The Geopolitical Risks of Climate Change - Myles Allen
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 05. 2024
- Climate Change is predicted to spark increasing threats to food security and demands for climate reparations, fuelling geopolitical instability.
Probably the greatest risk of all, is tension over solar geo-engineering: the idea of reflecting away sunlight deliberately to modify global climate.
Recognizing solar geo-engineering as an inherently destabilising technology, because any such programme would inevitably be considered liable for bad weather everywhere, and ruling it out, would be very helpful.
This lecture was recorded by Myles Allen on 16th April 2024 at Barnard's Inn Hall, London
Myles is the Frank Jackson Foundation Professor of the Environment.
He has contributed extensively to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), including as Coordinating Lead Author for the 2018 IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C. He has published extensively on how human and natural influences on climate contribute to observed climate change and extreme weather risk, and the implications for adaptation and mitigation policy.
The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website:
www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/c...
Gresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: gresham.ac.uk/support/
Website: gresham.ac.uk
Twitter: / greshamcollege
Facebook: / greshamcollege
Instagram: / greshamcollege
As a retired military intelligence officer with a degrees in history and climatology, my worry is civil unrest and war stemming from climate change.
They have already begun. Before the Syrian Civil War, there was a 10 year drought that devastated the Syrian agricultural sector throwing millions into the cities. When the displaced farmers demanded assistance, Assad suppressed the demonstrations leading to the war. Likewise as the Sahara has spread south into the Sahel, the Muslim herdsmen had come into conflict with the Christian farmers.
What will happen as the Himalayan glaciers melt causing more seasonal variation in several major Asian rivers in China and India? It won't be pretty.
I think civil unrest due to climate policies are more likely. People don't like being poorer and colder and locked in 15 minute cities at all. I don't know anyone who takes climate change seriously anymore. Decades of predictions that never came true and political manipulations of Green created disasters. Fake fires and floods so they can kick people out of homes. I've also studied history and nothing unusual is happening to the climate.
@@grannyannie2948 Climate change itself hurts the poor. Wind and solar power are also the cheapest sources of energy on earth, and adding them to the grid isn't going to impoverish anyone, unless you believe the fossil fuel industry's relentless propaganda.
Decades of predictions that never came true? What predictions? By who? Outliers? Crackpots? These do not represent a consensus of mainstream scientists. Super important to understand the difference.
Fifty years ago, the scientists predicted that temperatures would continue to rise today. They predicted accelerating sea level rise, intensifying hurricanes, expansion of wildfire seasons, and increases in heatwaves, marine heatwaves, ocean acidification, extreme precipitation events, droughts , and tick-and-mosquito-borne diseases. They were right about EVERYTHING.
The internet is a cesspool of misinformation, endlessly circulating "predictions" by scientists that scientists never actually made. Among these fake predictions: the polar icecaps would be melted now; New York and Florida would be underwater; the world would descend into a new Ice Age.
Don't be fooled. According to investigations by Drexel University, the fossil fuel industry funds nearly 100 climate change-denying front groups, think tanks and websites, all of which work seven days a week to spread misinformation and disinformation about climate science, including the "failed predictions of scientists."
Climate change due to co2 is a nonsense.
I agree with you. Food and water insecurity leads to famine and refugee flows. Where there is a supply of money and weapons, it also leads to radicalisation.
Heat by itself increases the incidence of aggression, even without the other factors.
Increased refugee flows leads to increase of populist/nationalist leaders.
We can't even stop the new pipelines/fossil deals/methane contracts/oil rigs/coal mines/40 year fossil deal investments/abandoned leaking wells... heck, we can't even get the big oil moguls out of Climate Change summit leadership positions! Now we are talking about skipping all and any serious degrowth and are willing to try anything else.... anything as long as it doesn't involve people from wealthy countries from changing our everyday life much at all?
There are an estimated 177k abondoned wells in Alberta - all steadily leaking methane.
Exactly my thoughts.
What exactly is degrowth?
@@mikewalker8956degrowth is where society stops their insane consumerism which will lower our overall energy expenditure. It focusses instead on human well-being by ensuring adequate healthcare, housing, locally and community grown food etc. Only problem with it is that the way our economic system is set up is that if an economy stops growing, it collapses. Degrowth needs to evolve slowly to ensure human needs are maintained throughout the process. Well, there is also the other problem that people will rebel against it because they will view it as a lowering of their living standards.
@@squeaker19694
“Be the change you want to see in the world “
The additional effect of reducing sulphur from ship fuel is that this leads to a reduction in algae and phytoplankton. These organisms require sulphur (as do humans). If there is a reduction in numbers of algae and phytoplankton there will thus be a reduction in CO2 thatthey absorb. They account for nearly half of global absorption of CO2, and also a significant amount of oxygen production. In addition they produce DMS, which naturally cools the planet. The cutting of sulphur seems to have been done with zero thought for adverse consequences. The solar flux increase is measurable by satellite. Look up James Hansen and Leon Simons.
