Why 1.5°C Matters - Myles Allen

[@Astronomikat]

The baseline keeps shifting, we're already passing 1.5C this year based on the 1890 1900 baseline even without the el-nino. It's politically convenient to keep talking about 1.5C as if it's a goal we can achieve, but we can not. Based on the current earth-energy imbalance we're doubling the rate of global warming, and oil, gas, and coal production is still powering the vast majority of our global economy. IF we continue business as usual, we're going to pass 2C passed baseline in the next decade.

[@RustOnWheels]

We’re already at 1.7 if you take the original Paris accord pre-industrial era (1750) into account…

[@Astronomikat]

@@RustOnWheels Yes, totally agreed.

[@Mike80528]

@@RustOnWheels the beauty of moveable goal posts...sigh

[@DonTrell]

the can aint gonna kick its self buddy@@Mike80528

[@decrepitheadbanger666]

It will happen before a decade. I believe the next five years will be crucial and, maybe, catastrophic in many places within the tropics.

[@bargdaffy1535]

1.5C to 2.0 C matters because the damages to the environment are Exponential, not Linear..

[@rdallas81]

Facts

[@paulaa1175]

Non-linear not exponential ... might be 'jumps' but also then slower growths in temperature across time, then accelerations etc. Cannot predict a neat trajectory including 'exponential'.

[@MrPaddy924]

1.5 degrees is well and truly dead and buried. Not yet so that the data shows it, but enough warming is baked in to our atmosphere to effectively exceed that guardrail within the next 3 - 5 years, whatever we do. Staying within 2 degrees of warming is technically possible but would entail a rapid global mobilisation of effort and resources that simply doesn't seem feasible given today's fragmented and divided geopolitical landscape. Let's not forget that a huge expansion of oil drilling licensing is under way and the global population is still rising to the tune of 140 million births a year (that's another USA added to the global population every 2.3 years). Added to which, the political appetite for the depth of change needed to really deal with this issue simply isn't there, and if Trump gets in again, all bets are off. The best (most sophisticated) models suggest we're probably headed towards the 2.3 - 2.8 degrees of warming territory, and that's based on some quite optimistic assumptions (eg IPCC's fixation with CCS despite little progress in rendering the technology scalable and affordable over the last 20 years). James Hansen et al would argue that the upper range could be as much as 4 degrees, and to be frank, I think the assumptions that went into Hansen's models were far more realistic than the IPCCs somewhat 'hopium-infused' modelling. It doesn't really matter because even at the most optimistic end of this range, we're in very, very serious trouble.

[@NashHinton]

1.5 is gone. We'll be at 4 degrees by 2060.

[@dan2304]

While 1.5 C matters and the evidence says we are already there, 4 C might take a little longer than 2060 but definitely before 2100.

[@Mike80528]

That's more probable than most realize. That would also be a complete breakdown of the food chain at that point. Mass starvation for those who may be left...

[@dan2304]

@@Mike80528 Very much guessing but I don't see a global population of more than a few million people to at best 2 billion by 2100 unless dramatic changes are implemented. And even then less than half current global population. It is not just global warming and sea level rise combined with the both economic and real depletion of fossil fuels. Economic depletion when the cost of supply is more than the ability to pay and real depletion when they are all gone. Both largely this century.

[@Tailspin80]

@@dan2304If we use all the known coal reserves on the planet CO2 will reach astronomical levels. Either way, barring a miracle. Our goose is cooked.

[@dan2304]

@@Tailspin80 The problem is that not all coal is created equal. Australia where I have analysed in depth has 3 main economical coal fields. Bowen, larger Sydney that extends to NW NSW, and Galilee Basins. Bowen being the richest, Sydney is mainly bitumous. Galilee is far from the coast and markets which makes it difficult economically, why the coal companies want the government to build rail infrastructure. Australis has many other coal fields but arenot economic for a range of reasons, too deep, under cities, too low a quality, too remote. Coal has been burned for over 200 years. The best and easiest has already been depleted. While there are many dodgy measures e., 1200 years at Australia's consumption rate. While true the consumpion is less than 10% of exports and includes all known reserves though well over half will never be economicly viable.

[@OldJackWolf]

The guy was obviously sick. Nice of him to infect so many. But agree on a lot of points.

