Overshoot w/ Andreas Malm

[@GlobeHackers]

Overshoot is a much broader issue than global heating due to our emissions.

[@whatabouttheearth]

He's not talking about population overshoot. He's saying that the mainstream climate goals, like IPCC, are designed to overshoot that goal

[@whatabouttheearth]

He's not talking about population overshoot. He's saying that the mainstream climate goals, like IPCC, are designed to overshoot that goal

[@mattockman]

How many people understand exponential.

[@jgrzinich]

and nonlinear

[@paddylenox-conyngham6326]

As I understand it all the evidence of ‘exponential’ in climate science arises from modelling. In a complex system modelling is highly unreliable with a large number of assumptions and many things missed out. So far, when tested using prior data, climate modelling has proved inaccurate. We should be careful and do due diligence as predicting doom can have disastrous consequences. Existentially and in policy.

[@TheRealSnakePlisken]

Answer: 12. For non-linear: 7. For overshoot: 3. Number of people who give a shit: 37.

[@moxopal5681]

@@paddylenox-conyngham6326 which models have been shown to be inaccurate?

[@jonovens7974]

@@moxopal5681 the ones that included us doing something...they are all way off.

[@frictionhitch]

The US Forest service just shut down their new hiring. They don't have any guaranteed funding and expect to have less.

[@ramonaleona4119]

Yikes

[@keithk8275]

Sigh

[@frictionhitch]

@keithk8275 don't sigh Keith do something. There are 8 billion of us. Don't rely on the government or the corporations they will not help you. 8 billion little things is a lot of things

[@keithk8275]

@@frictionhitch 8 billion Americans? Damn! Also don’t assume I’m not gonna do anything. Let me be exasperated in the comments section for a moment please 🙏

[@ExtinctionLife]

Excellent content, thank you. New subscriber 👍. Apologies for our recent election in the US. Shameful. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around it. Scary times ahead.

[@dbadagna]

Related to the story from "Ministry of the Future" that Adrienne relates, there's a similar storyline in Episodes 4 and 5 of the recent Web TV series "Extrapolations." The whole 8-episode series, which explores what our world might be like between 2037 and 2070 in the midst of ever-worsening climate chaos, is excellent, and well worth watching.

[@stikeMedia]

This was a super interesting interview, thank you Adrienne and team. Can you please interview from someone from Columbia next who can shed light on how they're managing to phase out fossil fuel production?

[@christianfaust5141]

I absolutely agree...so many are detached from reality in respect to nature laws...negative emission techniques are rubbish...we must go down with production...tipping points will shut as down

[@naturgehöft-sieghexe]

yeah. what can I say. embrace, everybody!

[@woodypigeon]

I'm going to stock up on popcorn. I plan to share it with my pigeon friends while we watch the world burn.

[@frictionhitch]

One issue is that we need to subsidize sustainable forestry work. It isn't profitable to do it sustainably but it is the only reliable carbon capture method that we have.

[@SilenzioDiEsistenza]

More rewilding and multilayered forestry and food forests. A full ecosystem is way more powerful than a bunch of trees Define profitable though. The last man on earth can still make profits by trading with himself.

[@frictionhitch]

@SilenzioDiEsistenza by profitable I mean that my wife and I have had to spend over $400,000 to do what we are doing and we are pariah. We should be supporting forestry work but instead we are forcing those with passion to do it on their own dime. We sell no products. There is nothing to sell. If we allow the forest to remain in this state it will die. We need to pay to put young people into the forest to repair the mistakes of our past. We as a society need to do that right now. I will do my best but there is no way in hell that I can do it alone. We are broke

[@frictionhitch]

@SilenzioDiEsistenza we could compromise our morals. We refuse to do that

[@johnthomasriley2741]

The problem shown was a heat doom, not a heat wave. Waves move. Dooms get stuck for weeks. Heat takes a while to kill, but it can and will. 😢

[@BufordTGleason]

In the winter and early spring of 1945 wonder weapons were supposed to save Germany

[@pvmagnus]

Hey New Zealand had a good go at shuttering it's fossil fuel production. Voted out eventually.