It also takes more energy i.e. fossil fuel burning, to remove the sulphur. This is why the policy was likely so quickly jumped on by the petrochemical industry without any call for studies that they constantly ask for with CO2 mitigation.
Next decade will be absolute chaos.
Net zero means end to all life on Earth. Scientific language in communication tries to be precise and consistent.
So called green energy replacing fossil fuel will definitely lead to chaos.
England and the EU will not be able to produce enough food if the AMOC substantially slows or shuts down.
Sounds cool.
@@glenwarrengeologywhat does?
Huge benefit to my understanding of climate risks. Very well done.
Trouble is we can’t safely say we’ll let it get to say 2 degrees.
We are entering unknown territory and with all the potential tipping points the further we let it go the greater the risk everything will spiral out of control.
Between now and 2 degrees, the economic impacts will bite harder. As difficult as that is for us to live through those economic impacts, it's necessary to force key stakeholders to support climate action.
Yes, their support will come too late for 1.5 degrees. With half dozen major global tipping points at high risk between 1.5 degrees and 2 degrees, we're in a difficult place, and it's going to be a bad time.
Yes, it will be disastrous. Some things will spiral out of control, but some other things will be okay.
Disaster and catastrophe is certain. Cataclysm is still unlikely.
Lucid and brutally honest...thanks
Rio Grande do Sul, a not very populous Brazilian state that produces 6.5% of Brazil's GDP, was devastated by an extreme weather event. Some municipalities were completely destroyed, the environmental deregulation carried out by the governor of that state increased the destructive potential of excessive rain. Brazil is in a position to care for the affected population and repair the damage. But if something similar happens in 2 or 3 larger, more populous and economically important states, Brazil will go bankrupt.
please show some data on crop yields, actual flood casualties, etc.
You could do a Google search for all of that yourself. And pick credible sources, not some wingnut propaganda outlet.
Like it or not, at some point, we will have to find alternatives to petroleum. Return on investment in drilling for petroleum has been decreasing for 50 years nd there is no reason to believe this will change. Remember, wood used to fuel locomotives, then it was coal, and diesel. Currently natural gas and nuclear are goingvto be growth industries and renewables when battery tech improves will contribute in remote areas.
"getting rid of the CO2 is cheaper than going nuclear" - er, but where's the large-scale CO2 capture and/or removal systems? Scaling up from a mgton to several gigtons - which is the task per year, is so far in the distance ... might be even farther that building small nuclear reactors (15 years). And I fear the risks of nuclear energy - but probably everything has to stay on the table as options for the next 20 years as the climate emergency starts to really bite. Uncertainty and emerging threats dictate all options should remain possibilities.
Militaries sees risks of countries collapsing under climate threats. But they also see, that there is no equipments that runs without fossil fuels... And we are not even calculating how much emissions militaries make.
All current trillions that are given to armies due to risen war risks due to Russian war in Ukraine are simply ensuring huge future fossil fuel emissions. And they are also ensuring the dependency of fossil fuels for decades to come.
Remember Ike’s warning.
I seriously wonder if Russia doesn't see global warming as a positive military position. They will have access to the Arctic, possibly greater food production, while the balance of world weakens. The same might apply to Canada and the US.
Military started to use electric vehicles (for instance electric bikes in Ukraine), Australia developed battery powered Bushmaster armoured truck, electric drones too - also don't forget nuclear power.
Russians deployed unmounted infantry in Ukraine recently.
But yes, in general things like jets or tanks need a lot of fuel.
@@timeenoughforart
There are definitely trying to increase presence in the Arctic - but they are not immune - for instance large fires in Siberia.
@@qbas81 Also don't forget the explosives. When used they often generate ghg's, soot and aerosols. And what is often even more harmful is the needed reconstruction afterwards... How much ghg's is needed to build entire cities that are destroyed in places like Ukraine and Gaza? (Of course current climate change is destoying cities too with flooding and wildfires...)
Electric military equipments are a tiny thing among all other ghg generation. Trucks, fuel trucks, tanks, jets, most armoured vehicles, explosives, ships, current production lines, ... The amount of ghg's made by militaries are huge, even when they are not in combat. And also having the backbone made for fossil fuel usage means you have to have fossil fuel reserves, that continues the ghg making in other sectors too.
I'd really like to know which carbon capture solution he is talking about...
Yeah it's experimental and not proven at scale.
Clearly he's the darling of all the fossil fuel greenwash PR pros. And the purported originator of 'net zero', which is the theme of all delay strategies.
The one I know about is located in Canada. It's not a success. It was supposed to capture 98% of the CO2 and it is barely able to acheive 57%. And, the compressed and liquified CO2 is injected underground to help extracting more oil and gaz... After spending hundreds millions dollars, I don't think we are saving the planet with this kind of machine. It is not humanity that faces a climate problem (which would imply that's a technical challenge with potentially a technological solution). The real issue is that the Earth system have a human problem. As long as our human activities are not aligned with planetary bounderies, we could fix climate but it will induce a boomerang effet. We need a profound change in our relation with the Earth system.
