No 1.5 Without Intervention

[@MrPagan777]

Don't expect the public to pay, because many of them think this is all a scam to get more taxes out of them. I'd suggest reclaiming EVERY CENT of oil company profits since 1970.

[@scribblescrabble3185]

what! you wnt to tax the rich? Never, I want my billionairs to be even richer.

[@kazparzyxzpenualt8111]

Live simply, so others may simply live.

[@russtaylor2122]

The underlying message is: We're past 1.5, the carbon capture is a fart in a thunderstorm, let's mitigate but carry on drilling and clearing. Let's keep breeding and finding ways to keep very old and frail people alive and deny them the opportunity to be assisted to die with dignity. politics worldwide is totally controlled by massive mostly oil producing corporations. By refusing to concede that we're done, you just prolong the agony. I know! let's spend an huge amount on moon shots and space exploration! Don't do anything as we need more science! Oh, what's the point? Enjoy breathing in the crap they will spray into the atmosphere to seed clouds, without any idea of the unforeseen consequences...

[@sparkybob1023]

would we be disappointed, if.. it all turned out different but ok. GAIA has some tricks.. dimethyl sulfide.. and however this majical virus emerged along with the trillions for the one percent. virtue signalling weaponized. there are viruses dear russy that could wipe out 90 % of humanity in a couple weeks. and still the carbon would creep out, academics need to adapt.

[@LXS-ud6yf]

Kudos for describing the actual state of affairs, not the hopium that usually gets trotted out.

[@mariusm5660]

well said.

[@neomateo944]

We'll just keep kicking the can until we run out of road...

[@Diego-fb5fq]

Another Natalia Shakhova, BRAVO Anni! for showing how we all feel. Anger, sadness, hope & despair, fight and/or flight. Even if it is too late, you find your own place to make a stand so to preserve your own peace of mind.

[@obsoleteoptics]

We already passed 1.5 didn't we?

[@alanj9978]

Only for 1 year ... so far.

[@sobolanul82]

1.48C last year. But they calculate it as a median for a decade. So we are not at 1.5 but closing fast. James Hansen says 1.5 will be reached this decade.

[@koicaine1230]

In 2023 officially 😢

[@koicaine1230]

I haven't given up on trying to save the planet, I have a 7 y/o that's going to have to live through this, I can't quit trying.

[@comotucovfefe4349]

Let me check my rear view mirror.

[@willownation]

It's too late; the amount of carbon about to be released from the Canadian boreal forest is so great that no amount of intervention can stop it at this point. The feedback loop is already here.

[@TCRgalaxy]

Petroleum based Parasitic Plague Phase is in full swing…8.2 BILLION aka WASF

[@heww3960]

I dont think it will go away all at once.

[@PeterJamieson-h2p]

move to Greenland@@TCRgalaxy

[@romanbrandle319]

I've been a doomer for about 15yrs and you are right the feed back loops are every where, here in Sydney we have the humidity of the tropics and yet it's a temperate climate region.

[@DrSmooth2000]

@@davidmcinnis154 speed is issue. Intensity of retropicalization is fine. Princelli Hull of Yale contrasts the PETM w a 2-5ky upswing of +7 (over an existing +10? 😶) did not cause widespread extinction The 2-50h after the End-K asteroid impact followed by 10y of nuclear winter was a major extinction The 2-5c for AGW is maddeningly in between those scales of adaptive time. Room to not Doomer perhaps

[@quarrellousquaker]

It's probably safe to say that we won't be able to avoid the 1.5C threshold WITH interventions...

[@catrandy7957]

We hit 1.48C in December. We'll hit 1.5C this month or next.

[@IveJustHadAPiss]

@@catrandy7957 you might want to read Hansen's latest papers. 1.48c is the IPCC gilded cushion version based on the 1850 baseline. The one the media use to avoid climate anxiety and mass civil disobedience.

[@ronwalker4998]

We are already there

[@sweetindigo1]

They said its already happened, there is really no turning it back, its time for acceptence!

[@wallaceanature2788]

As Dr Hansen said in this presentation, "1.5°C is dead in the water, 2°C is on it's deathbed" only achievable to stay within 2° WITH interventions. The question on these limits now is *for how long* will we surge above 1.5°C , or how quickly can we pull it back below this level?

[@obsoleteoptics]

Why wasn't MEER mentioned!?

[@kazparzyxzpenualt8111]

Ought to fully explain consequences of any sudden disappearance of existing atmospheric masking too, no?

[@obsoleteoptics]

@@kazparzyxzpenualt8111 Yes!

[@reverands571]

Crop yields are already on the decline. Climate Change is about food supply, first.

[@DrSmooth2000]

FAO anticipates 1.1% increase until 2032 (end of estimation period)

[@Stan-b3v]

They won’t allow farmers to use fertilizer as they require. But even so per acre yields have increased dramatically. Probably because there is more CO2 in the atmosphere.

[@scribblescrabble3185]

@@Stan-b3v huh? after looking some of the common crops up, I do not see any increase in per-hectar-yields in areas that already fully industrialised their agrarian sector, like EU and US. And that despite the increase in CO2 levels in atmosphere. On the contrary, there is a slight decline. (edit: I used statista, a statistics and data aggregator)

[@reverands571]

Any SRM scheme, must include how much heat is retained at night. It often outweighs the reflected Sunlight.