[@pvmagnus]

Isn't funny, er, odd that all the tippingpoints seem to be converging on 1.5C. An abstract temps threshold that we came to. No. Imo many of the tipping points have tipped even from ~1C & we're also socked in for warming of likely ~3C+ based on the termination Shock we just saw 2023 2024 & the trending acc of Warming. Basically we are screwed #wass

[@brianwheeldon4643]

Western Europe is already at 2.7º C above pre industrial 1850-1900. Where are these europeans going to live and where to find food? It's only at the beginning. 1.5 and 2.0 are a pipe dream. Keep smokin-the-dope. More accurately 500+ CO2 (e) is a pipe dream. It's truly a climate casino we're in with the banks the ff corps, military and politicians each and all fully guilty of what we can already see is genocide. They don't give a 'flying fuck'. Western democracy has been a cover for the mafia in suits for 70 years and more. Worse than the mafia.

[@SamWilkinsonn]

How did you reach the conclusion that we’re only locked in to 3C atm

[@philipm3173]

Ocean hit tipping point in mid 90s

[@exeexecutor]

there are many tipping points and most are not at the 1,5C but higher up. But one leads to another

[@dbadagna]

Is Andreas Malm aware of the fact that (as pointed out by Leon Simons) an immediate cessation of all fossil fuel burning would lead to an abrupt rise in global surface temperatures (leading to even worse climate-related damage than we're seeing now) due to the loss of aerosol masking? Such effects were seen on a regional basis early in the COVID-19 pandemic, due to the cessation of industrial activity, including catastrophic flooding in parts of China. Also, does he think substituting all fossil fuels with wind and solar is a valid solution, in light of the fact that wind turbines and solar panels must be built using fossil fuels, then, when they wear out, replaced with new ones (using newly mined materials and more fossil fuels) ad infinitum?

[@sudd3660]

all good points, and i do not except everything to be answered in a video. if we prepare and adapt for the worst, we can minimize the damage. that is all we can do as i see it.

[@woodypigeon]

I'm sure he is well aware of this. Pointing out that this is the only solution, only goes to show just how screwed we all are.

[@sudd3660]

@@woodypigeon it sure is the end times, and i wish we did not try to hard to fix it. and rather simplify our lives and reduce the impact to the earth so we leave this place much better than if we did nothing.

[@glenwarrengeology]

Many Civilizations have collapsed because they overshoot their resources, The Maya and Indus Valley or Easter Island come to mind.

[@SampaJasli]

were boned, doomed to watch it all play out

[@Angelina-xj5zd]

The average IQ is 100, so half of us don't understand.

[@TheMildperil]

I have a couple of problems Andreas's analysis. Let's say somehow we succeed in radically cutting emissions; 1) the loss of cooling aerosols from fossil burning would lead to abrupt warming because those aerosols have masked half of the baked in warming to date, and this would itself necessitate geoengineering to replace those aerosols. 2) eliminating 80% of civilisation's energy supply effectively amounts to a pre-emptive collapse of the human system, and that is likely to be seen as one of the greatest crimes/disasters in human history, even if there are some very long term benefits for the planet. It is a difficult sell.

[@paddylenox-conyngham6326]

Fair point. There is also another potential issue. The lowest levels of CO2 to sustain plants life is between 150 and 200ppm. Imagine we successfully removed a fair portion of CO2 through geoengineering and then the world naturally went into a cooling period. The cold oceans would absorb large amounts of CO2 and potentially bring us to low levels, threatening global plant growth. Another scenario to consider. Don’t forget that CO2 increases plant growth, in commercial glasshouse growing optimum levels are around 1000ppm. This may explain NASA satellite data showing 5% greening of the planet over the past 20 yrs.

[@HealingLifeKwikly]

@@paddylenox-conyngham6326 There is absolutely zero chance we could get the world down to unsafe levels for plant growth. The Earth was a lush paradise for hundreds of thousands of years with CO2 levels under 300 ppm, and there no chance we even get CO2 levels that low again. What you are talking about is a red herring argument. And by the way, there are zero large scale successful carbon capture programs--so that is a theoretical not real thing you are talking about.

[@TonyScott896]

No one is suggesting that we stop burning stuff and replace it with nothing at all. We have the technology, it's just the capitalist class thats not on board, because it'll impact their EBITDA, and their brains are so cooked they'll burn everything to the ground in order to avoid that.

