1202 potential pathways. Not a single one reasonably possible to even 'only slightly' overshoot 1.5C for several decades. 11 incredibly challenging options to 'only slightly' overshoot 1.5C for several decades, provided we completely move away from fossil fuels as soon as possible. 0.915% chance we take one of those 11 challenging pathways rather than the 1191 which won't get us there at all. Jim Carey from Dumb and Dumber: So... you're telling me there's a chance. YyyyYYYYEEAAAAAAHHHH!!!!
People don't choose paths at random. They make intelligent decisions with the materials and information they have. But powerful people have rigged the game and made it so that most people are too powerless, desperate, or confused to work for the future. We can work together to make the right choices, but it will not be easy.
As a teenager i had read a few sci-fi stories with rich people in it living in arcologies (arcs) and the rest has to struggle with harsh conditions. At that time i found it a strange dystopia. Now reaching midlife and i can clearly see humanity is straight on the path. It is a bit the same like 1984 written as a warning but ended as a guideline.
From a very young age I have been reading Sci-fi stories on the same subject and sadly you could see where it started to become a serious possibility back in the 80’s quite clearly 😕
I had to fight my subconsciousness to actually hit that like button. I had to remind myself that it is not the messenger's fault that the message is depressing.
@@andrewharrison8436 yeah i wished google would share more information, how the algoritm works. Well at least to the extend that they know how it works. Or they could provide data for datascientists, so others could analyze it themselves.
Governments won’t do anything drastic until their own countries are literally falling into the sea or dried out to the point no crops will grow. When it comes to people being in positions of power, Human greed and narcissism appears to trump human compassion and empathy every time. Shame 😢😢😢
Governments ARE doing stupid shit, pay attention. They just had cop27 the current administration put the kibosh on new American oil wells, and China enslaved people in JingXian to make solar panels super cheap. It all doesn't matter because CO2 is a small time contributor to temperature
I don't even think that will be a tipping point. We saw how politics overruled public safety during the pandemic, we have seen how natural and man made disasters have been ignored in most red states (USA). Political will to act always comes back to money. So long as drilling, mining, fracking fossil fuels makes a few people an egregious amount of money, and those people buy political power, we will never make significant changes to our climate policies. I'm in my thirties and have heard the same passionate calls for change my entire life. My generation and those younger than me know that climate change will be cataclysmic, but until we can pull the political landscape to favor climate action, our voices will be ignored.
I can't begin to express my appreciation for your casts. You are precise, impartial and express our problems clearly without falling into simplistic explanations. As a biologist I am having trouble explaining to people that irreversible change is, and has been, with us for decades. Every extinction is just that. Could you use that concept in one of you presentations? I think it would prove interesting to focus people's attention on the rate of extinctions and how that rate has behaved over the last 5 decades... to coiin a phrase I've come to love: Just have a think ;)
Thank you for your videos. As a Brazilian, in my 50 I could see many things changing here, only deteriorating the nature. I hope we can reverse this scenario.
@@scottslotterbeck3796 I m just explaining something that I’ve been seen here, like deforestation and river pollution, this things is always increasing. Sorry, I was not talking about CO2 or global warming
I find it hard to understand people who insist on staying with technology we know does not work, because they doubt the solution will work. Given only two choices do you take the path with guaranteed failure or the one where there is a chance of success.
This is often coupled with “Where’s the scientific proof that these predictions will come true?”, when there ultimately is not and cannot be the “proof” they demand. I just ignore them… most of the world knows better.
Nice video Dave, thanks. Risk analysis looking at the mid position of scenarios and extrapolating is arguably not the way to go in the case of the climate emergency. Emergency itself isn't a middle of the road term, and is seriously and definitely not the way reinsurance like Zurich Re calculates the risk(s) involved. It's different to insuring your car, home, holiday, life, and a host of other things. What's being talked about is the future of society and the continuation of this civilisation. Concerns have been raised that we ought to be focusing on the upper quantifiable limits of the current models. Not 1.8 deg Centigrade, but 5 degrees. The reasoning is straightforward. 1.8 is the minimum increase postulated in the AR6, statistically all climate scientists consider it impossible. It is considered politically acceptable to say 2.7 to 3 deg increase yet realistically as soon as we admit that, we immediately open the door to cascading tipping points - phase changes, and off we proceed to the fat tail of a calamitous 5 deg +. Talk with Peter Kalmus, David King, Kevin Anderson, Will Steffen, Johan Rockstrom and many other top scientists and you'll immediately understand humanity is on the cusp of a Hot House Earth of our own making. A Code Red. This is no idle threat. We in the rich global North cannot continue on this trajectory. To prevent catastrophe we have to have urgent mitigation, renew earth's systems, and repurpose-recycle as much as we practicable can And learn quickly as we go. It involves the whole world. It's not a comfortable chat on UA-cam, unfortunately. Thanks again Dave, great job.
Thanks for this message I have felt that we were on a collision course with irrefutable science 30 years ago but the courage to see and say the truth as humanity is outgrowing the the ability of earth to sustain us
Yeah, avoiding collapse in some form is impossible, but it's only impossible under capitalism, which is kind of constant (rather than variable) for the most of western scientists. Humanity's only hope for climate is not the question of climatology currently, but in the direction of social and political revolution.
We are a crisis management species meaning we have a long track record of not acting on issues of a calamitous nature until the very last moment when it becomes abundantly clear we have no other choice. We should have already been there, but long winded discussions about whether we are going to have long winded discussions on the issue at this point is a powerful indicator that we're screwed.
I disagree. Humans would not have survived on the migration out of Africa if we weren't foresighted and proactive. The problem is that power always corrupts, and too often we've build our societies around making individuals powerful.
@@willabyuberton818 We're capable of it, but that's meaningless if there's no action. If it's the rich and powerful blocking or delaying that action the results are the same.
I agree with Deep and like his observation of "long winded discussions on whether we are going to have long winded discussions." It seems the IPCC meetings have done more harm than good with all the jet pollution they cause and the political watering down, and emissions keep increasing. To Willaby, I agree we have to act because it's right action, irregardless of results, and humans are resourceful, but we have never had a challenge like this before. Ice ages, yes, but not hot house. Still a few will probably survive. The result will depend on whether enough humans can rise to the level of consciousness of seeing themselves as part of the whole instead of as separate - something very foreign to western industrial society, removed from the sense of belonging that depending on natural rhythms provides.
Fortunately for mankind, projections are not the same as predictions. Projecting is easy, predicting is hard, especially when it concerns the future! Furthermore, climate models have a habit of showing to much warming and there is also no scientific basis for the 1,5 degree limit, which is just a political choice.
I remember watching a nature show on TV over 60 years ago that showed lemmings in the Arctic hurtling into the ocean to their certain death during one of their periodic mass migrations caused by overpopulation. The belief that some future technology will stop the climate crisis reminds me of the lemmings going over the cliff into the sea in the "belief" that this is just another lake to be crossed.
The problem I always come back to is how is this planet-saving technology going to be monetised? Human nature is such that no one will fund it out the good of their heart.
The problem with carbon capture and storage is you need a massive amount of zero carbon power AND have no sources of carbon based power as part of the mix, and that ain't on the drawing board.
Yep. Where do all these materials come from. These guys are paid big money to create fanciful bs. Even with bau we will struggle to produce the vast quantities of resources needed for the next few decades. But hey there is an alternative plan in action ,maybe that will work,twenty firty anyone?
Incorrect. I believe we've reached the tipping point (or we're on a train going backwards at 70 miles an hour; brakes probably won't work anyway...) but it's just conjecture on my part...
Carbon capture doesn't make sense as long as the energy needed to do it can be more efficiently spent replacing a carbon based energy source. It's going to be a while before we have nothing better to do with our green energy than sucking carbon out of the air.
I agree. We don’t have energy to waste on CO2 capture & containment. We must get off fossil fuel to take on climate change. We will need massive amounts of green hydrogen to produce green steel & green ammonia. We shouldn’t waste energy to liquefy green gas. We need to built industry next to good wind & solar areas to use & power these factories. I like the idea to use green energy to desalinate water and pump water to higher altitude pumped hydro sites. Where this can done and where the water is needed should be the main source of bulk electrical storage. Also, we should remove the CO2 from then desalinated water, too. We need to build a smart grid that with 3X the power it has now without using fossil fuel. We will need massive amounts of money to do this. We shouldn’t waste money on removing CO2 from the atmosphere. If the impossible happens, we have massive amounts of cheap reliable fusion energy, then we should power everything by liquid hydrogen and fuel cells. Maybe even sequester atmospheric CO2.
I first read about climate change and the Green House Effect in the 1968 when I was in 5th grade studying planetary climate. Back then Oil company scientists told us that Global Warming was nonsense.
In 1968 there was no such thing as "climate change". It was "global warming". Only when the models proved wrong did it become "climate change". The oil Co's were right all the time. We need uncensored debate, not propaganda.
a bit of topic, I was scrolling the notifications and the latest one I have is from flywheel video. I did watch it within 2h from posting and liked the video and is possible that I simply dismissed the notification from top bar or the cellphone screen, but maybe it's worth up check if the all mighty algorithm isn't hiding "useless" information (because there are major forces out there interested in living on fossil fuels for a while longer) Anyway continue with the good work, great job and veeeeeeery informative
Another well presented and researched video - thanks. I've just finished reading Bright Green Lies by Derrick Jensen et al. It's a devastating critique of the idea that any form of industrial society can continue even with so called renewables. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of Limits to Growth - if only the powers that be (and were) had listened.
Yes the elephant in the room is unlimited growth model of capitalism versus population growth, waste and ecological overshoot. While I detest the term degrowth and prefer to encapsulate that within the term sustainability, the conclusion of Limits to Growth (updated 2018) is clear. Unless we slow down growth we will not be able to decarbonise enough to stop global warming/climate change from the tipping point scenario.
@@marksmit8112 yup. I find Kate Raworths work on doughnut economics more hopeful and practical approach. The circular economy approach looks to be a useful stepping stone too.
What concerns me is that we then accept the 1.8 degree overshoot as being okay because there's a plan for reducing it without actually doing that but sounding like we are
Sorry Joanne, 1.8 is already gone when we include other key greenhouse gases already in the system. That's the problem, we're given much of, not all though, of the information, and we're left to manipulate the numbers for ourselves. CO2e is already past 510 ppm. equivalent of CO2. There's 2 degrees. It's why sir Dave King said in 2020 'what we do in the next 3 to 4 years will determine the future climate for a thousand years'. What he's saying is- will determine the future of humanity. Not a comfortable statement for him to make.
They didn’t FAIL to act. They made CHOICES and ACTED conscious of those choices. The mess we are in IS the goal and they were extremely successful in achieving the goal they set for us all.
Thanks for another informative video. A very sobering assessment. I do take some comfort from the fact that although the 1.5C target may be passed, we can continue to fight to avoid every 0.1C increase. They all count!
@@glennllewellyn7369 Well said Glenn. Given the massive daily temperature variations all over the earth, 1.5C, a figure plucked from nowhere by some stupid lefty in the 1990s incidentally, won't make any difference to anything. Human activity couldn't affect the climate even if we wanted it to. We're far too insignificant.