[@Adam-Flint]

James Hansen explained in simple terms what he calls the "Faustian bargain," which started, when talking about global warming, by having injected masses of aerosols in the atmosphere at the same time we increased CO2 levels. The first has a cooling effect, the second a warming effect. When burning fossil fuels as our industrial society does, the warming effect is largely prevalent. But what is also called the global dimming (this Faustain bargain) is a trap, as Hansen tells us, condemning us in the end to a massive failure. Aerosols are very short-lived, Co2 will last a very long time (between 300 and 1,000 years + all the feedback effects). So, there is no real way out. And here we go with the very dangerous fantasy of injecting huge quantities of sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere. Because there is nothing else; carbon capture is pure fantasy to deflect from the problem. Last year, the world released more CO2 than ever in the atmosphere, despite all the talk about "renewables," and 28 COPs. Since the first COP in 1992, 60% of all GHGs were released in the air. They were never serious about doing anything of a slight consequence while the science of global warming was well known by all. The idea that more "technology" with geoengineering can save us when all governments are so incompetent-or rather choose to advertize for evermore growth, using more and more energy (fossil fuels or needing fossil fuels to be processed), making more and more things directly based on fossil fuels again...When technology brought us were we are, on the verge of the precipice (J. Hansen couldn't be clearer about that, and he is right), why would we believe that: that technology will save us, in a crazy race forward, and honestly, out of desperation.

[@janklaas6885]

tech is the new Jesus

[@ronmignery9526]

So since technology created the problem, it is crazy to seek a solution with technology? In fact the technology exists today to sufficiently reduce CO2 emissions completely, namely via solar panels and batteries. Solar is so cheap now that new and even existing fossil fuel generation is economically uncompetitive. For economic reasons alone, it is thought by some that most fossil fuel use will decline to insignificance in this century though fossil fuel use will continue and may briefly increase as the solar (and wind) infrastructure is built out. During that period, mitigation of global warming with stratospheric injection of sulfates could stop the progression and could be done by simply requiring commercial aircraft to burn high sulfur fuel when flying in the stratosphere.

[@mark_handle]

The common claim that "tech got us here therefore tech can't get us out of here" is logically flawed thinking. The same thinking would mean that if an electrical short started a fire in my home, I should not make use of any technology in order to put the fire out. No phone calls to the fire department, no use of tools... Come on. SAI and especially MCB are both quite high-tech, but both may (maybe!) can work. However, simple low-tech mirrors made from PET plastic and aluminum from landfill can do what the snow and ice does without toxic spills and without dimming the sun. That is what MEER is all about. Of course, our world is tied up in knots to push us toward solutions that make big powerful organizations big money, which a low-tech solution cannot do, so not many people know about it or are willing to speak up about it (speaking of scientists) but it is slowly getting noticed because things really are that bad.

[@raquelash616]

this was very well said. i think more research needs to be put into carbon capture. im no scientist but isnt there a way to encourage an increase of carbon eating life forms? its always good to see counter arguments.

[@kirkha100]

Behind the curve still. This is about Overshoot.

[@freeheeler09]

Overpopulation

[@EmeraldView]

We've long ago overshat.

[@alexspringett]

did you mean overdshat ? : ) i mean its a good overshoot slang term @@EmeraldView

[@danielfaben5838]

We love ourselves the most. Love may be the wrong word though. We fear suffering and will do most anything not to actually feel. The suffering most feared is not having all that we have been given and not being able to continue the habits and addictions of this industrial life.

[@mariusm5660]

It is not "we" it is "they"

[@treefrog3349]

Nice James Hansen-like hat! I totally trust your individual objective capabilities.

[@EmilyTienne]

Person with high BP: Never felt better in my life. Why start on a pill? (Ten years later dies of massive stroke). Person learning about climate change: I am really enjoying these warm, snowless winters! (Ten years later…flooded coastal cities, unbearable summers, charred forests). AS HUMANS, WE ONLY REACT ONLY AFTER IT’S TOO LATE.

[@AssadNizam]

Annie has a bright future as a public speaker. That speech started off so hard. She only started to trail off at the very end, but i think she was nervous and tired and by then the adrenaline was crashing. Overall excellent job. The passion was electric to see.

[@billr1129]

Yes, well done, passionate delivery

[@JohnSweazy]

We had a chance to avoid the most destructive changes about sixty years ago and we had a good chance of mitigating some of the worst consequences of our reckless behavior but I believe we have passed the point where avoiding this climate catastrophe is possible rather our everts now need to be the survival of enough people to maintain the continued existence of the human species!

[@miguel5785]

This is a very grim perspective of a future of which we either emerge as the stewards of a highly domesticated planet or we perish.

[@martinb5367]

there is no such thing as a tame planet, if you study life on Earth you will see that we F * * * * * up with the wrong people... ops planet, it was deadly with 99% of species that ever existed. We are pretty much extinct it's a second of time in a planetary time scale.

[@DoseofTruth]

90% perish the rest ride out the storm

[@DrSmooth2000]

​@@DoseofTruthretropicalizing earth is rewilding

[@Rene-uz3eb]

It seems the most immediate concern might be the ocean circulation being lost with arctic ice gone. That might already be close to terminal because the circulation will be needed to distribute recycled nutrients like iron around the ocean. Without that I doubt iron fertilization is even feasible, losing co2 sequestration by the ocean.

[@ronwalker4998]

And what externalities will that cause .. wheres the wisdom in that .. just so we can maintain our lifestyles

[@DrSmooth2000]

​@@ronwalker4998IPCC has no expectation of AMOC collapse this century. Weakening ofc had some iimpact. Question the use of urgency whe. Referi g to affairs of 2163AD

[@victorjcano]

If the US in northern Europe thinks that climate migration is bad now, we haven’t seen nothing yet.

[@derrickcox7761]

Yep...getting lots of gas right now! Oooooooo...wind is breeeeaking!!!

[@miguel5785]

We finally had rain along with wind and a mass of polar air and for the first time I saw the mountains from more than 200 km afar. The world looked beautiful for two days. I'd rather we cut emissions quickly and not add more.

[@deanfowles3707]

Not gonna happen. Accept reality

[@drTAMU-T]

So the massive polar cold that grips the Earth more frequently every year now is not hinting that global warming is unscientific?

