How Net Zero Killed 1.5 | James Dyke

[@Crusoe40]

Also, a vast amount of historical evidence suggests that hierarchical societies have little or no capacity to avoid existential threats arising from their ecological contradictions, because those contradictions are necessary to maintain the position and privileges of the elite.

[@johnkintree763]

So, a solution would be to flatten and decentralize the structure of power, perhaps a global collective democracy.

[@TheUAoB]

Anarchist social practises are to non-coercively cooperate. This doesn't exclude voluntary hierarchies for specific purposes, where expertise or leadership is required.

[@treefrog3349]

Well said! It took me 5 whole sentences to say the same thing.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

algae

[@michaeledwards2251]

Its worse than that. Locals, out of self interest, protect their own environment. Elites control remotely, they both have no concept or interest in what is happening. Their sole interest is production rate. A fine example is Ancient Rome. North Africa had Hippos and other mammals which were slaughtered in the Coliseum. North African was the grain basket of Rome : today the same area is desert, recent archeology is digging up the field boundaries and forts protecting the grain.

[@RogerBlanchard-xn6qc]

When the Paris Climate Agreement was signed, I stated that there was zero possibility of holding the earth's temperature change to 1.5 or 2.0 C above the per-industrial level. I stand by that. Roughly 10 years ago, climatologist Kevin Anderson said that CO2 emissions globally had to decline by 10%/year starting at that point to save the world. I said the 10%/year goal was not a possibility. Since then, CO2 emissions have increased every year except for the pandemic years. I live in northern Michigan. Virtually no one would be willing to make any sacrifices to comfort, convenience or desires to reduce CO2 emissions. I don't think the people up here are different from most people in the U.S. Essentially all that can be done in the U.S. is window dressing. I will add that the big CO2 emissions increases are coming from countries like China and India. In India, the per capita CO2 emission rate is under 2 Gigatonnes/year while in the U.S. it's over 14.0 Gt/year. People in India want to live the American lifestyle.

[@michaeledwards2251]

The US President Nixon, YT video "Thorium Debunked", gave the order on video to "come down hard on all nuclear research outside California". The reason, the MIC, Military Industrial Complex, wanted to ramp up nuclear bomb production. The mining and waste profile of MSR, Molten Salt Reactors, was so low, nuclear bomb production could not be hidden. Without replacement of all fossil fuel plants with nuclear power, electricity generation, ships, mining, concrete production, steel production, glass, ultra high purity silicon, chips, manufacturing, to name a few, existence of civilization demands massive fossil fuel combustion. MIC, given a choice for the future, preferred terminating the future to development.

[@mindsindialogue]

This it is up to us to tell those in poorer countries that nothing comes good from mass accumulation and consumption which is what the entire west stand for.

[@RogerBlanchard-xn6qc]

@@mindsindialogue I agree.

[@pietersteenkamp5241]

​@@mindsindialogueunless you are willing to cut your emissions in half you will be ignored by the worlds people that the usa/ europe keep bombing and sanctioning.

[@michaeledwards2251]

China, India, and SE Asia want our life expectancy, ease of life, and much more the G7 takes for granted. At the moment only fossil fuels offer them a chance. They simply want the benefits taking for granted.

[@TheWorldRealist]

In 1990/91 I planted 19,000 trees on my farm above Todmorden, West Yorkshire. We had to sell and move for work reasons in 2002. There is an active forest floor now and trees over 50ft high. Unfortunately the people who have it did not thin out the protective pine. So oak and other deciduous are struggling to the light. At least I did something! Now we live in Wyoming USA. It’s tough to grow weeds here!

[@MyKharli]

Its incredible how fast re wooding can take place , i planted my acre 30 years ago and its hard to believe some trees are not much much older .

[@davidwilkie9551]

I did that in Australia, and it brought out the Riders on the Storm, "brains squirming like a toad", who are the genuine representatives of human "competition" at the lowest level, making themselves great again. "Do right and right will be done", ..by the illusion of separation delusion, ..means those who declare themselves above responsibility take what is wrongfully not anyone's right to take advantage separately.

[@jeffguarino2097]

Planting trees has been shown to be a waste of time. A bare field will reflect more energy to space than a tree covered land. The trees fall and decay and release back all the CO2. You have to bury the trees in a place that holds the CO2 forever. In the north planting tree means the trees in the winter will absorb heat from the sun. Snow covered fields will reflect back into space. The amount of CO2 absorbed in the first place is so small as to also be a waste of time. The O2 released is good but that wasn't the point. So money is best spent on other means to reduce CO2. As in electric cars and capturing the CO2 directly at the power plant. A gasoline car produces more CO2 than the weight of the gas. But this is next to impossible to capture and then the car has to carry all this extra weight of captured CO2. A snow covered land reflects lot of energy back to space. A field that has just been plowed and is black absorbs lots of energy , so this is a bad thing. The idea is to make things reflective and how good this works also depends on how much cloud cover a certain area gets. More clouds and they bounce the light back down. Clear skies will allow heat and light to escape. The Sahara desert reflects lots of energy , if you planted trees there , you would make the situation worse. Even solar panels in the desert are bad , because they only convert 15% of the radiation and convert the rest to local heat. Normally much of this radiation would get reflected back into space. Planting 1 trillion trees only sequesters 1/5 of the CO2 originally stated in the study. kzbin.info/www/bejne/oXi1m6qKbNKerpo A lot of the studies have prettified the numbers and money is best spent on other CO2 reduction schemes than planting trees. Bill Gates wants to remove a lot of trees in California, the trees that might end up burning and bury them in the sand in Nevada where they won't decay.

[@MyKharli]

@@jeffguarino2097 its about the above, on and below ground life that trees enable let alone water retention, air quality , urban cooling etc .

[@jeffguarino2097]

​@@MyKharli The topic was keeping the temperature of the earth down. I did look up forests in Canada and since 1990 they have studied forests and they are net emitters of CO2. This is due to fires, and disease and the natural decomposition of the trees. They expect more CO2 to be removed in the future because the increase atmospheric CO2 causes the tree to grow faster. Still the problem of decaying trees exists. I also checked the farm situation in Canada and the fields since 2000 the field in Canada have actually sequestered more CO2 than emitted. Trees in cities do remove some pollutants and cool cities , which is a good thing. In Canada the leaves sprout in the spring time , just in time for the A/C to need power and they fall off in Oct ,just in time to turn on the heat the the sun shines through the bare trees to warm our houses. So that is good. The number of trees in the city will not make a difference in CO2 removal though. I didn't check the water retention situation and whether or not that would be good. It seems to be a very complicated subject with many views. wildbristol.uk/pages/why-mass-tree-planting-is-bad/

[@sjpandolph]

I have been dismayed by our endless reliance on expensive technology to address these issues. There is always some private entity that benefits from the government incentives.

[@JCurcio]

Really good discussion. Gets to the heart of it.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

35:54 36:04 JSO has changed its demand: August 7, 2024 "In recent weeks, Just Stop Oil has been acting with groups internationally, to demand governments establish a Fossil Fuel Treaty *_to end the extraction and burning of oil, gas and coal by 2030."_*

[@MiS_4n_THr0_pic_NiH_il.i5t]

And what do they think will happen if we "just stop oil", the economy crashes, billions starve and society as we know it ceases to exist. But hey at least we stopped climate change =)

[@lorimason2288]

I'm sorry but why is everyone seemingly unaware of global dimming? google it on your own time. Then perhaps, you will stop with the hopium.

[@Starchaser_]

Rachel I appreciate your channel so much, keep up the amazing work!

[@lionrocklr9217]

Rachel, for better or worse you have to call back Tim Garrett and take him up on his offer to explain how deterministic thermodynamic energy systems are. He offered, you dallied and never got back to it. Exactly how much agency do we have? We need to have that discussion. Claude Levi-Strauss: We are like maggots in a sack of flour: we either eat up what nourishes us or die from the poisons we secrete.

[@kindaplayerone4128]

I so look forward to your shows each week, keep it going

[@MarkYoung-l8f]

I lived in Belize for a while in the Jungles. During the Day we were constantly soaked in Sweat. At night we left our wet clothes on to cool us down. We were literally living at the Edge of Survivability. Many suffered Heat Stress with ensuing dysentery and dehydration. That was in the late 70's. Now troops are very restricted in activity levels due to increased numbers of deaths. The Elderly in many Villages have literally disappeared. Child mortality is at record levels. The Earth had only warmed by 1.2'c to cause such a change. The Belize people no longer want to live there. It was a World renowned Scuba Diving destination. That Tourist income is rapidly disappearing. Belize to me was a magical land. Much like many places are that are magical today where the magic is slowly ebbing away. Like Florida where 10's of 1000's have moved to for its now diminishing magic, where the Phrase "Climate Change" is Banned. The Earths greatest threat to Humanity "Climate Change" is Banned in Florida. That should tell us everything we need to know about "Politics and Leaders" in the age of the bottom line. Where the Buck is more important than your lives, your children's lives. I do not recommend contemplating your Grand Children's Lives.

[@KatsCorner]

You are correct we did care about humanities future only the money made today.

[@tmkowal]

Your comments are just right. It's quite a trajectory you had. I lived in Honduras working on forestry, water and agricultural projects from 1990 to 2005. That country is only liveable because it has mountains and cooler climates, for now. The heat rises in each agroecological zone over time. I sweated buckets in the dry lowland Pacific forests. To survive and sleep was impossible without air-conditioning for me.

[@DrSmooth2000]

Belizean jungle was pleasant to me but was there in winter, such as it matters to the tropics, and for pleasure rather than laboring

[@deepashtray5605]

To anyone who whines about the waves of illegal immigration we see across the Northern Hemisphere and Australia, these will be seen as those good old halcyon days when facing the tsunami of desperate people displaced by climate collapse.

[@treefrog3349]

This entire conversation evolves around the meaning of the pronoun "we". "WE need to do this and that to..." The fact of the matter is that the demands of 8 billion "wes" are eagerly catered to by the other entrepreneurial "wes" who are responding to those demands. Above all else, the egregious level of population "overshoot" is the driving force behind environmental degradation. Sadly, the corporate/government sector, our "deciders", are the prime beneficiaries of all that cumulative demand. Though they have the wealth and power to spearhead and implement beneficial changes, they are reluctant to kill the "golden goose" that they have nurtured. Collectively WE the People, need and demand, while the rest are happy to fill those needs and demands. To expect the beneficiaries of all that consumption to do something meaningful is ludicrous. Greed is blind, stupid and lethal.

[@mrrecluse7002]

And, more of less, universal....to your final words. But to be more charitable, I like to say we are animals that just do what animals do. Our complex brains are impressive, but lacking.

[@grindupBaker]

If you're saying "there is no "we"" then I'm in total agreement. I realized in 1960 when I was 13 that there is no "we" and i've been commenting that undeniable fact for this topic for 12 years.

[@squeaker19694]

It's a merry-go-round that's spinning faster and faster. The faster it goes, the scarier it is to try to jump off. I'm trying my best to live outside the system but the way we have set up our world makes it nearly impossible to get off, because of regulations and laws that have forced us into dependency and lost knowledge about how to survive outside of it. Undoing all this is going to be so difficult.

[@mrrecluse7002]

@@squeaker19694 Yes, the majority of us would rather 'live in the land of make believe.' Even I, whose heart genuinely breaks, for the sixth mass extinction of the natural world, stand as guilty as the next person, in everyday acts of greed. I rail against the same things you do, but never preach about it, for this reason, but simply tell it all like it is, as objectively as I can.

