The Sixth Mass Extinction | Peter Brannen

[@j.s.c.4355]

Met a guy recently who moved to Arizona. Asked him what he liked about it and he talked about how cheap the water is, and how you can do whatever you want with it. Didn’t mention to him how that entire quadrant of the country is running out of water because they refuse to stop developing and they have a system that encourages waste.

[@Mike80528]

At least the idiots are congregating together. That's a problem that will solve itself soon enough.

[@thethirdchimpanzee]

Well he is going to find that water situation changing soon. About 2 years ago for the first time the allotment of Colorado River Water was rationed for the first time. And that rationing ain't gonna be reversed. In fact, Phoenix last year cut the tap on communities to the North built by developers who never built water infrastructure (Phoenix water was trucked in!!) And they said "no more" to all of these developers building literally *sprawling* (as in urban sprawl) and counting on Phoenix for water.) I was stuck up in Phoenix for awhile - long story) and you I am not sure that you would even believe me if I told you how many NEW, *high density* apartment complexes are being built there RIGHT *NOW*!! The are going up like mushrooms EVERYWHERE! Sometimes 2 or 3 next to each other! (I had to relocate from the first place I was staying, because the owner of the house and property - the last one on that block - had sold to the the people building 2 NEW giant apartment buildings to complement the one across the street from us. (Who the f*ck can even *afford* to live in these expensive luxury apartments. BTW, there are actually open canals transporting water through Phoenix (part of the Central Arizona Project) and one satellite city made a big artifical lake, and put up a "waterfront". Phoenix is one of the fastest growing cities in America - if not THE fastest growing. (Another is Las Vegas through they have implemented water saving measures I hear.) All this influx of people and the temps just get hotter and hotter every year as record after record is broken...water supplies go down and down as the snowpack that feeds the glaciers shrink...(and f*ck all how all of the cars are gonna fit on the streets! Though they are expanding the light rail there.) Phoenix is also the solidly Republican part of the state - and it skews the whole state Red...though we are (or were) becoming Purple. Arizona is split in 3 distinct geographical regions and also 3 or 4 distinct political ones too. I'll get back to that because it's relevant. Well, glad I am back in Tucson. I like Southern Arizona for a number of reasons, mainly because it feel "home" to me - though I was a "military brat", but my dad retired from the military here ( though he lives in *Florida* now, go fig.) *I* am a large part of WHY he retired here - I am an astronomy buff, and this is the place for that, and the UofA is the school for astronomy. (Not a professional astronomer though, long story.) Also I have Seasonal Affective Disorder - I tried living somewhere colder but was really unhappy and wanted to be here.) Also, Tucson had a funky smaller "town" vibe. I came back here with 1 of my kids and later the other kids and my ex-wife came back, and even my son and daughter who had NEVER lived here, came be back and my son fell in love with Astronomy (and a local gjrl) and my daughter with the funky hippie vibe of 4th Avenue. But like I said, Arizona is divided up into several regions - and they all have different climates - different political climates and different *actual* climates. And it's NOT all heat and desert...not even here in *Southern* Arizona is that true!! Northern Arizona, up where the Grand Canyon is, and to the North it's up on the Plateu it is a much higher elevation, and MUCH cooler. It's *WONDERFUL* in the Summer (but *expensive*) but in the Winter it gets WAAAAY to COLD and even gets some pretty deep snow. But here in Tucson we are right next to a big mountain, Mt. Lemmon, that people live on, in cabins and in an aptly named town up there called "Summerhaven". Though you probably need a lot of $$$ to buy a place up there.) There is even a ski-lodge, but the snow up there has not been what it once was. (Just like mountains everywhere else. :( ) But RIGHT NOW, why it is 108F here in Tucson - it's a Sunny 77F on the mountain!! And...it has a lake up there too! At least for now...) Though tomorrow it is supposed to get up to 85F on the mountain for a high...which just goes to show you how hot it's getting here. But when I was still dating my now ex-wife, I rented a cabin up there for a weekend so she could see snow again which for some reason she *likes*.) Also, to the SOUTH and East of here there are the Chiricahua Mountains. There are also the Mule Mountains - more like foothills, lol, and probably so named because you could easily traverse over them with just a mule! But up in the Mule Mountains is the town of Bisbee, an old mining town that went bust and became a ghost town until the hippies and artists and counter-culture folks squatted there, and later the college students and professors from nearby colleges came, and then the tourists discovered it. Now it's got a funky Portland type feel. The mountain tunnel into town is called "the Time Tunnel"...it's a mix of 18th century *San Francisco* style architecture and 60's style hippies. Anyway, it's a lot COOLER there. And I like it, and want to move back! I used to live there in 89-90 and want to go back. Though thanks to the tourists the cost of living there had gone up (I lived there in a small studio apt like house for $110 a month. So if you are still reading this long screed. Arizona isn't all dry scorching desert.