There may be a new demand for carbon… to make graphene, for specific emerging technologies. After harvested out of the atmosphere and water, it can go into a new kind of micro chip.
Why talk about Carbon when you mean CO2 .
Prerequisite for enforcing any measure to address climate issues is to redesign gov't to balance political power across stakeholders according to Rawlsian principles. There are obvious ways to do that once you know the answer.
The tech companies data centres need huge amounts of energy ...AI apparently is going to need a phenomenal amount of resources ...why is nobody talking about this ?
One recommendation that never really comes up in these discussions is the voluntary and permanent reduction of one’s own footprint, with all the (minor) sacrifices that entails. After all it is us as individuals that consume all the stuff. At the moment this seems to be the only viable solution. A l l sacrifices are minor compared to the loss of this unique planet.
But then again: If we really curtailed consumption in any significant way, all of our economies that have been built on the principle of unlimited growth, the more the better, would collapse. Then what?
Honestly, I do not see a way out.
Hard to watch on a screen with the hands, maybe the clicker could change sides and that might slow it down.
Excellent talk! Thank you.
Climate Wars by Gwynne Dyer for further reading...
Not a word about soil organic matter influence on the carbon cycle. The soil microbiome can be managed to fix carbon back into soils. This could be a win win for agriculture and industry.
that would require normies to leave nature alone
I started the video. And if he does not mention that he is problably just fear mongering for demanding more taxesand restrictions bs.
The problem isn't just carbon, it's the energy too. Soil will only change in temperature.
Yeah because no one knows how important soil is for growth. JFC! Try another one troll.
@@bluegold21 This is a reply you should ashamed of.
Where's the democracy of asking the people on any of these plans ?
An excellent example of the bolloxian dialectic.
It’s THE ERA OF GLOBAL BOILING and WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE, dontcha know!
There is a deliberate attempt to confuse linear with exponential change, which gives us the illusion of time. With the rapid warming in 2023 and so far this year, this obvious acceleration is getting harder and harder to explain.
Higher and higher emissions every year would do it...
Agreed 👍
Yes it's getting hotter quicker but it's not hard to explain.
all doors are open. Down here in NZ we see the aurora on the horizon! With our ATLAS we will RISE up like A G
@@user-qv8dw2lg6b What does that even mean?
... If the US is upset about illegal entries at the Southern Border now, as they should be - due to poverty, gang violence and any number of other social & economic reasons - wait until the heat and humidity - already a genuine problem affect human health - REALLY kicks in !
And ALL of these issues are going to grow in severity in Europe, Northern Asia and the few wealthy parts of Africa. Heat and drought are hardly new issues in many parts of the world, as are flooding events.
It's all real, it's all happening now, and if it hasn't already come to a border near you - give it time, because it will ...😓😱💥💦💨🌾🍇🌽🍑⛲⛈🦠🔥... and 💣💥
Follow the money.
Would hitting Net Zero stop climate change?
Has the CO2 that we put into the atmosphere had its full effect yet. Won't it take about 10 years for the planet to reach the new equilibrium?
Net Zero would keep it from getting much worse. The change that has happend will remain, for the most part.
@@csr7080
So how much CO2 comes from unnecessary manufacturing due to planned obsolescence? When have you heard a climate scientist mention that?
@@psikeyhackr6914 All the time. Scientists, including climate scientists, are pretty insistent on telling us our consumption habits are unsustainable. It just feels like no one really listens.
@@csr7080
I said specifically "Planned Obsolescence".
I have not encountered that from climate scientists.
Ever heard of a Bathtub Curve?
The Model-T Ford was introduced 60 years before the Moon landing and we are now 50 years afterward. Locomotives were being made 100 years before the Model-T. Don't you suppose engineers know how to specify durability and reliability by now?
Consider the James Webb Space Telescope.
They know no one can be sent out to fix it. That doesn't mean consumer stuff on Earth should break all of the time. Now we have a Repo Crisis in cars. I have Never owned a new car and have not been to an auto show in 40+ years. Why anyone cares what they look like is beyond me.
@@psikeyhackr6914 Climate scientists don't deal with product manufacturing. It's unlikely the people making models for our climate will spend their time giving talks on industrial design, because that is not their specialty.
What are you trying to get at, what is you point exactly?
Please show the charts that the professor is speaking to. Too often, you have the focus on the prof and we cannot follow what he is referring to. I say ‘he’ because it has happened with two male profs so far.