[@Luemm3l]

can we please stop talking about 1.5, we are already beyond that. not in terms of actually having it reached right now, but the goal of not surpassing 1.5 at the middle of the century has already passed, having current most up to date climate models at hand. the paris climate agreement is de facto now already broken and instead of now really talking about alternatives, current or planned contracts for fossil fuel extraction during the COP28 are already discussed behind closed doors. we have some wimpy, surface level windowshopping dressing talks and solutions, but there is no foreseeable course of action in the future that will keep us on the lower scenarios, so being the cynic and pessimist that I am, we have to talk about the higher scenarios in the ipcc report at the end of the centuries. Which means catastrophes will come, tippoing points will be passed. We do not know when, we do not know how hard. but brace yourselves anyway. And people ask me why I do not have kids yet lol....

[@cityofwelland634]

I thoroughly enjoyed this lecture. Living in Canada in the Niagara Region we have seen many changes to our climate. However the impact on our lives has been generally positive as we are experiencing less severe winters and shorter spring and fall temperatures and longer summers. But something odd is happening. The wildlife is changing, the ash bore which killed all our ash trees was terrible but nature simply takes over in another form. Sadly we may not like where it goes. Anyway great lecture. Looking forward to hearing more.

[@kevintewey1157]

"So far the changes are positive but you may not like where it's going" that's a confusing message you should get more research done

[@cityofwelland634]

Hello Kevin you are correct it is simply an opinion. I am not a scientist. But I enjoyed what they had to say. @@kevintewey1157

[@cdineaglecollapsecenter4672]

GDP is not a useful metric in this situation. The economists think you could lose the entire agricultural sector and it would only affect the GDP by 3%.

[@brucefrykman8295]

*RE: "GDP is not a useful metric in this situation. The economists think you could lose the entire agricultural sector and it would only affect the GDP by 3%."* Precisely, according to our leftist politicians hiring armies of useless bureaucrats to "study" the climate adds to the GDP but then so does crime and in much the same way.

[@rhythmandblues_alibi]

​@@brucefrykman8295omg what 😆

[@brucefrykman8295]

@@rhythmandblues_alibi Its not a difficult concept. GDP refers only to money changing hands. It does not measure the usefulness of the spending. When woke leftists go on their rampaging pilgrimages burning, looting and pillaging it increases the GDP by paying the people who are employed to rebuild, repair and clean up after their mayhem and destruction. Similarly, spending trillions on useless "climate fixers" who only consume resources while producing nothing of value whatsoever also adds to the GDP. In my opinion, all of the jet exhaust fumes they produce as they traipse all over the globe are worth nothing at all. The millions of barrels of oil they waste annually could be put to far more valuable life enhancing use don't you think?

[@davidwalker2942]

The presenter's analysis undoubtedly is correct from a technical standpoint. What is missing imo are the surprises or previous unknowns occuring which are resulting in climate change happening faster than scientists predicted, or were totally unexpected. Accordingly, we should be acting in accordance with the four central tenants of the Precautionary Principle as applied to environmental science.

[@bundleofperceptions1397]

This overemphasis of a 30-year average seems a bit foolish. If the temperature reaches a level where crops cannot grow at the scale needed to feed the population, it won't much matter what the 30-year average is. Just like our bodies can tolerate minute amounts of arsenic, but as little as 0.1 grams can be fatal regardless of what the 30-day average level of arsenic in the system has been.

[@SickPrid3]

majority of edible products in western countries are ending up in the garbage we are very far from not being able to feed the planet. the current food shortages in third world countries are a result of neglect or sometimes deliberate actions of bad players for example, Africa could feed itself but instead of transferring technologies to make it possible, western world is sending the rice, condoms and potatoes. Why? because Africa needs to be poor and depending on others to be exploited

[@MarkYoung-l8f]

lol The joke and Delusional Hopium is "staggering". 1.5'c is well and truly in the rear view mirror. We will be lucky if we keep it below 3'c. In fact past performance indicates Hothouse Earth by 2100.

[@anthonymorris5084]

So it's much higher than 1.5? And yet, here we are, safer, more prosperous and healthier than at any time in history. The endless climate mantra: "Just you wait, it's going to be bad, you'll see". Repeat decade after decade in perpetuity.