We're screwed. Only option now as individuals is plan, move & adapt. Don't expect anyone else to do that for you particularly governments & politicians. Your survival is now in your hands.
Hmmmm. I looked into some of the links you provided (the article and then a link within it to the CCS Institute) and I see the 43 Mt/yr capture includes blue hydrogen, LGN plants and the Drax biomass plant in the UK. I rank all of these as "dodgy" as they placate, and thus encourage more fossil fuel use or, as in Drax's case are highly disingenuous: harvesting entire ecosystems in British Colombia under the guise of "waste wood into pellets". The 7 B tonnes by 2050 is going to be a tough one to get to if this is our current level of rigour.
I find your comment interesting but hard to read. I seem not smart enough for that many technical terms or whatever is the cause of my confusion. I think meta-commenting on the studies itself is very important, so thank you for looking into that👍
@@Focke42 In part he refers to Blue Hydrogen, derived from natural gas and produces CO2 emissions during process also produces 20% more carbon emissions in heat generation than using pure natural gas. This is partly because additional electricity is needed to run carbon-capture equipment, which, if derived from natural gas, coal - leads to greater methane leakages and increased carbon emissions.
I like your calm, objective narration style. And the British aren't they/isn't it/weren't they/don't they ... of course. Thumbs up as always. P.S.: The lighting in your new, warmer, studio improved 👍
The probem with having faith in "technology and humanity's ability to innovate" is that it depends on humanity's ability to work together, on a large project, without putting any individual needs before everyone else's. This problem doesn't have to be impossible to solve. But won't be fixed while also maintaining a healthy quarterly return on stock prices of said Technologies and innovations.
Thanks for this show it’s very timely Having seen the recent science on the increase in collapse timeline for Greenlands glaciers as it’s going vertically off the charts what was supposed to take 100 years is happening in a year
@@scottslotterbeck3796 In his 2006 documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore warned about the coming impact of climate change on the Arctic ice cap, but he said 2 major studies showed it would be gone in the summertime "within the next 50 to 70 years" - so by 2056 or 2076. ua-cam.com/video/vTFuGHWTIqI/v-deo.html
I wonder if there is a website somewhere that is keeping track of all the extreme weather events? I'd like to see how much they are increasing, year by year.
Yes, many. Start with the UK Met Office, NOAA, World Meteorological Office, IPCC, SkyNews & every national weather service worldwide. They all look at climate as well as weather.
Nothing quite brings this to home, as graphs telling everyone "you've been fcking around, time to find out", but the text is in Comic Sans. I respect the disrespect.
Watching your work, listening to you is always a delight! Every word is so carefully chosen and articulated, carries such depth of information, it showcases your horizon of knowledge. Rich in every sense. May God bless you and wish you good luck and health so that you continue to enlighten the world with your profound sense of science.
We are currently on the worst case line, or on one very close to the worst case. Which means that our global (and local) society will collapse or is already in the process of collapse. While it is always possible that a miracle will happen and all the world will agree to emergency measures, it is more likely that a state of emergency will only arrive when it is very much too late. We should be discussing survival options for +3C to +5C at the very least, and no I do not think it reasonable or appropriate to give up, which is what you are doing when you discard the worst case. I think people need to work through their mourning and get on with surviving the best we can. (As society collapses our ability to respond to environmental change will erode so later responses will be weaker than early ones. Do not expect a late sudden rush to action to save us.)
Ironically complete societal collapse will solve the climate problem since people wont be driving cars mining for oil or producing matric ton of waste in a post apocalyptic world so world temp will go to normal one way or the other. Its just the matter of how many people will die for that.
@@Dennis_Reynolds You don't actually know what is survivable until you don't survive. We should consider the most likely scenarios not just the ones that make us feel good.
A Correction, Ella Gilbert's first link at the video's description is wrong, it has been mistakenly joined with the word "Help" at the end. This is the corrected link for Ella Gilbert: ua-cam.com/users/DrGilbz
Thank you for this video. I didn't know about the Washington Post article or the Potsdam study, so I'm grateful to you for making them the focus of your video today. It's sobering and _real_ information about our near future that we need to know. The world is full of people who think it's fine to do business as usual for as long as possible and let the future worry about itself - or rather they think it's crazy to spend money on new technologies and change the way they do things just to address a problem that hasn't happened yet. (Or in their minds will never happen.) Those ever more sophisticated climate simulations and the distillations of their findings in these reports are the closest thing we have to a crystal ball showing the meatheads that it _won't_ be all right in the end, not unless we make massive and sustained changes starting now. In one of these comment threads a while back I said we were on the worst possible path, but maybe that's wrong. There are positive trends happening everywhere, many of which are highlighted in your videos. There are lots of new technologies being developed that can help us make the jump to complete decarbonization and electrification, and many smart people like the climate scientists who can quantify the problem and show us with increasing accuracy not only how screwed we are, but also how we can get out it. But... This video shows us that it's not going to be easy. Getting rid of all those greenhouse gases is like building the pyramids, it's the civilization-level challenge that our time will be defined by. It'll probably feel more and more desperate as we get to the mid-point of the century, and we may go past some of those tipping points. (Or we may be forced to try out unproven geoengineering schemes in an effort to avoid going over the tipping points.) Hopefully we'll get it under control after 2050 as the warming starts to go down, leading to a less desperate and more methodical transition for the rest of the century and beyond. The problems you talk about in the video are real. The Ukraine war and political polarization is making it harder for people to even see the need for change, and that uncertainty is leading to greater investment in known technologies like natural gas. But what gives me hope is that all those things are temporary - generation based. From an environmental perspective what matters most about the current war isn't the increased investments in European natural gas, it's that one of the world's leading petrostates can no longer profit from selling its oil and gas. Those markets aren't coming back. As the world's petrostates founder like Titanics, one after another, their massive influence on our political discourse supporting the use of fossil fuels will dwindle. And the political divide that seems so huge today will shrink when the Boomers start to die off. I like a fever that's reached its height, but when the fever breaks the organism will be healthy once again.
Great Video as always, thank you for bringing it to the table. As the great Clash put it best " The ice age is coming, the sun's zooming in, Meltdown expected, the wheat is growing thin, engines stop running, but i have no fear 'Cause London is drowning, I live by the river." - London Calling
As an 80 year old retired engineer I followed this whole issue for at least the last 50 years. My problem is NONE of the past predictions even came close to happening. One main issue completely ignored by all the simulations and forecasts is the effect of water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor (as a gas,vapor or clouds) is by far the most powerful greenhouse gas. They also totally ignore the effecrt of the sun and a host of other issues the earth faces.
Agree. It really irritates me that the information we are given is so biased, but I know why! The sun goes through cycles and has the biggest impact on our planet, but never figures in the 'figures'! Al Gore's global warming didn't happen, so they changed the wording to climate change, what a marketing miracle, because those 2 words describe the weather and are now used for every weather event we have especially the bad. The biggest issue also, we have become so reliant on computers that we can't accept that the weather is naturally variable and is not controlled by a computer itself! No mention either of the fact that there are now 8 billion people breathing out CO2 an increase of 6.5 billion in 100 years!
Not sure what your point is? These are predictive models making assumptions about scenarios and thousands of variables scattered over space and time. We know the trend and if we continue along the status quo our models are accurate enough over 20 year period to showing warming atmosphere. However to predict the future accurately implies unforseen change along the timeline and feedback loops of differing magnifications are accounted for.
"My problem is NONE of the past predictions even came close to happening." lie nº1 "One main issue completely ignored by all the simulations and forecasts is the effect of water vapor in the atmosphere." lie nº2 "They also totally ignore the effecrt of the sun and a host of other issues the earth faces." lie nº3 All this claims are false. You people are profoundly dishonest.
Excellent video as always. The global food web is already collapsing, so we would have to enhance biodiversity a huge amount too. As the changes will be exponential, I can’t help but feel that creating charts to 2100 is pointless because I don’t see the planet being hospitable for humans by 2050. I do what I can: reducing my electricity usage, switching to renewable power, reducing my landfill waste, switching to an EV, transitioning to veganism. But we need billions of individuals to do it. The reality is that the previous two generations have completely failed us, for short-term greed. We will all be warring for the remaining water and food and real estate as I become old.
Great. There's me thinking you are the light at the end of the tunnel and it turns out you just have a lamp and are coming up the tunnel to tell me no exit from the nightmare is yet in sight. ;-)
Movies have a rating system so people have an idea of what to expect when they sit down in the theater. Maybe these videos need a rating system from hopeful and uplifting to depressing and you may not get a good nights sleep after watching. As usual, another great job on this video. Maybe I will sleep better tomorrow.
I'm kind of over it at this point. I've accepted that we're doomed. I still try to affect meaningful change of course, but I won't delude myself in thinking it's actually going to work. There's an Australian film from the 50's, "On the Beach", that comes to mind whenever I think of our current situation.
Does any future emissions scenario consider rapid human population reduction as a pathway to staying under 1.5 degrees? Irrespective of whether that happens by world wars, famines or genocides?
Only if the population being reduced had a big carbon footprint. We could wipe out the least polluting billion and change little. Or we could wipe out the most polluting 250 million, and maybe have some effect. Some may find this ethically problematic. Or horrifying, monstrous, repellent and absurd.
@@dekumarademosater2762it was only as a hypothetical. But current global population and living standards won't ever be compatible with ecological constraints such as the acceptable rise in average global temp(1.5-2 degrees). So maybe climate change will exacerbate food and water shortages to the point of enough people dying off naturally or by wars over dwindling resources, way before the end of the century; making a likely emissions reduction scenario. Or we could all just agree that urgently eliminating the most polluting X million is the more moral option, hypothetically!
Excellent consideration both of you. I imagine huge changes in our lives and deaths. It may be more likely that death will come faster and easier in the not too distant future. And once a being dies, that is all she wrote. Ain't coming back. Society breakdown and the end of energy and resource sucking cities ( which to my mind is the requirement for sustainability) will lower the population. Might as well take a good hard look at that. Thanks for dialoging.
Well, covid helped a little. Perhaps its bigger impact was that, to put it bluntly, older people were affected more, and that could be enough to swing politics in favor of younger generations, who are more concerned about climate change. Microplastics could also be contributing to reductions in fertility, by a small amount.
...so long as they were accurate for good reasons: I could throw darts at a board and graph the results. Do that enough times and one will be spot on. Doesn't make that one worth listening to though. We have more and better data now than 20 years ago, and models which are much more finely detailed. They are likely to be the beter options to look at.
@@AJPemberton the only thing that has really changed in the last 70 years since we first became aware of the problem is the rate of change. We started with mostly natural data so had 300-500 years - as more and more real time data came in the time scale got shorter and shorter. Now we got 80 years (not really, the graphs shown on this vid all show we have about 5-10 at most) - there is no coming back from 1.5, hell in reality we're well past that in the locations that matter (artic has already seen 6-12) and those tipping points have already gone. We will be really lucky if it stays around 5, but 10-15 is more likely.