[@atheistbushman]

@@mrrecluse7002 To be fair, an increase in CO2 might be a disaster for humans, but many plant species will thrive

[@19hallucinogenicOwls]

Maybe the problem is partly language. The crisis or catastrophe is never here and now. It's always 'somewhere out there sometime.' Until then I can keep pressing snooze and sleep peacefully.

[@grindupBaker]

"catastrophe" is meaningless is the problem If your right leg falls off tomorrow that's 1 bit of dull News. If my #3 heavy bike can''t get its freehub tightened up that's a "catastrophe". There is no "we"

[@ReesCatOphuls]

40:50 "inventing solutions to perpetuate business-as-usual". Nailed it. Also echos William Rees and Patrick Ophuls view that electrification allows "business as usual by alternative means", or "electrifying the titanic"

[@mrrecluse7002]

William Rees is refreshingly brutal. I've even heard him confess that humans are actually "parasites", in our relationship to Earth. Of course we are, but he is the only scientist who I've heard admit it. Even I, doomer that I am, will only employ that damning definition to my wife, and one other person.

[@Crusoe40]

There are no solutions within capitalism.

[@sjoerd1239]

Capitalism can be used by putting prices on things like carbon emissions.

[@Crusoe40]

@@sjoerd1239 And how is "using capitalism" going for you so far? It's a joke.

[@1237barca]

That’s absurd. We don’t have anything close to capitalism. True capitalism plays no role. But the answer does live within capitalism

[@sjoerd1239]

@@Crusoe40 So, give up. Actually, a lot has been achieved under capitalism. Have a good look. Don't let that it is not enough to best meet the challenge fool you otherwise. Don't underestimate the size of the challenge and the achievement of mankind in tackling it.

[@gregorymalchuk272]

Marxist planned economies burned 2X to 3X more coal, oil, and gas for the same economic output.

[@graemetunbridge1738]

it's far too late for a cosy transition - government has sat on this problem for far too long (since 1895).

[@michaeledwards2251]

Pre WW II Climatologists were mostly concerned with preventing the polar ice caps advancing. It is only post WW II, with the massive economic acceleration which occurred, climatologists realized humanity was on the path towards a catastrophic climate. (Pre WW II, the changes which have occurred would have taken centuries at a minimum and more likely a millennia. Climatologists were concerned without the effects of industry, the climate would become the dominant ice age climate, in which Canada and the UK would be covered in ice. )

[@user-pm7ck6ij9s]

I remember how angry I was when my thesis advisor told me that women only gained rights as a result of voluntary disempowerment. But she was of course right. Now the world is faced with the same need, neoliberal empires must voluntarily disempower their collective standards of living.

[@ejws1575]

That’s moronic because 99.99% have no influence whatsoever on that level of policy. Class analysis needed

[@MiS_4n_THr0_pic_NiH_il.i5t]

You are correct but it ain't gonna happen, at least not voluntarily

[@singingway]

Explain?

[@michaeledwards2251]

@@singingway Simply consider the motives behind the current Ukraine Russia conflict. Both sides are in a financial war to the death. (The death of Ukraine is being treated as a minor problem by both sides : as soon as the conflict was started, both sides knew Ukraine was going to be destroyed. It was the Russian side which wanted an out for their Ukrainian brethren but their enemy, the US, wasn't going to allow that to happen. )

[@eddycurrant1380]

best climate discussion i have seen, and i have seen a lot

[@paddylenox-conyngham6326]

Have you seen any of the Tom Nelson podcast interviews by chance? They are counter narrative arguments, nearly all of them of the most exceptional quality.

[@eddycurrant1380]

@@paddylenox-conyngham6326 will seek them out

[@grindupBaker]

​ @paddylenox-conyngham6326 Yes, I seen quite a few. They are all drivel and I'm banned from all commenting on "Tom Nelson" "Channel" because | was routinely tearing the Junk Science of his Idiot Guests into shreds. It's fitting that the worthless Puppet-Parrot Dregs of humanity such as paddy lenox-conyng ham Unit 6326 would worship a Stinking Little Baby Coward like "Tom Nelson" who censors all comments of smart knowledgeable persons like me who aren't doing his income-producing Business Model any good. Stay with your Little Baby Coward Hero because it obviously matches you to a T, worthless know-nothing Brain-Dead Puppet Parrot.

[@grindupBaker]

​ @paddylenox-conyngham6326 " nearly all of them of the most exceptional quality". Tom Shula, what a Total Half Wit. Contradicts himself on the entire point of stupid 30 minyes of babbling. And many big errors like "There's always a notch around the CO2 ab soprption peak". Oh no there ain't you pig-ignorant brain-dead half wit "Tom Shula".

[@SigFigNewton]

@@paddylenox-conyngham6326you like being told what you want to hear?

[@thec0mmnmann822]

All our machines generate heat. That heat adds to the problem.

[@grindupBaker]

You typed half-witted drivel and it's Parroted drivel. Here you go Parrot: Terawatts 122,500 Sun's input to Earth that isn't reflected back to space (gets absorbed & heats). 630 Heater heating Earth ecosphere (oceans 93%) & melting ice for 2010-2021 because "greenhouse gases (GHGs)" keep increasing. 18 Total human energy production 2012 (IEA) I found a few years ago 45 Total human energy-producing heat (generated, delivered + generation/line losses) with current coal/oil/gas/fission/wind/solar PV mix ----------- Other stuff ----------- 6,000 Moved to Northern latitudes by atmosphere (78%) and oceans. 980 The AMOC water heat moved north (included in the 6,000 above). 360 The Gulf Stream Gyre water heat moved north (included in the 6,000 above). 2,200 Moved to land from oceans by atmosphere. 47 Non-volcano geothermal heat seeping to surface per J. H. Davies, D. R. Davies 22 Feb 2010 8 Volcano heat blasting to surface from the lava from 3,000,000 or whatever land & undersea volcanoes. 0.0025 The active volcanic heat source beneath the Pine Island Glacier on Antarctica. -0.00104 The dimming shadow of 60,000 Starlink satellites in low earth orbit 630 km up with 100 m**2 of solar PV panels each. 0.000377 Biggest solar mirror concentrator (in some California desert). 0.00006 Fukushima Daiichi reactors Unit 1, 2, 3 total warm cooling water heat into the Pacific Ocean.

[@achenarmyst2156]

Generated heat is no significant part of the problem. The relation of energy from fossil fuel combustion to the retained or trapped solar energy through greenhouse gasses is 1 : 60.000.

[@michaeledwards2251]

Don't worry, in only 3 centuries at current rates of growth, the oceans will boil.

[@GeorgeHagstrom]

The solution. An alternative lifestyle. Live close to work. Don't drive. Save money. By a step van. Turn it into your mobile office. Stop paying rent. Buy a couple of panels. Shower in an 18 g rubbermaid using 4 milk jugs. Stomp on your laundry, then use the water for dishes. Throw the water on the floor for a floor wash. Continue working. Organize repairing tools. Do your own work. Be your own customer. Call yourself a company. Buy some vacant land. Continue parking close to work. Use a bike. Use propane to heat water and a small heater under the bed. Security is in mobility and saved money. Drive as little as possible. Have fun and be kind. Keep your lifestyle to yourself.

[@grindupBaker]

Do you remember "The Good Life" on the Telly where they live unemployed in a detached house in London upper middle class suburbs growing vegetables & raising livestock and being mildly annoying to the stockbroker & Missus next door but still having dinner parties between them? Not a bad Sitcomm back when that was possible.

[@GeorgeHagstrom]

Thank you for your reply. I googled The Good Life but haven't seen any episodes yet. I studied climate change in college in 1971 . Experimenting with a low carbon life style was comfortable and fun. I had a house painting business and camped in my mobile office near work. I would leave my work trailer on the job site. I hired a few helpers and paid them well.

[@dianewallace6064]

38:00 Unintended consequences, regressive taxes, social backlashes and wholesale disregard of the precautionary principle by governments in favor of all private industry.

[@hughlawson1051]

The problem is not too much entropy, it's too much enthalpy.

[@jamigaither]

en·thal·py nounPhysics a thermodynamic quantity equivalent to the total heat content of a system. It is equal to the internal energy of the system plus the product of pressure and volume. the change in enthalpy associated with a particular chemical process. "most compounds have negative enthalpies of formation"

[@contadorone]

Wow, a great episode and what a great guest. He certainly seems to be saying as much as he is able, would love another episode to expand his obvious deep knowledge. Although I’m aware that we would be getting close to the edge of my scientific knowledge if he went to far into climate science. Alternatively a guest who is much more invested in adaptation seems a natural response to so many climate uncertainties. Thanks again❤️

[@harveytheparaglidingchaser7039]

OXFAM is running a campaign to get fairer taxes on private jets and superyachts "You can join our call for fair taxation of luxury transport by adding your name to our open letter to the UK Chancellor and Scotland’s Cabinet Secretary for Finance"

[@jasonneugebauer5310]

Using 25% of our energy to perform carbon capture is bonkers. Your guest is absolutely right on that statement. I wish more climate researchers held that same view.

[@SigFigNewton]

*sane

[@michaeledwards2251]

It won't look that way once the effects of greenhouse induced heating hit. The damage will be such, the energy cost will be viewed as acceptable. The estimates of the energy needed are likely gross understatements.

[@Spacemonkeymojo]

We're completely screwed. No way to remove carbon from the atmosphere, imagine how much carbon is just above ground now because of how many fossil fuels we've burned. Imagine how much of that carbon is now in humans. How much it is in plastics and everyday objects. There's no going back, even trees can just light on fire and release that carbon back into the atmosphere. Enjoy life now because it will be very different in the future.

[@jasonneugebauer5310]

@@michaeledwards2251 I don't think you fully appreciate how much energy is already lost to heat and friction - 60%. If you take a significant amount of the remaining energy for carbon capture and other climate mitigation effects, you quickly reach the point where there is no energy remaining to do the work. Instead, you end up with an expensive Rube Goldberg machine that does nothing except turn fuel into CO² and pump it back into the ground. It might be best for you to go live with the Amish. Carbon neutral, problem solved.

[@michaeledwards2251]

@@jasonneugebauer5310 60% is certainly an underestimate of heat losses. Trams, which are energy efficient overall compared to cars and trucks, are no more than 25% efficient, 75% heat loss for fossil fuels. (For solid fuel rod nuclear reactors, only 33% efficient compared to fossil fuel 50%, 85% loss.) Nuclear power is the only chance : massively more power than currently available will be needed to simply keep juggling the beast. ( CO2 will mostly be used to provide liquid fuels to keep the transport system going. Some will be left to restore the oil reserves. )

[@karlstone6011]

54:30 - In 1982, Nasa/Sandia Labs demonstrated the viability of Magma Energy, saying: "The current magma energy project is assessing the engineering feasibility of extracting thermal energy directly from crustal magma bodies. The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation. In a previous seven-year study, we concluded that there are no insurmountable barriers that would invalidate the magma energy concept." For context, current global energy demand is approximately 600 quads. Given a source of constant, high grade clean energy several hundred times current global energy demand - we could meet all our energy needs carbon free, plus desalinate, irrigate, recycle and capture carbon, to achieve a prosperous and sustainable future. At the risk of insulting his intelligence, I'd like to know if James Dyke is aware of this research. Because his pessimism regarding a technological fix is not consistent with NASA/Sandia's findings. His estimation of the costs of transition seems predicated on carbon mitigation technologies like wind, solar EV's, etc... as opposed to the replacement of fossil fuels with a better technology. Magma Energy would cost hundreds of billions rather than trillions; and does not imply massive disruption to economies if phased in from the supply side - big industrial energy users first! Assuming significant disruption from climate change in any case, governments and energy companies should find it in their interests to develop and apply Magma energy technology; yet astoundingly, less than 1% of all our energy is geothermal, and the left want to turn out the lights and eat bugs to mitigate carbon! Something doesn't add up. Were Nasa wrong?

