Climate Change Talks - Professor Kevin Anderson
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 07. 2024
- Kevin Anderson (Professor of Energy and Climate Change in the School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering at the University of Manchester) shares the academic evidence behind the global climate crisis and what this means for city-regions like Greater Manchester.
The event took place on Friday 20th September 2019 to coincide with global events highlighting the climate emergency.
Watched this a year ago watching again for a refresher. So much info . ...Thanks again. PS it's looking grimmer
@@Paul-vm6gd ink kkkkklk(ili kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkklkkkkkk i'll kkkkkkkk(kkkkkkkk(lolol k lolol (kkkkkkk kill kkkkkkkkkkkkk lo k knoll kk(k lil kkkkkkklkkkkk(kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk(lull kkkkkkkkkkklkk kl kk kl kill kkkk
Very Kevin talk should have millions of views. 8000 is a joke and shows me we are fucked!
Thank you Prof. Kevin Anderson. Much appreciated.
Please share my two brief videos with other people. Thank you!
Excellent discussion. Social movement and media well presented in the context of climate changes.
Is it OK to use slides from this presentation? So grateful for the clarity presented here.
"Talking about stupid, do you believe a sustainable herd of herbivorous dinosaur, enough for predators to eat, could be sustained with the forest growth we have, let alone if you more than half the plants CO2."
You don't understand that those animals are dead. They went extinct 65 million years ago. There is different fauna and flora now. You dont understand that at that time there were no annual grasses like rice, wheat, barley etc.. and you dont understand that at that time the climatic conditions did not favor these types of plants and that we don't eat ferns.
"Are you promoting the extinction of the Mastodons? "
Wth are you talking about? These animals died when CO2 levels went from 170 ppm to 280 ppm.
"Vegetation is being stripped from the earth too fast, by people who know better, like you. " ME? what the hell do you know about me?
"The founder of Green Peace can tell you about the CO2 drought for plants."
Patrick Moore IS NOT THE FOUNDER OF GREENPEACE! He just says he is to do his job. And his job is to chill for polluting industries like he has done for decades. When he is not giving lectures for fossil fuel think tanks and institutions like The Cato institute, the heartland institute or PragerU he is defending giant pesticide manufacturers like Monsanto (search patrick moore glyphosate) or are you a "sheep" ?
"Guess you are either virtuosity indicating or you're being led by the nose ring by mainstream media."
NASA, NOAA, European space agency, and EVERY REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTION ON THE PLANET are NOT media outlets you conspiratard.
The whole anthropogenic climate change theory is based on the fact that CO2 levels were higher and lower in the past. You obviously never read anything about the subject outside of conspiracy theory videos. And you live the illusion that you are smarter than everybody else. It's the dunning-kruger effect in full display. You are too dumb to understand how dumb you are.
"AND give the plants more CO2."
Here is a challenge for you:
Do you know what was the greatest mass extinction in earth's history? It was the permian-triassic mass extinction. The conspiracy videos that you a watching will NEVER mention this to you so go ahead: research that. Or are you a "sheep"? See what caused it. I dare you.
@@nunofoo8620 the
the james webb space telescope is a prototype of the umbrellas to be or not to be used for global chilling
37:06 Saving the planet via consumerism?
Thank you for doing this. Damn! Good job! I am very motivated to make changes in my life. Your discussions have really woke me up..and i thot i was woke.. but i have really done nothing.. somewhat because i felt i cant do anything..wrong.. im stopping eating meat..my next vehicle will be electric..im creating hydroelectric power.. and im going to really try to get this information out to regular folks..excellent presentation
Iu
Great summary thanks from nz
It’s over boiz. We done for.
True true true.
The professor didn't mention how we sustain over 8 billion people who all want cars.
Three years since this video nothing has been done. Fossil fuel use has increased, carbon emissions have increased and we're putting over 80 million new people on this planet every year.
Your talk is focused in what the UK can do to reduce CO2 emissions (not 'carbon'). But even if we achieve 100% net zero by 2050, most countries will not. And given the UK represents only about 1% of global CO2 emissions, the result of dramatically changing our lifestyles and sacrificing our pleasures (eg. not flying, eating meat) will have near zero impact on gobal CO2 emissions. So, what is the point?