@@scottslotterbeck3796 No, he said we had 12 years to make the changes necessary to prevent climate catastrophy. The rate of change that humanity now has to make in order to avert devastating climate change isn't going to happen, so it looks like Algore was right.
We all contributing to this every single day pretty much. Especially people from western countries. But in general humans are addicted to cheap energy and cheap food. One of the best example is a car. We used to have bicycles to get groceries. Now a lot of people would like to park inside the store so she or he wouldn't have to walk at all.
That helps a little, but as long as you don't take private jet flights, it's more important that you vote for politicians that support renewables AND nuclear power. Your personal reduction of fossil fuels comes second, but if you do both, great.
There is no climate crisis. The UN's IPCC AR6 report, chapter 11 'Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate' summarises the fact that certain severe weather events cannot be detected as increasing, nor attributed to human caused climate change: Pages 1761 - 1765, Table 11.A.2 Synthesis table summarising assessments Heavy Precipitation: 24 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend (12 medium confidence), 43 out 45 low confidence in human attribution. Agricultural Drought: 31 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend (14 medium confidence. No high confidence assessment). 42 out 45 low confidence in human attribution (3 medium, no high confidence). Ecological Drought as above. Hydrological Drought: 38 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend. 43 out 45 low confidence in human attribution (2 medium confidence, no high confidence). So the IPCC are saying we didn't cause droughts and we didn't make it rain. How surprising! There is no objective observational evidence that we are living in a global climate crisis. The UN's IPCC AR6, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms there is a lack of evidence or no signal that the following have changed: Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions), Aridity, Avalanche (snow), Average precipitation, Average Wind Speed, Coastal Flood, Agricultural drought, Hydrological drought, Erosion of Coastlines, Fire Weather (hot and windy), Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods), Frost, Hail, Heavy Rain, Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms, Landslides, Marine Heatwaves, Ocean Acidity, Radiation at the Earth’s Surface, River/Lake Floods, Sand and Dust Storms, Sea Level, Severe Wind Storms, Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets, Tropical Cyclones. How about some quotes from the UN's IPCC AR6? "There is low confidence in the emergence of heavy precipitation and pluvial and river flood frequency in observations, despite trends that have been found in a few regions." "There is low confidence in the emergence of drought frequency in observations, for any type of drought, in all regions." "Observed mean surface wind speed trends are present in many areas, but the emergence of these trends from the interannual natural variability and their attribution to human-induced climate change remains of low confidence due to various factors such as changes in the type and exposure of recording instruments, and their relation to climate change is not established. . . The same limitation also holds for wind extremes (severe storms, tropical cyclones, sand and dust storms)." There is no objective observational evidence that we are living through a global climate crisis. None.
I'd put money on it being > 2 C in the end. More like 3-4 C. Separately, current capture mechanisms use more energy than what they capture, e g, using that energy to replace fossil burning would be better from a CO2 PoV. We can't consider capture until the global fossil blend is very low.
Replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy, needs to be the focus not the hopium of planting a few trees trees, carbon capture, hydrogen, technological breakthroughs such as fusion, which is pushed on social media channels by climate change delayers.
@@marksmit8112 Right you are! Even fission won't save us, but everyone is jumping on that one - so that everything can go on as it did. They only care about the costs of fuel and electricity and think that having more fission power plants will sustain the way we live. No chance to get them recognizing that it won't work that way.
All IPCC models overpredict heating. What's the point in analyzing their predictions? Alarmism is a bubble similar to an ideological bubble of USSR, N.Korea, China. You can convince yourself and others in your bubble that models "are so sophisticated" that everyone must trust them. But that doesn't make them correct.
Why can't you accept the fact that we are already more than 1.5 degrees above the 1750 baseline. The end is baked in. Time for planetary hospice and finding a way not to take all life with us into extinction. Namaste.
Climate models are largely exercises in mental masturbation - interesting but unproductive. This situation cannot change in the absence of a definition of an "ideal" climate. Would the best climate be like the little ice age, the medieval warm period or some other time. Furthermore actions that can be taken by humans are not likely to be more effective than that of the Aztecs who cut the hearts out of living humans in the hopes of changing weather. It also seems that carbon dioxide is plant food.
Hmm. Even a ‘Herculean’ effort to transform our energy use will leave our planet between 1.6 to 1.8 Celsius warmer for fifty years. If we add in the negative feedbacks… yep, we’re screwed.
Nope! There are a few ways, with the best being my MooGhia project. I have posted on twitter more details on my phattgreg and MooGhia accounts. As we need the best solutions, even ones that understand we cant change dramatical,y over night, but with minimal conversions to existing vehicles and sources of energy. Along with the cultivation of Hemp and Bamboo on 6124 square miles of land, we can extract the equivalent of 1 Trillion mature trees (Mature trees take 7 to 20 years to mature, and reach optimal Carbon conversion) worth of Carbon. On a side positive, if you like steam punk, you can make some kick ass steam powered vehicles powered by Ammonia!
Unfortunately, yes and we are to blame. About 11 years ago on a "good morning Australia" show some australian specialist told to the show smiling hosts that, and I quote "we are already dead". The hosts then stopped smiling and became serious. We should be serious about this too.
@@constantin3511 I think he was right. The scientists 'at the coal face', so to speak, knew in 2000 that the negative feedbacks had doomed us. Their knowledge was simply diluted/suppressed so business as usual could continue. An interesting question now is: The people in power must know we're doomed, so is the Saudi Arabian Line, for example, an attempt to survive the coming climate apocalypse? Are other super-habitats being planned and implemented? Will we get an entry ticket? Will Dave Borlace do a video on this idea? Go on, Dave, you know you want to... :-D
No amount of innovation can match the vicious cycle of (flawed) consumption based economic model the world follows right now. If we keep at it then all innovations will always be one step behind consumption. The only silver bullet IMO is moving towards minimalism.
The 80s leaders who did nothing are gone. When global catastrophe hits, out current crop of leaders will also be gone. How we get them to act without enslaving us with ESG mantra from the dark swiss overlord is the question
We certainly do need to muster every possible scenario and activate communities to return to a regenerative form of agriculture and develop regional strategies
I know the chances of you seeing this are low but would you consider doing a video on some of the foundational publications in climate modelling and projections?
Thank you for a balanced look at the mathematics of climate change. I love the way your graph started with hundreds and hundreds of lines going straight up exponentially very quickly. Then by the end of your presentation we were debating about the possible pathways that theoretically could keep us somehow safe. In my article an op Ed news published I think six years ago called the abrupt climate change glossary it was introduced to the world that the arbitrary figures and worldwide average temperature are a terrible metric that does not clearly relate these numbers to habitat for life and humans in specific. This has been a communication strategy from the very beginning created by an economist where our entire policies are being handed to us by the economic system which is backed by the energy industry. The very real news that is come from the climate truth community is that the amount of healing we are currently seeing will continue to disrupt the growth cycles of our incredibly precarious worldwide food system. Keeping civilization intact during these weather shocksWill become increasingly unlikely, and we have not seen the headline yet, we have not seen the UA-cam yet, we have not heard the news about what’s going to happen in India Bangladesh Pakistan with an extended 150° heat wave decimates their populations. We haven’t heard that yet but tell me what that’s going to do to the stock market?
If you live up to the name of your channel you should ask some questions. Here's a few examples How many of those projections used the totally unrealistic RCP8.5 scenario? All of those should be thrown out because they're utter nonsense. Did any of the research acknowledge the fact that climate models consistently project more warming than happens? What range of climate sensitivity are the projections based on?
We have already allowed ourselves an open-ended crisis. Our culture, no matter how it's powered, will put more and more pressure on ecosystems and habitats. Life on earth is in peril, and we don't value the process of "wising up." Our problem is cultural, and culture is as complex as climate.
I'd say socio-economic, but those things are connected. The good thing it's already solved. The bad thing - ruling minority is not happy with solution and majority is brainwashed and kept in the dark about solutions.
@@dmitryisakov8769 Well, I might be arrogant, but it's very clear for me that majority and minority is not exclusive categories in general and in this context particularly. There's also pretty clear distinction for me between what some big names advocate for and what's actually done (or not done) by bigger collectives and what's in their interests in terms of sociology. There is always possibility I'm brainwashed, but asking "what if" is never really a way to prove something. ;)
Thank you ever so much, Dave. May I recommend the following books for those interested in this topic? First, Under a White Sky, by Elizabeth Kolbert, a nonfiction account of the likely changes to our climate, land, and its flora and fauna as global temperatures rise. Second, The Ministry for the Future, by Kim Stanley Robinson, a fictional account of climate change and its effects, by one of the masters of science fiction.
I love Ministry for the Future. It outlines a way through this that might involve some more extreme measures to get people focused, but is essentially optimistic. I really hope we can follow it closely
George Carlin said it best, The planet is not in trouble, the planet is doing just fine . It's us who are F..ked. We've failed as a species, time for something else to give it a whirl. LOL. Thanks for your videos. I will keep watching until the screen goes blank.
My boys, and l are paying taxes my merchant navy pension is not inflation proof. Every year my income is going down. Politicians have not the same problem?
@@keithmcgarrigle8921 That's the point I wanted to make, politicians think that increases taxes solves everything. Meanwhile they cut down trees and burn them in powerplants and call it green energy.
I watch videos like this to understand how so many people believe we can change this earth and keep it a safe place. All the modeling and scenarios look so scientific. I say yes, please reduce pollution and waste of natural resources. BUT we cannot change cycles that the earth and sun have gone through many times before. We are approaching the end of our cycle and the beginning of a new one. I would appreciate more effort toward educating people on how to survive what’s coming. Ignorance is bliss? Winter Spring Summer Fall.
Thanks Dave. I always enjoy your clips. Sadly, our global economic growth is overwhelmingly carbon based, mostly relying on fossil fuel sources. Furthermore, our GDP is hopelessly anchored in the supply/demand of mostly environmentally degrading products As a simple example, irrespective of being ICE or electric, most private registered passenger vehicles on the road weigh >1500kg transporting an average of 1.5 individuals
Moving mass around is the story of life. It is the burden of each creature to haul its carcass around until it can't any longer. We have mechanical slaves, each and every one of us. We might become those slaves again as we were thousands of years in the past. Certainly we cannot continue as is. There is no mass travel and trade in the near future in my estimation.
"Honey, the house is burning - should we call the firemen?" "No ... I'm sure there will soon be something at Amazon to help us put out the fire." The biggest problem is the tipping points and where in the state space we'll end up in.
Yes, feedback loops themselves become curvilinear by hitting ecological tipping points has an exponential effect on rapid heating of the atmosphere and climate change. Gai was very clear our biosphere is a self-regulating system that created, and now maintains, the climate and biochemical conditions that make life on Earth possible. When a couple of tipping points are met, the domino effect is looming.
@@JustHaveaThinkWhat a shame that you give thanks for this type of comment. Now if Martin had thanked you for producing a superb educational video that clearly lays out the challenge faced by humanity, that would be completely justified. But to thank someone for who insults others is disappointing. Let’s stick to having a think and avoid insults that accomplish nothing. OBTW problems get solved when people come together.