[@stephengrice1678]

The question is WHO cares about 1.5 degrees. Which politicians are making plans. Are world business leaders thinking about 1.5 degrees

[@j.s.c.4355]

Yeah, the Economists’ practice of deflating future costs means that economists will never address any problem until it is imminent. I wish that Economists would learn not to deflate any ecological impact that will be felt in the lifetime of their own children. A child born today in the West has a better than even chance of being alive in 2100.

[@anthonymorris5084]

No credible scientist on the face of the Earth would back your prediction.

[@christopherwalton1373]

Don’t you all know? We’re all doomed DOOOOOMED!

[@Jc-ms5vv]

Have been for decades. We just like to pretend like we our going to make changes to our lifestyles. Like a bunch of junkies thinking they’re going to quit using tomorrow

[@32582657]

If one is looking for a more basic explanation of why a seemingly small temperature increase will have major global effects (as might be suggested by the title) this lecture never gets to that.

[@brentkn]

Agreed. Just keep reminding people that land temperatures warm faster than ocean temperatures and the these low temperatures are just the average over the entire world where land only accounts for 29% of the surface. Then tell them thast during the Great Dying or Permian Mass Extinction Event that wiped out 95% of all life, the Earth only warmed up an average of 5°C or 3.3°C warmer than it is today. Tell them that most life was alread gone at 5°C and died out at 3°C or 1.3°C warmer than it is today.

[@brucefrykman8295]

@@brentkn The Earths oceans contain more than 70,000 times the mass of it atmosphere while the specific heat of water is more than 4 times that of air - oceans therefore contain more than 280,000 times the heat of the atmosphere. I cannot speak for the entire planet but the atmosphere that wanders over the entire USA has not warmed at all. In fact it has cooled by 0.73 degrees F. Since its the same air that wanders over the rest of the planet I image its much the same all over. Assuming the globe actually begins to warm, how long do you think it would take to impart 280,000 of joules of heat to the seas from each joule of atmospheric heat.

[@rhythmandblues_alibi]

​@@brucefrykman8295lot of assumptions going on there mate.

[@brucefrykman8295]

@@rhythmandblues_alibi *RE: "lot of assumptions going on there mate."* Yes there are, they're just not mine. If you will notice, my scientific statements don't contain the usual "might" "could" or "maybe" (dis)qualifiers of government "science." I'm dead certain we are being swindled by government "science" and can prove it.

[@TheJgibbons]

What did we really learn listening to this lecture? How to analyze pettiness while the earth dies.

[@Tailspin80]

In the same way as policymakers at COP can argue late into the night about “phase out” vs “phase down”. It’s pathetic. Why don’t they just come out and say they are a useless waste of space and all go home.

[@matthauslill4577]

It gives me headache to listen to this helpless Oxford physics. ​@@Tailspin80

[@a.randomjack6661]

Ocean heat uptake and the global surface temperature record Grantham Institute Briefing paper No 14 September 2015 Paper says that if the heat accumulated in the oceans was moved to the atmosphere, add 36°C to the warming if 2015. Yes, that heat, most of it, will transfer to the atmosphere with time, no matter what we say about 1,5°C or even 5°C 🤷‍♂

[@thomasglendenning3486]

will this guy ever get to the point? Shouldn't take this much time to explain to us the importance of a 1.5 degree temp change ... NO!

[@gustavderkits8433]

The first fifteen minutes are poor and may lose some viewers. The rest of the talk is well worth watching.

[@mawkernewek]

50:30 Think about it like a black hole, whichever point in central London you choose as the 'singularity' doesn't matter much, what matters is crossing the 'event horizon' or not.

[@toram6210]

The first graph is significant Tells you everything 😮 Yet the government still saying 2050 keep below 1.5 degree

[@rdallas81]

Government lies and propaganda. All will break down. Everything breaks down- For all came from the ground, and all will go back to the ground which they ate.

[@mnmewing]

In the end, he talked only about limiting CO2 from fossil fuels. They are only half the problem. What about agriculture, cement, and other processes that create global warming gasses that we can not live with?

[@o_o8203]

And *pollution*

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

7:35 Blasting audio means automatic thumb down. Embedded ads not necessarily so bad, it depends. But that blast is just not acceptable.

[@rdallas81]

No one cares.

[@vthilton]

Save Our Planet Now!