Why would you not want to increase the carbon sink-aka plant more vegetation-this strengthens the soil. One of the things you are not looking out for is a crop drought if you were to cut back so much that crops would diminish.
You say 50% of CO2 emissions are from 10% of the population. But that 10% are mostly those with the best health, the highest life expectancy, the highest levels of education and probably the most positive levels of mental health. So, there is a correlation. Wealthier people have better lives, but they get those through accees to abundant affordable energy.
follow God's leadership of free will kingdom in world to rescue planet
Very interesting discussion of the most important topic.
This should be on front pages every day, every where.
substantive choice for God's federal hegemony of free will kingdom
😲
Interesting title: "From Delusion to Action". Is he talking about the climate catastrophists?
the step that should be taken to control rising seas and to cool the planet. the proposal is to have desalination plants spread offshore along the coasts. how far apart will depend on the measure of arctic ice melt and the capacity of the plants. the objective is to take water from the seas as fast as the artics melt keeping ph levels equal
the plants are to be placed on floating platforms. the distance from the shoreline to be determined by environmental concerns over waste ejecting back into the sea. plants to be powered by solar and wind with excess power directed to the mainland.
their construction will provide worldwide employment putting a giant dent in impoverishment.
weight the cost of these plants against the cost of loss of life and tax revenue of land underwater
a third of our earth is desert. freshwater production will make them bloom. real food will be so abundant that starvation will be a thing of the past. bamboo farms will preserve the forest and mitigate carbon emissions. good example: freshwater farming will cool the sahara and northeast africa, bringing cooler air over the atlantic ocean mitigating hurricane seasons, and saving trillions in damage. another, is the cooling of the southwest united states and mexico’s arid lands to bring down the severity of tornados.
forest fires abated with sprinkling systems
desalination extracts minerals that can be used for our benefit.
the benefits seem endless. the main one being that all nations come together to overcome ice melt and other future events.
Z
The problem I see with all of this is, nuclear, solar, wind, is all backed up with fossil fuels. Firstly in manufacturing the components but also in collecting the raw materials, the only reason those materials are ‘cheap’ is because they are collected by diesel powered (usually) excavators etc. I do like Kevin but I do find him very optimistic and he criticises those climate change professors smoothing over reality, but he is one of them. Unless he is saying this is basically a short term step back down to agrarianism of the 1400’s etc, because that’s the only way i see this heading long term, (not necessarily a bad thing)! Techno industrial civilisation does not conform to the laws of nature and will eventually collapse regardless.
I agree we are probably screwed but eventually the entire chain will be electrified. Once the heavy machinery is electrified it will be much cheaper.the maintenance and running savings are stunning. There are few mines around the world that have giant dump trucks that use no fuel at all. They get loaded at the top of a grade. By the time they get to the bottom the battery has reclaimed enough energy to power itself back up. Since all the energy goes back into the battery, brake wear is minimal/zero.
All these gloomy numbers, and yet CO2 still is only 400 parts per million or that 2/3rds of CO2 is Oxygen, which means only 133.33 parts per million should actually be counted?
Then it’s wouldn’t be Co2🙄 Sometimes it’s better to just say nothing.
Chemistry and what a molecule is - read about that. That's the best explanation I can do in a CZcams comment. It totally doesn't work like that at all. You need actual books
Great Barrier Reef is NOT dying. Ask Dr.Peter Ridd who was kicked out of Queensland Uni for saying that after studying the reef for 25 years.
Sounds Chineesy
We're too late. Everyone is dead by 2040 at this rate.
Any kind of belief that 8 billion people are going to go extinct is the height of delusion. And you guys wonder why you're called alarmists.
20:00 I knew it! The earth is flat!!!
Here is a Professor that needs to keep his job. Listen to one who is retired and has his mortgage paid off, Prof Richard Lindzen.
join and give emotion and feeling to God's free will kingdom for unity of the world through substantive choice
The climate movement is an ideological movement not an environmental movement.
Can this genius explain the theory behind blaming a gas with 2 Oxygen atoms, and only 1 Carbon atom, and what's behind counting the 2 Oxygen atoms guilty by association? When it's the carbon atom that strikes fear into the hearts of everyone behind the climate scare?