@@malcolmtent There is absolutely no excuse for ignorance and climate change denial. No wonder some people get frustrated and provoked towards insults. However I agree, Martins negative comment should have been ignored.
I am curious to know which of these pathways DO NOT require the full cooperation of ALL Nations. My guess is zero (please correct me if I am wrong), at which point the whole proposition of following them becomes moot.
As a species we are highly reactive, not proactive so the wheels have to totally fall off, the vehicle catch fire, we then blame everyone except our country, have a few big wars over dwindling supplies wipe out more of humanity via war, see emissions go down and claim 'See we have this under control" Only after all that does anyone do anything and even then you will figuratively and literally have to hold a carbon neutral super weapon at some of their heads. Then we find we didn't factor in some very big things into our models, not just Sun big, but galactically big because as a pretty bad movie recently stated "Don't look up" To summarize, we are still monkeys screaming and flinging our excrement at the monkeys in the next group of tree's, we still fear what we don't know and make crap up to explain away those fears away, all our civilization and our so called civilized behavior ends once we can't feed and water said citizens in less than 1 week, that is how fragile our illusion of civilization is. So good luck predicting the course of civilization, it's always been a house of cards.
I suggest that we ground all aircraft for as in my view flying at high altitude in low oxygen levels and upsetting the production of ozone which we need to counter the raising temperatures.
I wonder if the Pottsdam models include the effect of looming BOE's (2030 - medium level chance) on the northern hemisphere food bowls? A couple of synchronized crop failures could easily lead to the collapse of organized society....
@@AzonariMedia We will hit a few of them already at 2, but it is just unrealistic at this point to to keep this limit. 1.5 always was a dream and possibly will be exceeded as early as 2026.
I have to admit I find it extremely ironic how the Potsdam team decided to remove the scenarios in which nuclear energy has massive deployment. If climate change was taken seriously decades ago and people like Hansen (who's pro-nuclear) were listened to, we would most likely have generation IV reactors at the commercial stage, and have thousands of reactors around the world. If climate change was taken seriously now, we would also be seeing massive investments in nuclear instead of only in renewables. Being the climate crisis the most challenging and important crisis humankind has ever seen, I think it would be better to use every single tool at our disposal, nuclear being one of those that has proved itself in being able to displace fossil fuels.
@@scottslotterbeck3796I'd say that more about the right, the left when it comes to nuclear energy is just idiotic and doesn't look at the actual data.
@@scottslotterbeck3796 There are tons of people who go on television in any country talking about climate change and global warming. I have no idea who that person is, he might be disliked by the scientific community or something idk and tbh I also don't care. The science on global warming and climate change is clear, it's man-made and we need to act, and nuclear can help.
If you want to know why nothing was done, you don't need to read any book. The simple answer is: the privately owned corporations responsible for the CO2 production and the lobbying, funding of political campaigns, advertising, and PR campaigns they did to prevent anything from being done. Go ahead and read books to know the details but anyone who's honest with themselves and takes an honest look around them, they'll see what I said is true.
How does this theory explain huge increase of Chinese emission? There are no political campaigns there and the companies are quite often owned by local government.
@@useodyseeorbitchute9450 Don't use China as a distraction for Western failures. Sure, China is doing a bad job of reducing GHG, that doesn't mean that the EU and US are excused from trying to mitigate the apocalypse. We had the money and technology 30 years ago to avoid this mess. We have the money and technology today to blunt the oncoming disaster. It isn't China's fault that Western countries have ignored the warnings and cries from the public for decades, and continue to ignore the gravity of the situation. What-about-ism is a useless tactic when the fate of the world hangs in the balance.
@@youruniquehandle2 "Sure, China is doing a bad job of reducing GHG" Would you be even able to say it with straight face? West is grudgingly reducing emissions, while China is enthusiastically increasing emissions from brand new coal power plants. "What-about-ism is a useless tactic" You still don't get it. I point out that you make a rant pinpointing all blame on US crony capitalism, while I point out that actually also the rest of the planet exist and that you explanation simply couldn't work, as even more severe problems exist under much more centrally planned and socialist China.
sorry, your whataboutism is leaving out one key thing: One is doing what it has to in order to bring it's citizens out of poverty while the other is claiming to be reducing emissions while increasing oil drilling AND doesn't care about those in poverty because "it's their own fault"
This is very depressing and anxiety-provoking information. This information spreading, becoming popular, public knowledge is the ONLY chance we have of having hope Information changes people's choices/decisions Thankyou so very much for making the science comprehensible to those of us who would not have otherwise known about our dauntingly low chance of successfully stopping climate change from reaching devastating tipping points, so we can spread this information to our kith and kin
It seems there is another way of analyzing the graph information and that is to say we have a less than 1% chance of limiting global warming below a certain threshold. As a matter of general scientific belief, all living things on this planet, including humans, when experiencing negative environmental conditions either succumb or adapt. Basically, every living thing on this planet is a result of that cycle. In the course of "known" human existence, the consistent method of dealing with challenges is to react, prepare and adapt. So, in my opinion, a more reasonable course of action for humankind is to use our resources to continue to prepare, adapt and potentially increase the rate of realistic and attainable adaptation to continue to survive and flourish. I'll use a few examples of severe weather locations and our adaptation. Tornado alley, we can't stop all of them so we have better forecast warnings, construction, shelters, etc. On the coasts, again, better forecast warnings, construction, flooding mitigation, etc. As you analyze today and historically you'll see the same results. In my opinion, we would be much better off for our future to use our resources and efforts to better prepare and adapt rather than attempt to eliminate tornado's, hurricanes or global climate. Have a Think about earthquakes, famine, Covid, asteroids, drought, and on and on and on. Prevent or Prepare? Which do you think we have better chances to accomplish?
I wonder if this takes into accounts moves like the USs Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Bill, which are together a pretty dramatic move by the world's greatest total emitter to fight the climate crisis and push the transition. Similarly, while the War in Ukraine is horrible it has pushed the EU to transition much more quickly as well, while likely resulting in a shifting supply of fossil gas to markets like India and China which will reduce their emissions with gas over coal as they continue to build out their own renewables.
@Scott Slotterbeck common misconception, China is the current largest annual emitter, yes (though the US is still number 2), but not the greatest total emitter, that is still the US.
1202 potential pathways. Not a single one reasonably possible to even 'only slightly' overshoot 1.5C for several decades. 11 incredibly challenging options to 'only slightly' overshoot 1.5C for several decades, provided we completely move away from fossil fuels as soon as possible.
0.915% chance we take one of those 11 challenging pathways rather than the 1191 which won't get us there at all.
Jim Carey from Dumb and Dumber: So... you're telling me there's a chance. YyyyYYYYEEAAAAAAHHHH!!!!
Sure, there's a chance. The chance is that an alien spaceship suddenly appears and solves the problem for us.
@@faarsight no
@@philipm3173 Bigger chance than any other solution
@@faarsight More likely they send their prisoners here to take over and fix the world as punishment, like the English settling Australia.
People don't choose paths at random. They make intelligent decisions with the materials and information they have. But powerful people have rigged the game and made it so that most people are too powerless, desperate, or confused to work for the future. We can work together to make the right choices, but it will not be easy.
As a teenager i had read a few sci-fi stories with rich people in it living in arcologies (arcs) and the rest has to struggle with harsh conditions. At that time i found it a strange dystopia. Now reaching midlife and i can clearly see humanity is straight on the path. It is a bit the same like 1984 written as a warning but ended as a guideline.
From a very young age I have been reading Sci-fi stories on the same subject and sadly you could see where it started to become a serious possibility back in the 80’s quite clearly 😕
My daughter has just read 1984 for school and really does see correlation to events happening today and YES !!!! Very dystopian
In the German hacktivist scene, the adage is "1984 was not written as a manual".
Not really. Reread 1984
Chin up, you’ll be fine!
I had to fight my subconsciousness to actually hit that like button. I had to remind myself that it is not the messenger's fault that the message is depressing.
Yes, needs an "Approve" or "Algorithm please share" button.
I always school myself to think of it as an "I like that you posted this" button, and nothing more.
You can leave anytime you want.
@@andrewharrison8436 yeah i wished google would share more information, how the algoritm works. Well at least to the extend that they know how it works.
Or they could provide data for datascientists, so others could analyze it themselves.
and fake
Political polarisation and the politics of serving markets really is gonna snuff us out.
Hey Dave, very interesting and informative as always. Thx for the upload, i always look out for your vids. Love what you do, don't change 👍
You sound surprisingly chirpy about your imminent demise.
Cheers Rob. Much appreciated.
Watch a real reporter if you want to be educated.
ua-cam.com/video/ZBGCjqUdQJQ/v-deo.html
@@alanhat5252 this old bald guy is getting ruch scaring you.
ua-cam.com/video/ZBGCjqUdQJQ/v-deo.html
@@scottslotterbeck3796 #WTF are you drivelling on about?
Governments won’t do anything drastic until their own countries are literally falling into the sea or dried out to the point no crops will grow. When it comes to people being in positions of power, Human greed and narcissism appears to trump human compassion and empathy every time. Shame 😢😢😢
There was a 40% failure of UK harvests in 2022 but it's not a news item & it's not on the political agenda.
Governments ARE doing stupid shit, pay attention. They just had cop27 the current administration put the kibosh on new American oil wells, and China enslaved people in JingXian to make solar panels super cheap. It all doesn't matter because CO2 is a small time contributor to temperature
I don't even think that will be a tipping point. We saw how politics overruled public safety during the pandemic, we have seen how natural and man made disasters have been ignored in most red states (USA). Political will to act always comes back to money. So long as drilling, mining, fracking fossil fuels makes a few people an egregious amount of money, and those people buy political power, we will never make significant changes to our climate policies.
I'm in my thirties and have heard the same passionate calls for change my entire life. My generation and those younger than me know that climate change will be cataclysmic, but until we can pull the political landscape to favor climate action, our voices will be ignored.
Sad but true 👆🏿😕
Greed and narcissism are just alternative names for low levels of consciousness (not intelligence) and overwrought self-preservation instinct.
I can't begin to express my appreciation for your casts. You are precise, impartial and express our problems clearly without falling into simplistic explanations.
As a biologist I am having trouble explaining to people that irreversible change is, and has been, with us for decades. Every extinction is just that.
Could you use that concept in one of you presentations? I think it would prove interesting to focus people's attention on the rate of extinctions and how that rate has behaved over the last 5 decades... to coiin a phrase I've come to love:
Just have a think ;)
Thank you for your videos. As a Brazilian, in my 50 I could see many things changing here, only deteriorating the nature. I hope we can reverse this scenario.
I really hope the Bolsonaro-ists get arrested and Lula manages to bring some sanity back
@@BenVost probably will, something very wrong happened today in Brasilia
You are being played
ua-cam.com/video/b8JZo6PzpCU/v-deo.html
@@scottslotterbeck3796 I m just explaining something that I’ve been seen here, like deforestation and river pollution, this things is always increasing. Sorry, I was not talking about CO2 or global warming
@@rgrocha thankfully nolsanaro is no longer in poewr. PROTECT THE EARTHS LUNGS!