It comes down to this question: how many people would die if CO2 were returned to pre-industrial levels? How many would die (if any) if solar geoengineering were used? And by the way, solar geoengineering is already being done, by removing sulphur from ship fuels, and see how there has been a nearly immediate increase in sea surface temperature, that cannot be explained by El Nino or CO2. The temperature is 5 or 6 orders of magnitude more sensitive to sulphur than to CO2, so it requires a relatively tiny amount of sulphur to cool the planet. We will end up doing it, that is inevitable. The question is, will we do it in a timely and thorough way, before numerous tipping points are reached? It may be that governments will take so long dithering, that a large number of individuals such as Make Sunsets will just go ahead and do it. And governments in hot countries with deep pockets are likely just to do it, whether or not some people object. Billions of people would starve if CO2 were reduced too rapidly, as crop yields would collapse.
Crop yields would not collapse if CO2 was rapidly reduced. Where the ef did you read that bs? We were alright at 350 ppm. But it's now 420 ppm +. And FYI at 40 degrees Celsius plant metabolism stops and the flora at that point actually starts putting CO2 into the atmosphere.
Earth's declining magnetic field is what causing all the changes we see. CO2 has never and will never change the climate.
That's ridiculous. Crop yields would not be reduced, "professor." Anyway, it would take a herculean, almost impossible global effort for atmospheric CO2 to be reduced even a little, and that's not going to happen, only MORE added to ruin the climate. At some stage desperate measure will be taken, but it'll certainly be well beyond the point of no return. We're doomed. .
@@ducthman4737100%
Make Sunsets is tiny, so they are not doing anything more than drawing attention. While I agree that solar geoengineering with sulphur dioxide, calcium carbonate and cloud brightening should be researched, it won't save us.
Solar geoengineering doesn't prevent acidification of the oceans, which is fast on the heels of ocean heat waves for destruction of ocean ecosystems.
Solar geoengineering doesn't prevent worsening drought, and is likely to make drought even worse.
Solar geoengineering is likely to increase geopolitical conflict and risk of war, which is a significant contributor to CO2 emissions. Our current global military contributes 5.5% to global greenhouse emissions.
Solar geoengineering might serve some purpose around 2050, if there is broad international consensus to support it, so best let the solar geoengineering researchers get on with their work.
If we reached net zero in 2025, there would be no downsides at all. Decrease of CO2 would be slow from that point, not "rapidly", but a faster decrease of CO2 would be better. There's no shortage of CO2 for crop yields, but there are increasing shortages of water supplies due to climate change.
It's hard to grow stuff without water.
DAH this was obvious about Geopoliticals was known in 1970 with 🇺🇸 military with 🇬🇧 since '50's that HAS been done with the people of the world NOT told.
Hi everyone , I wanted to be the first comment . Thanks for a brilliant video
Planet Earth is in an Ice Age & getting colder.
@15:00 COP - a process where worlds most richest people are deciting if they are going to lower their own emissions and reduce their lifestyle. Most politicians are in top 10% or even in top 1% of the richest that are creating most emissions. Many are just flying there with private planes... And even these meetings are led by worst polluters, in oil producing countries...
These are not really meetings that are going to reduce emissions, but meetings where they ensure that their OWN emissions can keep on going.
Specially Summary for policymakers - science that is NEGOTIATED by the politicians and even the WORST country and most bought politicians has to agree to sign it. This ensures that there cannot be a reasonable result from any COP meeting.
COP still goes after 1,5C targets, while world is at 1,6C (12 months average, Copernicus)...
What is the ideal amount of CO2 in ppm ..? And what would the climate be in this utopia if you could achieve it ..?
CO2 never has and never will control the climate. This talk is full of lies. Earth is in an Ice Age right now.
400 to 500 ppm.
@@jamesgreig5168 AAAHAHAHAAHAH Definitely NOT, pops. Atmospheric CO2 levels of between 280 and 350 parts per million created the climate that let humanity build and feed the modern world. For a period of at least the last 800,000 years, CO2 concentrations ranged from 180 during glacial periods to 300 parts per million during interglacial periods, according to high-resolution ice-core records from Antarctica. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric CO2 has spiked precipitously upward- Currently 426ppm- an extremely fast rate of increase; there's a lot of inertia in the climate system - like turning the Titanic- but now the climate is responding. Rough times ahead. .
@@SteffiReitsch
So for most of the last 200 million years (except the recent 2.6 M years the Ice Age we are still living in) life must have had a really Rough time.
You just wonder why most commercial greenhouses are at 1200 ppm CO2.
But if CO2 really controls the climate why would you want it lower? Why would you want to have a mile of ice over Canada or Scotland or the land of Greta? (very bad for farming)
Please show me the scientific paper that proves CO2 controls the climate.
@@jamesgreig5168 The last time CO2 reached 400ppm, sea level rose 29 feet, according to the University of South Hampton. 29 feet. Today we're at 424ppm.
The only reason we haven't seen 29 feet yet is time, as ice melt greatly lags CO2. But we're well on our way, with a four inch rise since 1993 and a doubling of its rate, according to NASA. 29 feet will be catastrophic, and there is no stopping it at this point because we waited too long to reduce emissions.
