The IPCC’s latest assessment of climate impacts and adaptation options: What does it tell us?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лип 2024
- In November 2021, the COP26 meeting in Glasgow stressed the urgency of enhancing ambition and action on climate change adaptation in the critical decade to 2030, ‘in line with the best available science’.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the premier global science body tasked with providing policymakers with assessments on climate change, its implications and potential future risks as well as to put forward adaptation and mitigation options. Their latest Sixth Assessment Report, released on 28 February 2022, assesses socioeconomic and natural systems’ vulnerability to climate change, the impacts and consequences, and options for adaptation.
This joint Australian National University-University of Melbourne event gives you the opportunity to hear from report authors about the key findings and what they mean for taking forward action on adaptation in this critical decade.
Program:
0:00 The event is moderated by Professor Mark Kenny.
1:40 Professor Mark Howden: Director, Institute for Climate, Energy & Disaster Solutions, The Australian National University & Vice-Chair, IPCC
27:15 Discussion Panel
Professor Kathryn Bowen: Deputy Director, Knowledge Translation and Policy Impact, Melbourne Climate Futures, University of Melbourne & Lead Author, IPCC
Professor Bronwyn Hayward: Director, The Sustainable Citizenship and Civic Imagination Research group, University of Canterbury & Lead Author, IPCC
1:04:18 Q&A with audience
Reversing climate change is easy if we first correct the dictionary definition of profit and create a Global Economic Model GEM
that fits well with the new 'profit' definition. I recommend the following definition of profit:
"Profit = our gratefulness and loving care for our Environment, and for the sustenance that it provides to all of us".
Clearly this definition does require a completely new Global Economic Model.
The central part of the new GEM should be the EPA. EPA members will vote on the best 'Profit' definition that states sustenance is our only actual 'gain'
without which we can't live, and states that the environment is our only source of sustenance.
As the central hub of the new GEM, EPA members will establish, by vote, all directives related to both, the GEM and climate rescue strategies.
Here are just some rough ideas of what the EPA directives might be:
1.) Population: Initially we need a one child per family directive.
2.) In place of income, jobs would have an 'equivalency rating'. Some jobs are still more important and more difficult than others.
3.) All equivalency ratings will increase at the same time if and when the environment becomes healthier. The lowest EquivRate must still be livable.
4.) Everyone who can work will be able, and required, to get jobs. No more expenses, so no more cutting jobs to reduce expenses; thus, virtually no more homelessness.
5.) No manufacturing of useless and unnecessary products. All products will be scrutinized by various rating methods.
6.) Whenever possible products should last a lifetime and or be easily upgradable, so we don't buy the same products repeatedly.
7.) EPA will direct "Work Force Flow". Example: Shoe manufacturer will produce 100yearLife shoes for 3 years, then reduce output to about 1/10 of full capacity, and
the majority of shoe employees will be shifted to other work assignments by the EPA. Employees still keep their EquivRate in-between jobs.
I know that this is just a rough outline of what we must do, but it's a good starting point.
This is our Ark. Please help build it! Questions, suggestions and any comments for or against this idea will be very deeply appreciated. Thank you!
P.S. Any comments for or against this idea about, "profit" and new Global Economic Model, are greatly appreciated.
💖
I think every channel making climate emergency videos should consider making short
This entire report is a fraud. It starts out by claiming that since the last report 8 years ago, at least 7 of them were the hottest on record. This is patently false and it isn't even close. If it was true, then surely there would have been some temperature records set during that time, right? Out of 50 states, only one set a temperature record in the last 8 years. Colorado set a record temp of 115 degrees on July 20, 2019, but unfortunately it was set during a downslope wind event. Don't get me wrong, it counts, but it doesn't signify a trend as it is a meteorological event. Nearly half of the states set their record high temperatures in the 1930's. Half. If you include the two decades in either direction to the total you get 33 records and for the cherry on top, all but 3 records were set before the year 2006.
If we really did have 7 of the hottest years on record in the last 8 years, why do the actual temperature records not show it? Because this entire IPCC report and every report before it is based on fraudulent data in order to push a political agenda.
In short, it's all complete bullshit.
But what do I know? I'm only an actual meteorologist.
@@hascleavrahmbenyoseph7186 There is a global initiative to unite the world under one government with certain people behind it that plan to be the ones in charge with all the power. Such a government would not be a capitalistic democratic republic like the US. This was the entire point of the creation of the IPCC, to indoctrinate the world to give away their freedoms so that those in power can save them from the rising temperatures. This is why they need to show rising temperatures even though they actually aren't.
@@hascleavrahmbenyoseph7186 The environment is not in danger, at least not from global warming.
@@hascleavrahmbenyoseph7186 Look, I'm sure you are fairly sincere in your beliefs and the topic you are talking about, but the fact remains that pollution on the whole, especially in the US, is not nearly as big of a problem as some people make it out to be. When it comes to local pollution, which is what your entire UA-cam thesis is about, local businesses and politicians are who you should be talking to. By trying to make it a national, or god forbid, a HUMAN issue, you are bringing far too much power to a simple problem. It's like seeing a push pin not stuck into the bulletin board all the way and deciding to hit it with a sledgehammer. If you really want change on something like this, stop posting dumb crap on the internet and go DO something about it on the local scale. Talk is cheap, doing something matters more.