I find it hard to understand people who insist on staying with technology we know does not work, because they doubt the solution will work.
Given only two choices do you take the path with guaranteed failure or the one where there is a chance of success.
This is often coupled with “Where’s the scientific proof that these predictions will come true?”, when there ultimately is not and cannot be the “proof” they demand. I just ignore them… most of the world knows better.
@@davestagner Sadly social media is a soapbox for the uniformed who use it to recruit more of the same.
@@davestagner
Quick IQ test...
Solve: 4, 5, 14, 185, ...
@@rimbusjift7575
The next number in the series is 34214.....
@@buckboard43
Larry FTW.
Bless you @JHAT. Good, hard, professional, level-headed work. Plugging ahead to do what we can.
Best from Bolivia.
Nice video Dave, thanks. Risk analysis looking at the mid position of scenarios and extrapolating is arguably not the way to go in the case of the climate emergency. Emergency itself isn't a middle of the road term, and is seriously and definitely not the way reinsurance like Zurich Re calculates the risk(s) involved. It's different to insuring your car, home, holiday, life, and a host of other things. What's being talked about is the future of society and the continuation of this civilisation. Concerns have been raised that we ought to be focusing on the upper quantifiable limits of the current models. Not 1.8 deg Centigrade, but 5 degrees. The reasoning is straightforward. 1.8 is the minimum increase postulated in the AR6, statistically all climate scientists consider it impossible. It is considered politically acceptable to say 2.7 to 3 deg increase yet realistically as soon as we admit that, we immediately open the door to cascading tipping points - phase changes, and off we proceed to the fat tail of a calamitous 5 deg +. Talk with Peter Kalmus, David King, Kevin Anderson, Will Steffen, Johan Rockstrom and many other top scientists and you'll immediately understand humanity is on the cusp of a Hot House Earth of our own making. A Code Red. This is no idle threat. We in the rich global North cannot continue on this trajectory. To prevent catastrophe we have to have urgent mitigation, renew earth's systems, and repurpose-recycle as much as we practicable can And learn quickly as we go. It involves the whole world. It's not a comfortable chat on UA-cam, unfortunately. Thanks again Dave, great job.
I agree Brian
Thanks for this message I have felt that we were on a collision course with irrefutable science 30 years ago but the courage to see and say the truth as humanity is outgrowing the the ability of earth to sustain us
China.
Yeah, avoiding collapse in some form is impossible, but it's only impossible under capitalism, which is kind of constant (rather than variable) for the most of western scientists. Humanity's only hope for climate is not the question of climatology currently, but in the direction of social and political revolution.
@@AntonBrazhnyk The elites and those who support them have plenty weapons at their disposal. Would be bloody and outcome uncertain.
We are a crisis management species meaning we have a long track record of not acting on issues of a calamitous nature until the very last moment when it becomes abundantly clear we have no other choice. We should have already been there, but long winded discussions about whether we are going to have long winded discussions on the issue at this point is a powerful indicator that we're screwed.
I disagree. Humans would not have survived on the migration out of Africa if we weren't foresighted and proactive. The problem is that power always corrupts, and too often we've build our societies around making individuals powerful.
@@willabyuberton818 We're capable of it, but that's meaningless if there's no action. If it's the rich and powerful blocking or delaying that action the results are the same.
I agree with Deep and like his observation of "long winded discussions on whether we are going to have long winded discussions." It seems the IPCC meetings have done more harm than good with all the jet pollution they cause and the political watering down, and emissions keep increasing. To Willaby, I agree we have to act because it's right action, irregardless of results, and humans are resourceful, but we have never had a challenge like this before. Ice ages, yes, but not hot house. Still a few will probably survive. The result will depend on whether enough humans can rise to the level of consciousness of seeing themselves as part of the whole instead of as separate - something very foreign to western industrial society, removed from the sense of belonging that depending on natural rhythms provides.
Fortunately for mankind, projections are not the same as predictions. Projecting is easy, predicting is hard, especially when it concerns the future!
Furthermore, climate models have a habit of showing to much warming and there is also no scientific basis for the 1,5 degree limit, which is just a political choice.
I remember watching a nature show on TV over 60 years ago that showed lemmings in the Arctic hurtling into the ocean to their certain death during one of their periodic mass migrations caused by overpopulation. The belief that some future technology will stop the climate crisis reminds me of the lemmings going over the cliff into the sea in the "belief" that this is just another lake to be crossed.
The problem I always come back to is how is this planet-saving technology going to be monetised? Human nature is such that no one will fund it out the good of their heart.
The problem with carbon capture and storage is you need a massive amount of zero carbon power AND have no sources of carbon based power as part of the mix, and that ain't on the drawing board.
Yep. Where do all these materials come from. These guys are paid big money to create fanciful bs. Even with bau we will struggle to produce the vast quantities of resources needed for the next few decades. But hey there is an alternative plan in action ,maybe that will work,twenty firty anyone?
Correct, carbon capture is a joke.
Incorrect. I believe we've reached the tipping point (or we're on a train going backwards at 70 miles an hour; brakes probably won't work anyway...) but it's just conjecture on my part...
Carbon capture doesn't make sense as long as the energy needed to do it can be more efficiently spent replacing a carbon based energy source. It's going to be a while before we have nothing better to do with our green energy than sucking carbon out of the air.
I agree. We don’t have energy to waste on CO2 capture & containment. We must get off fossil fuel to take on climate change. We will need massive amounts of green hydrogen to produce green steel & green ammonia. We shouldn’t waste energy to liquefy green gas. We need to built industry next to good wind & solar areas to use & power these factories. I like the idea to use green energy to desalinate water and pump water to higher altitude pumped hydro sites. Where this can done and where the water is needed should be the main source of bulk electrical storage. Also, we should remove the CO2 from then desalinated water, too. We need to build a smart grid that with 3X the power it has now without using fossil fuel. We will need massive amounts of money to do this. We shouldn’t waste money on removing CO2 from the atmosphere. If the impossible happens, we have massive amounts of cheap reliable fusion energy, then we should power everything by liquid hydrogen and fuel cells. Maybe even sequester atmospheric CO2.
Just have a think: None of these models have any basis in reality.
Thanks for watching
Tell Aɴᴅʀᴇɪ Jɪᴋʜ, you were referred by me he has something new to discuss with you easily get in touch with him 👆✍️
I first read about climate change and the Green House Effect in the 1968 when I was in 5th grade studying planetary climate. Back then Oil company scientists told us that Global Warming was nonsense.
In 1968 there was no such thing as "climate change". It was "global warming". Only when the models proved wrong did it become "climate change". The oil Co's were right all the time. We need uncensored debate, not propaganda.
a bit of topic, I was scrolling the notifications and the latest one I have is from flywheel video.
I did watch it within 2h from posting and liked the video and is possible that I simply dismissed the notification from top bar or the cellphone screen, but maybe it's worth up check if the all mighty algorithm isn't hiding "useless" information (because there are major forces out there interested in living on fossil fuels for a while longer)
Anyway continue with the good work, great job and veeeeeeery informative
Another well presented and researched video - thanks. I've just finished reading Bright Green Lies by Derrick Jensen et al. It's a devastating critique of the idea that any form of industrial society can continue even with so called renewables. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of Limits to Growth - if only the powers that be (and were) had listened.
Yes the elephant in the room is unlimited growth model of capitalism versus population growth, waste and ecological overshoot. While I detest the term degrowth and prefer to encapsulate that within the term sustainability, the conclusion of Limits to Growth (updated 2018) is clear. Unless we slow down growth we will not be able to decarbonise enough to stop global warming/climate change from the tipping point scenario.
@@marksmit8112 yup. I find Kate Raworths work on doughnut economics more hopeful and practical approach. The circular economy approach looks to be a useful stepping stone too.
The English Green Party (& I believe other Green parties) have abandoned the 'growth' models entirely, #VoteGreen for survival.
What concerns me is that we then accept the 1.8 degree overshoot as being okay because there's a plan for reducing it without actually doing that but sounding like we are
Sorry Joanne, 1.8 is already gone when we include other key greenhouse gases already in the system. That's the problem, we're given much of, not all though, of the information, and we're left to manipulate the numbers for ourselves. CO2e is already past 510 ppm. equivalent of CO2. There's 2 degrees. It's why sir Dave King said in 2020 'what we do in the next 3 to 4 years will determine the future climate for a thousand years'. What he's saying is- will determine the future of humanity. Not a comfortable statement for him to make.
They didn’t FAIL to act. They made CHOICES and ACTED conscious of those choices. The mess we are in IS the goal and they were extremely successful in achieving the goal they set for us all.
Capitalism isnt in crisis - capitalism and its unlimited growth paradigm is the problem.
The psychopathic GREED of a small number of people is what is driving this catastrophe.
No its not their fault, the masses wanted to live better at the cost of our future, they just made it happen..
Excellent video, as always! Happy 2023
Thanks for another informative video. A very sobering assessment. I do take some comfort from the fact that although the 1.5C target may be passed, we can continue to fight to avoid every 0.1C increase. They all count!
We need another 2’C and triple the CO2 mate.
Tom wake up I think you are Dreaming. China and India are still building coal power plants, zzzzz
Meanwhile, the USA is importing 30+ million illegals.
@@glennllewellyn7369 Well said Glenn. Given the massive daily temperature variations all over the earth, 1.5C, a figure plucked from nowhere by some stupid lefty in the 1990s incidentally, won't make any difference to anything.
Human activity couldn't affect the climate even if we wanted it to. We're far too insignificant.
We're screwed. Only option now as individuals is plan, move & adapt. Don't expect anyone else to do that for you particularly governments & politicians. Your survival is now in your hands.
Hmmmm. I looked into some of the links you provided (the article and then a link within it to the CCS Institute) and I see the 43 Mt/yr capture includes blue hydrogen, LGN plants and the Drax biomass plant in the UK. I rank all of these as "dodgy" as they placate, and thus encourage more fossil fuel use or, as in Drax's case are highly disingenuous: harvesting entire ecosystems in British Colombia under the guise of "waste wood into pellets". The 7 B tonnes by 2050 is going to be a tough one to get to if this is our current level of rigour.
I find your comment interesting but hard to read. I seem not smart enough for that many technical terms or whatever is the cause of my confusion.
I think meta-commenting on the studies itself is very important, so thank you for looking into that👍
@@Focke42 In part he refers to Blue Hydrogen, derived from natural gas and produces CO2 emissions during process also produces 20% more carbon emissions in heat generation than using pure natural gas. This is partly because additional electricity is needed to run carbon-capture equipment, which, if derived from natural gas, coal - leads to greater methane leakages and increased carbon emissions.
Thanks for all you do mate 👍 from Australia
No problem 👍
I like your calm, objective narration style.
And the British aren't they/isn't it/weren't they/don't they ... of course.
Thumbs up as always.
P.S.: The lighting in your new, warmer, studio improved 👍
ua-cam.com/video/ZBGCjqUdQJQ/v-deo.html
It's too dark.
@@myronachtman4304 It got better already though.