[@danwatson171]

32:31 the original preindustrial date is 1750 not 1850 or 1900. As a result of this the phrase “sooner than expected” always accompanies observed destructive weather patterns or a “once in a blah blah years event” label. The bridge thinks we’ve still got time but those with their ear against the engine house know we are facing global human extinction before we see 2030.

[@DrSmooth2000]

I might not make it to 2030 but hope someone likes this comment to see if I am. I say by 2030 NorthAm may have had one or both of a bad hurricane or Midwest drought worse than 2002?

[@rdallas81]

​​@@DrSmooth2000You will be ok brother. Stay positive, be observant, be true. Yes we are witnessing major changes, environmentally and even socially, and Many physically. Changes are here but big changes that will redraw maps, change coastlines and temperature and weather changes will reshape nations and international borders and peoples is coming and fast.

[@DrSmooth2000]

@@rdallas81 more a personal forecast. I think will be stressful but not critical climate events for century perhaps. Barring Intervention 🙏 🤲 disasters eventually we stabilize to a lazy Hothouse Climate.

[@tnekkc]

recycling the original sin hoax

[@cityofwelland634]

I thoroughly enjoyed this lecture. Living in Canada in the Niagara Region we have seen many changes to our climate. However the impact on our lives has been generally positive as we are experiencing less severe winters and shorter spring and fall temperatures and longer summers. But something odd is happening. The wildlife is changing, the ash bore which killed all our ash trees was terrible but nature simply takes over in another form. Sadly we may not like where it goes. Anyway great lecture. Looking forward to hearing more.

[@MattScofield]

Let's make an hour long video to ensure no one will watch it, and make the intro extra long so we can delay getting to the point as much as possible, great job

[@mysticalskiessuriname]

I totally agree. I was thinking exactly the same so I decided to read the comments 😂😂 Now he is talking about cop28 which in my opinion the same blah blah promise as previous cops So no, I do not trust this guy

[@mysticalskiessuriname]

Btw he never got to the point and his conclusion is BS

[@mysticalskiessuriname]

He said "come back for tipping points" 😂😂😂

[@mysticalskiessuriname]

In my opinion it is al about tipping points. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT. Sad to say I watched it until the end hoping to learn something. Happy to say that I learned not to trust all scientists. The T-shirt story, the correct text for him would be: I am a scientist trying to fool people by pretending to be on the side of climate activist.

[@JR-iu8yl]

​@@mysticalskiessurinameif you have a short attention span just say that

[@markstockton571]

If these academics actually cared about climate change we would spend less money on alarmism and more on solutions, we don't need 70,000 cop attendees produce a horredous amount of CO2 flying to dubai. Alarmism employs more people then the solar and wind power industries combined, how can we possibly solve climate change when the bulk of the money is spent to just talk about it?

[@PEdulis]

Thank you for the interesting lecture. Regarding your remark on storing enough CO2 to neutralise the CO2 production caused by burning fossil fuels: Storing CO2 takes a lot of energy. Where should this energy come from to store that much CO2? Surely it cannot come from burning fossil fuels and at least presently, it seems hard to see how to produce enough renewable energy to do what we already need without using a large chunk of it on storing CO2.

[@davestagner]

The best (and only) long-term CO2 sequestration concept I’ve seen that appears workable is dissolving it in water and then injecting that in basalt rock formations. The CO2 reacts with the basalt, forming carbonate rocks. Over 99% of the carbon on Earth is in carbonate rocks, and they’re incredibly common (like 20% of the land surface and 70% underwater), so capacity is there, and Carbfix in Iceland is currently doing it for about $20/ton at scale. But that’s just sequestration, not capture. You’re right, the energy required for real carbon capture/sequestration at scale won’t happen until we’ve mostly replaced fossil fuels with renewables (or nuclear, for those clinging to that dream). But I figure that if we can make enough renewables to get off of fossil fuel, we can make enough to do carbon capture to bring the atmosphere back down into the sub-300ppm range again. It might take decades, but it can be done. Just now right now. Stopping fossil fuel consumption is absolutely the first priority.

[@PEdulis]

@@davestagner The problem with "It might take decades" is that we do not have decades left. It is as simple as that. Given the current situation, the 20 gigatons more of CO2 that we release into the athmosphere every year than can be captured by natural means and the fact that we do not have enough clean energy to store CO2 in any way, shape or form simply means that the goal of 1.5 C is no longer obtainable with all the devastating effects this will have.

