "He doesn't know" That's it
@@roninsdog261
Allow me to paint a different picture.
Picture a world with 4,800 ppm CO2. The north pole is ice free year round. So is the south pole. There is no ice, and the earth's temperature has gone up by 12 degrees C on an average. I say "on average" because the main change will be at the poles, where you'll see alligators and palm trees. At the equator the temperature hasn't changed much. Incoming sunlight and outgoing radiation mean the temperature is about the same as it ever was, maybe 1 degree C warmer. This slowly transitions to the poles, where the summers are tropical as well, but those winters, oh those horrid winters, have months of darkness. There will still be snow on the ground. It melts quickly, not even lasting till the spring as the land goes back to tropical. Think of it as a tropical forest that gets snow a few times in the winter. The wind from the sunlit tropics brings heat that melts the snow from ground after just a few hours (and those hours are dark, so most large animals are hibernating anyway).
Do you have this picture firmly in your mind? Good! Because it isn't the future, it's what the earth was like in the past! If you think humans can't adapt to a future like this, then you don't understand humans. We humans live from the arctic to the equator, from rain forests to deserts; we're every(f'ing)where! It may become be a different world, but it won't be dead, and the humans will thrive. The earth's total biomass will actually increase. Whether the number of humans will increase or not is beside the point. We'll survive.
You are blessed. I pray it! Please keep telling the truth!!!! I pray it
Highly evolved
The truth
Your intro ruins thos vid good bye
what? "Global warming will end the world, therefore global communism." Really? How could what follows NOT be propaganda?
And l live fossil fuels. It has improved our quality of life. If you want a noble cause stop throwing trash into the Sea. Stop blaming man for the earths temp.
Mike Ladnun mike, you’re quality of life is so much better that 50 % of Americans will die from cancer from carcinogens extracted by fossil fuel use. How ignorant
@@stevenhumphrey868
Allow me to paint a different picture.
Picture a world with 4,800 ppm CO2. The north pole is ice free year round. So is the south pole. There is no ice, and the earth's temperature has gone up by 12 degrees C on an average. I say "on average" because the main change will be at the poles, where you'll see alligators and palm trees. At the equator the temperature hasn't changed much. Incoming sunlight and outgoing radiation mean the temperature is about the same as it ever was, maybe 1 degree C warmer. This slowly transitions to the poles, where the summers are tropical as well, but those winters, oh those horrid winters, have months of darkness. There will still be snow on the ground. It melts quickly, not even lasting till the spring as the land goes back to tropical. Think of it as a tropical forest that gets snow a few times in the winter. The wind from the sunlit tropics brings heat that melts the snow from ground after just a few hours (and those hours are dark, so most large animals are hibernating anyway).
Do you have this picture firmly in your mind? Good! Because it isn't the future, it's what the earth was like in the past! If you think humans can't adapt to a future like this, then you don't understand humans. We humans live from the arctic to the equator, from rain forests to deserts; we're every(f'ing)where! It may become be a different world, but it won't be dead, and the humans will thrive. The earth's total biomass will actually increase. Whether the number of humans will increase or not is beside the point. We'll survive.
If you're an author giving a talk about your book could you be so kind as to actually summarize your book?!
Please, in the name of all that is holy, could you NOT just read your intro? Esp. those intro's that have no actual info. in them!
I get that you're proud of your prose, but we care about what you think, not what you wrote!
Democracy in the workplace and one big democratic workers union is what we need. Not some centralized world government!
THAT’S going to save us? Are you kidding me?
What an intellectual BS. Emotional soft science.
That first paragraph says it all. The only person who has the knowledge, authority, and power to remediate the problem, is Jehovah. Period. We all will see very soon.
Congratulations! You are proof positive that no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the religionists.
You love your sky daddy so much? PROVE IT. Go to your gawd- NOW.
Btw, consider that Joseph in Egypt provided a centralized response to regional famine.
Biblical socialism. 😇
Go away JEEZUZ breath. The adults are conversing.
I wouldn't say the Pharaohs were socialist. I would say that Joseph was an excellent steward.
We are not doomed!
We are told we are doomed. But we'll survive!
Allow me to paint a different picture.
Picture a world with 4,800 ppm CO2. The north pole is ice free year round. So is the south pole. There is no ice, and the earth's temperature has gone up by 12 degrees C on an average. I say "on average" because the main change will be at the poles, where you'll see alligators and palm trees. At the equator the temperature hasn't changed much. Incoming sunlight and outgoing radiation mean the temperature is about the same as it ever was, maybe 1 degree C warmer. This slowly transitions to the poles, where the summers are tropical as well, but those winters, oh those horrid winters, have months of darkness. There will still be snow on the ground. It melts quickly, not even lasting till the spring as the land goes back to tropical. Think of it as a tropical forest that gets snow a few times in the winter. The wind from the sunlit tropics brings heat that melts the snow from ground after just a few hours (and those hours are dark, so most large animals are hibernating anyway).