The probem with having faith in "technology and humanity's ability to innovate" is that it depends on humanity's ability to work together, on a large project, without putting any individual needs before everyone else's.
This problem doesn't have to be impossible to solve. But won't be fixed while also maintaining a healthy quarterly return on stock prices of said Technologies and innovations.
Thanks for this show it’s very timely Having seen the recent science on the increase in collapse timeline for Greenlands glaciers as it’s going vertically off the charts what was supposed to take 100 years is happening in a year
Tipping points are the real worry
"The Arctic will be ice-free by 2020!". Al Gore.
@@scottslotterbeck3796 tI guess hat's if we do nothing, we did something, so we are behind schedule on that one.
@@autohmae how long will you believe their lies?
@@scottslotterbeck3796 In his 2006 documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore warned about the coming impact of climate change on the Arctic ice cap, but he said 2 major studies showed it would be gone in the summertime "within the next 50 to 70 years" - so by 2056 or 2076.
ua-cam.com/video/vTFuGHWTIqI/v-deo.html
I wonder if there is a website somewhere that is keeping track of all the extreme weather events? I'd like to see how much they are increasing, year by year.
Don't Confuse weather and climate
Yes, many. Start with the UK Met Office, NOAA, World Meteorological Office, IPCC, SkyNews & every national weather service worldwide. They all look at climate as well as weather.
They aren't
Check out Our World in Data, it is a good start point
@Seamus Charles or Costal Erosion and sea level rise
Nothing quite brings this to home, as graphs telling everyone "you've been fcking around, time to find out", but the text is in Comic Sans. I respect the disrespect.
Watching your work, listening to you is always a delight!
Every word is so carefully chosen and articulated, carries such depth of information, it showcases your horizon of knowledge.
Rich in every sense.
May God bless you and wish you good luck and health so that you continue to enlighten the world with your profound sense of science.
LOL. He's completely wrong though.
Had the Environmentalists not blocked the construction of nuclear power plants in the 1980’s. We would have achieved the goals Gore described.
I have nothing to say really, but I appreciate your content, and wish to help with the yt-algorithms.
Don't worry, we'll hit those tipping points as expected and go well above 1.5 C.
Worse!
ua-cam.com/video/b8JZo6PzpCU/v-deo.html
Good, calm, informative presentation.
We are currently on the worst case line, or on one very close to the worst case. Which means that our global (and local) society will collapse or is already in the process of collapse. While it is always possible that a miracle will happen and all the world will agree to emergency measures, it is more likely that a state of emergency will only arrive when it is very much too late. We should be discussing survival options for +3C to +5C at the very least, and no I do not think it reasonable or appropriate to give up, which is what you are doing when you discard the worst case. I think people need to work through their mourning and get on with surviving the best we can. (As society collapses our ability to respond to environmental change will erode so later responses will be weaker than early ones. Do not expect a late sudden rush to action to save us.)
Ironically complete societal collapse will solve the climate problem since people wont be driving cars mining for oil or producing matric ton of waste in a post apocalyptic world so world temp will go to normal one way or the other. Its just the matter of how many people will die for that.
5+ is basically end times for the majority of life on earth. There is an outside chance that 3 degrees might be survivable.
We are social animals. We will not survive in any meaningful way in the dystopia you wish to prepare for.
@@Dennis_Reynolds You don't actually know what is survivable until you don't survive. We should consider the most likely scenarios not just the ones that make us feel good.
This was about the possible survival of our civilisation not a few people surviving on the bones of there ass
A Correction, Ella Gilbert's first link at the video's description is wrong,
it has been mistakenly joined with the word "Help" at the end.
This is the corrected link for Ella Gilbert:
ua-cam.com/users/DrGilbz
Thanks for watching
Tell Aɴᴅʀᴇɪ Jɪᴋʜ, you were referred by me he has something new to discuss with you easily get in touch with him👆✍️
Thank you for this video. I didn't know about the Washington Post article or the Potsdam study, so I'm grateful to you for making them the focus of your video today. It's sobering and _real_ information about our near future that we need to know. The world is full of people who think it's fine to do business as usual for as long as possible and let the future worry about itself - or rather they think it's crazy to spend money on new technologies and change the way they do things just to address a problem that hasn't happened yet. (Or in their minds will never happen.) Those ever more sophisticated climate simulations and the distillations of their findings in these reports are the closest thing we have to a crystal ball showing the meatheads that it _won't_ be all right in the end, not unless we make massive and sustained changes starting now.
In one of these comment threads a while back I said we were on the worst possible path, but maybe that's wrong. There are positive trends happening everywhere, many of which are highlighted in your videos. There are lots of new technologies being developed that can help us make the jump to complete decarbonization and electrification, and many smart people like the climate scientists who can quantify the problem and show us with increasing accuracy not only how screwed we are, but also how we can get out it.
But... This video shows us that it's not going to be easy. Getting rid of all those greenhouse gases is like building the pyramids, it's the civilization-level challenge that our time will be defined by. It'll probably feel more and more desperate as we get to the mid-point of the century, and we may go past some of those tipping points. (Or we may be forced to try out unproven geoengineering schemes in an effort to avoid going over the tipping points.) Hopefully we'll get it under control after 2050 as the warming starts to go down, leading to a less desperate and more methodical transition for the rest of the century and beyond.
The problems you talk about in the video are real. The Ukraine war and political polarization is making it harder for people to even see the need for change, and that uncertainty is leading to greater investment in known technologies like natural gas. But what gives me hope is that all those things are temporary - generation based. From an environmental perspective what matters most about the current war isn't the increased investments in European natural gas, it's that one of the world's leading petrostates can no longer profit from selling its oil and gas. Those markets aren't coming back. As the world's petrostates founder like Titanics, one after another, their massive influence on our political discourse supporting the use of fossil fuels will dwindle. And the political divide that seems so huge today will shrink when the Boomers start to die off. I like a fever that's reached its height, but when the fever breaks the organism will be healthy once again.
Waiting for generational change didn't work, it's made the situation worse.
Did you notice a slight outlier on the 'spaghetti' graph? One that disappears off the top? That's the one we're on.
New tech will fix nothing, it's *_mass adoption_* of new tech that holds potential & that takes decades that we've run out of.
@@alanhat5252 But we don't have to stay there.
Great Video as always, thank you for bringing it to the table. As the great Clash put it best " The ice age is coming, the sun's zooming in, Meltdown expected, the wheat is growing thin, engines stop running, but i have no fear 'Cause London is drowning, I live by the river." - London Calling
As an 80 year old retired engineer I followed this whole issue for at least the last 50 years. My problem is NONE of the past predictions even came close to happening. One main issue completely ignored by all the simulations and forecasts is the effect of water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor (as a gas,vapor or clouds) is by far the most powerful greenhouse gas. They also totally ignore the effecrt of the sun and a host of other issues the earth faces.
Agree. It really irritates me that the information we are given is so biased, but I know why! The sun goes through cycles and has the biggest impact on our planet, but never figures in the 'figures'! Al Gore's global warming didn't happen, so they changed the wording to climate change, what a marketing miracle, because those 2 words describe the weather and are now used for every weather event we have especially the bad. The biggest issue also, we have become so reliant on computers that we can't accept that the weather is naturally variable and is not controlled by a computer itself! No mention either of the fact that there are now 8 billion people breathing out CO2 an increase of 6.5 billion in 100 years!
Not sure what your point is? These are predictive models making assumptions about scenarios and thousands of variables scattered over space and time. We know the trend and if we continue along the status quo our models are accurate enough over 20 year period to showing warming atmosphere. However to predict the future accurately implies unforseen change along the timeline and feedback loops of differing magnifications are accounted for.
"My problem is NONE of the past predictions even came close to happening." lie nº1
"One main issue completely ignored by all the simulations and forecasts is the effect of water vapor in the atmosphere." lie nº2
"They also totally ignore the effecrt of the sun and a host of other issues the earth faces." lie nº3
All this claims are false. You people are profoundly dishonest.
Herman, they don't want to hear that... having a realistic view of the matter. How dear you !
Still beating that _dead horse_ ? All that nonsense you're spouting was debunked *decades* ago.
Excellent video as always. The global food web is already collapsing, so we would have to enhance biodiversity a huge amount too. As the changes will be exponential, I can’t help but feel that creating charts to 2100 is pointless because I don’t see the planet being hospitable for humans by 2050. I do what I can: reducing my electricity usage, switching to renewable power, reducing my landfill waste, switching to an EV, transitioning to veganism. But we need billions of individuals to do it. The reality is that the previous two generations have completely failed us, for short-term greed. We will all be warring for the remaining water and food and real estate as I become old.
Thanks for another terrific, if daunting, summary of new literature, Dave.
Sorry, the PIK was too often found to have made completely wrong predictions.
Thanks for watching
Tell Aɴᴅʀᴇɪ Jɪᴋʜ, you were referred by me he has something new to discuss with you easily get in touch with him 👆✍️
Great. There's me thinking you are the light at the end of the tunnel and it turns out you just have a lamp and are coming up the tunnel to tell me no exit from the nightmare is yet in sight. ;-)
He's a moron. There is no climate emergency. Lowest hurrican season in decades.
The light is the oncoming train, lol
Movies have a rating system so people have an idea of what to expect when they sit down in the theater. Maybe these videos need a rating system from hopeful and uplifting to depressing and you may not get a good nights sleep after watching. As usual, another great job on this video. Maybe I will sleep better tomorrow.
I'm kind of over it at this point. I've accepted that we're doomed. I still try to affect meaningful change of course, but I won't delude myself in thinking it's actually going to work. There's an Australian film from the 50's, "On the Beach", that comes to mind whenever I think of our current situation.
If you want the really scary stuff!
ua-cam.com/video/ZBGCjqUdQJQ/v-deo.html
Don’t watch them if it worries you. There will be plenty more of the same 20 years from now 🙂
This reminds me of Dr. Strange trying to find the one scenario where Thanos didn't win.
I'm afraid the world will pay for the most global manifestation of the bystander effect.
The congressman smoking at 10:41 pretty much sums it up.
I can tell you in AFRICA, Uganda we have been experiencing obvious freak weather conditions for over five years now with alarming regularly.
Does any future emissions scenario consider rapid human population reduction as a pathway to staying under 1.5 degrees? Irrespective of whether that happens by world wars, famines or genocides?
Only if the population being reduced had a big carbon footprint. We could wipe out the least polluting billion and change little. Or we could wipe out the most polluting 250 million, and maybe have some effect.
Some may find this ethically problematic. Or horrifying, monstrous, repellent and absurd.
@@dekumarademosater2762it was only as a hypothetical. But current global population and living standards won't ever be compatible with ecological constraints such as the acceptable rise in average global temp(1.5-2 degrees). So maybe climate change will exacerbate food and water shortages to the point of enough people dying off naturally or by wars over dwindling resources, way before the end of the century; making a likely emissions reduction scenario.
Or we could all just agree that urgently eliminating the most polluting X million is the more moral option, hypothetically!