[@davestagner]

@@PEdulis Oh, I agree that 1.5C is unattainable, and I wish we’d switch the metric to CO2 (and methane) levels rather than temperature. But do we have decades? Depends on your time scale. I think of human time in orders of magnitude. There’s what we can do in a year, what we can do in ten years, what we can do in a century, what we can do in a thousand years, ten thousand, a hundred thousand, a million. Because there will probably be humans in a million years, and we should assume that. We’re not going to be able to get off fossil fuels or build effective carbon capture in 10 years… but we might be able to do it in 100. Lately, I’ve shifted away from Longtermist anxiety about human extinction (which is low likelihood) and focused more on human catastrophe, which is quite possible, even in what’s left of my lifetime. (I define “catastrophe” as losing 10% or more of the human population outside of normal lifespans.) So preventing catastrophe, not just now or in the next 3 decades or so that I might live, but for however long it takes us to end our various environmental overshoots… that’s what I care about. And stopping fossil fuel consumption is #1 on my list. Carbon capture is a few down from that, because if we just leave things where they are now, we STILL have a climate change problem.

[@PEdulis]

@@davestagner I agree that there will probably still be humans on earth for quite some time but the question is in which circumstances they will live. Not sticking to 1.5 C will cause sea level rise that will affect people in coastal regions as well as it will cause massive droughts in some and massive floodings in other areas, all of which will lead to less food for a (still) growing population. There are estimations that we will reach around 10 billion people by the year 2056 but also that there will only be enough food to feed around 2 billion people which would mean that 8 billion would either starve or get killed by wars caused by food shortages. There is also an interesting study regarding a rather nicely situated town called Linz in Austria that predict that most of it will be uninhabitable by 2050 which is in 17 years although it is on a river in the middle of Austria surrounded by plenty of green, not somewhere near an African desert. All of this will cause people to flee their countries and to try to get to safer countries. This alone will cause a lot of problems when you see how enraged many people are already with the relatively few migrants arriving nowadays. So what we are looking at are quite dystopian scenarios and therefore, I stick to what I said, we do not have the decades any more to fix things, we can only mitigate the disasters that await our children and grandchildren.

[@DrSmooth2000]

​@@PEdulissource on only enough food for 2b people?

[@SimonBransfieldGarth]

Liked the lecture a lot but the idea that "damage" is a quadratic is terribly misleading and likely to be wildly misinterpreted

[@volkerengels5298]

5:50 In Paris the bullies said "OK - Well below..." THEY never said "We do all for 1.5" And so they do.....

[@michaelstimpson1137]

There is also a lag between carbon emissions and effect on climate, if we stopped emitting today the effects will probably take is up another.2 of a degree, plus we have permafrost melting releasing methane, the tipping point of melting ice caps and permafrost is long gone no matter how much carbon gets sequestered.

[@mawkernewek]

52:45 in the graph on the right, the geological stored fraction [of CO2] by 2050 is reaching around 1%, so how can they say that fossil fuel emissions would no longer be contributing to global warming at that time if carbon capture and storage is ramped up, if even in the case where that gets scaled up, the geological stored fraction is still only 1%?

[@fw8008]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@curtiswfranks]

The quadratic joke was not only funny but is actually 'true'.

[@TennesseeJed]

We obviously can't slow down, so we'll pay with human lives.

[@iareid8255]

The Conference of Parties are a waste of time and money.and have never achieved anything from the start. The UAH temperature monitoring facility gives current warmnig as 0.014 Degrees per decade, significantly less than your estimate of 0.25 degrees per decade. The 1.5 degree limit was the result of politican pressure to reduce from the 2 degrees that was originally proposed, neither of which are scientifically based, and remember we are starting from a low baseline after the Little ice Age. The biggest factor of all is that we either revert to a medieval way of living, which very many suppport, or use the resources we currently use and especially for developing countries whose life is both difficult and short. Short of an immense increase in the use of nuclear power there are no other options.

[@ceismulcastle]

if dilley is right and the next global cooling cycle starts in 2024/25 we will not have to worry about the natural global warming cycle or the non existent climate emergency twaddle and we won't have to listen to the demonising rhetoric on fossil fuels or the spurious predictiions of grad student computer programmes

[@dalewolver8739]

We all know 1.5 is Long gone.