It's also important to note that heatwaves have TRIPLED since the 1960s, according to the EPA. Hurricane intensity has increased 8% per decade for the last four decades, according to NOAA. Extreme precipitation events are up all over the world. Drought intensity and durations have also increased. Marine heatwaves are up 20-fold, according to the University of Bern. Ocean acidification is rising rapidly. So are tick-and-mosquito-borne diseases. All stemming from rising CO2 and a warming world.
According to a UN bulletin, the number of major environmental disasters from 2000-2020 nearly doubled over the previous 20 years. Thus 400-500ppm is a number hard to support.
does the econmics make any sense? It never made sense even when there was no drama of climate change.Everything is done on the backs of the poor. And now even more so..... I was hopeful about AI until I heard about Lavender.
WARNING! Myles starts by casually dismissing geoengineering and explains in great detail very clearly why later except does it apply also to Marine Cloud brightening for the chart at 35:00 ?
35:00 chart from Kate Ricke, Morgan, Allen geoengineering 2010 study IS BEHIND A PAYWALL, but it's probably stratospheric injection which is the least desirable and not the only option.
5:19 Chart and current 1.65C indicates we are at or very close to "high risk" for all the indicators, and given James Hansen's recent report showing that we are warming 0.36C per decade we will very quickly be at "very high risk"
52:00 Occidental petroleum is the only company that has a plan to capture and sequester all CO2 by 2050
By volume, the dry air in Earth's atmosphere is about 78.08 percent nitrogen, 20.95 percent oxygen, and 0.93 percent argon, adding up to 99.96 percent. A brew of trace gases accounts for the other approximately 0.04 percent, including the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. To think that a small increase (200 parts per million in the last hundred years) of carbon dioxide would affect the weather is absurd.
Immediate reduction of all fossil fuels is essential simply for global health and wellbeing as well as cumulative damage to Biodiversity.
You might as well have a heartfelt chat with the sun and ask it to stop the cycles.
Fossil fuels has literally saved billions of lives. You want to see a truly Mad Max world, end fossil fuels. You could not get through your day without them.
Sorry I prefer having food to eat.
1000 years ago the educated debated about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Today we get lectures like this.
Which we need far more than metaphysical speculation… 👼 📍
🌎 🌞 🌧️
So many people showing unashamed ignorence about scientific matters, it is worrying.
8 year old children know climatS are changing no matter what, so what's the deal ... ?
False dilemma on fake premise.
@@FernandoWINSANTOThe children I know don't believe. Their parents were taught about this over twenty years ago and nothing they were told ever came true.
1000 years ago Vikings were exporting woolen cloth weaved from the sheep grazing on green pastures.
In Greenland.
Easy low hanging fruit would be phase out cars emitting more than 100g/km and build all new built to passiv house standard. It really boils down to stop buying stop flying
It really boils down to having authoritarian climate zealots dictate to everyone else - "live the way we say. Adopt our values", always followed by threats.
@@anthonymorris5084 well that would be nice but it's not happening so we'll just carry on as usually
@@harveytheparaglidingchaser7039 It's a matter of perspective. Rights and freedoms are more important than harmless warming.
@@anthonymorris5084 well, the floods in Brazil last years wildfires in Canada and the dying coral reefs don't sound harmless to me. We're all biological organisms depending entirely on our ecosystems for life support. Once it's destroyed life is going to be brutal for everyone
@@harveytheparaglidingchaser7039 Floods in Brazil didn't begin the day you were born. The Canadian Ministry of Natural Resources has a web site. They have forest fire data and a graph. The graph clearly shows that forest fires have been in decline for 44 years. How do you reconcile this with your statements?
The American forestry department has data going back more than 75 years. Burn acreage and fires have been in consistent and precipitous decline for this entire duration. You are willfully ignoring data and getting your information from media which sensationalizes everything.
I know scientist thinkin about to counter the warming, let them do their job to defeat global warming
1. Scientists job to alert politicians.
2. Politicians job to allocate funding for solutions.
3. Engineers job to build solutions.
4. Scientists job to help fix the mess afterwards.
Scientists have done their bit, but we're stuck on step 2. Basically, they are reluctant to pay the bills, preferring to leave these problems to our children to pay, with interest. Bad plan.
@@naomieyles210 To get reelected, politicians only do what they think their constituents want them to do , and in this case not much. Too many ignorant people, conspiracy and religious kooks, etc. Anyway, it would take huge sacrifice, and the masses of people don't want to sacrifice. Whatever, just more dithering, and anyway, the window has closed, WE'RE DOOMED. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the coming decades as food prices soar and the chaos starts.
@@SteffiReitsch it will be even more interesting to watch the plutocrats and business lobby groups respond to the collapse of insurance coverage in the face of increasing disaster risk. This is already clearly in progress this year.
Without insurance coverage, real estate markets are impacted, affecting both voter sentiment and real estate portfolio returns.
Without insurance coverage, managing business risk and economic outlook becomes extremely difficult. With Plutocrats mobilised, we will see accelerating progress, but too late.