Excellent consideration both of you. I imagine huge changes in our lives and deaths. It may be more likely that death will come faster and easier in the not too distant future. And once a being dies, that is all she wrote. Ain't coming back. Society breakdown and the end of energy and resource sucking cities ( which to my mind is the requirement for sustainability) will lower the population. Might as well take a good hard look at that. Thanks for dialoging.
Well, covid helped a little. Perhaps its bigger impact was that, to put it bluntly, older people were affected more, and that could be enough to swing politics in favor of younger generations, who are more concerned about climate change.
Microplastics could also be contributing to reductions in fertility, by a small amount.
What would really suck is if the temperature goes up and all the permafrost becomes rich farmland and temperate areas suitable for habitation
Thanks for watching
Tell Aɴᴅʀᴇɪ Jɪᴋʜ, you were referred by me he has something new to discuss with you easily get in touch with him 👆✍️
I would love to know whose predictions from 10 and 20 years ago have been the most accurate. They seem like the best people to listen to.
...so long as they were accurate for good reasons: I could throw darts at a board and graph the results. Do that enough times and one will be spot on. Doesn't make that one worth listening to though.
We have more and better data now than 20 years ago, and models which are much more finely detailed. They are likely to be the beter options to look at.
@@AJPemberton the only thing that has really changed in the last 70 years since we first became aware of the problem is the rate of change. We started with mostly natural data so had 300-500 years - as more and more real time data came in the time scale got shorter and shorter. Now we got 80 years (not really, the graphs shown on this vid all show we have about 5-10 at most) - there is no coming back from 1.5, hell in reality we're well past that in the locations that matter (artic has already seen 6-12) and those tipping points have already gone.
We will be really lucky if it stays around 5, but 10-15 is more likely.
"The Earth will end in 12 years!". Al Gore, 1998.
@@scottslotterbeck3796 No, he said we had 12 years to make the changes necessary to prevent climate catastrophy. The rate of change that humanity now has to make in order to avert devastating climate change isn't going to happen, so it looks like Algore was right.
@@scottslotterbeck3796 Why don't you do better research? Once you answer that for yourself, you will do better research.
We all contributing to this every single day pretty much. Especially people from western countries. But in general humans are addicted to cheap energy and cheap food. One of the best example is a car. We used to have bicycles to get groceries. Now a lot of people would like to park inside the store so she or he wouldn't have to walk at all.
This inspires me to up my game reducing fossil fuel and plastics in my life. Thanks
That helps a little, but as long as you don't take private jet flights, it's more important that you vote for politicians that support renewables AND nuclear power. Your personal reduction of fossil fuels comes second, but if you do both, great.
There is no climate crisis.
The UN's IPCC AR6 report, chapter 11 'Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate' summarises the fact that certain severe weather events cannot be detected as increasing, nor attributed to human caused climate change:
Pages 1761 - 1765, Table 11.A.2 Synthesis table summarising assessments
Heavy Precipitation: 24 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend (12 medium confidence), 43 out 45 low confidence in human attribution.
Agricultural Drought: 31 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend
(14 medium confidence. No high confidence assessment). 42 out 45 low confidence in human attribution (3 medium, no high confidence).
Ecological Drought as above.
Hydrological Drought: 38 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend.
43 out 45 low confidence in human attribution (2 medium confidence, no high confidence).
So the IPCC are saying we didn't cause droughts and we didn't make it rain. How surprising!
There is no objective observational evidence that we are living in a global climate crisis.
The UN's IPCC AR6, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms there is a lack of evidence or no signal that the following have changed:
Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions),
Aridity,
Avalanche (snow),
Average precipitation,
Average Wind Speed,
Coastal Flood,
Agricultural drought,
Hydrological drought,
Erosion of Coastlines,
Fire Weather (hot and windy),
Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods),
Frost,
Hail,
Heavy Rain,
Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms,
Landslides,
Marine Heatwaves,
Ocean Acidity,
Radiation at the Earth’s Surface,
River/Lake Floods,
Sand and Dust Storms,
Sea Level,
Severe Wind Storms,
Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets,
Tropical Cyclones.
How about some quotes from the UN's IPCC AR6?
"There is low confidence in the emergence of heavy precipitation and pluvial and river flood frequency in observations, despite trends that have been found in a few regions."
"There is low confidence in the emergence of drought frequency in observations, for any type of drought, in all regions."
"Observed mean surface wind speed trends are present in many areas, but the emergence of these trends from the interannual natural variability and their attribution to human-induced climate change remains of low confidence due to various factors such as changes in the type and exposure of recording instruments, and their relation to climate change is not established. . . The same limitation also holds for wind extremes (severe storms, tropical cyclones, sand and dust storms)."
There is no objective observational evidence that we are living through a global climate crisis. None.
I'd put money on it being > 2 C in the end. More like 3-4 C.
Separately, current capture mechanisms use more energy than what they capture, e g, using that energy to replace fossil burning would be better from a CO2 PoV. We can't consider capture until the global fossil blend is very low.
Replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy, needs to be the focus not the hopium of planting a few trees trees, carbon capture, hydrogen, technological breakthroughs such as fusion, which is pushed on social media channels by climate change delayers.
@@marksmit8112 Right you are! Even fission won't save us, but everyone is jumping on that one - so that everything can go on as it did. They only care about the costs of fuel and electricity and think that having more fission power plants will sustain the way we live. No chance to get them recognizing that it won't work that way.
All IPCC models overpredict heating. What's the point in analyzing their predictions? Alarmism is a bubble similar to an ideological bubble of USSR, N.Korea, China. You can convince yourself and others in your bubble that models "are so sophisticated" that everyone must trust them. But that doesn't make them correct.
Why can't you accept the fact that we are already more than 1.5 degrees above the 1750 baseline. The end is baked in. Time for planetary hospice and finding a way not to take all life with us into extinction. Namaste.
Climate models are largely exercises in mental masturbation - interesting but unproductive. This situation cannot change in the absence of a definition of an "ideal" climate. Would the best climate be like the little ice age, the medieval warm period or some other time. Furthermore actions that can be taken by humans are not likely to be more effective than that of the Aztecs who cut the hearts out of living humans in the hopes of changing weather. It also seems that carbon dioxide is plant food.
So we’re screwed.
Yep. Buckle up, it's going to get rough. 🤕
Hmm. Even a ‘Herculean’ effort to transform our energy use will leave our planet between 1.6 to 1.8 Celsius warmer for fifty years. If we add in the negative feedbacks… yep, we’re screwed.
Nope!
There are a few ways, with the best being my MooGhia project. I have posted on twitter more details on my phattgreg and MooGhia accounts.
As we need the best solutions, even ones that understand we cant change dramatical,y over night, but with minimal conversions to existing vehicles and sources of energy. Along with the cultivation of Hemp and Bamboo on 6124 square miles of land, we can extract the equivalent of 1 Trillion mature trees (Mature trees take 7 to 20 years to mature, and reach optimal Carbon conversion) worth of Carbon.
On a side positive, if you like steam punk, you can make some kick ass steam powered vehicles powered by Ammonia!
Unfortunately, yes and we are to blame. About 11 years ago on a "good morning Australia" show some australian specialist told to the show smiling hosts that, and I quote "we are already dead". The hosts then stopped smiling and became serious. We should be serious about this too.
@@constantin3511 I think he was right. The scientists 'at the coal face', so to speak, knew in 2000 that the negative feedbacks had doomed us. Their knowledge was simply diluted/suppressed so business as usual could continue. An interesting question now is: The people in power must know we're doomed, so is the Saudi Arabian Line, for example, an attempt to survive the coming climate apocalypse? Are other super-habitats being planned and implemented? Will we get an entry ticket? Will Dave Borlace do a video on this idea? Go on, Dave, you know you want to... :-D
No amount of innovation can match the vicious cycle of (flawed) consumption based economic model the world follows right now. If we keep at it then all innovations will always be one step behind consumption. The only silver bullet IMO is moving towards minimalism.
It appears that the WEF may be working toward minimalization of world population.
Love your channel. Thank you so much for videos and all that goes into making them.
The 80s leaders who did nothing are gone. When global catastrophe hits, out current crop of leaders will also be gone. How we get them to act without enslaving us with ESG mantra from the dark swiss overlord is the question
5 degrees is by far the most likely future.
The world won't come together for anything, not even a cup of tea.
Take that tea booster and we'll be fine.
We certainly do need to muster every possible scenario and activate communities to return to a regenerative form of agriculture and develop regional strategies
Even scarier than Old Baldy:
ua-cam.com/video/ZBGCjqUdQJQ/v-deo.html
Assume the worst predicted scenario, and expect it will be worse than that.
I know the chances of you seeing this are low but would you consider doing a video on some of the foundational publications in climate modelling and projections?
Thank you for a balanced look at the mathematics of climate change. I love the way your graph started with hundreds and hundreds of lines going straight up exponentially very quickly. Then by the end of your presentation we were debating about the possible pathways that theoretically could keep us somehow safe. In my article an op Ed news published I think six years ago called the abrupt climate change glossary it was introduced to the world that the arbitrary figures and worldwide average temperature are a terrible metric that does not clearly relate these numbers to habitat for life and humans in specific. This has been a communication strategy from the very beginning created by an economist where our entire policies are being handed to us by the economic system which is backed by the energy industry. The very real news that is come from the climate truth community is that the amount of healing we are currently seeing will continue to disrupt the growth cycles of our incredibly precarious worldwide food system. Keeping civilization intact during these weather shocksWill become increasingly unlikely, and we have not seen the headline yet, we have not seen the UA-cam yet, we have not heard the news about what’s going to happen in India Bangladesh Pakistan with an extended 150° heat wave decimates their populations. We haven’t heard that yet but tell me what that’s going to do to the stock market?
How F'd are we?
1. Super F'd
2. Mega F'd
3. Ultra F'd
4. Fabulous F'd
5. F'ing F'd
Many thanks Dave - good video
Cheers Andy
If you live up to the name of your channel you should ask some questions. Here's a few examples
How many of those projections used the totally unrealistic RCP8.5 scenario? All of those should be thrown out because they're utter nonsense.
Did any of the research acknowledge the fact that climate models consistently project more warming than happens?
What range of climate sensitivity are the projections based on?
We have already allowed ourselves an open-ended crisis. Our culture, no matter how it's powered, will put more and more pressure on ecosystems and habitats. Life on earth is in peril, and we don't value the process of "wising up." Our problem is cultural, and culture is as complex as climate.
I'd say socio-economic, but those things are connected. The good thing it's already solved. The bad thing - ruling minority is not happy with solution and majority is brainwashed and kept in the dark about solutions.
@@dmitryisakov8769 Well, I might be arrogant, but it's very clear for me that majority and minority is not exclusive categories in general and in this context particularly.
There's also pretty clear distinction for me between what some big names advocate for and what's actually done (or not done) by bigger collectives and what's in their interests in terms of sociology.
There is always possibility I'm brainwashed, but asking "what if" is never really a way to prove something. ;)
Well, sea levels have already risen about 400 feet, so....