[@philosoraptor1423]

Climate change has been weaponized.

[@michaeledwards2251]

The Geothermal energy needed is definitely there : the problem is the length of time it will take to implement a solution. It will require digging 10+ miles deep in the crust to get to liquid Magma. (Land would need 50+ miles, 80+ km, but the Ocean bed is much easier, especially Mid Ocean Volcanoes. Hawaii is a great prospect, especially the most active volcano, it sits on a hot spot. ) All deep Boreholes to date have avoided liquid Magma. Its a matter of no one has dared to go ahead, and the lead time to just build the borehole would be a minimum of a decade.

[@karlstone6011]

@@michaeledwards2251 Actually, the length of time it will take to implement a solution is a positive asset. You don't want limitless clean energy tomorrow; you want a clean energy platform sufficient to global energy demand by 2050, and twice and thrice as much thereafter, to give markets, governments and companies time to adjust. Also, you wouldn't be drilling where Earth's crust is at its thickest; nor into liquid Magma. You'd drill into rock surrounding a Magma chamber; or into a subduction zone. Millions of tons of rock at depths not exceeding 2km, heated to several hundred degrees. The magic number is 347'C - the temperature at which super-heated steam undergoes a massive expansion in volume, and so increase in pressure. (Huge breakthrough in steam train design back in the day.) It's difficult to generalise; each geothermal source will have its own characteristics and best methods of extraction - a body of knowledge that will improve over time as the technology matures. We'd probably be brilliant at it by now if Nasa/Sandia Labs Magma Energy Project had continued over the past four decades. Sadly, it did not.

[@TheDoomWizard]

Say hello to 3°C. We're toast.

[@EmeraldView]

We are. It's just a matter of when now not if.

[@channelwarhorse3367]

Using the wrong staff, ow.

[@mrrecluse7002]

Yeah. James Dyke eloquently, and somewhat diplomatically, said precisely the same thing.

[@DaveDave-e4t]

If 3 degrees C, then well past that due to natural feed-forward loops: BURNT TOAST !

[@Robert-xs2mv]

Nonsense, humanity will adapt, even when that requires mass migration across opposing political spectrums!

[@golantonline5071]

It is not the planet who is in danger, it is us…

[@volkerengels5298]

We are in Sixth Mass Extinction. Biosphere is part of the Planet? Or is planet just the rock? Rocks are in general not in danger anyways :))

[@golantonline5071]

@@volkerengels5298 Life will go on… do we want to be part of it…?

[@volkerengels5298]

@@golantonline5071 If that's the way you 'produce' your hope.... _There will be always life in universe :))_ There is pain tomorrow.

[@07Flash11MRC]

And your point is? How does that solve anything?

[@golantonline5071]

@@07Flash11MRC in order to save the planet (or the climate) we are continuing to provide energy for capitalism… (green growth, sustainability…) it does not work well with physics…

[@RandallSlick]

First time on your channel. Great discussion. Subscribed and keep up the good work.

[@EmeraldView]

2 is dead. And 3 is seeming more-and-more likely.

[@TheDoomWizard]

On the way!

[@rabka123-m8v]

Good

[@SigFigNewton]

@@rabka123-m8vhappy to welcome hundreds of millions of climate refugees, coming to a decade near you L

[@gregoryjames165]

4 or 5 if you factor in eventual loss of the aerosol masking effect from ending fossil fuel burning.

[@lorimason2288]

@@gregoryjames165 Bingo, we have a winner!

[@alainbelisle643]

Excellent discussion! The difficulty for any nation to scale down it's use of energy-dense fossil fuels based on security competitiveness alone is ingrained. If we exclude economics, with the current political turmoil and the ongoing wars, abundance of fossil fuels is a national security fundamental. Access to oil for strategic security is as important as it was 100 years ago, so this is another point of resistance to any change.

[@sjoerd1239]

To be clear, carbon sequestration does make sense in principle. it would mitigate climate change. It is just that it has not turned out to be technically and financially feasible and is not likely to, but that has not stopped people keeping on trying and relying on it becoming feasible.

[@gregorymalchuk272]

Carbon sequestration requires (renewable) energy hyper abundance, which is what the public was sold on. Which is why it stays in the public mind.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

Meaning you don't know about algae? Algae can sequester 100 gigatons of CO2 per year! Sir David King promotes algae as does double Ph.D. marine biologist Raffael Jovine (of Brilliant Planet). I did an algae talk on "environmental coffeehouse" youtube channel. Oil and coal are from algae by the way. Why is algae ignored? Because people love their Techno-fix while algae is 4.6 billion years old. hahahaha. The future is algae one way or another.

[@christinearmington]

They need the energy for AI apparently.

[@michaeledwards2251]

Sequestration demands nuclear power to provide the low carbon power needed to extract carbon from the atmosphere. In practice the carbon extracted will be converted to synthetic fuel for ICE, internal combustion engines.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

@@michaeledwards2251 algae can sequester 100 gigatons of CO2 per year since algae is quantum nonlocal energy transfer - that's the original energy of the universe as negentropy. Do you personally mine uranium? Do you have a two-headed depleted uranium baby?

[@jamigaither]

100% tariffs in the US on Chinese electric vehicles only shows how inept the US has been in keeping up with global tech...

[@MICHAELEDWARDS-x1y]

Not the true situation at all. The US was the leader in global tech, and whenever the tech being developed threatened the status quo, it was suppressed. For example 1. "Thorium Debunked" shows a video of Nixon saying "Come down hard on any Nuclear Research outside California". Both the FF and military had their interests served, FF, the elimination of 2 cents per Kilowatt hour electricity from MSR Molten Salt reactors, military, the amount of nuclear waste from solid fuel rods was sufficient to cover up a massive nuclear arsenal buildup. 2. "Who killed the electric car ?" GM EV1 was part of a billion $ program to suppress the electric rival to ICE. Had both been developed, both the air in US cities would be far more breathable, with 90% of the population using electric cars.

[@TheUAoB]

I think Rachel was excellent this episode.

[@mullraerae299]

When people say to my father "oh isn't it terrible or bad or whatever" my father would answer, well it can't be terrible, bad or whatever enough as there's a class struggle taking place and the rich call the shots, for them to continue accumulating wealth we have to keep on growing the economy. If there is a climate issue, which there most probably is no politician is going against their rich masters when they're in power, CAPITALISM is the elephant in the room.

[@michaeledwards2251]

Only politicians free of sponsors are worth voting for.

[@PaulaTourville-po7fg]

Having just dealt with Hurricane Milton I see people living in an alternate reality here. No common sense .

[@jackson8085]

So refreshing to hear reforming global food production mentioned in the discussion with phasing out fossil fuels.It's more important imo, but at least the discussion is being had after IPCC was held hostage by meat industry for decades. Still is.

[@mkysml]

entropic is a useful analogy, but entropy isn't measured in physical quantities like energy or mass. CO2 as entropic might work, CO2 as entropy doesn't. james might wanna clean that one up.

[@grindupBaker]

The meme on your team that I dislike because it's so stupid is "humanity is a heat engine". Of course humanity isn't a heat engine at all because all is Relative and for Earth's ecosphere Sun is 99.70% of all of it (0.30% geothermal & 0.30% humans make by burn Fossil carbon & fission). That Guy McPherson clown is shrewdly sleazily intelligent when it comes to building a Business Model but his thermodynamics is at British Primary School 9 year old level except from a lesser brain. Of course the opposing team has nothing but every kind of Parroted inane crap imaginable.

[@russtaylor2122]

Thanks both. You do know that we will be obliging our children and grandchildren to attempt to clean up our mess? They will also be unsuccessful. This is a conundrum which has no viable solution, but which we will endlessly discuss... Of course we will have to collapse before it can be radically rebuilt. Those that survive future climate disasters, Ai 'solutions', war, famine, floods, topsoil erosion, ocean acidification, the mad idea that every human life is worth saving, even at vast price. It is not. We are in massive human population and ecological overshoot and modern right leaning governance is harping on about no abortions? Makes no sense, especially when you realise that the girl that will give birth to the ten billionth baby has already been born...

[@recycledpaper]

Two things have been perplexing us. Why would any sane person invest £22 billion into carbon capture and what is Cuppola's Megalopolis film about. It turns out they have the same answer. People will carry on doing things they usually do, even though they cause harm, because they are fearful of losing what they have and are scared of an unknown future.

[@ricardogutierrez901]

I cannot add a direct comment to Mr. Dyke, so excuse me on profiting of your space. ----10:57 Dear Mr. Dyke: I'll try to be brief. Earth, on continents and oceans yearly exchange -up and down- with the atmosphere ab. 790 Giga tons of CO2. The yearly man made CO2 is ab. 19 Gt, which is very small compared with the natural cycle. Second, the mean life of CO2 in atmosphere is ab. 25 years, proved by the C14 based CO2 produced by nuclear tests. Therefore, it is continually decomposed in its elements, carbon and oxigen and ceases to act. Third, there is no thermal forcing of the CO2 , but just a thermalization . Please read authors Happer and Wijngaarden on that. Fourth, also take into consideration that the ZERO EMITIONS might imply a very dangerous CO2 decrease. Remember that the GREEN KINGDOM ceases to work with CO2 concentrations of 180-150 pom. Fifth, thanks God the 2050 goals are dying, they are just SUICIDAL. Best wishes Ricardo Gutiérrez Krüsemann, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

[@grindupBaker]

​ @ricardogutierrez901 Every part of your Crap is utter drivel. The ocean emits about 245 Gt CO2 and absorbs about 258 Gt CO2 each year with the extra 13 Gt CO2 being part of the 40 Gt CO2 that humans emit. If there was no CO2 being added then the ocean would emit and absorb about 245 Gt CO2 each year. Humans emit 40 Gt CO2 each year and absorb ZERO Gt CO2 each year. Duh! The "mean life of CO2 in atmosphere is ab. 25 years, proved by the C14 based CO2 produced by nuclear tests" is drivel. Many of us are far too smart to fall for the sleaze like that of you Sock Puippet Crooks. It is the IMBALANCE of CO2 in the air that lasts for a couple hundred thousand years tailing down to zero IMBALANCE and not the EXACT SAME MOLECULES you obvious Sock Puppet sleaze. You yourself claimed that the ocean turns over a massive "790 Giga tons of CO2" annually. Obviously it isn't the EXACT SAME MOLECULES with their isotope tracer that get absorbed in the High North Atlantic and offgassed in the Tropical Ocean since the Ocean has 38 times as much dissolved CO2 as the atmosphere. It is this ACCUMULATED STORE of CO2 38 times the CO2 in the air that it being cycled around by the Ocean so most of the fossil isotope tracer CO2 is going to be mostly by far in the Ocean unless humans will be burning at the 40 GtCO2/yr rate for 3,300 years and saturate the Ocean with that isotope. --------------- "there is no thermal forcing of the CO2 , but just a thermalization . Please read authors Happer and Wijngaarden on that" == Utter drivel. Happer and Wijngaarden assess 19% less CO2 effect than NASA uses in its Models, simple as that. You are confusing Happer and Wijngaarden with "Tom Shula" hilarious Crap for Half Wits, totally refuted by MEASUREMENT since 1964. Furthermore I'm fully banned frmo comments on Little Baby Coward Tom Nel;son "Channel" for a couple years because I rip the Junk Science of his lying and idiot Guests into shreds & tatters just like I'm doing with your juvenile lies & Crap here. --------------- "GREEN KINGDOM ceases to work with CO2 concentrations of 180-150 pom". Irrelevant because 330 ppmv is a goal, not that humans will ever manage to get it that low. Drivel because there's been 180 ppmv during a dozen glaciations with lots of vegetation oin the tropics and sub-tropics. Just a MISERABLE collection of stupid old Junk Memes is all you have.