[@miguel5785]

@@deanfowles3707 I cannot accept the physical horror of a mass extinction nor the moral horror of thinking that we know but don't care enough.

[@alexanderking5395]

Your intro about the current state of Climate change was more honest and upfront than most IPCC reports ive looked at. Thankyou.

[@BombusMonticola]

Spot on Anni.

[@President_NotSure]

no more research 8 billion is too many.

[@kirkha100]

What problems would not be significantly mitigated if there were fewer human beings living in the Global industrial civilization? 8 billion is too many.

[@President_NotSure]

humans will self limit it's already happening

[@widescreen8964]

You take the lead then.

[@TennesseeJed]

We won't do central planning because we have spent the last half century teaching everyone to abhor central planning as communism.

[@danielfaben5838]

@@widescreen8964 If no one will follow then very little point. On the other hand, don't be too surprised when people start killing each other little bits of stuff and following some populist.

[@EddieGNAR]

Great points Anni Pokela

[@rubyvolt]

LOL. We are already aproaching 2.0 above 1750 avg. You all keep using 1850 or so which is why you claim we have not hit 1.5. What a joke.

[@miguel5785]

Using the 1750 baseline you'd have to add 0.5º to all tipping points thresholds and the rest of the calculations based on the 1850 baseline, so how does that matter?

[@rubyvolt]

@@miguel5785 when THEY say we are at 1.5 now, they ignore that .5. So you have to add .5 to what they say it currently is. As you just said. We are actually approaching 2.0. SO ITS ALL OVER ALREADY. Its TOO LATE. We are going to 3 barring Yellowstone or something.

[@radscorpion8]

Apart from the first extremely monotone presenter this was a wonderful presentation; and thanks to everyone involved. This is a critical subject and it is irresponsible for climate scientists to advocate for anything other than major geoengineering interventions. The last scientist who stood up is a perfect example of that blindness. He thinks reduction of GHG is sufficient when the whole point of the presentation is that it is obviously not and we risk hitting many more tipping points with this insane approach. Its like he wasn't listening at all. We have to research and apply the best geoengineering approach to protect our planet now, there is no choice, and you only need common sense to see this.

[@scottmears7490]

We are at 1.5 since last April we hit 2 a few times, next year we’ll pass the lying and the ignorant. I don’t watch when 1.5 is mentioned Check Paul Beckwith, Guy McPherson, Sam Corana, Margo’s healing corner and Jim Massa.

[@christill]

I think Anni was very good.

[@NomadicLiving]

Too bad you guys flew into Dubai instead of using Zoom.

[@mark_handle]

No amount of intervention, at this stage, is going to prevent 1.5. This panel discussion is valuable to a point, but without discussing all relevant and plausible interventions, for example MEER's land-based solar reflectors, it is crippled, particularly when one of the only two possible interventions mentioned, SAI, is filled with problems, specifically those regarding safety, which is the type of "feasibility" problem we need to be most concerned about. As long as we exclude open and broad discussion of SRM, and keep it limited, as is done here, to "most popular" proposals, we are likely to remain stuck in the mire of group-think and will hear only those voices with the ability to shout louder than others.

[@radscorpion8]

According to geoengineering, that just seems false. I mean first of all we have already passed 1.5 so to say "prevent" is technically already incorrect; but consider the possibility of blocking out the sun. We only need 1% dimming to lower the temperature by 1C.

[@mark_handle]

Your "that" is what exactly? If you mean my first statement, it's not false. No climate cooling intervention (SRM) can be enacted today that will be scaled up to prevent global average temps from skating beyond 1.5 (not just spikes either). Of course, eventually we might be able to bring them back down to levels seen when we were children. SAI may seem an elegant approach: you throw some stuff into the atmosphere and it all gets mixed in automatically and presto: instant sun dimming. But with that comes what else? Sun dimming itself is something to think about. Less sunlight for the life that needs it, for one, all over the world. How will that "small" change pan out? And what happens when all that stuff falls back down after being in the stratosphere for a year or so? Over and over again for decades...? These details are important. @@radscorpion8

[@vthilton]

Save Our Planet Now!

[@BombusMonticola]

For the year of 2022 the global average surface temperature was 1.67 C an average calculated above the pre industrial average using the same baseline as used by the IPCC (1850-1900) plotted and calculated by Eliot Jacobson former mathematics and computing professor, now a self professed climate analyst. The same person who brought to our attention the sea temperature anomalies of plus 5 C off the coast of the UK in April of last year. Any talk now of us keeping to 1.5 is for the birds and in fact passed in 2022.. It's not far fetched for us to be 2.0C above this year is it!?

[@A3Kr0n]

It's all a big Climate Casino!

[@MrPagan777]

+1.48c for 2023, the hottest year on record.

[@heww3960]

But we still havnt seen any big affects.

[@LarryCleveland]

⁠@@heww3960look at the economic cost of more frequent stores, drought, crop loss etc and that we aren't doing anything about it cooking the planet. Heat related deaths along will reach 😮levels. We're frogs in a simmering pot slowly being cooked. She's right. Many will die but it's likely billions will given biz as usual.

[@larrytaylor693]

2023 was 1.5 or more 2024 will be hotter you can bet on that

[@LarryCleveland]

We're so fked. Seems we would be in prepare for it mode.

[@noahbody9782]

World food production has been incredibly resilient to climate change damage, despite recent events. I wonder which extra molecule of CO2 released will finally cause a tipping point.

[@mark_handle]

I think you'll find that statement isn't true if you do some research. Global shortages in many crops in recent years are reported on regularly as high temperatures both bake crops and starve them of water through precipitation loss and evaporation of ground water.