Our doom is disaster and catastrophe, not cataclysm. Many of us will be very much alive to witness and experience the future we chose.
Yes, dithering. Given net zero by 2050 is slipping away from us, we are choosing between net zero by 2060 or by 2090.
Net zero by 2090 would be a bad choice.
@@naomieyles210 The A- H deleted my comment. That's what the cowards do.
20,000 years ago the ice was a mile thick here where Lake Erie is currently located. This ice sheet reached south nearly to the Ohio River. The Earth's total population has been estimated at 5 millon people. They were hunter gathers using wood for fuel. What caused that massive amount of ice to melt in a mere blink of geological time?
Rice 🌾
How does change over 20k years compare the changes we have been making since the industrial age?
Yes the earth is a dynamic system and it changes over time, our problems are rapidly induced changes which we are smart enough to know where it is coming from, hence the alarms being raised.
The answers to your questions don’t change the hard truths.
@@xvegitto Right, no amount of draging us back to the 19th century will produce any predicitable reduction in anything , and if it does a volcano eruption will erase that in a day!!!
You should let the climate scientists know this. I bet they'll be very embarrassed: Doing all this science and math without knowing that the last ice age occurred and that it invalidates all their findings.
@@biffandhapp418 I will when you let all COVID scientists know how much BS That was
We have the technology to build smart homes that are independent from each other. Solar power, hydroponic gardening is a key ingredient. Green hydrogen from ocean water is clean and efficient for industrial including reserve power grids for cities. Aquatic cities in the future can receive all there energy needs from the ocean and all ships could operate on hydrogen and solar. Whole communities could live on ships that travel the world there whole lives with no effect on the planet. We have the technology to change the world for everyone if we just do it. Capitalism has changed our societies around the world thinking it is the only way when it is what oppresses the human race from evolving. Divided and competing with each other and we will die a slow death. United together for humanity and our planet we will thrive in prosperity. Living in fear is not living. We have the will and determination to do the impossible when our very lives depend on it. Show you love and support for the future and we will all benefit fruitful without fear of the uncertainty.
Why would we build acquatic cities? We're not running out of dry land to build on, and dry land is better in pretty much every single way.
@@csr7080 climate change will change the landscape of coastal cities around the world and also create flooding erosion droughts and stronger natural disasters across the land. Aquatic cities will provide stability for communities to live in better climate and also provide resource of hydrogen power and fresh water from the ocean. A city could literally move anywhere in the world during the seasons to provide optimal climate conditions for the community. Hope i answered you question.
@@PoliticalChaos To allow for the surveying of the British Colonies and the mapping needed, all around the world sea level datum points were put in place for the surveyors to base their work from. In the over 200 years since, sea levels have not increased at all.Easily checked too. So how many more Lies have you swallowed? 🤣
@@PoliticalChaos PS. The rather serious issue with hydrogen as fuel is the bulk quantities that will be around. Possibly thereason the prospects for hydrogen as fuel after extensive research after the 1970’s Oil Crisis, when basically everything was sorted out and working, was the reality that Hydrogen is a very high explosive which unfortunately doesn’t even need complex detonators to b used to set it off? A spark will do. Fancy large amounts of that about the place and available for terrorists to use do you ? Or do you think somehow that only nice non violent people will be around for you to face ?🤣
@@PoliticalChaos Weather at Sea, will guarantee that there will never be the “stability” that you anticipate. Sorry burst your bubble. The only time I have been Seasick, was for three and a half days stuck in a force 10.5 Gale that hadn’t been forecast in the Bay of Biscay. The Waves were massive, and were nothing like as bad as those in a Storm in a Century Effect. Borders between Continental Shelves and Deep Water Ocean are frequently seriously very bad news. Remember when Superwaves were thought to be fictional, until a Research Ship with Scientists on board was almost sunk by one ? Turns out Super waves are pretty common after all Meeting one is not recommended. 🤔
The Make Sunsets organisation is run by two people who are very concerned about global warming. At least they are doing something. It is very easy to criticise someone, but unless you can offer a better alternative, then why not let them get on with it? At least they are not expending CO2 flying to endless climate congerences. The numbers attending are growing at a faster rate than CO2 emissions! If they really cared they would do the conference via Zoom. The professor is wrong: CO2 does not stay in the atmosphere forever, so his calculation is incorrect. There is a huge increase in plant life around the planet, particularly in semi-arid areas, because the plants grow better with enhanced CO2. This vast increase in plants represents a sink of CO2.
How do you think those balloons are made. How do you think they are lifted into the air? It takes a lot of energy to do that which is primarily via fossil fuel burning. And did you not pay attention to the fact that sulphur only remains in the atmosphere for 1 or 2 years whereas CO2 has an average lifespan of 50 years. Do the math. Think.
And the alternative is renewables obviously. But whenever that clear solution is offered to anyone addicted to the notion that fossil fuels are key to the economy they always reply 'What other solutions are there'.🤪 Like brainwashed minions, the solution is offered but you ignore it because that is what Big Oil has taught you to say. Either wake up or grow up!