[@recycledpaper]

@@ricardogutierrez901 I can see why you can't make a direct comment with your intentional misinformation. The current global average concentration of carbon dioxide (CO 2) in the atmosphere is 421 ppm (0.04%) as of May 2022. This is an increase of 50% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, up from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years prior to the mid-18th century. The increase is due to human activity.

[@LizChild-u9i]

I'd like to make the point that it isn't the 'Human system' that has caused the problem. In my view it is the 'Industrial System' that has superseded the natural 'Human/Biological system'. These different concepts aren't rationalised to be different in terms of us looking at solutions. It requires more definition.I'd like these concepts that we create, to be thoroughly debated. Rather than constantly blaming Humans. It can be the concept of Progress, for example, that is holding us back from taking up the evidently better biological solutions. Natural Solutions concept rather than 'emissions elimination'. Industrialisation is the huge mistake/experiment we now know, to our cost.

[@sjpandolph]

Our economic models are not compatible with making rational decisions regarding climate changes. The models are skewed to support our current large corporations in the west. Until these models are revised, we will continue to make decisions harmful to the climate.

[@Stan-b3v]

The models are supporting a large population of people who don’t do any work to support themselves. The corporations are a symptom, not a cause.

[@michaeledwards2251]

Likewise the environment as a whole. Already only 4% of vertebrate life is not either human or domestic live stock.

[@graemetunbridge1738]

45:00 'car industry is the one thing we know how to do' - not any more, radically overtaken by China's superior tech, gained by decades of investment.

[@springford9511]

Interesting video. If you want to have a climate discussion for public consumption I can't see how it can include the word "Entropy".

[@aliendroneservices6621]

33:30 *_"The Price is Wrong: Why Capitalism Won't Save the Planet"_* Brett Christophers ‎Verso (March 12, 2024)

[@cal9688]

I kinda disagree that the Chinese can produce EV's cheaper than the west. As I understand it the Chinese government subsidized the hell out of the EV market precisely so they could capture European and US market share. We might also question the wages or lack of, of the Chinese Auto Workers.

[@javierfuente1395]

Or the fact that 70% of China's electricity is provided by Coal power so every battery and solar panel we buy from them is actually the 'dirtiest' possible and destroys jobs in the Uk. If the 'climate lobby' could kick out the communists then it might actually be part of finding the solution.

[@wackJackle]

Well, you are wrong, they can produce EV's cheaper, much cheaper. And you havn't seen any modenr Chinese production of cars if you think the Auto Workes are the most important think.

[@FedericoV75]

You should interview Ophuls. In Plato's Revenge he speaks about the combination of physical and moral entropy who has pushed us in to collapse. He is one of the greatest intellectuals of our time.

[@TheUAoB]

James, no biophysical system dynamics models? What was the Limits to Growth? Collapse is guaranteed. What isn't is what that means.

[@grindupBaker]

Actually, entropy is explained improperly because it's incompletely. Only the entropy of the Universe must increase. Local entropy can be decreased at the expense of having a LARGER increase of entropy somewhere outside what is "Local" (must be LARGER because 100% Efficiency is impossible) and actually this fact, decreasing Local entropy at the expense of outside entropy is a key facet of what "energy transfer" is about, over a huge range of scales. The Sun's entropy is relentlessly increasing at a rate that dwarfs Earth (Earth gets absorbs just 1 part in 3 Billion parts of Sun's energy) and that's by converting its hydrogen fuel to helium and converting some matter to energy, a massive increase of entropy, it cannot spontaneously go back to what it was. In theory (IN THEORY) anything on Earth could take advantage of that OVERWHELMING Sun's entropy increase (obviously limited to 1 3-Billionth of it without putting structure outside Earth shadow and getting more Sun's energy to Earth). That's exactly what wind turbines and solar P.V. panels are all about. They are densifying energy, which is un-homogenizing, which is ... wait for it ... reducing entropy. Entropy is the amount of homogenization. If the Universe was fully homogenous it would not exist in any real sense, it exists only because there's inhomogeneity, if your left arm was the same matter as Mars atmosphere laid out the same it wouldn't exist as an arm. If the whole Universe was identical in every cubic metre to every other cubic metre then it wouldn't exist as a Universe, no "structure" to it ... == maximum entropy, all fully mixed up. When a bicycle spoke is manufactured it has less entropy than the raw materials in it (it is more "organized") and the Physical Law is that a bunch of other stuff (whatever) MUST be more mixed up than before (more entropy) to bring that bicycle spoke into existence from the raw materials. Maybe some oil was burned for energy, the Sun's energy provided that oil by increasing its entropy 300 million year ago or whatever, humans doing it are eating, burning carbon the Sun made in food, they are travelling, doing this & that making the spoke. Spoke-making machines were designed by bods who ate & drove & flew to holiday and this'n'that while designing machines, using energy and increasing entropy, and on and on, you get the picture, massive entropy increase needed in thousands of ways just to decrease entropy from some raw materials into an organized non-homogenous (not like iron ore) bicycle spoke. And all energy for everything on Earth, all increases in Local entropy (planet Earth == "Local") either from Sun's energy from its entropy increasing (99.7%) or from Earth's Thea-collision heat and mass-to-energy inside Earth being spread to the Universe (0.3%) ) or from humanses mass-to-energy fission contraptions' energy being spread to the Universe (0.3%). ------ Entire comment was for I finally got it off my chest about the blokes saying I'm a lousy cheapskate repairing the inner tubes all the time instead of just buying new ones, but I'm not a lousy cheapskate just very very very worried I'll screw up the entropy of the Universe.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

not in terms of spacetime itself - as Roger Penrose points out gravitational mass originates from quantum frequency negentropy. Same thing Schroedringer pointed out in 1945 with his Negentropic as source of life argument.

[@debilthomes501]

Boy, you’d be fun to share some beers with! 🤠

[@ClimateRealism]

What. Total nonsense. We need more CO2. There is no climate crisis. What temperature do you think we shoukd return to? pre-infustrial?

[@Respectrogram]

Doom and gloom can be refreshing when it’s filled with a) things you haven’t yet heard or haven’t yet grokked, and b) pathways to action. So, refreshed, reinvigorated. Thanks to you both for a great conversation.

[@d.Cog420]

Could you let us know the person/group he mentioned at the end? I’ve checked your AI transcript but it’s not understood him either and given 3 different spellings none of which have a web presence.

[@anamn41]

Paul Bell, also known as Pasha

[@johndoe1909]

given tha usa is o the verge of totally giving up anybody semblance of democracy in November, I am no longer have any hope or trust whatsoever in the common man to do anything rational for their own survival....

[@michaeledwards2251]

Given no choice will visible on any of the main stream media, I don't see how the majority will even suspect they have a choice.

[@trenomas1]

Biochar remains the most straightforward carbon management solution. I'm sure we need more than just this, but it's objectively functional.

[@achenarmyst2156]

The tree topic is very frustrating. Apart from the problem to generate biologically diverse forests we are still destroying vast amounts of forest systems. The Amazon as well as all the German forests (still covering a third of Germany) have just turned to net CO2 producers.

[@pvmagnus]

Pretty impressive that the biosphere has been able to absorb 40% of our carbon pulse so far. Or rather Pretty LUCKY. You would expect it would have been overwhelmed. I suspect it probably is now & this will be reflected as a Termination Shock rears its head.

[@singingway]

Kind of like how smoking doesn't kill people immediately. If people knew they'd have cancer after smoking their fourth pack of cigarettes, then they wouldn't rationalize continuing for forty years. If the biosphere had slapped back harder -- within the lifetimes of the humans who altered it -- then that more rapid feedback may have educated humans better.

[@michaeledwards2251]

The way the biosphere has absorbed 40% is part of the processes which have kept the climate stable for millennia. It has taken pig headedness to reach the stage where stability is becoming questionable.

[@michaeledwards2251]

@@singingway Doubtful. Exxon knew exactly what the consequences would be, decades before the main body of climatologists. Didn't effect their decisions an iota.

[@robertpainter9820]

Great episode. Looking forward to Pasha Bell.

[@wackJackle]

I really do admire what you're doing with your Planet: Critical. I just want to say: Thank you very much and this is one of your best episode. Of course because of the great Mr. Dyke who has the knowledge but he also can communicate this topics in a very clear way. The other reason is that he makes you laugh and that's just beautiful. Keep up your amazing work and again, thank you.

[@Rene-uz3eb]

So time to shoot for a safe co2 concentration, say 310ppm, acknowledging that we are already past the limit? This net zero thing completely disregards the 'when', it seems to say as long as we stop emitting before it gets too hot we'll be fine, whatever ppm that'll be.

[@DrSmooth2000]

This would be current mainstream climate science understanding. If we hit NZ at 1.6 or 2.6 that is where we will be anchored ⚓ to. The normal holocene natural variability of +/- .3C will hover us over the years between 1.3 to 1.9 or between 2.3 and 2.9 as case may be

[@DrSmooth2000]

Hansen model is more realistic where we never kick that last 10% of FF in energy mix Natural feedbacks will kick on and after Centuries or Milennia or tens of millenia we will end up in a true Hothouse Climate state with negligible ice in summer

[@jamigaither]

Entropy!! I love him already! 💕

[@tigerhaoqian3777]

The scary thing is, is 1.5 degrees celcius average temperature rise a tipping point for further warming of the climate where natural carbon sinks fail and become carbon emitters? The higher the total carbon emissions the larger the tipping point, and the faster the rate of carbon emissions the closer it will hit the tipping point. If carbon emissions continue at a slow rate, the tipping points will become larger and multiple tipping points will combine into one tipping point. If carbon emissions continue at a fast rate, the tipping points will be hit sooner.

[@uiscestudio]

The comments thread helps me to feel and observe the complexity of any way of moving forward. I don't think suicide or nihilism makes sense though.

[@grindupBaker]

The so-called "greenhouse effect (GHE)" in Earth's troposphere is this: 95% of surface LWIR radiation is absorbed by H2O gas & CO2 (GHGs) in the 1st 100 m of air above and changed into "heat" (warm air rising and LWIR heat the air). So only 5% of needed cooling LWIR to space got through. The GHGs in the lowest 100 m of air make LWIR and some escapes into the surface (like 375 went up from the surface and 345 went down into it) and some escapes into the air above but 99% of LWIR manufactured by GHGs in the lowest 100 m of air is absorbed by GHGs in the lowest 100 m of air. The same process continues for each 100 m of air layer all the way up but the air keeps getting thinner and is 99% gone at 35 km up so it changes almost nothing. Increasingly getting higher more LWIR escapes through more layers above & below because the air is thinner, but also less LWIR is made by H2O gas & CO2 colliding because it's thinner and colder. So what escapes to space from all this is 200 w/m**2 but what went up from the surface is 375 w/m**2. The difference of 175 w/m**2 is the GHE amount It's been measured from space non stop since 1964.