[@cian5467]

I'm an ordinary person! The people that oppose this are loud but not so many. Please guide us ❤

[@Psychobellic]

geoengineering is like taking a medicine for the liver and keep drinking absinth after that because 'we're cool now'

[@ronwalker4998]

Geo-engineering is what we've been doing for the last 200 yrs .. it hasn't worked out that well for planet earth and now they want to do more? Gawd help us

[@DrSmooth2000]

​@@ronwalker4998we won't let them. Bodies on the line

[@radscorpion8]

@@ronwalker4998 That is such a blind position to take. Geoengineering comes in different forms. What we've been doing is releasing CO2 over the past 200 years that raises the temperature. What they want to do is the opposite to help lower temperatures. You can't just equivocate between everything. Its like saying eating junk food is the same thing as eating vegetables

[@gregmckenzie4315]

It seems clear that the "Great Simplification" is almost upon us. Soon things will get much more difficult for the poorest among us. Eventually our "civilization" will be gone for good. The natural world will adapt and continue to evolve but we have to wonder: "How many of our great grandchildren will be able to read or write?" This is merely an evolutionary adjustment. We should celebrate this outcome. Given all that our species has done, we should look upon ourselves as, possibly, the stupidest creature to ever walk on Earth. Time to move aside and let the other life forms carry on. Relax. This is all for the best.

[@radscorpion8]

lol i love you dramatic people XD. Seriously you make life so much more exciting. I am already preparing to live out my fantasy of living in a post apocalyptic world :D :D :D

[@HypermarketCommodity]

There is a simple and humble solution, reducing the humans sphere, this increases the ecosphere, without any additional interventions.

[@kirkha100]

How dare you! You mean to say there are too many humans using too much stuff, with leadership invested and incentivized to maintain business as usual? ……are you implying that the Earth is FINITE? I’m shocked. Shocked I tell you. The impertinence!

[@reverands571]

Powdered Olivine, at $2/ton, is the only removal process that makes any sense.

[@nsbd90now]

I read that as Ovaltine and thought "Sounds delicious!"

[@lukerlunker]

Yes. It is the new oil and we need to go all in if we hope to save ourselves.

[@A3Kr0n]

@@nsbd90now - Olivine is the green flavored beverage.

[@EmeraldView]

​@@nsbd90nowThat's going to require A LOT of milk!

[@antonyjh1234]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivine

[@glike2]

The balloon SRM patent should be challenged at the ICJ or using imminent domain, to make it public domain.

[@AfricaClimateBand-to1jj]

Good job Anni!

[@coweatsman]

Nothing said about reducing the human project in recognition that global warming is an effect of ecological overshoot. Trying to maintain BAU of growth while pretending to be concerned with climate is besides the point if the cause of problems is not known.

[@glike2]

24:15 Prof. Martin Siegert seems to have not listened to one word or lack critical thinking so he is not behaving like a scientist but just emotional.

[@glike2]

Anni Pokela's advocacy for research and clear explanation of the seriousness of the additional massive future damage without climate repair is just what we need to hear.

[@DrSmooth2000]

​@@TobinMiller-wt6yf likely paid by Big Coal. As soon as start SAI they are protected into 2324

[@russmarkham2197]

This is an excellent presentation. We must research these interventions. The risks were not well explained however. Knee-jerk resistance to this is wrong now. The situation is far too serious not to explore climate repair.

[@solarwind907]

Massive, solar farms, massive offshore wind farms, and free universal birth control. That would be a good start.

[@User53123]

The energy of solar panels can be increased by putting a glass panel of pressurized water above them. This is another area that should be researched because it would be very cheap to implement. Perhaps numerous panels could be stacked to increase the power enough that moonlight could power a solar panel too.

[@atrayser]

Way to go Annie you said that so beautifully

[@obsoleteoptics]

The spice must flow!

[@kbmblizz1940]

When I suggest to friends to drive less, go solar, eat less meat products...they laughed, "Climate crisis is a hoax, CO2 is good for plants. Carnivore diet is healthy". Orange maga's legacy. 😢

[@antonyjh1234]

Eat less meat products depend on what you replace it with. Ex vegan here and veganism is the worst system to go to. Meat these days either non arable land or crop waste before they take any human edible grain and even then it's not top quality so poor quality grain has to go somewhere along with the fact that we have to replace all of the animal, not just meat, the fats and all the energy in that would be impossible to replace from arable land along with meat. If talking about the amount of grain they do take, it's one third of the corn crop, not going to replace all that we get from that amount of land, one third of one crop, so unless they over consume meat, then sure but overconsumption of all foods is part of the problem. The world produced 3000 calories per person last year while we have record amounts of obesity and others, no food at all, stop being fat does so much more than just cutting out meat, which the more people go to crop based will mean animals are free to raise, due to all the waste. Good call on the driving, 636 kilowatts of energy in a tank of diesel, according to my last electricity bill that is equivalent to 5.2 months of my electricity use. Thats a huge amount of energy, that some people use to just go for a drive. If your power bill has your daily kwh how many days electricity is in a tank and then imagine if you went somewhere and used four tanks , that might equal their whole year of electricity use, then they might realise it's not just co2, it's energy into a system, where 99.9997% of the earths atmosphere mass is within 100 klm's. In a sq metre of air there are quite a few molecules, I couldn't work out the number other than 25 trillion trillion molecules in one sq metre of air and there is 100,000 of those between you and the outer atmosphere, now every million sized parcel of molecules we are adding 2.5 more particles each year and they then join to two oxygen molecules trapping all this energy we pump into the system in the form of heat and because sunlight and radiant heat are different then sunlight can pass through but radiant heat can't and that it's the heat that is being trapped, that is the issue, if we didn't generate the heat at the same time CO2 wouldn't be as much of a problem. I would suggest explaining it this way and it makes them realise we are part of a system, that logically works in one way and that we don't know how it will be, like every one degree c warmer the atmosphere can hold 7% more moisture, so what happens if the particular day the storm is on and it's 10c warmer in that one spot, can houses, roads, rivers handle 70% more volume/weight? Global warming could mean 100,000 years of rain, and if they haven't seen record amounts of flooding going on around the world then they must be blind and it's time to buy all of them canes.