[@danwatson171]

The time for long term plans passed just over two decades ago. Our ability to reverse the chemical momentum of atmospheric CO2 vanished when the permafrost feedback loops began over five years ago. All talk of surviving beyond 2030 is basically theatre and hopium at this point.

[@danwatson171]

@@paddylenox-conyngham6326there is an upper limit to CO2 plant survival too. A very sharp drop off that will destroy most flowering plants yields.

[@drawyrral]

Climate change is the Earth's best chance at curing it's cancer.

[@SamWilkinsonn]

It’s like the human body getting fever temps to kill off infection.

[@TheMildperil]

It is going to take a lot of stuff with it that shouldn't be described as cancer.

[@SamWilkinsonn]

@@TheMildperil similar to how chemo works

[@drawyrral]

@@TheMildperil That's how cancer works.

[@07Flash11MRC]

The vast majority of people you call "cancer" have literally no power at all. The people with the power are exclusively cápítàlì$ts and as long as we live under that system, everything is going to get exponentially worse: More climate disasters, more w@rs, more poverty, more austerity (both natural and artificial), more (worker) deaths, more and more of everything bad. Until y'all understand that the system and the owner class are the problem (and not the working class people, who are just trying to get to and from work with their car, because most places don't have any public transport at all), nothing will change. The elite who go to COPs and decide literally everything in our lives would lose most of their profits if they ever implemented anything that is in any microscopic way somehow useful to workers, which is why nothing practical ever happens after their meetings. All they do in those meetings is have fancy dinners and a good time paid for by our taxpayer money.

[@Raumdermöglichkeiten]

Hey Ho from good old facist Germany. My Name is Felix and I live Close to Cologne IT IS the Same Here and i can Tell you that it IS true that our climate activists movement is beaten Up. I so actually have an Idea how to Change. But to so that we need to spread IT in all the world. Maybe you would Like to connect. Greetings and thank you. Now i know there are people, Like me.

[@07Flash11MRC]

Das ist zwar eine lustige Art dich vorzustellen, aber trotzdem ist Deutschland (zu unser aller Glück) noch nicht komplett faschistisch. Nimms nicht zu hart, denn der Großteil der Deutschen ist (zumindest noch) gegen jegliche Art davon. The Problem with the climate movement nowadays is that it's entirely anti-worker and anti-working class instead of anti-cápítàlì$t, anti-cápítàlì$ts and anti-owner class. All those climagte movements like Friday's For Future, Extincition Rebellion, Die Letzte Generation, and so many more do everything to p!ss off the average "Joe and Jane" (oder sagen wir mal den 0815 Durchschnittsbürger; den deutschen Michel, seine Frau, seine Kinder, seine Eltern und alle anderen, ...) and then act - or maybe really are - surprised that the working class doesn't have their backs. Quite the opposite: Such extreme climate movements and their actions turn more and more people away from science and reason, who then turn into both conspiracy theorists, who believe that the deep state is influencing the weather and that the climate is influenced by j€wish space lasers, and anti-climate people, who think climate activists are their enemies who want to squeeze every last Cent out od them.

[@DecadeAgoGaming]

It's not overshoot, earth will not go below 1.5°C ever again in a few years

[@07Flash11MRC]

Okay? And your point is?

[@DecadeAgoGaming]

​@@07Flash11MRC the amount of warming earth will see is still increasing, so it's pointless to talk about overshoot

[@07Flash11MRC]

@DecadeAgoGaming "so it's pointless to talk about overshoot": No, it's not pointless at all. We refer to not reaching a goal (in this case a constant positive number of maximum heat increase) that we don't want to reach, let alone cross that line (in other words we want to stay under that limit) as "overshooting" or "overshoot". This is extremely important, because we need a way to define what our goal is in the first place, otherwise we just have / are collecting a ton of data that we don't know what to do with. "the amount of warming earth will see is still increasing": No, this has nothing to do with "overshooting" our upper limit. We don't use "overshoot" for increases or even just spikes, we use it to compare the heat to our target / goal.