[@Rene-uz3eb]

We are destabilizing earth, with no precedent and no time to adjust to such a massive increase of 50% of atmospheric co2 on an evolutionary scale. The oceans have even more carbon and we have no idea about the interplay there. The climate is not some planetary constant, it evolved with life. All these assumptions about 1 degree 2 degree are completely missing the picture of upsetting any kind of balance the climate is in. Even the extra co2 we produce right now yearly and the increase in atmospheric co2 relationship could fall apart anytime. There is no precedent of releasing co2 like this. Co2 from Volcanic eruptions come with heavy soot, which has a different effect. Earth isn't acclimated to our kind of co2 release.

[@rosshill9469]

38% of the earth's land has been converted from wilderness to cleared farmland. In comparison only 5% of the earth's land has become urbanized. This conversion of wilderness ( mainly forests) to farmland has been going on since the paleolithic age. It has been steadily increasing as the population of the world has increased. I can't say this is the major reason our climate has slowly changed over thousands of years rather thasn recently because of industrial pollution but if it is because of increasing destruction of forests to make farmland then all the schemes instigated to reverse climate change are futile.

[@georgedavidson1221]

Only temperature increases reported in near island effect weather stations.

[@TheDanEdwards]

"Only temperature increases reported in near island effect weather stations." - false.

[@psikeyhackr6914]

3°C by 2100 rah, rah, rah!

[@psikeyhackr6914]

Have climate scientists ever thought that a lot of CO2 is the result of unnecessary manufacturing due to Planned Obsolescence? Ask an economist about PO, the result should be interesting. I asked a PhD economist to explain how an automobile engine worked. He couldn't even start but he drove a white SUV.

[@psikeyhackr6914]

GDP is Grossly Distorted Propaganda NDP is Not Done Properly The Net Domestic Product is missing the depreciation of durable consumer goods.

[@michaelstimpson1137]

Is it possible to show this lecturer's conflicts of interest? he seems to be rather biased away from current facts. The World Meteorological Organisation published a. Report saying that warming as of October is 1.4 degrees+/- 1.2, potentially pushing us well over 1.5 but also we have the warmest summer on record in the southern hemisphere which is going to add some to that. It doesn't matter how far the politicians push the goal posts it doesn't change the outcome. The electorate might be able to be manipulated and lied to but nature won't.

[@filika10]

When the Acropolis was built, the average temperature on earth was 4°C degrees higher than today. What are you trying to tell us now, with numbers and tricks

[@TheDanEdwards]

"When the Acropolis was built, the average temperature on earth was 4°C degrees higher than today."

[@justadam1917]

Lucky they've got all this to keep your attention distracted from all the real problems in the world

[@glennt1962]

Am, am, who is this speaker ? Would be nice to know his credibility at the beginning don’t you think? Am

[@Swede_4_DJT]

Temperature has been changing all the time. We are in a post glacial period.. so temperatures rising should be expected.

[@brucefrykman8295]

Question: If the people of my climate region petition for a one degree warmer average temperature over the next century and propose to balance our request out with an average temperature reduction by the same amount of similarly sized region in Antarctica, would this this then satisfy the needs of the Earth and its heavens?

[@Campaigner82]

Ok, the speaker cannot go “uh” all the time. It detracts from

[@danwatson171]

According to the original preindustrial timeline of 1750, the planet averaged at 1.54C in 2023. Any talk of keeping under 1.5C is now called climate change denial, so please call out any future videos that mention it.

[@Jc-ms5vv]

Andrew glikson work shows we passed 2c already

[@matthauslill4577]

Pre-industrial temperature around 1850 was aprox 13,5 C, the coldest temperature of the last 10.000 years! As per WMO we not even reached 15 C, the medium temperature of the holocene. But during the 5.000 year long climate optimum of the holocene, from around 10.000 to 5.000 BP the average temperature was mainly about 1 C higher than today. Around 16 C. Therefore the optimum global average temperature would be 16 C. This would be 2,5 C higher than the pre-industrial temperature! I hope we will reach this temperature and perhaps our future CO2 emissions will help to reach this temperature. But I fear we don't have enough fossil fuels.