[@MrPagan777]

@@antonyjh1234 I went to visit my brother today, on one of my self-imposed allowance of 6 bus trips per year (one train journey every 2-3 years). It was a 30 mile trip to get there, and every field I passed was flooded: great 'ponds' of standing water all over the place; trees submerged in several inches of water. The UK is completely sodden.

[@everythingmatters6308]

Human stupidity has doomed us all.

[@HealingLifeKwikly]

@@antonyjh1234 "Ex vegan here and veganism is the worst system to go to." Long-time vegan diet. Balanced vegan diets are healthy for most people, and a vegan diet is healthiest for the planet. If you can't go totally vegan, then it's best to eliminate beef and dairy and eat a low-meat diet with lots of whole plant foods.

[@JR954]

I listened to this discussion on climate science and dietary habits never discussed. Those with this message of change are pandering to the crowd who don’t understand or believe or getting wealthier while climate change progresses for the worst.

[@DonaldHawkins-b3r]

Just next year will be all the data we need. Then we can watch most human's, go shopping in simple terms.

[@martiansoon9092]

Superheated water... Needs large amounts of energy... And that leads to more emissions or at minimum large amounts of materials to create the energy sources... And what does this do to weather patterns, ecosystems and so on... Not that straight forward thingy.

[@martiansoon9092]

But yes, we need to research these geoengineering techiques, so we may be able to use them if situation worsens too much. Also researching these gives us some more understanding of our climate related systems and behaviors. And no, we should not use them to mitigate our emissions. We need to STOP BURNING fossil fuels and have other sources under control, before we even think these solutions in reality.

[@davidwischer3684]

We are way past 1.5C compared to the true start of the industrial age 1750! In Australia it’ at 1.8C compared to the made up date of 1850. The IPCC admitted year ago we are in the midst of a global extinction event caused by run away irreversible global heating especially ocean top 2,000M temperatures which are off the scale. Habit failure for sure by 2030 we need scientists to tell the truth that we have all got very short lives indeed now! Better prepared than in shock - climate shock is everywhere all over the Earth! If we do act then we overheat even quicker due to the loss of sulfates etc suspended in the atmosphere dropping out and cooking us like a roast dinner!😊

[@j.s.c.4355]

To the man who spoke at 24 minutes-Bravo! I agree wholeheartedly. The only thing that will minimize the damage is a steep decline in the population of developed nations. Luckily, that is precisely what is expected to happen according to the UN.

[@radscorpion8]

The whole point of the panel is that reduction in emissions is not sufficient alone. We now risk hitting more tipping points. I'm not sure how you (or the man at 24 minutes) missed this. If steep decline were sufficient then no one would be sounding the alarm

[@mark_handle]

The 24-minute-man may be right that no scientists he knows of support SRM. That can be explained by many things: simple ignorance, the fact of scientific knowledge-siloing, the fact that scientists risk their careers by supporting solutions outside their own, the fact that even very many scientists have not grasped that GHG management simply cannot stop rising temperatures before it is too late...And steep population decline is also not the answer.

[@poigmhahon]

1.5 is in the rear view mirror....2.5 is more likely, and immediate, not "decades" or even "centuries"....there comes a point where conservatism in science becomes a hindrance...that point is now.

[@grantkruse1812]

Gretta was right afterall.

[@jobpls]

Start bikiing and walking more!

[@rodchristoffersen7052]

A carbon credit scheme will not work, and is not the most efficient system with this scenario. Those administering the credit scheme will turn it into a enron trading ponzi scheme, we have seen this in Australia and the questionable enterprises buying cheap land and doing nothing and making claims of this or that without any benefit in terms of carbon capture. Personally listening to this talk I do not think emmissions talk is important anymore, we need actual carbon to be tied up in natural forests ( underground carbon capture will not work either as water travels though the substrata , most of the planet has been drilled/ mined/ fracked for resources and all these will make sequestering carbon underground incredible pointless) right now, no one on earth is actually sequesting carbon on any scale of importance and lowerring emissions will take too long and not actually reverse this process. I want action immediately not another summit. The most cost effective method will be to pay refugees to return to their homeland with a wage paid for by the wealthy countries of the world, fed by the world food aid programme, protected by the UN armed forces (again the wealthy countries need to committ to this wholeheartedly), and educated how to grow nature/ dig irrigation canals from lake victoria into kenya and ethiopia, manage permaculture systems, finish the aswan dam, and elevate their existence to semi-industrial farming from subsistence farming (and in payment for their wages to grow a percentage of their farmland into natural forests(or unnatural fast growing diversified forests if possible). This kind of idea can be utilised in other areas of the world also, I am just familiar with this particular place and some ideas will need adaptation to the specific case in other areas. Existing semi permaculture efforts in marginalised desertification at risk areas must also be enhanced and expanded. All houses in the world need to have their roofs painted white. The wealthiest countries on earth excluding china are all democracies, we need to simply tell our leaders what it is that we want, and it is not on TV inbetween the shows we watch, or in a political party. This issue is bipartisan, and also the system of governance does not matter (whatever your ism is demand action on this from your leaders). The other point is that the words/ terms you use to descibe these processes that are occuring/ failing do not impart the actual danger to peoples way of life EVERYWHERE, yes even wealthy countries will undergo drastic societal changes and migrations, and if we do not act NOW all will be lost eventually. Some societies may be able to hang on for a time but eventually all will undergo such drastic changes that many things we hold as granted will be no longer possible. Every day we waste now will astonomically increase the effort required adn the cost will also increase as we while away the days doing sweet F all abou this. Industry and envestment needs to fill vital deficiencies in this process, one being a renewabale arc reactor that can both smelt and recycle any material (I envision a fractionating column like arangement for metals. Ever battery ever produced by humanity is sitting in landfill waiting to be remelted and become functional again), turn it's back on building everything new for a throw away culture and committ to a product that is costed based on it's use, life span, impact on the earth and not it's ability to be made in a easily exploited country and recyclability. This is just my thoughts but the need to act now in a concerted effort WORLD WIDE and as a WORLD COMMUNITY (not competitors, customers, exploiters financially, military adversaries, religious apostates etc) is more imprtant than anything else. When I think about what will be required for survival alone in the nest decade I am worried. At 50 degrees celcius we will not be able to work outside without suffering kidney damage, malaria will afflict everyone as they migrate to the tropical areas due to desertification, all seas will have all year round cyclones/ hurricanes, rouge waves will increase in intensity and frequency, food sources will either migrate or be unavailable, water sources will be become both more dangerous due to flooding and droughts.