Go read a high school chemistry textbook online or something. Its easy to make conclusions without understanding the subject matter, but if you really want to know, you have to put the effort in.
@@mrpickle6290 while you were tossing mud in my direction, you could have simply showed me how I am incorrect......the truth is, you have no rebuttal, or you would have expressed it....typical leftist waxing eloquent on absolutely Nothing....
@@mrpickle6290 another self proclaimed genius that's incapable of debate, just a petulant child thinking a dress down will intimidate me and silence me....
@@ChiefCabioch it's because I literally don't have the time in my day to explain 2 years of science education to you. That's why I asked you to look it up yourself, it's also better to understand something yourself than have someone explain it to you.
Since you wanted an explanation so bad I'll try to give it to you. The reason why carbon dioxide is so different is not that it has carbon in it, but its structure/geometry. A carbon dioxide molecule consists of two carbon and one oxygen atom bonded covalently at an angle of 180 degrees (so straight). This covalent bonding means that the bonding is quite strong. (Remember this) The length in particular of the molecule also corresponds to the wavelength of infrared radiation. So when the molecule is struck by infra red radiation, it causes it to vibrate, kind of like a guitar string. This vibration occurs at its "resonant frequency" which bumps into the other molecules around it causing them to vibrate also (temperature is just the average vibration of the molecules) increasing the temperature of the surrounding air. The CO2 molecule also due to its bonding angle can receive photons more frequently, and due to its strength, it can vibrate at higher amplitudes without breaking the molecule apart. This sets it apart from molecules such as water or oxygen which have different molecular geometries, properties etc. If you really want to learn more I suggest you look up intermolecular bonding, there are a lot of people who are willing to explain things to you if you just ask. Places like quora, science subreddit etc. It is super easy to find answers. However if you just want to feel smart then by all means stay in your comfort zone.
The world is getting greener. And crop yield improving due to. Higher co2. How awful.
Grifters
Pfrofessor Anderson. Yes, I see after just 3 minutes you are highly deluded about climate change. You mention a typhoon that was made worse or more likely by CC. Yet the IPCC AR6 (published I think the same year as your lecture) states regarding Hurricanes/Tropical cyclones/typhoons: ”There is low confidence in observed long-term trends in hurricane intensity, frequency, and duration, and any observed trends in phenomena such as tornadoes and hail.” (Direct quote). You mention 'poor' people are and will die from extreme weather, yet the same IPCC reports finds very little alarm regarding CHANGES in extreme weather: Although an academic, it's as if you don't read past the Summary for Policymakers (in truth written BY policymakers). You go on about how even the most progressive CC countries have not reduced emissions since 1990. And what is the result? IPCC AR6 Chapter 11 on Extreme Weather (published 2021) - here are some more direct quotes: On floods: “Low confidence for observed changes in the magnitude or frequency of floods at the global scale.”; On droughts: “There is medium confidence that since the 1950s some regions of the world have experienced a trend to more intense and longer droughts … but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter…”. Extra tropical storms [ie. major storms outside of the tropics].
“there is overall low confidence in recent changes in the total number of storms over both hemispheres” “Overall, there is also low confidence in past-century trends in the number and intensity of the strongest storms”
So the alarm you are propagating to your students, telling their futures are hopeless, does not align with what the IPCC science is actually saying.
Where you are right is that the negative impacts of climate policdies should NOT be ignored, as they so often are. A big example is seeing the current farmers' protests across Europe. The negative impacts on their livelihoods and futures have been ignored by the lawmakers - who, as it happens, don't make rules that restrict their own lives (eg. your example on air travel).
An over rapid transiation will restrict the ecomonic development of the poorest countries. Already, the World Bank is refusing to fund the development of abundant affordable energy (ie. fossil fuels) in the countries that need it. That is the real delusion.
I found him confusing, is that just me? He seems to ramble or talk too fast.. I don't know :(
Maybe you need to listen to Homer Simpson. More on your level maybe. lol
@@markyoung9497 YEah probably. I'm not that bright.
word up, name a Time when the climate wasn't changing. complete b*******.
zatunusavisa202384datepaid