[@07Flash11MRC]

"earth will not go below 1.5°C ever again": You don't even have scientific evidene for that. Quite the opposite: It provees you have no idea how anything concerning climate (including the solar system itself) works. In fact it is inevitable that the planet will go below those degrees in the future right after the planet becomes entirely uninhabitable due to the sun growing to a red giant and developing further as a star. The question is going to be: Are we as a species willing to try to live in peace with each other as long as the sun will let us (and we'll also have to at least move to Mars, btw) or are we instead willing to put an end to all life as we know and recognize / discover it before moving to a different planet is necessary?

[@DecadeAgoGaming]

@07Flash11MRC there is no goal

[@donniemoder1466]

You hijacked the "overshoot" term. Find another way to label or describe the issue.

[@PinataOblongata]

It still describes the exact same issue - overshooting 1.5°. He's just talking about the concept of people using that narrative in a particular way.

[@marcsimard2723]

Wont happen Sorry We had a good run

[@SamWilkinsonn]

It’s incredible the amount of destruction we’ve caused in a few short centuries.

[@Angelina-xj5zd]

You can't support 8 billion humans without hydrocarbons. To return to the old climate, 7.9 billion humans must go to Mars or heaven.

[@PinataOblongata]

Completely wrong. There are renewable resources almost everywhere and now we have the battery storage tech as well. In the very few places at high and low latitudes that don't also have geothermal, nuclear can be used.

[@johnthomasriley2741]

Overshoot is a common technical term but it can only be properly to linear system. Climate contains many typing points, very nonlinear. Claiming it here is simply dishonest. The

[@ecocentrichomestead6783]

When I was in high school, the thermostats would be turned way down during the night. They got turned up to 20C early morning but the classrooms would still be cold when the students arrived. So, one of the students would turn up the thermostat as far as it could go. A couple classes later, it was too hot. So a student turned the thermostat down as far as it could go. Then it got too cold and around we go. Solar radiation management always reminds me of that. Carbon capture technology is the same. By the time we think we've removed enough carbon, it'll be too much.

[@russmarkham2197]

carbon capture is difficult, energy intensive and would cost trillions. The technology isn't even proven. So we will never, ever remove enough carbon.

[@bill8985]

@@russmarkham2197 Further, it is a fantasy.

[@rdallas81]

Lol. We will not be removing anything that makes makes a difference. Ain't going to happen. That's a guarantee.

[@mickesvensson1703]

Note: The Greenland icecap is total 2 565 000 Gt Record melting per year: 
262 Gt 262 Gt is 0,00010214% of the total mass. 
It will take 100 year to melt 1% of Greenland Icesheet in this record speed.

[@PinataOblongata]

Do you honestly think your back-of-the-napkin calculation is more sophisticated than what actual climate scientists with modelling systems that can accept huge amounts of data across a number of variables can come up with? Do you not understand what a tipping-point or run-away condition is? More melting causes even faster melting. Less albedo causes even faster melting. It's not just going to stay static! And then there's all the other tipping points and contributors to warming you're not factoring in.

[@frictionhitch]

I can sequester carbon from the atmosphere. I the incredible efficiency of trees with the incredible efficiency of the human body. We cut down trees and replant new trees storing the wood using human muscle power. I'm doing it if you want to help let me know.

[@PinataOblongata]

People have done the math, planting tress can never be enough to fix this. You would have to turn all of the planet's arable food-growing land into forest, and even then, if we kept putting more GHGs into the atmosphere at the same time, it still would not work.

[@NielsBlok567]

I see the point of geoengineering as an enabler of further colonialism, but don't entirely agree on ruling it out as a viable tool. The fix it later mentality is the greatest obstacle here, and the sci-fi conception of climate change reversal is certainly comforting for this, but grand scale geoengineering will not happen with the current mentality. In order for the technology to ever blossom to viability, it must be implemented proactively. Or, just actively, I guess.

[@07Flash11MRC]

"I see the point of geoengineering as an enabler of further colonialism": I agree with you here. "but don't entirely agree on ruling it out as a viable tool.": Yes, it could in theory be used for that, but there are two issues: We don't have any way to do something of significant size like terra-forming for example, and even if we did the bigger issue is: What if we overshoot our target with the measure we take and how do we reverse that drastic action? If geo-engineering were a thing already, we'd already have people sent to both the moon and mars to do just that. Why? Because ultimately as the sun keeps growing and turning into a red giant, the earth at some point won't be in the habitable zone anymore anyway, so as a species we are forced to move on to Mars anyway to escape the heat of the sun and its winds, which are going to destroy our magnetic field.