[@rodchristoffersen7052]

My main point is we need collective efforts and actual carbon sequestering in natural processess NOW (not artificially altering of heat/ chemistry as the changes we make in our atmosphere are only just this year being studied). Talk of emmissions time is over and now the plan has to change or....

[@rodchristoffersen7052]

I forgot to mention that seed banks in areas where the trees/ forests will not grow in this new environment will have to be sown so that something grows back, thus helping mitigate the damage.

[@reverands571]

Pinatubo, was thousands of tons, maybe millions, and it was very high.

[@dantedepiro5677]

You have to be pretty naive to think any of this matters, as nothing will be done. Corporations dictate policy, and do not care about externalities like the environment and people. Governments don't care about anyone except the corporations who back them. They aren't worried because they can live wherever they want and however they want regardless of whatever happens. The simple fact is fossil fuels are by far the most economically viable source of energy. That means more profits, which means they ain't stopping. So you can fancy yourself a "climate activist" if it helps you sleep at night. But you might as well move on and learn how to live with it, because it's already happening.

[@tbergentity]

they talk like geoengineering (dimming of the sun) has not been going on a long time and i don't like the effects

[@terenceharvey6432kong]

Why don't we try the haaarp its right there in Alaska it can charge the existing particles in the atmosphere to reflect the sunlight

[@TheDoomWizard]

Deader than a doornail.

[@publicdomain1103]

Tic toc. Dealing with addicts so entrenched in the hierarchical order of disorder and so many desirous of such position is in my opinion insurmountable when one ponders the momentum and trajectory established today. Fear and loathing that has been indoctrinated in the modern mind replaced our ancient ability to discern real threats and solutions. Technology for the sake of novelty and instant gratification has numbed the sensitive connection to Mother Earth and the real world in a finite, yet dynamic example of entropy. Memories are but vapor in the vacuum of space when maybe the true age of intelligence occurs. ShakeUp XR

[@JaseboMonkeyRex]

How can all these amazing people who care soooo much be missing the bigger conversation? That conversation is that climate change is a symptom of ecological overshoot. The Green energy revolution as being sold to us is a promise to continue with business as usual by other means... The focus on technical solutions alone is a gift to the fossil fuel industry. 40 years of failure and yet we still hear these conversations and nothing about ecological overshoot as the main cause... It means we need to reduce consumption, there are no negotiations on this... That's why emissions are growing, because consumption is growing with economic growth.

[@HealingLifeKwikly]

It's stunning how few people understand that unless we solve overshoot, collapse happens, but solving overshoot while feeding everyone requires much smaller, less industrialized, and more local economies coupled with simpler lifestyles and more plant-based diets.

[@mark_handle]

They do not miss the conversation, but keep in mind that the one you mention belongs to the social sciences, not the hard sciences, where most of the real work on climate change is done. Many scientists involved in climate change are very aware of this fact, but as expected in this world, all are tethered to their monthly paychecks. They need to work in narrow spheres to solve narrow problems. This is why there are all kinds of scientists offering all kinds of help for all of the different problems we have. I also wish that the biggest names in science, no matter what specific field, would stand up like James Hansen does and speak truth to power and stray from their narrow expertise to comment on obvious problems, such as the pathological quest by the 1% for neverending economic growth to load their bank accounts. We know out of control consumption and our entire culture egging it on is suicide, but people can lose their jobs and be blacklisted very quickly if they take on the power supporting their employers (government, universities and of course private sector).

[@kirkha100]

Great comment. Thanks.

[@cherilynnfisher5658]

Arkists must take the lead here and NOW! "Ribbon of Life Project" NOW!

[@psikeyhackr6914]

Doesn't Planned Obsolescence mean unnecessary manufacturing? Doesn't that mean putting more CO2 into the atmosphere? So when/where have Climate Scientists pointed this out and suggested doing something about it? Doesn't Planned Obsolescence amount to planned Depreciation? When/where have economists discussed the depreciation of durable consumer goods, like automobiles? Where is the data on the annual depreciation of automobiles purchased by American consumers since Sputnik? We constantly hear about economics but economists and politicians do not suggest mandatory accounting/finance in the schools. Would consumers refusing to buy junk help to reduce CO2 emissions? Consumerism and Sustainability are not compatible!

[@abelgarcia5432]

1.5 degrees won't be reached without Jim Jones Kool-Aid. but the guy who came up with 1.5 would say everyone but me since I came up with the idea.

[@antonyjh1234]

I find it such a shame the people we are listening too have fossil fuel clothes on. What is the point of having an oil based hat on, a synthetic jacket etc, can non oil choices not be made in the people we are supposed to look too?

[@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.