[@singingway]

We need someone to illustrate a vision of how people can drop the use of fossil fuels right where they are, now, in the circumstances they are currently IN, whether rural, city or suburban. Show a way, not through electrification, unaffordable solar or wind which use drives overshoot, but a WAY to be cool enough, and warm enough, and be able to -- for example - keep your city water pipes from feeezing when your house isnt heated. How to make, and cook with, solar ovens. How to charge small rechargeable appliance batteries with small wind turbines, to run LED lights, radio, fan, electric toothbrush, etc. in this way, planning for collapse could actually reduce overall energy use.

[@Spacemonkeymojo]

More working from home for a start. Business travel only limited to what is strictly required. Online conferences. Of course this kind of thing won't be done though.

[@longnewton1]

The real ‘debt’ is a resource debt. Our over-use of resources now will mean it’ll be harder for future generations to live comfortably. Financial debt is far less of an issue.

[@eliotjacobson]

@51:03 "I would say is that I've never seen any evidence either kind of empirically in terms of you know where things are going and how things are changing or theoretically in terms of just maybe how the physics of this thing works that says that there's this one path or collection of paths that we're on which unavoidably mean that this is where we're going to end up" How about "The Limits to Growth" by The Club of Rome? Or "Overshoot" by William Catton? Or work on our ecological footprint by William Rees?

[@lsdc1]

this is part of a response to a question concerning civilisation collapse - so the scope was wider than the biophysics of climate change and necessarily included a wider realms of psycho-sócio-technical-political implications - that are inevitably coupled with the biophysics , but are clearly not encompassed within these earth system models. in this space it is less about trajectories and predictions and more about scenarios. hence the explicit mention of alternative knowledge construction methodologies such as expert elicitation.

[@johngray1439]

What about the terminal shock after aerosol masking is removed?

[@grindupBaker]

Estimated at 1.0 w/m**2. Present imbalance is 1.3 w/m**2 so the "terminal shock" is that warming rate would increase to 2.3/1.3 = 1.8 times the present warming of 0.25 degrees/decade is what would happen if ABSOLUTELY ALL air pollution was stopped this year and for centuries or longer. Sure you can refer to that as "terminal shock" if you're keen on memes & snappy phrases, and not at all keen on doing work, study, analysis, calculations and determining the quantity, like I've always been keen on. Chacun a son gout. "terminal shock", sounds real good, sounds real snappy to me. Go for it!

[@oldluce6946]

Thank you.

[@keithomelvena2354]

Were you writing down the "I live therefore..." quote Rachel?

[@1237barca]

I’d like to talk in your podcast about why the area beteeen Temuco and Puerto Montt, Chile is the most stable place for humans to live going forward.

[@GregSteele-os8yp]

That's torn it.

[@07Flash11MRC]

Okay, and? Are we just all supposed to move there?

[@1237barca]

Every person on earth? No. Every person smart and capable enough to do so? Yes.

[@singingway]

Sorry but climate change is actually climate chaos which means climate repercussions can pound down anywhere on anyone at any time.

[@Sg-lw5qq]

Could you share more information that explains why that part of the world would be the most stable place for humans? Links to other videos or papers or just what to search for would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

[@stefanbernardknauf467]

Dear Ms Donald. I don't like to sound extremely critical. Unfortunately I don't have time to properly reformulate, so I deleted my previous comment. A little comment on stop drilling oil wells: your guest should really look at critical people on how oil industry works, for instance "the slurping sound" by Nate Hagens (I can't remember the guest's name, sorry!). Really good insight. In short excellent podcast, excellent guest, but you both don't seem to realize how dependent we are on fossil fuels. Personally I believe we mostly exported our coal and oil consumption to the far east, we didn't reduce it much. Oil "production" stagnate for years, while more people besides the rich west access energy and some consumption, so that is good news. Bad news is we can't increase oil production, so the West will gradually loose welfare. Europe and GB are in the front seat in that journey downhill. The slope will start accelerating soon, most experts estimate around 2030. Good luck!

[@marinaneil5814]

I believe Art Berman's the Nate Hagens guest you're thinking of :)

[@stefanbernardknauf467]

@@marinaneil5814 that's him, thanks!

[@mikemason9648]

Another knock-on effect of misguided policy is the move toward using wood pellets as a form of bio-energy. Here in Canada, Draxx has been taking new lumber from our forests. It is not just waste wood as was first conceived and promoted. In either case, there is also the amount of energy it takes to ship these pellets via rail and sea. And of course, this is yet another reduction of one of nature's big carbon sinks, our vast boreal forest.

[@johndoe1909]

i am walking away from oil to electric because i can produ e it locally and i am not dependent on petro states.

[@qbas81]

Excellent talk. Very sad.

[@brucethomas471]

Surely everyone knows that our food growth and delivery systems begin with methane (natural gas) for making fertilizer and literally run on diesel, farm tractor to trains, trucks and delivery semis. Without fertilizer and a food delivery system, we starve. The consequences will play out. But hey, we've had the best lives in history. At least some did!

[@AssadNizam]

Back in like 2008 I was canvassing for working families party. We had a petition and I was going door to door to get signatures. My pitch was the work wfp had done raising the minimum wage and fighting for a fracking ban in ny to protect watersheds. I had a guy foaming at the mouth telling me that he “didn’t believe” in all that “environmental stuff…” He believed in … “Clean coal and American jobs.” Verbatim that’s what he said. The two were conflated in his mind. I’m sure his lawn signs today probably day things like “Drill baby drill, fuck your feelings.”

[@chriswalker7632]

(sorry if long & unnecessary comment about physics ontology - is easy to understand though) I'm not an expert, but I did create my own formula for the surface ('thermal equilibrium') temperature in relation to CO2 in the atmosphere that works for both Earth (415 ppm CO2) and Venus (965000 ppm) just to kind of make all the connections when it comes to the physics feel real to me. That is the sensible part of this comment. However, this comment goes a bit mad in the next part (disclaimer - I'm not an expert though): I've come to understand that there are two ideological ways of thinking about 'Entropy' in respect to changes in temperature - one in which 'Entropy' changes and another ('holographic') way in which the 'Entropy' does not (that too many people - unhelpfully - subscribe to imo). My 'non-linear' formula for surface temp in C at any ppm CO2 = (5772 x sqrt(696x10^6)/sqrt(2 x 150x10^9)) x (1.04858 + %CO2^0.70104)^0.25 - 273.15 which closely equals an official 'linear' formula for surface temp in C at lower ppm CO2 = (273.15 + 13.5 1750 temp) + 0.7 x 0.0155 x (ppm in atmosphere today - 280 1750 ppm) where '0.7' is the 'climate sensitivity' and '0.0155' is a conversion factor for ppm CO2 into Watts per Metre Squared 'climate forcing' effect of CO2. This formula doesn't work for Venus. In my formula: - 5772 K = surface temp of Sun 696x10^6 m = radius of Sun the '2' is because Sun light is absorbed by spherical planets rather than a flat surface - i.e. the 1/sqrt(2) that appears comes from (piR^2/4piR^2)^0.25 = 1/sqrt(2). So that debunks 'Flat Earthers' I suppose... 150x10^9 m = distance of Earth from Sun 1.04858 = greenhouse effect of atmosphere without any CO2 %CO2 = ppm/10000 I calculated the greenhouse effect in 'Watts per metre squared' rather than in 'Temperature'. So the '^0.25' is the result of converting one to the other - this requires using the stefan-boltzmann constant 5.67x10^-8 but it cancels out in the above formula because I also used the inverse of it as well. and 273.15 K = 0 C, where 1 K = 1 C, where K = Kelvin and C = Celsius So for Venus with 96.5% CO2 and 108x10^9 m distance from Sun, it has a surface temp of 464.31 C (pretty much the actual surface temp of Venus). For Earth at 280 ppm in 1750 it gives a temp of 13.5000 C. At 415 ppm CO2 today it gives 15.12857 C (1.62857 C above 13.5 1750 temp). Whereas the official formula gives 1.46475 C (above 13.5 C 1750 temp), which we'll reach in about 10 years even if CO2 emissions are cut to zero today. And if we continue to pump 5.38 ppm per year into the atmosphere until 2050 (25 years from now, so an extra 134.5 ppm CO2 - assuming half of CO2 emissions from the atmosphere are absorbed by nature still) it gives 16.5746 C (3.0746 C above 13.5 1750 temp), whereas the offical formula above gives 16.4241 C (2.9241 C above 1750 temp). Not bad I suppose considering I'm not an expert. The worst case scenario of 22 C (8.5 C above 1750 temp) by 2100 with 2000 ppm CO2 (the same as during the Eocene about 50 million years ago) gives 27.7500 C (mine) and 32.162 C (official formula). So what was I saying about 'Entropy'? This may seem a bit abstract, but there are two generalised ways of formulating 'Hawking Entropy': - eq 1) Nrc^2 = 4piRv^2rc^2/2Ghc, which changes with respect to temperature eq 2) NRv^2 = 4piR^2v^4/2Ghc, which doesn't change with respect to temperature where R = radius of object and r = wavelength of radiation emitted by object N = number of atoms in object = 4piM/hc (this is slightly idealised) and v^2 = 2GM/R = ('escape velocity')^2, where M = mass of object and (velocity of atom)^2 = 1/r (this is slightly idealised) c = speed of light 299792458 ms^-1, G = gravitational constant 6.673x10^-11 h = Planck's constant 6.626x10^-34 In the situation where we have a Black Hole, R = r and v = c to give the 'Hawking Black Hole Entropy' = 4pirc^4/2Ghc = eq 1 = eq 2. But who knows - maybe R doesn't equal r? In other situations eq 1) does not equal eq 2). So essentially the 'holographic' version of Entropy eq 2) 'NRv^2 = 4piR^2v^4/2Ghc' assumes R = r all the time in any situation. i.e. it assumes in the end is that 'Change is an Illusion' because with 'Entropy = NRv^2', 'Rv^2' always equals '2GM' and 'N' never changes. This doesn't seem to be a view that helps when it comes to tackling 'Climate Change'. But it also seems to assume a 'Newtonian' view of particle dynamics, as it only uses v^2 = 2GM/R to describe motion. I thought we had moved passed this in the early 20th century? But it seems there are still 'Anti-Materialists' who subscribe to this Newtonian view. Whereas eq 1) also includes the wavelength 'r' of a particle as well as v^2 = 2GM/R and so also incorporates 'Quantum Physics'. Another big important difference is that in eq 1) the speed of light is never exceeded, whereas in eq 2) exceeding the speed of light is a possibility and also assumes the existence of 'singularities' and infinitely divisible space and time, unlike the 'Planck Limits' imposed in eq 1). eq 2) also assumes we live inside a 'black hole universe' where everything we see is a 'holographic projection' from its 'black hole event horizon' unlike eq 1). Basically eq 2) is nuts (it is the 'Gender Critical' Terf that won't go away...). To bring both the above equations down to Earth by re-arranging them in terms of: - Temp x Boltzmann Constant = T x Bk = energy/entropy (yes, 'Hawking Entropy' is just a re-arranging of a thermodynamics equation that millions of engineers and scientists were all already familiar with...). Bk = 1.38065x10^-23 eq 1) T x Bk = Rv^2c^2/Nrc^2 = 2Ghc/4pir, where v^2 = 2GM/R so eq 1) T x Bk = 2Mc^2/Nrc^2 = hc/2pir, where (velocity of atom)^2 = 1/r and eq 2) T x Bk = Rv^4/NRv^2 = 2Ghc/4piR, where v^2 = 2GM/R so eq 2) T x Bk = 2Mv^2/NRv^2 = hc/2piR, where v can exceed the speed of light So if M = mass of Earth and N = number of atoms in Earth and T equals say 5000 K (average temperature of Earth). In Eq 1) (velocity of atoms)^2 = 1/r = 1/457.971x10^-9, a value below the speed of light. In Eq 2) v^2 = 2GM/R = 2x6.673x10^-11x6x10^24/457.971x10^-9, a value above the speed of light (and inside a black hole - i.e. the wavelength of 457.971x10^-9 m we see is a 'holographic projection' inside a black hole with a fixed 'hawking entropy').