[@sydgriffin7591]

​@@thethirdchimpanzee tldr?

[@deepdrag8131]

Yeah, and they’ve got lots and lots of powerful air conditioners in Houston. No warming down there!

[@jamespardue3055]

SELL NOW.....is what I would tell him.

[@PaulaTourville-po7fg]

Living in SW Florida for 34 years I have seen greed first hand over any concern for the ecological implications . The clearing of land and massive development with limited water resources continues daily as does the contamination of said water . Ground zero for Climate Change .

[@yukonnoka]

The great mass of people will always choose personal comfort in the present over a logical sensitivity toward future repercussions.

[@MyKharli]

like bacteria in a petri dish spending all day reproducing and saying how great they are you mean ?

[@john1boggity56]

Our biological metabolism is around 100 calories per hour (stationary) and maybe 200 to 300 calories per hour if we do work. Our social metabolism is many times that. No person on the planet would willingly reduce their energy consumption to that level and would actually know how to live like that. It simply can't be done.

[@lzszl]

No amount of empirical data can persuade an ideolog

[@President_NotSure]

its what women want

[@volkerengels5298]

So - the *_great mass of people_* are suicidal idiots. These are the people who raised you.... ...I think twice before I belief to be free of their mental Sh*t (and I'm 60 :)))

[@adrs1380]

We're fucked, he just doesn't want to say it.

[@sentoo7606]

Casue it doesnt help

[@pvmagnus]

Totally

[@pvmagnus]

​@@sentoo7606doesn't help what?

[@sentoo7606]

@@pvmagnus to say that we are fucked

[@nyoodmono4681]

That is what you want. If i could explain to you that everything is ok, it would make you mad instead of happy.

[@GlobeHackers]

His perspective must be understood by hundreds of millions around the globe. The Earth Systems crisis will end badly because we refuse to confront our socioeconomic belief system-rapacious neoliberal capitalism.

[@volkerengels5298]

"This is the fastest climate change in earth history" IPCC 2019 Special report. What they don't say is: "This also means we go extinct with high confidence" Previous climate changes of similar speed and intensity -> all ended in mass extinctions. ('our climate change' is estimated to be 10x to 100 fold faster than any before.) That alone would be enough - but: Climate change hits an *already severely damaged* biosphere -> pesticides, plastic, air pollution, persistent chemicals, poaching, deforestation, food and habitat competition. Sixth mass extinction will speed up incredible in short time - like decades. If this is generally (consciously) understood publicly - I expect hysterical madness to break out. That's WHEN we die - like in years. I wouldn't pray that day to come. Comes anyways.

[@GlobeHackers]

@@volkerengels5298 ain't that the truth

[@volkerengels5298]

@@GlobeHackers have you seen somebody be broken by sudden_truth..? You know - a few are calm outside when offered a cancer diagnosis - but not 'inside' Most will express some irrational emotions and experience crazy thoughts "What will my wife say?" This example is about *individual death* .... Multiply the emotional/mental response by 8 Billion - to have a good bet of how much emotional energy 'explodes' (kinda slowmo - may take a year ) around the globe. They usually don't only explode one time - but again and again. You may be strong - but how long in a madhouse?

[@davedixon2068]

so why dont you just say we are using too much stuff and need to stop as opposed to 3 words few people understand let alone agree with

[@OurPredicament]

He is unwilling to accept the implications of his own knowledge. That's why he goes between hope and fear. That brings suffering. Acceptance brings peace.

[@adydanger1149]

He lays out while we're screwed very articulately and then says, I'm sure it will be fine....

[@DoseofTruth]

Of course. If you start to dwell in the void, you lose yourself to it​@adydanger1149

[@ragereset2795]

He knows precisely where we're headed, he wrote The Ends of the World. But nobody likes a doom & gloom guy. 😉

[@Zankras]

Collapse of global industrial agriculture because of chaotic weather events is currently ongoing and is going to have the biggest impact on humanity in the near term. Everything will devolve from there.

[@Spacemonkeymojo]

How long before it gets really bad you reckon?