[@malikgreen9169]

Yes but now they pushing the goal post now we have to hit 1.5 multiple times to be considered over 1.5

[@sobolanul82]

Geoenginering will starve people. We know that from the past when polution from US and Europe changed the rain fall in Sahel Africa. Milions of africans starved. We cannot do this for mitigating the consequences in our rich countries and put at risk milions in Africa and Asia. And for what? To do business as usual and consume fossil fuel energy to satisfy our greed? No, we need to change ourselves and consume less of everything.

[@radscorpion8]

There are many types of geoengineering, for example they might put reflectors into space that merely dim the sun, not affecting rainfall whatsoever. You can't just blindly say no to the whole thing. Also a lot of the within-Earth solutions are merely about generating more harmless clouds which, if anything, would improve rainfall elsewhere.

[@DrSmooth2000]

Climate Repair is rebrand of geoengineering

[@planetmchanic6299]

There's no profit in not polluting the atmosphere. Just more yak about some silly paperwork. 97 tornados in one day? That ought to be a clue as to the reality of the new normal.

[@Fishcakebuttie]

I thought we hit 1.54 in 2023

[@reverands571]

We had 2°C warmer days in December, according to the World Meterological Organization---just 2, so far. How many 2° days do you suppose 2024 will bring; in 2025; etc. 7 plus billion people are going to starve, and quite soon. At 2°, the grain belts are 4°, according to the Ag. Dept. The land temperature is already 3.69°C warmer. Oceans bring the average down. Facts, not hopium, will lead us to adaptation nearer the Poles (Primates evolved in the trees, tiny ones, at 10°C PETM times. Keep that in the back of your mind. Guy M is wrong. Examine Geologic timescales, and realize we are warming 1000 plus times as fast. There is no time.

[@nsbd90now]

Borders are going to get bloody as entire populations of climate refugees are on the move. I'd bet all democracies will fail and global chaos well be well underway by 2030.

[@everythingmatters6308]

Guy is not wrong.

[@antonyjh1234]

Is this true though? You say facts but the honest truth is you have no clue, 2 Billion, the west, rely on oil for every single thing we do; that is running out, the rest of the world aren't going to have to adjust their using of dried dung for cooking or heating. It will be the richest few who die off first, the people who produce our food aren't going to value dollars over grain. It could be 100,000 years of rain which would make sense instead of dry and barren immediately, but with oil running out in a few decades, it might be that "modern countries" have so much more of a supply shock. Although, China is going to lose 600ish million people over the next 80 years, same as 23 countries are going to lose 50% of their populations, maybe the supply shock won't be as bad.

[@radscorpion8]

I'll stick with my hopium thank you very much

[@valkeryie5650]

Glad I am old, we are doomed. 😢

[@Diego-fb5fq]

It is a facile and illogical argument to say that because technology got us into a predicament, that it should not be considered for an attempt to get us out. Or to use a quote from Einstein about trying to "solve problems at the same level of thinking that we were at when we created those problems.” He's referring to "levels", not techniques. Scientific logic dictates that we assess each situation on its merits, and not fall into emotional tantrums. Unfortunately, our political situations already give us too much of that. Those who are profiting from our imminent demise are gaslighting us in so many ways, and they have studied these methods for a century or more.

[@reverands571]

Mirrors are currently being tested, to reflect Sunlight, back into space. How effective it is against the Releigh Scattering, I do not know.

[@ronwalker4998]

😅😅😅😅

[@radscorpion8]

yo that's my fav solution right there

[@A3Kr0n]

STEP #1: Explain how to deal with the demand for exponential growth. STEP #2: There is no step #2.

[@AtollK]

What about the global freezing occuring actually?...

[@mark_handle]

Global warming is also known as "climate change" because it involves both warming over time, and unusually large swings or changes in weather from high AND low temperature events, and precipitation events, cloud and wind events.

[@ClimateEmergencyForum]

Thank-you

[@Method9]

James Hansen sounding like Occupy!

[@georgehagstrom1461]

Live close to work. Drive less.

[@nsbd90now]

lol!

[@Jc-ms5vv]

Stop putting money into your 401k. Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em :)

[@antonyjh1234]

Stop driving for pleasure. 636 kilowatts of energy in a tank of diesel, according to my last electricity bill that is equivalent to 5.2 months of my electricity use. Thats a huge amount of energy, that some people use to just go for a drive. If your power bill has your daily kwh how many days electricity is in a tank and then imagine if you went somewhere and used four tanks , that might equal a whole year of electricity use, then people might realise it's not just co2, it's energy into a system, where 99.9997% of the earths atmosphere mass is within 100 klm's. In a sq metre of air there are quite a few molecules, I couldn't work out the number other than 25 trillion trillion molecules in one sq metre of air and there is 100,000 of those between you and the outer atmosphere, now every million sized parcel of molecules we are adding 2.5 more particles each year and they then join to two oxygen molecules trapping all this energy we pump into the system in the form of heat and because sunlight and radiant heat are different then sunlight can pass through but radiant heat can't and that it's the heat that is being trapped, that is the issue, if we didn't generate the heat at the same time CO2 wouldn't be as much of a problem.

[@radscorpion8]

yes that will reverse the damage (no it won't)

[@georgehagstrom1461]

​@@antonyjh1234Thank You for your reply. You mean stop burning fossil fuels for entertainment.

[@margaretneanover3385]

Well it's not up to a body of government RN. They do soak up plushies like they went to the beach. Tired of attention span looking like a forum ..ousting event it seems was key to feeling it hot

[@sparkybob1023]

stopping this now, may in fact cause more problems that muddling through. This women would have been fantastic in 1995. Union of concerned scientists. carbon dioxide is non linear in its effects.. 600ppm is not any different than 1000 max warming is achieved.

[@DrSmooth2000]

We know the late 70s were a bad time

[@nsbd90now]

Yeah... we can't even get people to wear a stupid mask during a pandemic. lol! "Faster than expected!" Wheeeeee! It's gonna be _exciting!_ At about 20 minutes this just seemed like some kind of satire comedy skit.