[@jonbjones24]

Does it make sense to have dollars which are exchangeable for goods and services that use energy in their creation? There are few sources of energy on Earth: Solar input, radioactive decay, and existing chemical bonds. What if money was tied to the energy captured and used? What if we used up all the reasonably available stores of energy? What are the implications if we simply continue promising ourselves future growth in a idea system that is not connected to actual available energy? I think we all stop.

[@Spacemonkeymojo]

We are so screwed.

[@iceman7207]

I have been studying the space now for a good twenty years and I think you can read the conclusion in Limits to Growth. The book was 50 years ahead of its time. There is no way we can have 8 billion people consuming at the levels of the industrialized world and survive. We are simply reaching the limits on many levels and systems. Even renewables are not a real solution as it requires fossil fuel energy to mine, build and deploy solar and wind. All the renewables currently deployed are not substituting oil, gas and coal, they are in addition to, so we have not even begun to solve the problem. I do wonder if we could create sustainable society based on hydro, nuclear and some solar/wind, the caveat being a much lower population, a fully circular economy and a much reduced material standard of living? The problem is, we have built up expectations of lifestyle that are simply not achievable for all. When I look around here in Australia people have huge houses, big cars, sprawling suburbs. All of this is massively energy intensive and only possible because of Oil, and despite the climate crisis, people continue to buy massive SUV's etc. That aside we are all trapped in a system that demands more growth and creates more debt, this can only resolve in one way, to allow us to start over. The issue will be how to manage the bursting bubble and what we will end up with. Humans are not good at learning from there mistakes. Economics has a lot to answer for and until we change that worldview of everlasting growth we have no chance.

[@barrycarter8276]

Sorry Rachael, for me James Dyke didn’t tell me anything that anyone follows anthropological climate heating isn’t aware of, except maybe climate deniers who are only looking for flaws. If you are looking for something that is really profound, Tim Garrett who you have had on Planet Critical to my knowledge twice, has recently completed some research, and following that appeared in a video where he’s said the following, based on the exponential function which is quite profound. Maybe you should have him back on to further expand on:- Prof. Tim Garrett: “I think one thing I find really quite amazing is just how fast the changes may come upon us, because our current GROWTH RATE, it may seem small, just 2.3% per year or thereabouts for our rate of energy consumption growth, but that translates to a DOUBLING in our consumption rate in just 30 years, now that's incredible because if you think that it took us 10,000 years to get to our current consumption rate and that we will DOUBLE this again in just 30 years, then we are thinking about a change in civilisation that in our very lifetimes will reproduce everything that has happened over centuries, Millennium, and that brings us to, I think, to a very basic question, how will this happen, can we sustain a DOUBLING of our daily energy consumption rate and all the raw materials that go along with it, do those raw materials exist, perhaps they do, perhaps we can figure out ways to extract sufficient resources from our environment to maintain a DOUBLING of our civilisation in the NEXT 30 YEARS, and then in the NEXT 30 YEARS BEYOND THAT, which would be FOUR TIMES AS LARGE…”🤔 Short transcript from 4 minute KZbin video “Something Has Got To Give - Prof. Tim Garrett in Ecosophia - Collapse and Regeneration”🤔

[@benchapple1583]

I live in Pančevo, a city in Serbia. In the last 10 years I've seen the lowest temperature of -23 and the highest temperature of 42. That's a 65 degree spread. Absolutely no one cares about 1.5 degrees. I am astonished by all the idiots who think that we, humans, can control the climate one way or another. I despair. As a child and teenager the big threat was the coming ice age, then it was global warming all of a sudden. Now it's 'climate change'. In 40 years it will be 'global freezing' again. And the culprit will be CO2 yet again.

[@grindupBaker]

You've got a big spread there. You Serbians have always been famous for the huge size of your spread and your Classic Serbian boasting about it. Here at north Lake Huron I just gots -36 degrees in my garden February before last and got 35 degrees couple of Julys ago and they closed the restaurant because Health & Safety kitchen too hot to be in. So 71 degrees of maximum difference. We're shy Canadians though so we don't boast non stop like Serbians do.

[@sumanghosh5135]

The antithesis of humanity, the avarice, the hatred, the cruelty, the anti intellectuality, the utterly ruinous, shortsighted disregard for the circle of life, has led us to the verge of extinction. Our inhumanity has worsened over time, enabled by the spectacular advancement of technology. There's no holding it back. We have already crossed the tipping point, no 'ism' s will help now.

[@gregoryjames165]

It's so inhumane there are less people living in absolute poverty as percentage than ever before. So inhumane it has enabled 7 billion souls to experience the wonder of life. If we want to change the system we need to be honest about its benefits.

[@frictionhitch]

It "hasn't worked" for one reason we focus on consumption rather than production. If you mine or drill it will be used. When have we talked about a reduction in production? Australia and the US should ignore the UN and go to OPEC. Strike a reduced exports deal to start. Good news is it will work out for those countries involved because prices will go up. Worldwide investment in nuclear will go up. The producing countries need to horde their remaining fossil fuel reserves. That's how we get out.

[@BrinJay-s4v]

If the climate is warming please tell me how is CO2 involved by radiation? I can not see any viable mechanism.

[@grindupBaker]

Your total ignorance and lack of any interest whatsoever is duly noted. For anybody who IS interested browsing past it's like this: At drive-by sock puppets miked Unit 5106, debil thomes Unit 501, Brin Jay Unit -s4v Measured from space non stop since 1964 and power spectra all over the internet. It sure does. Surface radiation is absorbed in the lowest 100 m (300 feet) of air and warms it, instead of going from surface to space. Sure sounds exactly like a blanket to me. ---------------------------- Photon-radiating & absorbing molecules over each 1 square metre of Earth on average: 20 grammes: The weight of molecules in the surface that make all the radiation going up into the air. 1 gramme: The weight of molecules in the surface that make all the 13.0-17.0 microns wavelength radiation going up into the air. 23,000 grammes: The weight of H2O gas molecules in the air that make and absorb broad spectral radiation, same as the surface does. 1,800 grammes: The weight of CO2 molecules in the air that make and absorb 13.0-17.0 microns wavelength radiation, same as the surface does. 2,300 grammes: The weight of water & ice in clouds in the air that make and absorb broad spectral radiation, same as the surface does, and absorb & scatter solar SWR radiation. The above are the relevant quantities for comparison except I didn't bother with CH4, O3, N2O, CFCs. 7,800,000 grammes: The weight of IRRELEVANT N2 molecules in the air. 2,400,000 grammes: The weight of IRRELEVANT O2 molecules in the air. 130,000 grammes: The weight of IRRELEVANT Ag molecules in the air ------------------- So-called "greenhouse effect" physics: It happens in Earth's troposphere. The H2O gas & CO2 in Earth's atmosphere manufacture ~1,500 times as much radiation as the Sun's radiation that Earth absorbs (or something of that scale, hundreds of times as much) and of course (instantly obvious to a functioining brain) they simultaneously absorb all but 2.35 Solar Units of the ~1,500 Solar Units of LWR that they manufacture (due to them colliding). Taking 1 Unit as the Sun's radiation that Earth absorbs (which is 99.93% of all energy going into the ecosphere, geothermal and all the human nuclear fission and fossil carbon burning are 0.035% each) and the 1,500 times as a workable example (not accurate) to describe the physics concept: ==== Atmosphere energy (as power) Budget ==== Units 0.33 Solar SWR that Earth absorbs into the atmosphere 0.92 LWR Leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere and goes to space 1,500 LWR manufactured by H2O gas & CO2 molecules in Earth's atmosphere, using up 1500 "heat" Units 1,497.65 LWR absorbed by H2O gas & CO2 molecules in Earth's atmosphere, generating 1,497.64 "heat" Units 1.43 LWR Leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere and goes into the surface 1.57 LWR Leaks out the surface and goes into the bottom of Earth's atmosphere 0.45+x "Heat" (regular+water evaporation latent) rises from the surface into the troposphere at a range of altitudes x "Heat" (regular+water condensation latent) goes from the troposphere at a range of altitudes into the surface ==== Surface energy (as power) Budget ==== Units 0.67 Solar SWR that Earth absorbs into the surface 0.08 LWR Leaks out the surface and goes to space 1.43 LWR Leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere and goes into the surface 1.57 LWR Leaks out the surface and goes into the bottom of Earth's atmosphere 0.45+x "Heat" (regular+water evaporation latent) rises from the surface into the troposphere at a range of altitudes x "Heat" (regular+water condensation latent) goes from the troposphere at a range of altitudes into the surface -------------- LWR straight from the surface to space is because H2O gas, CO2, CH4, O3, NOx, CFCs don't absorb those wavelengths Earth makes LWR & SWR photons from the centre of Earth's core to the top of Earth's atmosphere (it's all various atoms & molecules making it) in an amount of several hundred billion of those Units above, an amount of several hundred billion times as much as the Sun's radiation that Earth absorbs. It can't much get out to space though because practically the exact same amount of photons several hundred billion times as much as the Sun's radiation here also gets absorbed by the same, or other, atoms & molecules by the time it's travelled a few microns in solids & liquids, or travelled metres in troposphere gases, or travelled metres to kilometres in stratosphere gases and higher, being converted when it's absorbed into causing faster atom or molecule speed, kinetic energy (which is what's commonly called "heat"). -------------- So there's the balance at the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) with 1 Solar SWR Unit being absorbed below and 0.92+0.08=1 LWR Unit being sent through the TOA to space. The "greenhouse effect" is the fact that only 0.92 leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere but a larger 1.43 leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere into the surface, because only the leakage to space gets rid of the constant stream of solar SWR energy, not the leakage into the surface. If they were both the same, both 1.175, then there'd still be 2.35 leaking out of Earth's atmosphere but there'd be no "greenhouse effect" (as you see, out of the top of Earth's atmosphere to space has gone up from 0.92 to 1.175 so there's obviously much more cooling). The reason why they are unbalanced with more leaking out the bottom than out the top is simply because Earth's troposphere is usually by far (much) colder at the top than at the bottom and colder gases make less radiation than warmer gases because they collide less frequently and with less force (that's what "colder" means, it's just molecules bashing other molecules less frequently and with less force). ------ If more H2O gas & CO2 molecules are added into Earth's troposphere then the 0.92 that leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere is reduced and the 1.43 that leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere is correspondingly increased. For example, add some ghg molecules for a 0.01 Unit effect and the 0.92:1.43 leakage changes to 0.91:1.44 leakage, so there's more "greenhouse effect". That 0.01 Unit example is a "forcing" of 2.4 w/m**2 which is 60 years of the current ghgs increase and is expected would warm by ~2.4 degrees with the feedbacks.