Reparations? For what? Creating the modern world? Not sorry.
Which series of Brass Eye did this episode air? I must have missed it.
The problem is that you have no understanding of what co2 does or it’s limitation. It’s not the cause of the alleged climate change nor is the increase in co2 as witness via the keelings graph all cause by human activity. Look at the Dansgaurd oeschger oscillations and the wild rose and fall of co2 before man’s intervention.. not that the co2 lead temp rises.. note that the DO oscillations show co2 pulses that go from 180-300ppm and back. Note that co2 isn’t fully locked into the ice until ye have 5000yaers worth of typical Antarctic sown layering at in uncompressed ice it’s free to move and release back into atmosphere.. This under standing equated to another 100ppm missing from ice that existed in the atmosphere thus we can assume that natural co2 rose in pulses over the last 700k yrs to 2”380ppm and the different of 40ppm to get to todays Keeling’s graphic read out is that which is man made.. The facts are that Keelings graph, which measure co2 in Hawaii is able to see seasonal fluctuations in co2 yet it couldn’t detect Covid lockdowns or industrial uptick in 2000 from china and India and when the technical person in charge of the data announced this the IPCC went wild and sacked him.
Yet isotopic analysis of atmospheric CO2 molecules today clearly shows that the 140ppm of increase since the industrial revolution has come from combusted fossil fuels, not nature.
According to NASA, the Covid lockdown didn't change the CO2 reading because the absence of that extra CO2's weight on the ocean allowed the ocean to release more of its own CO2, which helped to balance out the loss.
Again, as ever, it's all computer models and fortune-telling. This whole conference is talk of a collection of future hypotheticals as if they were already happening, which they are not.
Furthermore, it prompts the comment that it is rather contradictory, even amusing, how nowadays one is not allowed to even have an opinion on climate unless one is an expert "climate scientist" and yet these climate nerds feel entitled to deliver sweeping statements on geopolitics, macroeconomics and social psychology.
Loved your last paragraph. Also demonstrates their abject hypocrisy, authoritarian nature and lack of credibility.
Fortune telling? Fifty years ago they told us that gigatons of ice would melt off Antarctica and Greenland, sea level would rise, storm surges would elevate, hurricanes would intensify, extreme precipitation events and heatwaves would increase, and we'd continue to break warming records. All are happening. They were right.
Well said. I don't know any one who still believes their fairy tales. Decades of predictions that never happened
Is Gresham College net zero emissions yet?
Your point?
Stop blocking comments i have a lot of truthful facts to say. CZcams sucks
Same happens to me. As women dominate voting, we must be politically correct and sweet talking. They vote themselves custody and employment laws, so men are having their children and office jobs stolen. We must not mention this. Instead to avoid having commentary deleted, we must mention womens empowerment, womens rights, all child custody to women and all office jobs to women, power to women.
Whiners
The
cen
ship
I really disliked this lecture. The speaker doesn’t understand the subject. He seems more like a lobbyist for fossil fuel companies than anything else, he’s overly optimistic, minimizes the problems of the climate crisis, and he says modestly too much. 2 degrees isn’t modest. It’s not that simple.
Global pollution is the problem, NOT CO2!
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
MASSIVE FLOODING NOW OCCURING AROUND THE WORLD, DUE TO WARMER AIR
Abject lie without an ounce of evidence.
Guardian TV.
People need to learn to communicate and speak better. His constant verbal hiccups drive me crazy. I had to click off. What didn’t miss?
0.04% of the atmosphere is CO2.
What is your point? Here is a possible rejoinder from chatGPT4:
When someone points out that carbon dioxide (CO2) makes up only about 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere to minimize the concern about climate change, it's helpful to understand and communicate why even this seemingly small amount is significant. Here’s how you can respond:
1. **Explain the Role of CO2**: Although CO2 is a minor component of the atmosphere in terms of percentage, it plays a disproportionate role in trapping heat. This is because CO2 molecules absorb infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface that would otherwise escape into space. This process, known as the greenhouse effect, is crucial for maintaining the planet's temperature and supporting life but becomes problematic when intensified by additional CO2.
2. **Highlight the Increase in Concentration**: Over the past century, human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, have significantly increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2-from about 280 parts per million (ppm) in the pre-industrial era to over 410 ppm today. This increase is linked directly to global warming.
3. **Discuss the Impact of Small Changes**: Even small changes in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 can have large effects on the climate. The increase in CO2 levels enhances the greenhouse effect, leading to global warming and climate changes including more extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and disruptions to ecosystems.
4. **Use Analogies**: Sometimes it helps to use analogies to convey the impact. For example, a very small amount of a potent substance can have a large effect, much like a tiny amount of arsenic can be fatal.
5. **Refer to Scientific Consensus**: The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that rises in CO2 levels caused by human activity are driving global warming and climate change. This consensus is supported by decades of research and data collected by organizations worldwide.