Do you have this picture firmly in your mind? Good! Because it isn't the future, it's what the earth was like in the past! If you think humans can't adapt to a future like this, then you don't understand humans. We humans live from the arctic to the equator, from rain forests to deserts; we're every(f'ing)where! It may become be a different world, but it won't be dead, and the humans will thrive. The earth's total biomass will actually increase. Whether the number of humans will increase or not is beside the point. We'll survive.
In the mean time, reduce your junk footprint. By not pumping mercury and lead and other long term toxins into the environment you'll be doing the best thing for life that you can. If the humans die (for instance due to bio-war) the CO2 can be sucked out of the system in a decade or two. The new life at the poles would be extinguished. I wouldn't want that on my conscience, but I wouldn't be here to care.
Life happens wherever it can. Where it can't, it just takes a bit longer.
To follow up on my last comment, I will say that the abrupt climate change people seem to say that the end will come so quickly that these questions are not relevant. To me that is a form of denialism. I don't think we will get to be so lucky. This process of deterioration will not occur as it would appear in a history book, say. Disaster, quickly followed by another and another until we are done in quickly by starvation. There will be months if not a year or two in between the major disasters (millions + dead), punctuated by smaller disasters. There will be all sorts of times where people might say, "Well we narrowly escaped disaster there!" as we continue to slide inexorably toward our final doom.
@Donald McCarthy If it's already happening, you're kind of supporting longboren's point. The things you mentioned have been happening for years and we're still here. 7.6 billion humans or so. Our downfall is slow and painful.
Allow me to paint a different picture.
Picture a world with 4,800 ppm CO2. The north pole is ice free year round. So is the south pole. There is no ice, and the earth's temperature has gone up by 12 degrees C on an average. I say "on average" because the main change will be at the poles, where you'll see alligators and palm trees. At the equator the temperature hasn't changed much. Incoming sunlight and outgoing radiation mean the temperature is about the same as it ever was, maybe 1 degree C warmer. This slowly transitions to the poles, where the summers are tropical as well, but those winters, oh those horrid winters, have months of darkness. There will still be snow on the ground. It melts quickly, not even lasting till the spring as the land goes back to tropical. Think of it as a tropical forest that gets snow a few times in the winter. The wind from the sunlit tropics brings heat that melts the snow from ground after just a few hours (and those hours are dark, so most large animals are hibernating anyway).
Do you have this picture firmly in your mind? Good! Because it isn't the future, it's what the earth was like in the past! If you think humans can't adapt to a future like this, then you don't understand humans. We humans live from the arctic to the equator, from rain forests to deserts; we're every(f'ing)where! It may become be a different world, but it won't be dead, and the humans will thrive. The earth's total biomass will actually increase. Whether the number of humans will increase or not is beside the point. We'll survive.
In the mean time, reduce your junk footprint. By not pumping mercury and lead and other long term toxins into the environment you'll be doing the best thing for life that you can. If the humans die (for instance due to bio-war) the CO2 can be sucked out of the system in a decade or two. The new life at the poles would be extinguished. I wouldn't want that on my conscience, but I wouldn't be here to care.
Life happens wherever it can. Where it can't, it just takes a bit longer.
As a Biologist, the entire Cosmos is in rapid change since the beginning. The Reason why we are here. As Change is not comfortable, we want to make it illegal....The Universe does not care about Comfort..
Wibble Wobble talk talk. Life happens and then you die. Living on this planet is good for some and really bad for others. Earth Abides.
Another short, simple, enjoyable community act is to form grand juries, indict, prosecute and jail politicians based on their votes, support and words relating to grave global and domestic issues. Why wait 2-4 years to replace them when you can do it in under 30 days?
More left doomsday
I've never seen so many doom merchants, for God's sake there is no climate crisis, it doesn't matter if the temp goes up a bit, it's happened in the past and man has flourished in those times.
Now what? 3 words. Eat the rich.
BS meter going off !!!!! big time
Are you a troll or just stupid?
he's just detecting himself
What a hypocrite for having a child; his response was rambling and evasive ; bet everyone drives cars to those meetings.
interstellarphred I suppose his wife had no say in the matter right ? Rube
This is nothing more than blaming man for the work of the sun, news flash, the planet is cooling down because of reduced solar activity/
That’s laughable .... lol! Where’s that trump troll scientific data presentation lol
Mike Ladnun of course no consensus scientific data is ever presented by the “grand solar minimum” crew ... rubes
Who wants to live forever?
everyone
@@woljangN no one wants to live forever, for the same reason we don't eat ice cream everyday when we grow up.
@@dfs20111984 yet no one completely gives up on their eating of ice-cream. we have this innate will to life, and most would sacrifice anything as long as it means survival.
I do agree with you though. It's absolutely insane to wish for immortality, and you should attempt to accept your mortality as best you can. This is however, very difficult, and most people in modern society would never even attempt such a thing.
@@woljangN I c u. I feel once we've seen enough that will to move on diminishes, especially if we no longer have the ability to have new experiences.
@@dfs20111984 yeah. i don't feel as if i have experienced the world, but i have a great desire to _know and understand_ the world. and it is a truly depressing endeavor.
The author is exactly right - why can't more see it? We need a layer of world governance overseeing our resources. I'm writing a book on it too. It's just so obvious.