[@grindupBaker]

345 w/m**2 down LWIR created by GHGs at 0-100 m is absorbed into the surface 344 w/m**2 down LWIR created by GHGs at 100-200 m is absorbed into GHGs at 0-100 m 343 w/m**2 down LWIR created by GHGs at 200-300 m is absorbed into GHGs at 100-200 m 342 w/m**2 down LWIR created by GHGs at 300-400 m is absorbed into GHGs at 200-300 m 341 w/m**2 down LWIR created by GHGs at 400-500 m is absorbed into GHGs at 300-400 m 340 w/m**2 down LWIR created by GHGs at 500-600 m is absorbed into GHGs at 400-500 m 338 w/m**2 down LWIR created by GHGs at 600-700 m is absorbed into GHGs at 500-600 m and so on except that it gets complicated as altitude changes because: - H2O gas is condensing and releasing vast heat in the "layers" (my arbitrary layers) it condenses in, increasing temperature & manufacture rate, - The concentration of air is decreasing so both less radiation is manufactured per volume and less absorbed per volume and also increasingly radiation from above and below gets through the layer. - The temperature of air is decreasing so less radiation is manufactured per volume (fewer, less-forceful collisions), BUT HOWEVER there is not less absorbed per volume, and this is actually what causes the so-called "greenhouse effect (GHE)" in Earth's troposphere that's got all humans fighting like crazy, the fact that photon manufacture increases with temperature but photon absorption does not. The same thing heading up from the surface: 375 w/m**2 up LWIR created in the surface top 1-40 microns is absorbed by GHGs at 0-100 m 344 w/m**2 up LWIR created by GHGs at 0-100 m is absorbed into GHGs at 100-200 m 343 w/m**2 up LWIR created by GHGs at 100-200 m is absorbed into GHGs at 200-300 m 342 w/m**2 up LWIR created by GHGs at 200-300 m is absorbed into GHGs at 300-400 m 341 w/m**2 up LWIR created by GHGs at 300-400 m is absorbed into GHGs at 400-500 m 340 w/m**2 up LWIR created by GHGs at 400-500 m is absorbed into GHGs at 500-600 m 339 w/m**2 up LWIR created by GHGs at 500-600 m is absorbed into GHGs at 600-700 m 337 w/m**2 up LWIR created by GHGs at 600-700 m is absorbed into GHGs at 700-800 m and so on except complications listed above. So that's how LWI radiation makes its contribution to moving heat up the troposphere but as you see above it moves an ever-decreasing amount UPWARDS as altitude increases, and it moves an ever-increasing amount DOWNWARDS as altitude decreases and thus it gets to less LWIR heading up from the top of the troposphere than heads up from the surface, the difference being the amount of the GHE. Of course, the troposphere is also heated by solar SWR (55 w/m**2), water evaporation latent heat NET amount after subtracting Morning Dew & rain on ice (88 w/m**2 NET) and thermals (conduction/convection) of warm air rising NET amount after subtracting the huge heat delivery downwards of descending air being heated by increasing pressure at the huge rate of 9.8 degrees per kilometre descent (20 w/m**2 NET). All of this gets bundled together (it makes the speed of molecules) so it simply provides additional energy for the MANUFACTURE (not "re-emission" or "re-radiation you Absurd Ignoramuses) of LWIR. My LWIR manufactured quantities are so-so approximations

[@grindupBaker]

For a so-called "greenhouse effect" in a planet's atmosphere to affect surface temperature it absolutely requires TWO THINGS and not just ONE THING. It absolutely requires: 1) The type of gases with the "springy" covalent bonds that have energies matching those of frequencies of transverse electromagnetic radiation which the surface emits (the GHG molecule's "absorption spectrum"), and 2) An atmosphere with a temperature lapse rate in which atmospheric temperature decreases with altitude. ----------- Here's why: LWR EMISSION: The amount of long-wave radiation (LWR) that a "greenhouse gas (GHG)" emits depends on how often it collides because it can (and does about 1 collision every 33,000 collisions) obtain the harmonic motion in its "springy" covalent bonds by collision. So if it collides 3,000,000,000 times / second then obviously it'll get a "ringing" of its oscillating atomic nucleus (carbon for CO2) more often than if it collides 2,000,000,000 times / second (average for Earth's troposphere is 2,700,000,000 collisions / second for a molecule). Since the collision rate depends on temperature because the molecules are flying around faster (that's precisely what "temperature" & "heat" are in a gas, the average speed/weight of molecules, in a liquid or solid its "jostling" rather than "flying around") therefore at higher temperature there will be more LWR photons generated because more collisions. A scientists named "Max Plank" figured this out and other scientists developed the Stefan-Boltzmann equation PF = 5.6703 * (temp/100)**4 where "PF" is the power flux in w/m**2 for a bulk quantity of gas. Since temp decreases on average by 6.75 degrees for each 1 km increase in altitude therefore the power flux emitted by the GHGs decreases strongly (as the 4th power) as the altitude of the GHGs increases. ----------- LWR ABSORPTION: The amount of long-wave radiation (LWR) that a "greenhouse gas (GHG)" absorbs DOES NOT DEPEND IN THE SLIGHTEST on how often it collides so the amount of long-wave radiation (LWR) that a "greenhouse gas (GHG)" absorbs DOES NOT DEPEND IN THE SLIGHTEST on the temperature of the parcel of atmosphere that it is in. ----------- The tiny portion of you who have functioning brains, as I do, will immediately realize that the combination of 1) LWR EMISSION strongly increases with air temperature (5.6703 * (temp/100)**4), and 2) LWR ABSORPTION doesn't depend in the slightest on air temperature, and 3) The temperature of Earth's troposphere decreases with altitude means that increased GHGs in Earth's troposphere (definitely not any higher though) MUST cause tropospheric warming because increased GHGs means the quantity is getting higher and that means cooler and, per above, that means less LWR emission per unit GHG quantity but no change in LWR absorption per unit GHG quantity, so exactly the same LWR as before from below gets absorbed but less LWR than before gets sent upwards (the direction in which some of it will get to space). Very simple little bit of basic physics. British 13 year old grammar school child level. ------ This is why there can be no so-called "greenhouse effect" in Earth's tropopause and the "greenhouse effect" works BACKWARDS in Earth's stratosphere (increased GHGs should cool the stratosphere as I've just explained, and they definitely are, it's being measured by satellite instrument).

[@grindupBaker]

*** PART 2 OF 3 *** Now the so-called "enhanced greenhouse effect" explanation that I think is clearest, obvious and difficult to challenge by mis-direction disinformation and subterfuge per the memes concocted by the coal/oil shills. 8.5% +/- 1.7% of the LWR that Earth sends to space is emitted by the ocean or land surface because the photons are in a wave-length band called "the atmospheric window" that doesn't get absorbed by the GHGs. It's my understanding that this will narrow slightly with increased GHGs, but this isn't the prime "enhanced greenhouse effect" and I'm not addressing any additional warming it might cause. 91.5% of the LWR that Earth sends to space is emitted by the GHG molecules in the troposphere, tropopause and stratosphere (note 2). This 91.5% of the LWR is the part that gets reduced by increased tropospheric GHGs and causes an energy imbalance with insufficient energy going out, which causes global warming, ocean heating and ice fusion, which causes climate change, which causes a variety of nuisances that I haven't studied. ------------------ The troposphere has an upper and a lower surface. The upper surface is the top of the troposphere (the tropopause) and the lower surface is the surface of the ocean or land. LWR produced in the troposphere that reaches the lower surface will warm that surface so it stays in Earth's ecosphere but LWR produced in the troposphere that reaches the upper surface has a good chance to make it through the increasingly-thin tropopause, stratosphere and the ultra-thin extended atmosphere to space and be energy lost to Earth's ecosphere, thus cooling it. LWR reaching the upper/lower surfaces was produced by GHG molecules, the surfaces of water droplets and the surfaces of solid particles (sea salt, ash, dust) throughout the troposphere sending photons upwards/downwards as described in detail earlier. - There is a median altitude in the troposphere of the LWR quantity that reaches space. If you could float at this altitude and watch/count photons with special eye balls and brain you'd see 50% of those photons that reach space are heading up from below you. If you counted it at 48% then you'd need to float upward to get more of the LWR photon production below you. If you counted it at 52% then you'd need to float downward to get more of the LWR photon production above you. This is obvious. When you float to the place where 50.0000000% of those photons that reach space are heading up from below you then you are at the median altitude in the troposphere of the LWR quantity that reaches space. - There is a median altitude in the troposphere of the LWR quantity that reaches the surface of the ocean or land. You could float and find that the same way as the preceding. These 2 altitudes in the troposphere are approximately for illustration only and as a global average (I'm not quantifying the so-called "enhanced greenhouse effect" in this comment, only describing its operation accurately): ---- average --- ---- average global ---- ---- altitude --- ---- temperature ---- 5,700 metres -23.8 degrees 50% of the "shimmer cloud" of LWR photons that will make it to the tropopause are emitted by GHG molecules and the surfaces of cloud droplets and atmospheric particles below this altitude. 1,650 metres 3.7 degrees 50% of the "shimmer cloud" of LWR photons that will make it to the surface of the ocean or land are emitted by GHG molecules and the surfaces of cloud droplets and atmospheric particles below this altitude. These values are approximate. They are to demonstrate how the so-called "enhanced greenhouse effect" works, not to provide quantities. They are approximately correct though. They are based on a global average ~12,000 metres height of the troposphere but it varies geographically from 9,000 to 16,000 metres. --------------- If tropospheric GHGs are increased then 2 changes occur per my explanations above since the start of my comment: 1) More LWR than before is produced by the GHGs, and 2) More LWR than before is absorbed by the GHGs because the LWR photons have to make it through more GHG molecules that might absorb them before they can reach their goal of going up past the top of the troposphere or going down past the bottom of the troposphere and being absorbed into the ocean or land. Note that I have not included "(3) The LWR photons emitted by the surface of the ocean and land have to make it through more GHG molecules that might absorb them before they can reach space" because I'm dealing with the 91.5% of the LWR reaching space that's created by GHG molecules in the troposphere obtaining, then losing, MVE with spontaneous photon emission caused. I'm not dealing with the 8.5% of the LWR in a wave-length band called "the atmospheric window" that gets directly to space after being emitted by the surface of the ocean and land. If that 8.5% is reduced by increased tropospheric GHGs (I'm not sure) then that's an additional, unrelated, means of the so-called "enhanced greenhouse effect" (there's no particular reason why there has to be only one mechanism). --------------- The result of combined effects/changes (1), (2) above is that the average altitude in the troposphere of the LWR quantity that reaches the top of the troposphere gets higher, so perhaps it raises from the 5,700 metres to 5,800 metres (as an example). Also, the LWR quantity is reduced slightly (the so-called "enhanced greenhouse effect") for reason of the tropospheric temperature lapse rate explained below. --------------- Likewise, identically, the average altitude in the troposphere of the LWR quantity that reaches the surface of the ocean or land gets lower, so perhaps it lowers from the 1,650 metres to 1,550 metres (obviously, it depends on the change quantity. I just showed a random example) because it has to get past more GHG molecules that might absorb the photon. --------------- In either case GHG photons were trying to reach their goal of the top or bottom of the troposphere but now there are more GHGs in the way so it needs, == on average ==, to be a bit closer to make it. So that's why the "cloud" of LWR that will reach the top is a higher cloud than before and the "cloud" of LWR that will reach the bottom (ocean or land) is a lower cloud than before --------------- The tropospheric temperature lapse rate is required to cause the so-called "enhanced greenhouse effect". The average altitude for LWR to space got higher (5,700 metres ---> 5,800 metres in my example) which means LWR to space is from colder (slower) molecules on average because tropospheric temperature decreases with altitude and LWR to space is from higher-up-than-before molecules on average, so there are fewer GHG molecular collisions / second which leads to less MVE which leads to less LWR production. The quantity of LWR energy (power flux) provided by a mass of gas is proportional to its temperature(Kelvin)**4 (to the fourth power) so, as explained in detail above, the increasing of tropospheric GHGs ==must== cause less LWR than before to be passing upwards through the top of the troposphere. That's the upper end of how the so-called "enhanced greenhouse effect" works.