6. **Emphasize Urgency and Action**: Argue that understanding the significance of increased CO2 levels is crucial for taking action. Reducing emissions and transitioning to cleaner energy sources are necessary steps to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change.
These points can help frame your response to show that the small percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is misleadingly minimal when considering its potent effect on global temperatures and climate.
Do you disagree with any of this? Which part? Do you have data?
0.004% of your pronouncements are interesting and useful.
@@Tim_Small
Amusing.
Yes, fascinating how small concentrations can have big effects, isn't it? Here's a glass of water btw, I promise there is less than 0.04% Novichok in it.
And while that is wonderful it's not the issue. The issue is how big is a million sized parcel of molecules? It's really tiny and this is why ppm is the measurement used. Next, I'd like to ask what is atmosphere? Not sure if you know but 99.97% of the mass of the atmosphere is only 100klm's high. Now if you are in all your wisdom regurgitating a factoid, I'd like to know are you saying "the atmosphere" or are you talking this fine little sliver of it?
Nevertheless, let us get back to how many trillions of molecules are in the one metre above you. You realise these carbon molecules attach to two oxygen molecules that not only make the molecule wider but that they let sunlight in but trap radiant heat in like a doona on a hot summer night and that these trillions upon trillions of molecules being added to just the single metre above you are being multiplied at a rate of 2.8 per million sized parcel of air and along with this addition we are pumping overloading amounts of heat, that even if we didn't pump in more stored co2 that it's the heat we are pumping in too?
We seem to let people limit the conversation to one side only of this equation, the co2 could be zero, we are emitting huge amounts of energy and for what? more plastic trinkets?
Honestly, it is frustrating and tiresome to say the same thing, over and over again:
Oxygen has a natural cooling effect and when increased in volume would cool the atmosphere exponentially.
Carbon Dioxide is made of two Oxygen (Dioxide) and a single Carbon and can be broken down into Carbon Monoxide (1 Carbon and 1 Oxygen), with current technology (wish we could separate them also) and O2.
After which the Oxygen could then be released into the atmosphere to aid in the cooling whilst we sequester the CO in hard rock or in old Oil Wells and the like.
This would double, if not quadruple the effectiveness of CCS.
The alternative is to sequester twice the amount of Oxygen which has taken billions of years to create through phytoplankton's efforts and we would be left with far less for the plants to convert back into breathable Oxygen - as plants DO NOT create OXYGEN, they only convert CO2 into building blocks and release the excess Oxygen in the process.
🤙🙂↕️
Honestly don't bother people saying this again. It's a waste of peoples lives.
@@antonyjh1234 Elaborate 🙏
How do you convert CO2 into carbon monoxide?
@@StabilisingGlobalTemperature they pulled my reply. One sec
@@StabilisingGlobalTemperature answer above
Annoying ad at 1:30
Geopolitical rubbish is still rubbish . .
Yes, we just want to ignore the rest of the world. All of its problems. You're fine. I'm fine everybody's fine. There's not a problem here.
PPS.Unfortunate Factual Reality about CO2 :
The only greenhouse effect of CO2 is when it is added to actual greenhouses to compensate for the lack of CO2 in the actual Greenhouse;
CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, it is a very efficient Coolant and Refrigerant, which is why it was used as the cooling gas in Britain’s Advanced Gas Cooled Nuclear Reactor. The gas efficiently acquires the mean temperature that surrounds it, acquires the warm temperate surrounding it quickly, and when surrounded by a cool temperature, sheds heat quickly as well So unlike what Fake Scientists pretend, CO2 is a long way from behaving as if it is a Storage Heater. Comprende ?😡
Pseudo-scientific nonsense.
Lies from Brown. Brown, Exxon is run by geophysicists, so they know physics. Exxon hired a bunch of atmospheric chemists and physicists 50 years ago, and Exxon’s own atmospheric physicists showed that if you add 40 billion tons of carbon a year to the atmosphere, the Earth will heat up.
yes, I think this person brownnoise357 is a deliberate liar. Making a completely false statement about CO2 with no justification and then making an irrelevant remark about coolants and refrigerants to give an impression that there is something scientific about this bare-faced lie. Hope nobody is impressed. And for the record, hundreds of the most reputable scientists not only agree that CO2 is a GHG and on exactly how CO2 acts as a GHG, they have also quantified the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. The climate sensitivity of CO2 doubling is at least 2 C and could be as high as 6 C.
This was already in 1824 debunked. You are 200 years to late to the discussion.
@@TheSphat what is it about the workings of Coolants and Refrigerant properties that can be debunked, or that the Oceans contain about 140 times more CO2 than the atmosphere for that matter ? A rather pathetic attempt at drive by trolling with absolutely no effort at even clarifying your non assertion tbh. Not kept up with very recent Mars Atmosphere Research either have you.🤣🤣🤣❤️
childish nonsense
Where's the democracy of asking the people on any of these plans ?