[@HerveMendell]

I don't disagree with anything this guy is saying, but why is he wearing Islamic "signifiers?" The knit beanie cap, and what is on his shirt? It looks like Arabic script.

[@woodypigeon]

He's big on Palestine

[@physiqueDrummond]

Mirrors for Earth's Energy Rebalancing = MEER for solar radiation management

[@robd3470]

once he completly denies marxism and socialism ,, then i will listen to him otherwise he is an activist spouting the same garbage in garbage out mantra.. and he is selling a book ...hmm

[@exeexecutor]

left wingers dont live in denial about this kind of stuff so you are most likely hearing this kind of stuff from left wingers and independent thinkers. I think you should just get over your ego.

[@dbadagna]

@@exeexecutor He does seem to believe that switching from fossil fuels to wind and solar will save us, which is a form of utopian techno-solutionism that follows in the Marxist tradition. In reality, we're faced with an insoluble predicament: that of abrupt, irreversible climate change.

[@07Flash11MRC]

"once he completly denies marxism and socialism": You can't "deny" science and facts...

[@PinataOblongata]

Once you admit the fact capitalism is the sole driver of this issue, then you will realise your political anathema is actually the only thing that will save us.

[@robd3470]

@@PinataOblongata I see greed as the sole driver here, whether capitalism or democratic socialism .. in Germany or England or Egypt or Argentina .. its always greed .. the politics is irrelevant , the nature of humans and of these so-called leaders, whether its Chomsky, Sanders (hmm, maybe not, Idk), Harris, AOC, Kennedy Trump or Musk its all about having stuff or commanding prestige and influence .. There is no requirement for open source raw data.. and as long as there is money to be made there will never be a requirement for open source raw data.. not pfizer , not nasa , not at the universities, and especially not in the media.. So you can claim any politics you want ,, but the results will be the same because greed is the evil here..

[@paddylenox-conyngham6326]

All based on some flakey assumption that CO2 is the control knob of global temperature and not the multitude of other natural factors that correlate very nicely. Catastrophic thinking and activism all based on the weakest of scientific analysis. 🙄

[@mesealuka]

Can you be more specific? Are there any scientific reports you can point to to back up your claim that Co2e aren’t the primary cause of climate change?

[@mesealuka]

Because the scientific consensus agrees with Malm here. I understand it’s hard to cope with the idea of ecological collapse fueled by our comfortable western lifestyles, but you better get ready…

[@paddylenox-conyngham6326]

@@mesealukahi, there are plenty. Try looking at Milankovich cycle correlation to past ice core temperature records. Or correlation of oceanic floor seismic activity with oceanic temperature and atmospheric CO2. Note that there is much evidence of historic temperature changes preceding CO2. This can be explained by cold water holding more CO2 and emitting as it warms. There is also much science on Solar activity correlating with atmospheric temperatures. Also cloud cover is a huge factor. Interestingly as CO2 has risen over recent years atmospheric temperature has not risen steadily as it should if CO2 was the main influencer. It also happens that all the catastrophic predictions are based on modelling. Temperature models can be tested as we have had 140yrs since Industrial Revolution with all the data to test….. they are without exception over the shop. If you are interested in the detail of this I suggest looking at some of the presentations on the ‘Tom Nelson’ podcasts. Virtually all of the highest academic quality. World weather is incredibly complex and this simple CO2 catastrophic narrative has a massive cost. I know of many people who live in existential angst over this (as I once did) even to the point of not wanting to have children. And the energy policies will destroy civilisation as we know it if we really did try to achieve net zero in the time span suggested. As for playing god with geo-engineering with all the unknown unknowns. Please at least do due diligence and openly investigate the other side. Not to do so is a madness. All the best

[@reuireuiop0]

Yeah try doing without CO2 and we'd be at zero fahrenheit Global Temp. That's why the moon is icy cold on the dark side and stuffing hot in the sun. But go ahead, try, and see the prices of burgers & hotdogs go skyward, coz them animals do not grow without a solid feeding of secure crop harvests. You'll find out soon enough, check prices of coffee or cocoa next time you're there

[@mattockman]

Flaky assumption.