[@grindupBaker]

*** PART 3 OF 3 *** The tropospheric temperature lapse rate is required to cause the so-called "enhanced greenhouse effect". The average altitude for LWR to ocean and land got lower (1,650 metres ---> 1,550 metres in my example) which means LWR to the surface of the ocean and land is from warmer (faster) molecules on average because tropospheric temperature decreases with altitude and LWR to ocean/land is from lower-down-than-before molecules on average, so there are more GHG molecular collisions / second which leads to more MVE which leads to more LWR production. The quantity of LWR energy (power flux) provided by a mass of gas is proportional to its temperature(Kelvin)**4 (to the fourth power) so, as explained in detail above, the increasing of tropospheric GHGs ==must== cause more LWR than before to be passing downwards to the surface of the ocean and land. This latter is called "downwelling LWR radiation at the surface" and I've explained why it must increase and this must, of course, warm the land and ocean surface. That's the lower end of how the so-called "enhanced greenhouse effect" works. --------- Note 1: I haven't yet found the collision MVE production & destruction spectra so I don't know what %age make MVE and what %age destroy MVE. I looked a few hours 4 years ago but couldn't find it (not for free anyway). It makes no difference to the description of the mechanism above but it would be needed to confirm the quantity of effect for doubling CO2. Note 2: Removed because I've gotten confirmation. Note 3: 80% of Earth's atmosphere is in the troposphere (the top of which is 16 km in the tropics and 9 km in the polar regions, averaging ~12,000 metres). The "greenhouse effect" warming can only happen in Earth's troposphere, there's no effect in Earth's tropopause and the effect is "backwards" in Earth's stratosphere with =increased= stratospheric GHG gases causing =cooling= of the stratosphere because the stratospheric temperature lapse rate has temperature increasing with altitude (that's how it's known with total certainty that it's increased "greenhouse gases (GHGs)" doing the global warming for the last several decades). Since there's no temperature lapse rate in the tropopause then any change in the quantity/type of GHGs in the tropopause cannot have any warming or cooling effect on the tropopause or the entire atmosphere, ocean or land. No effect at all. If you follow my description of the effect above for the troposphere but apply it to the tropopause then you'll clearly see that any change in the quantity/type of GHGs in the tropopause cannot have any warming or cooling effect That's the reality. The increasing GHGs in the stratosphere are a slight -ve feedback to global warming because downwelling LWR radiation from the stratosphere decreases with increased GHGs, but it's a very slight -ve feedback because only 6.3% of the well-mixed GHGs (and all molecules) are above the tropopause and they are initially colder than the average of the troposphere so they make even less LWR than the 6.3% factor. By the time the stratosphere warms more than the average of the troposphere there's only 0.4% of Earth's atmosphere's molecules above, negligible. Note 4: FTIR power flux vs wave-length spectra recorded by the IRIS Infra-Red Interferometer Spectrometer instruments on the Nimbus-1 (1964 - 1964), Nimbus-2 (1966 - 1969), Nimbus-3 (1969 - 1972) satellites show which wave-lengths of LWR heading to space past the satellite came from the surface of the ocean and land and which wave-lengths came, on average, from the GHG molecules and surfaces of solid particles and water droplets in the atmosphere. Examples of these measured FTIR power flux vs wave-length spectra (for western tropical Pacific Ocean, Sahara Desert, Antarctica & southern Iraq) can be seen at: climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/modtran.doc.html (IRIS-C spectrum on the Nimbus 3 satellite over the Sahara Desert to demonstrate the U.S. Armed Forces MODTRAN model's general accuracy) `.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft8r29p2m6;chunk.id=d0e1726;doc.view=print (Sahara Desert as observed by IRIS-D instrument on the Nimbus-4 satellite) kzbin.info/www/bejne/haDKaGCBhNmje6M at 18:07 (4 FTIR samples for western tropical Pacific Ocean, Sahara Desert, Antarctica & southern Iraq) From these spectra atmospheric physicists have calculated the 91.5% of the LWR that Earth sends to space that is emitted by the atmosphere rather than by the surface of the ocean and land. Also, the MODTRAN tool on the internet can be used to play with a theoretical calculation of the FTIR power flux vs wave-length spectra by adjusting GHGs. Note 5: 2020-01-25 edited example altitudes. The Kevin Trenberth & other Earth's energy budgets show 17% (40 w/m**2) in the atmospheric window but "Outgoing Longwave Radiation due to Directly Transmitted Surface Emission" of S.M.S. COSTA & K. P. SHINE 2012 states that as ad hoc and assesses instead 8.5% (20 w/m**2 +/- 4 w/m**2). I don't attempt quantifying anything in the effect explanation but I made my examples for illustration as close to reality as is reasonable to do (Stefan-Boltzmann equation & average tropospheric temperature lapse rate). ++++++++++++++ The so-called "greenhouse effect" effect is nothing at all like the major 2 effects that warm a greenhouse. It's exactly the same as the 3rd effect that warms a greenhouse, the minor one. heat heat heat heat heat ==here we go again==, occasionally/rarely and not very often at all Effectively, the temperature of the 2 colliding molecules was reduced by an energy amount equaling the MVE that the GHG molecule acquired, w (obvious example, CO2 isn't at all fussy what part of its molecule a photon of wave-length 15.00 microns goes through, it'll swallow it and vibrate) , the surfaces of water droplets in spray above the ocean, the surfaces of water droplets in clouds, the surfaces of any water droplets at all, the land surface, the surfaces of trees & grass, the skins of animals, the surfaces of dust, salt, volcanic ash, any ash and any surface whatsoever on the ocean or land or in the troposphere

[@user-ku2ev4gk1m]

Until electric cars use LiFePo4 batteries, it would be wise to minimize their production. Tesla realized the problem of insufficient quality control in other Lithium batteries causing unacceptable combustibility, and began the transition. Electric cars are not the answer, but using batteries that can not catch fire, is a safety step that should be taken. We over populated, when ZPG was suppressed, and like Easter Island, it's time to "pay the piper". Billions will die of starvation, before 2030. Sorry, but Biophysics can't be ignored. 87° F stops photosynthisis. Run for the Poles, especially the southern one.

[@johngray1439]

We are in extreme overshoot.

[@anthonymorris5084]

*"Billions will die of starvation, before 2030."* Hyperbolic nonsense without an ounce of evidence.

[@paulzozula1318]

We are at a point where sufficient appropriate action is immediately needed. I agree with those who contend that foremost we cannot standby and watch things unravel. It is essential that we preserve as much of the natural and built environment as we can by bringing down temperature in order to buy us precious time. Though likely contentious, this can be easily done! The massive environmental and social costs now occurring of our former inability to bring down emissions must be overcome. It is crucial that these de facto costs instead must be paid up front when consumer choices are made. In such a way, the free enterprise system would do very well to steer us in the right direction where the price paid represents all the costs. In my mind the best candidate for implementing such an arrangement is a well-tuned and global Fee and Dividend Carbon Tax. It is feasible that this would be the least painful and equitable way of halting the rampant externalization of costs. I think it deserves careful consideration and implementation. As well we must assist bringing down resident greenhouse gases. Various types of ecosystem restorations could likely leverage our efforts. Regenerative agriculture and grazing, reforestation and rewilding along with ocean pasture restoration could all be of great benefit. However, on land if we don't bring down temperature I don't see how restorations there will have stability as mounting feedbacks ravage. Though important, without sufficiency of timely action I am beginning to feel that merely grasping for understanding has much of the concerned about climate and the environment community slipping into the realm of idle fascination.

[@PeterJamieson-h2p]

I was born in 1962 when there was 4 billion people…8 billion we are done….i have 2 billion dead and 3billion people walking toward the poles for survival at or before 2030

[@ZZ-ek7mx]

Doom, doom, gloom BS!

[@BROWNDIRTWARRIOR]

This is great work you are doing. You are a pioneer and my respect runs deep. Rarely do I subscribe, but you have my subscription.

[@trevorallen838]

You should interview Howard Dryden. Dryden Aqua.

[@atheistbushman]

No mention of AI? Huge increase in the use of energy and many other existential risks.

[@jamigaither]

The fifth horse of the apocalypse carries a phone and is called Disinformation.

[@sonnyeastham]

Dont blame capitalism....for a corrupt Democratic Party 😢

[@anthonymorris5084]

Life flourishes under warming. Data and history proves it.

[@trevorallen838]

HEY!!! I’ve been saying Entropy is our biggest enemy for 4 decades! Excuse me!

[@mikebocchinfuso9437]

I am old now but I feel that we will have 3 to 4 degrees rise in temperature

[@globalboy70]

The carbon sink failing issue was hinted at in this video here is a report on the science: unfortunately youtube doesn't allow links in comments so do a search on The Guardian article: Trees and land absorbed almost no CO2 last year (2023). Is nature’s carbon sink failing?

[@davidwilkie9551]

This is correct, simply put. Because our perception of life is all about decay, and maintaining metastability around Absolute Zero-infinity coordination-positioning reference-framing where-when "everything is wave-packaging formation, the concept of a particular global average temperature is a fundamentally trivial objective that is mono-dualistic effect-cause in appearance, pretty useless attempt to distract from the real problem of energy systems management in respect of thermodynamical Actuality.

[@sjoerd1239]

Donald had not heard of clean coal???

[@alandoane9168]

Nothing that burns is clean.

[@sjoerd1239]

@@alandoane9168 Hydrogen is.

[@Robert-xs2mv]

@@sjoerd1239but creating hydrogen is dirty!

[@sjoerd1239]

​@@Robert-xs2mv Not green hydrogen.

[@Robert-xs2mv]

@@sjoerd1239 what on earth is “ green” hydrogen? The methods of collecting so-called natural energy sources are just as if not more so, polluting and inefficient as any other energy sources. Wind turbines and solar panel and batteries just don’t pop in and out off nothing

[@thomasgreen4009]

The main driver is the sun which is in a heightened active state meaning more energy is being sent our way as in hotter. End of story. Deal with pollution as in what’s in our food and air

[@thomasgreen4009]

Ps the earth herself is trying to clean up her planet. One way is increased rainfall to wash the planet. It can get worse as the ocean heats up but once again it’s the sun. Also our magnetic field is changing letting more energy in. Problem here is this can lead to more earthquakes and certain areas of the world will be changed as has happened before. Nice show with a bunch of blah blah but we affect the heating?

[@grindupBaker]

thomas green 4009 == Lying drivel. Sun minimum-to-maximum full range is just 0.17 w/m**2 heater and Earth's energy budget imbalance (EEI) is a 1.3 w/m**2 heater (up from 0.4 w/m**2 just 20 years ago) and the 1.3 w/m**2 is just the LEFT OVER PART after the first 1.3 w/m**2 was wiped out warming Earth 1..3 degrees. So thomas green 4009 == Standard Lying Sock-Puppet Parrot. Hey Parrot? Polly wanna cracker?

[@ZZ-ek7mx]

Has anyone here even questioned where the arbitrary 1.5C figure comes from?

[@grindupBaker]

I forget but the relevant point is that once the +1.5 and +2.0 degrees were agreed as the "benchmarks" then in the subequent years however many millions of specialist hours were put into figuring out what will change for important things for +1.5 and +2.0 degrees above the 1850-1900 average (and that WAS the start it was based on) and that's been published in IPCC SR 1.5, the other 2 Special Reports & the huge WG2 sections of all IPCC ARs so if other warming rates are used then all that analysis, millions of specialist hours, is out the window. I suppose eventually they'll do Assessments for +2.5 and +3.0 degrees, if anybody is still interested enough to provide funding.