[@EmeraldView]

I still have relatives who deny global warming is even happening let alone human activity is responsible. Of course one I'm speaking of in particular has a giant diesel pickup truck he has no real need for and has a right-wing indoctrinated hatred of the EPA and its "onerous regulations".

[@thewefactor1]

The underlying need to the damaging effects of capitalism and its effects to the planet - Really whether communism, socialism or capitalism the real problem is there are too many human beings living on the planet, but it seems that all of these global issues with the climate stem from the massive exploitation of Earth to support its equally massive population. This all seemingly has happened during the rise and fall of capitalism... However, a worldwide birth control so as the natural death rate surpasses the live birth rate until the human populations of the world fall under 1 billion (1800's levels), but ideally closer to population levels prior to the pre-industrial society. Starting with a 5 year stop birth worldwide.

[@The-Wide-Angle]

We will be forced by the facts to try out geoengineering. If we like it or not.

[@Rachael-b2h]

Already been happening for thousands of years the geological evidence lies in the earth on the sea bed ... Nuclear high energy is ready for harvesting of the renewable radiactive elements from about 50- 70 yrs after the impact - hence the increase interest in the Pacifica Islands...hundreds of tests done bout 50- 70 yrs ago ....all ballistic rockets are engineering our atmosphere wars weaponry tests also keeps the atmosphere ozones charged in the electro magnetic fields high altitude detonations of the quantum gases to stimulate turbulance to simulate classical phenomena....eg cyclones tornadoes etc and generates energy that is harvested that is needed ....also for propulsion of crafts our atmosphere has to be densely saturated with elements that are harmful carcinogenic.... It's crazy

[@DrSmooth2000]

No

[@distantmind956]

It's inevitable now. And I highly doubt it's gonna be as bad as many here in the comment section think it's gonna be. There's gonna be side effects, but they'll be vastly less damaging than just letting climate breakdown happen.

[@radscorpion8]

@@distantmind956 yes and you're right considering we've been doing it for some time now without the supposed catastrophic effects. The scientist who stood up at the end of this talk is the perfect example of the blindness going on in academia right now. They are so terrified by the idea of taking things into our own hands, that they would rather let the planet hit all the tipping points and destroy itself. Its so insanely irresponsible. But I guess scientists can be irrational too

[@cynthiatheresasuzara2247]

Refreeze the arctic? G🌍D couldn’t do it but geo-engineering can?

[@DrSmooth2000]

There's no limit to the horrors they can do with geoengineering

[@Fido-vm9zi]

They will probably really screw it all up.

[@martinb5367]

Snowpiercer future or extinction , oh gosh

[@plantbasedsenior4240]

Off topic, but I am still disappointed they didn't do the final season, although they apparently filmed it.

[@alexspringett]

got a little bit boring no?@@plantbasedsenior4240

[@reverands571]

Earth's climate is more stable, during Hothouse times---examine geologic timescales.

[@HealingLifeKwikly]

"Earth's climate is more stable, during Hothouse times" We are directly making it unstable and just a few more degrees and most life on Earth dies off.

[@DrSmooth2000]

​@@HealingLifeKwiklydies off...in any particular way? Here in mid latitude we have half the year with minimal biological activity. We call it winter. Less winter makes more biological activity I don't deal w the sea so their results may vary.

[@michaelharrison9340]

More and more people are realising that CO2 emissions have little bearing on climate change. It doesn't take much searching to find out - unless of course your studying is restricted to one side of the discussion only.

[@Jc-ms5vv]

Well then please tell us what’s rapidly heating the planet then? We would all love to know, especially the thousands of scientists that been doing research on abrupt climate change the last century

[@lukerlunker]

This makes my head hurt. Is your name denning Krueger by any chance?

[@michaelharrison9340]

@@Jc-ms5vv Climate models fail to replicate previous warm periods which occur at around 1000yr cycles. 500,000 years of ice core data shows that CO2 levels follow (not cause) atmospheric temperature changes. Unlike the case with the CO2 narrative, historic temperature changes can be predicted much more accurately using Milankovitch cycles, coupled with solar forcing, sub-sea volcanic activity and thermohaline currents warming the sea. This also explains the 3 plateaus present in the atmospheric temperature graphs. Like Covid, climate science has become a highly politicised and profitable industry. I would have much more sympathy if the agenda was directed towards pollution.

[@antonyjh1234]

636 kilowatts of energy in a tank of diesel, according to my last electricity bill that is equivalent to 5.2 months of my electricity use. Thats a huge amount of energy, that some people use to just go for a drive. If your power bill has your daily kwh how many days electricity is in a tank and then imagine if you went somewhere and used four tanks , that might equal their whole year of electricity use, then you might realise it's not just co2, it's energy into a system, where 99.9997% of the earths atmosphere mass is within 100 klm's. In a sq metre of air there are quite a few molecules, I couldn't work out the number other than 25 trillion trillion molecules in one sq metre of air and there is 100,000 of those between you and the outer atmosphere, now every million sized parcel of molecules we are adding 2.5 more particles each year and they then join to two oxygen molecules trapping all this energy we pump into the system in the form of heat and because sunlight and radiant heat are different then sunlight can pass through but radiant heat can't and that it's the heat that is being trapped, that is the issue, if we didn't generate the heat at the same time CO2 wouldn't be as much of a problem.

[@HealingLifeKwikly]

"More and more people are realising that CO2 emissions have little bearing on climate change." Actually, the reverse is true. Mountains of research prove that our emissions caused almost all recent global warming and every nation on Earth has signed off in agreement on that fact. Most people in most countries on Earth who have heard about the science know we are warming the planet. I respectfully suggest reading the science: The 6th IPCC Report is available free online.

[@ddoperations2768]

We are doomed