[@jamespardue3055]

Fascinating and as usual, depressing. I'm fairly old now, and have been following and slightly involved with the environmental movements since the 70's. It's been frustrating and emotionally difficult to deal with forever, but I did recently spend my final professional decade of working in the solar industry. Very hard to resign myself to the reality that humanity can be so obtuse and selfish, but it just is. We coulda been stewards instead of conscience free exploiters, but we're just not up to it.

[@sentoo7606]

Exactly. As a 32 year old, thank you for your work and the will to stop/change this madness. Its good to hear, that no everyone is blind or simply unwilling to see reality. I will not have a future, but at least people like you had a deserved good life.

[@loumoon7660]

I felt the way he talked about it was more informed than even other scientists I’ve heard. He’s very real. One thing that’s always odd to me though is how the interviewer in these kinds of videos, will often smile or laugh. Like I know they’re being polite but the subject matter is so serious and dark.

[@MyKharli]

we are accelerating towards worst possible outcomes.

[@dalewolver8739]

we are so fuked

[@DoomsterInc]

I love Rachel's phrase "go for the tyres" rather than trying to grab the steering wheel......this is exactly the philosophy of Roger Hallam in the UK, one of the founders of Extinction Rebellion.....his analysis is that incremental change and civil disobedience is not radical enough given the lateness of the hour, and that only revolution can 'save us'....... I'm not sure if he believes that we can be saved, or just avoid the very worst outcomes. Unfortunately I don't see any sign that his approach is having much traction, so it's probably not going to happen.....until people in developed countries are confronted with empty shelves in the supermarkets. 😢

[@jacquelinecane4663]

Learn how to grow food, live off grid and protect yourself. Im steering my teenagers into trades and healthcare so they can be valuable to a community and barter

[@AlanDavidDoane]

"We still have time to stop. If we don’t, the results could change the planet beyond recognition." We won't stop. A handful of people may, but eight billion humans cannot and will not stop what needs to stop to save the planet, primarily human reproduction and the idea of endless growth, which we've known for 50 years would destroy the planet, and now it is doing just that. Live now, while you still can.

[@jacquesvincelette6692]

'Live now', what a radical idea. If we all climax together, we might get little rest .

[@SuB-gy4rb]

@@jacquesvincelette6692😂 😊

[@nirvonna]

So true. Well said.

[@john1boggity56]

😂😂😂😂 a love experiment!!​@@jacquesvincelette6692

[@harveytheparaglidingchaser7039]

Great interview. ... 56.20 ..."apocalyptic mass extinction levels of 5-6 degrees".... Personally I think 2.5' is going to be apocalyptic

[@johncoviello8570]

It's good to hear from smart people who actually get it. Thanks!

[@MyKharli]

except it just confirms how deep we have dug the hole for ourselves regardless of any blame game .

[@johncoviello8570]

@@MyKharliSo what? He’s telling the truth he obviously understands the global warming predicament. I’m sick of all the misinformation out there that the idiots believe the global warming isn’t real or is some kind of conspiracy by scientists to get more grant funding. Global warming is just physics. It’s the Physical world reacting to the increase in greenhouse gases.

[@nyoodmono4681]

If you want to get it, look at the global carbon project. All our CO2 goes into the sinks, plants and oceans.

[@rickknight3823]

I really don't think they get it... They've bought the humans are solely to blame propaganda... Like someone else said here.. plant life has exploded over the planet, even NASA has shown how much the planet has greened because of CO2.. We need CO2.. it's life giving and not the cause of extinction or extreme warming. More plants mean more oxygen and so on. The majority of our climate is as a direct result of the solar activity.

[@johncoviello8570]

@@nyoodmono4681 can you elaborate on that? What should I search for?

[@christopherparnell7750]

We are already past any chance to avoid the extinction of humans

[@Dachaser322]

Yes, they're far too optimistic

[@domista123]

It's actually so funny that you think that 🤣🤣

[@regentoronto]

I agree that there will be a major collapse of human populations along with collapsing social, political and economic systems, along with geophysical collapse. We cannot predict whether extinction will be total, though. My guess is we'll be down to a billion - i.e. to prehistoric levels, with pockets of biodiversity in microclimates around the world, part of the Earth's metabolism. Just a guess.

[@yukonnoka]

Unfortunately I think we are all more at an emotional place of inevitable acceptance of our fate rather than a vantage point of possible change. We are like cancer patients who have gone past the point of denial and are in the acceptance stage.