Thank you ever so much, Dave. May I recommend the following books for those interested in this topic? First, Under a White Sky, by Elizabeth Kolbert, a nonfiction account of the likely changes to our climate, land, and its flora and fauna as global temperatures rise. Second, The Ministry for the Future, by Kim Stanley Robinson, a fictional account of climate change and its effects, by one of the masters of science fiction.
I love Ministry for the Future. It outlines a way through this that might involve some more extreme measures to get people focused, but is essentially optimistic. I really hope we can follow it closely
Even scarier!
ua-cam.com/video/ZBGCjqUdQJQ/v-deo.html
The Earth is warming, but very slowly. It is NOT an emergency!
George Carlin said it best, The planet is not in trouble, the planet is doing just fine . It's us who are F..ked. We've failed as a species, time for something else to give it a whirl. LOL. Thanks for your videos. I will keep watching until the screen goes blank.
A meta-analysis that shows we're in a meta-crisis. Gotta STOP burning stuff, earthlings! NOW!
Thank you to try, and make them think?
I am 70 years old this year, but my two boys, and five grand children are a worry for me?
My boys, and l are paying taxes my merchant navy pension is not inflation proof.
Every year my income is going down. Politicians have not the same problem?
@@keithmcgarrigle8921 That's the point I wanted to make, politicians think that increases taxes solves everything. Meanwhile they cut down trees and burn them in powerplants and call it green energy.
I watch videos like this to understand how so many people believe we can change this earth and keep it a safe place. All the modeling and scenarios look so scientific. I say yes, please reduce pollution and waste of natural resources. BUT we cannot change cycles that the earth and sun have gone through many times before. We are approaching the end of our cycle and the beginning of a new one. I would appreciate more effort toward educating people on how to survive what’s coming. Ignorance is bliss? Winter Spring Summer Fall.
We're doomed. Big business believes there is no profit if you don't cut corners.
Thanks for a great overview of the challenges we face in tackling climate change in the coming decades! Almost to 500K Subs!!!
Thanks Dave. I always enjoy your clips.
Sadly, our global economic growth is overwhelmingly carbon based, mostly relying on fossil fuel sources.
Furthermore, our GDP is hopelessly anchored in the supply/demand of mostly environmentally degrading products
As a simple example, irrespective of being ICE or electric, most private registered passenger vehicles on the road weigh >1500kg transporting an average of 1.5 individuals
Moving mass around is the story of life. It is the burden of each creature to haul its carcass around until it can't any longer. We have mechanical slaves, each and every one of us. We might become those slaves again as we were thousands of years in the past. Certainly we cannot continue as is. There is no mass travel and trade in the near future in my estimation.
"Honey, the house is burning - should we call the firemen?"
"No ... I'm sure there will soon be something at Amazon to help us put out the fire."
The biggest problem is the tipping points and where in the state space we'll end up in.
I don't take advice from old bald men.
The house is not burning. A better analogy would be "Honey it's getting uncomfortably hot - Should we buy an air conditioner"
Yes, feedback loops themselves become curvilinear by hitting ecological tipping points has an exponential effect on rapid heating of the atmosphere and climate change. Gai was very clear our biosphere is a self-regulating system that created, and now maintains, the climate and biochemical conditions that make life on Earth possible. When a couple of tipping points are met, the domino effect is looming.
Thanks, Dave, great video! There's more than enough utter muppets who still don't get it.
Cheers Martin.
@@JustHaveaThinkWhat a shame that you give thanks for this type of comment. Now if Martin had thanked you for producing a superb educational video that clearly lays out the challenge faced by humanity, that would be completely justified. But to thank someone for who insults others is disappointing. Let’s stick to having a think and avoid insults that accomplish nothing. OBTW problems get solved when people come together.
This guy is such a ridiculous fear monger. I wonder how much Putin pays him?
@@malcolmtent There is absolutely no excuse for ignorance and climate change denial. No wonder some people get frustrated and provoked towards insults. However I agree, Martins negative comment should have been ignored.
I am curious to know which of these pathways DO NOT require the full cooperation of ALL Nations.
My guess is zero (please correct me if I am wrong), at which point the whole proposition of following them becomes moot.
Thanks for watching
Tell Aɴᴅʀᴇɪ Jɪᴋʜ, you were referred by me he has something new to discuss with you easily get in touch with him👆✍️
As a species we are highly reactive, not proactive so the wheels have to totally fall off, the vehicle catch fire, we then blame everyone except our country, have a few big wars over dwindling supplies wipe out more of humanity via war, see emissions go down and claim 'See we have this under control"
Only after all that does anyone do anything and even then you will figuratively and literally have to hold a carbon neutral super weapon at some of their heads.
Then we find we didn't factor in some very big things into our models, not just Sun big, but galactically big because as a pretty bad movie recently stated "Don't look up"
To summarize, we are still monkeys screaming and flinging our excrement at the monkeys in the next group of tree's, we still fear what we don't know and make crap up to explain away those fears away, all our civilization and our so called civilized behavior ends once we can't feed and water said citizens in less than 1 week, that is how fragile our illusion of civilization is. So good luck predicting the course of civilization, it's always been a house of cards.
I suggest that we ground all aircraft for as in my view flying at high altitude in low oxygen levels and upsetting the production of ozone which we need to counter the raising temperatures.
I wonder if the Pottsdam models include the effect of looming BOE's (2030 - medium level chance) on the northern hemisphere food bowls? A couple of synchronized crop failures could easily lead to the collapse of organized society....
Every prediction made based what they believe to know today, will fail.
Realistic is to keep warming below 3.5 degrees, even two looks impossible to achive.
once we hit 3.5, 8 or 11 or higher is in the cards due to feedback loops.
@@AzonariMedia We will hit a few of them already at 2, but it is just unrealistic at this point to to keep this limit.
1.5 always was a dream and possibly will be exceeded as early as 2026.
It doesn't cost a fortune for a country to do what's right for its citizens and the Future.
I have to admit I find it extremely ironic how the Potsdam team decided to remove the scenarios in which nuclear energy has massive deployment. If climate change was taken seriously decades ago and people like Hansen (who's pro-nuclear) were listened to, we would most likely have generation IV reactors at the commercial stage, and have thousands of reactors around the world.
If climate change was taken seriously now, we would also be seeing massive investments in nuclear instead of only in renewables.
Being the climate crisis the most challenging and important crisis humankind has ever seen, I think it would be better to use every single tool at our disposal, nuclear being one of those that has proved itself in being able to displace fossil fuels.
@grindupBaker Hopefully it will change😅
The Left uses fear to control people.
@@scottslotterbeck3796I'd say that more about the right, the left when it comes to nuclear energy is just idiotic and doesn't look at the actual data.
Reporter John Stossel says no people will debate on global warming.
ua-cam.com/video/b8JZo6PzpCU/v-deo.html
@@scottslotterbeck3796 There are tons of people who go on television in any country talking about climate change and global warming. I have no idea who that person is, he might be disliked by the scientific community or something idk and tbh I also don't care.
The science on global warming and climate change is clear, it's man-made and we need to act, and nuclear can help.
If you want to know why nothing was done, you don't need to read any book. The simple answer is: the privately owned corporations responsible for the CO2 production and the lobbying, funding of political campaigns, advertising, and PR campaigns they did to prevent anything from being done. Go ahead and read books to know the details but anyone who's honest with themselves and takes an honest look around them, they'll see what I said is true.
How does this theory explain huge increase of Chinese emission? There are no political campaigns there and the companies are quite often owned by local government.
When we keep voting into power people whose previous jobs were lobbyists for oil companies this is kinda inevitable.
@@useodyseeorbitchute9450 Don't use China as a distraction for Western failures. Sure, China is doing a bad job of reducing GHG, that doesn't mean that the EU and US are excused from trying to mitigate the apocalypse. We had the money and technology 30 years ago to avoid this mess. We have the money and technology today to blunt the oncoming disaster. It isn't China's fault that Western countries have ignored the warnings and cries from the public for decades, and continue to ignore the gravity of the situation. What-about-ism is a useless tactic when the fate of the world hangs in the balance.
@@youruniquehandle2 "Sure, China is doing a bad job of reducing GHG" Would you be even able to say it with straight face? West is grudgingly reducing emissions, while China is enthusiastically increasing emissions from brand new coal power plants.
"What-about-ism is a useless tactic" You still don't get it. I point out that you make a rant pinpointing all blame on US crony capitalism, while I point out that actually also the rest of the planet exist and that you explanation simply couldn't work, as even more severe problems exist under much more centrally planned and socialist China.
sorry, your whataboutism is leaving out one key thing:
One is doing what it has to in order to bring it's citizens out of poverty while the other is claiming to be reducing emissions while increasing oil drilling AND doesn't care about those in poverty because "it's their own fault"
This is very depressing and anxiety-provoking information.
This information spreading, becoming popular, public knowledge is the ONLY chance we have of having hope
Information changes people's choices/decisions
Thankyou so very much for making the science comprehensible to those of us who would not have otherwise known about our dauntingly low chance of successfully stopping climate change from reaching devastating tipping points, so we can spread this information to our kith and kin
I did have a little panic attack but then I shared the video on my Facebook.
Oh just think how panicked people were 10,000 years ago, when my city would have been under 2 miles of ice..
It seems there is another way of analyzing the graph information and that is to say we have a less than 1% chance of limiting global warming below a certain threshold. As a matter of general scientific belief, all living things on this planet, including humans, when experiencing negative environmental conditions either succumb or adapt. Basically, every living thing on this planet is a result of that cycle. In the course of "known" human existence, the consistent method of dealing with challenges is to react, prepare and adapt. So, in my opinion, a more reasonable course of action for humankind is to use our resources to continue to prepare, adapt and potentially increase the rate of realistic and attainable adaptation to continue to survive and flourish. I'll use a few examples of severe weather locations and our adaptation. Tornado alley, we can't stop all of them so we have better forecast warnings, construction, shelters, etc. On the coasts, again, better forecast warnings, construction, flooding mitigation, etc. As you analyze today and historically you'll see the same results. In my opinion, we would be much better off for our future to use our resources and efforts to better prepare and adapt rather than attempt to eliminate tornado's, hurricanes or global climate. Have a Think about earthquakes, famine, Covid, asteroids, drought, and on and on and on. Prevent or Prepare? Which do you think we have better chances to accomplish?
This why we will use stratospheric aerosol injection. James Hansen has come to the same conclusion.
I wonder if this takes into accounts moves like the USs Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Bill, which are together a pretty dramatic move by the world's greatest total emitter to fight the climate crisis and push the transition. Similarly, while the War in Ukraine is horrible it has pushed the EU to transition much more quickly as well, while likely resulting in a shifting supply of fossil gas to markets like India and China which will reduce their emissions with gas over coal as they continue to build out their own renewables.
China is the greatest polluter
@Scott Slotterbeck common misconception, China is the current largest annual emitter, yes (though the US is still number 2), but not the greatest total emitter, that is still the US.
@@Dr.Gehrig LIO. Annual is total. Bet you went to a Government school.
@Scott Slotterbeck nah, annual is emissions per year, total is the total emissions put out since they have been burning fossil fuels.
And none appear to be acknowledging the MEER Reflection Project from Ye Tao....