270 authors from 67 countries reviewing more than 34 000 scientific papers but you have it right and they are all confused or involved in some Machiavellian global scheme to deceive us? Hmmm
@@sharonbryce7724 It isn't Machiavellian, well not for most of them, just for the highest up in the scheme. For the lower people in the power structure, it's about money, influence and they sincerely believe what they are saying. The problem is that if you go back to the baseline of the issue, forget all the temperature proxies and signs found in nature, go back to the actual temperature data, there is massive fraud in the initial data set being supplied by NASA and NOAA. Don't listen to anyone who says that agencies from around the world have independently verified the results and blah blah blah, there is no other temperature data set. Period. You can independently verify a bad set of data all you want and you'll always get a similar bad result because the baseline data has been corrupted. For the people who know this for a fact, it IS Machiavellian and the goal is power.
I think Prof. Kennys' confusion over the political lay of the land with regards to climate change is strange. The antagonism towards climate science and climate action nests very well with the ideology of the Right.
The problem is confusing a rational analysis with an ideological one, and assuming your interlocutor has used the same base assumptions as you.
Most people on the Right do not have problems with the science. They have issues with the Left wing solutions. They have issues with apocalyptic rhetoric that isn't backed by science and they have issues with the anti capitalist agendas.
Save Our Planet Now
Our planet is fine...
How do you silence a climate change alarmist? Ask them this question: What is the proper amount of atmospheric CO2...They have no answer.
First it was air pollution, then it was global warming, now it’s climate change. In the ’70’s air pollution was going to blot out the sun and put us into an ice age and mass starvation. We were also going to run out of oil. Many claims were made by the (well funded) “experts” that never happened.
Then the (well funded) “expert” climate watchdogs transitioned into frightening claims about global warming. They ignored climate history showing warmer global temperatures before the industrial age showing no human cause and effect to temperatures but never the less tried to convince us with their inaccurate computer predictions.
Now we have (well funded) “experts” telling us the weather system is broken and using the term “climate change” to prove it. What did climate do before it changed?
Here’s the problem as I see it. Humanity has been subjected to over fifty years of (well funded) “expert” claims that didn’t happen. Have any of those spewing lies ever been held accountable? No. They continue on (well funded) unabated.
Here’s where I think this whole scene needs to go. Funding stops until claims are specifically defined, measured and verified, the climate change alarmists must describe exactly what is wrong with the climate, how they know that, can prove it with verifiable testing (isn’t that how real science works?) before humanity is deprived of the many benefits of fossil fuel just because they say so.
Have they said what the proper amount of atmospheric CO2 should be? No. How will they prove the number they decide on will fix climate change? How will anyone know when climate change has been fixed?
There seems to be no scientific method at work here only assumptions, emotional warnings and ultimatums. Could billions of dollars in grant money prompt someone to say something they don’t really believe and can’t prove?
Folks there are too many unanswered questions to take any of this seriously.
Warming is proving to be mostly benign, here to stay and a net positive for humanity. Economic growth and the modern world is what keeps us safe. Expensive, unreliable energy, poverty and attacks on economic growth are far greater threats than a warming planet.
The persuit of ceaseless, unretrained pursuit of economic growth is basically the cause of every problem in the modern world. So no. We need to change.
@@joshuataff4911 Firstly, that's an utter fallacy. This is also the exact same mentality of anti vaccers who cite every negative aspect of vaccines and willfully refuse to recognize the incalculable benefits. What are you suggesting, that we were all better off living in a mud hut and dying at 30?
Environmentalists absurdly believe that the Earth is some kind of pristine place of harmony that humans, like a parasite are wrecking. In fact, the Earth is a hostile place that will kill you. Humans have made it more livable with each passing century. Life for humanity has steadily improved in any way you care to measure.
Every single life form on this planet exploits it's environment to survive. To suggest that any kind of human footprint is tantamount to generating a "problem" to the point of actually dismissing the wonders of the modern world is ludicrous.
I do not care to dignify this stupid presumpitous rant other than to say: There is nothing wonderous about our civilization. Its a depraved, disgusting thing. Rotten to its very core. But hey, you have air conditioning and cheap goods, so that makes us better than the people we've ruined and exploited to our advantage for the last several hundred years.
@@JoshDoVids I recommend therapy.
CO2 does NOT cause fires, does NOT cause floods, does NOT cause droughts, does NOT cause sea levels to rise. The notion that the warming we've seen recently might contribute to such potentially dangerous developments is one thing. The notion that such warming is due to rising CO2 emissions is another thing entirely. For 40 years during the previous century global temperatures were declining, and many feared a coming ice age. The insistence that we must cut back drastically on fossil fuels is based on an assumption that is not only unproven, but runs contrary to the evidence, which reveals NO correlation between CO2 and global temperature.
Non of that matters. How will you adapt to loss of habitat?