[@TheDanEdwards]

"But during the 5.000 year long climate optimum of the holocene, from around 10.000 to 5.000 BP the average temperature was mainly about 1 C higher than today. " - nope, and do you know what "optimum" means?

[@SmokeGray]

There hasn’t been a climate baseline in 4.59 billion years. I don’t like greenhouse gases, but there’s absolutely zero evidence that rapid warming in the present interglacial period is aberrant. On the contrary, most of the geological evidence from ice cores, and marine sediment cores, shows a typical climate trend. These discussions will become anachronistic as the climate moves stepwise again towards glacial maximum, as everything above 40 degrees north is tilled by giant ice lobes, and as the soils of the corn and wheat belts become permafrost.

[@TheDanEdwards]

"There hasn’t been a climate baseline in 4.59 billion years."

[@skeletalbassman1028]

We still need to ask ourselves why we've chosen the Little Ice Age as our baseline climate period. There are reasons, but we should remember that people were COLD in the 19th Century and that crops failed A LOT.

[@HLBear]

We thrive in a very narrow climate band. Even though humans feel like we can adapt to any climate, we also rely on a steady world for our food. Too cold or too hot, too wet or too cold - we won't last long.

[@Muddslinger0415]

We’re did you see that we use the little ice age as the base line. Our base line is from pre industrial temperatures 200 years ago

[@skeletalbassman1028]

@@Muddslinger0415 that’s the little ice age. Google “little ice age”.

[@volkerengels5298]

Not true. There was no global cold in 19th Century. The global phase ends in 17th

[@davestagner]

How about we use CO2 levels, rather than temperatures, as our baseline? We know precisely how much CO2 was in the atmosphere for the past several thousand (or hundred thousand) years, by testing the air in bubbles trapped in glacial ice cores. Through the course of pre-industrial human civilization, we were around 280ppm CO2. Now, we are at 420ppm and growing 2.6ppm/year. This is much more precise and measurable than temperatures.

[@thomasdonovan3580]

When we enter into another warming-cooling phase (6 in the last 1200yrs) a lot of people are going to have egg on their faces.

[@Krautastic]

Are you talking about the cooling periods over the last million years? Most charts label the x axis as thousands of years, which means 1000*(1000) years. And yes, earth had multiple ice ages/cooling events. None of those cooling periods had more than 300 parts per million CO2 and we are on our way to 400 parts per million with no signs (or processes) of slowing that down. CO2 traps heat which will do a whole lot to stop any potential cooling, but also, 'civilizations' have only occurred in the very stable period of temperatures and co2 levels of the last 100k years. Can't really have a stable society if you have to be nomadic chasing food and livable conditions.

[@deepashtray5605]

Exactly when is that going to happen? It's kind of an important question.

[@michaelstimpson1137]

By that time, even if it happens within 200 years there probably won't be any eggs though... Or humans.

[@DrSmooth2000]

​@@Krautastic100kya the Eemian was over by what 15ky? We were that deep into glacial advance that would continue until LGM 20kya Warm part of Younger Dryas was habitable by civilized people until the glacial advance snapped back. It'd be possible to keep civilization in a glacial advance period if climate refugees head to equatorial belt and we focus on desalination plants as globe enters arid period...

[@ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095]

Down Voted for forcing me to listen to "begging for cash" letters. Also, next time try a speaker without such an absolutely disgusting sniff. {:o:O:}

[@deepashtray5605]

Who forced you to listen?

[@ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095]

@@fullmontyuk *_"He was obviously going down with some kind of infection"_* "Some kind of infection"! You mean like a cold? He should have cancelled rather than subject people to that disgusting display of anti-ASMR. {:o:O:}

[@ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095]

@@fullmontyuk Then he should have muted his mic every time he slurped and snorted and slimy, slurpy sniffed. People do it in pod casts. Anyway, I didn't watch it and I doubt I ever will watch anything he is in if he is that ignorant every time. {:o:O:}

[@fractalnomics]

I've radiated 100% pure CO2 through a hairdryer. A 250,000% increase in concentration from the free air. There was no noticeable change in the outlet temperature. I was actually scared when I undertook this experiment, it could be hazardous based on the said climate sensitivity of CO2. Nothing happened.

[@Gringohuevon]

boring