[@Michael0663-qo4wx]

@@yukonnoka Most people are still in denial

[@BeeBop1029]

Handsen/Columbia say the paleoclimate record points to 8 - 10 C total change. I’d bet we are waaaaay too late even if tomorrow we went to zero emissions.

[@louishennick6883]

Heating will continue even after zero emissions Solar radiation management at different layers of the atmosphere are definitely going to be attempted (hopefully not as a substitute for cutting emissions) Carbon removal techniques haven’t been developed yet for even making a dent in what we’ve been putting out. We have our work cut out for us. We haven’t even got to the point of wholly accepting this as reality

[@Spacemonkeymojo]

8-10c???! Wtf. I wonder how long it would take to get to that.

[@BeeBop1029]

@@Spacemonkeymojo The temperature response is a curve, meaning most of the change the next few hundred years and the final bit as long as around 10,000 years.

[@subcitizen2012]

To my understanding it will be waaaaay to late by around 2070-2100. It won't be possible to mitigate it enough by the time natural processes take over and feedback. And that's net zero. So it's likely too late for net zero. We'd need a concerted effort between industry, governments, and oil producers to achieve all that in 45 years. Not happening. So all we have is mitigation to buy time for the inevitable. The inevitable being a whole lot of problems for civilization for the next 1000 years, and beyond that, potentially existential problems for humans. Maybe technology will eventually save us, but if won't save us if civilization collapses back into the stone age first.

[@BeeBop1029]

@@subcitizen2012 if a human notices the climate changing, they are witnessing a geologically instantaneous event. We needed to be at zero emissions around 1950 at max. And Hansen et al projects warming for around 10,000 years, exponential with most heating early on. Unfortunately it’s way too late. Powerful positive feedbacks are already very much in play, particularly albedo in the arctic. And the reduction in shipping aerosols issue alone guarantees this problem is unfixable even if emissions were zero today.

[@Mike80528]

This is a predicament, not a problem. There are no longer any solutions. So embrace insufficient action and work locally. We cannot save the world, but we can help ourselves, our families, and loved ones survive a while longer. When the ecosystem collapses and food becomes unavailable we will die, en-masse. This ideal that technology will save us is hubris of the worst kind. The idea that we will emerge from a *mass extinction*? Mass extinctions are not a spectator sport.

[@Bookhermit]

Of course they are - those those that don't go extinct.

[@valoriethechemist]

I think what you saying is just grief based bargaining. Locally and individually our actions amount to almost nothing. Our problem is global. The predicament is global. Mitigating the damage globally means mitigating the damage locally. Not the other way around. The concept that it is... is literally fossil fuel marketing.

[@lana-jg4ho]

@@valoriethechemistliterally

[@nirvonna]

Wow. Surprised how many comments get it!

[@AlignmentCoaching]

@@valoriethechemistwhat Mike is saying is not with thought of solving things globally from a local action but that acting locally to help adapt to the inevitable changes, as he says to survive a little longer. That makes sense to me

[@clarkdavis5333]

I would say the sixth is very well underway. 30-70% of all wildlife has been eliminated in the last few centuries, and 100's of species are going extinct daily. Excellent piece though. Thank you

[@nyoodmono4681]

Just wrong. The vast dieing happened with the end of the mega fauna 50k years ago.

[@rickknight3823]

This is what we hear... But is this really true.. ? 7:27 I can't help think of all the lies we have been told so far.. One being the mass destruction of the Great barrier reef.. turns out it was thriving just a few metres beneath the surface. The bleaching on the top was caused by el nino's on the other side of the world lowering the sea levels temporarily exposing the reef to the sun.. The original official report was done by a scientist from the air with his grant/funding relying on climate related issues.. The same has happened with the polar bears and on and on. Unfortunately a lot of these things are mixed up with power and greed.. "They want to issue a new control mechanism using fear of climate change/disaster to implement Things like Co2 taxes and limitations on living conditions.. The reasons behind that are a whole other story related to financial corruption and trying to maintain elitist hegemonic control.

[@johnbatson8779]

Except for the verifiable data that shows less than 5% of current species are endangered, which is in line with past species population variations

[@rickknight3823]

@@johnbatson8779 we're witnessing another form of religious ideology with this climate change rhetoric/disaster predictions.. I find peoples critical thinking abilities clearly lacking in order to be a part of what they perceive is the dominant opinion and concluded science..

[@Muddslinger0415]

@@johnbatson8779let’s see put up a link

[@o_o8203]

You are one of my favorite interviewers on KZbin, along with Ash Sarkar from Novara Media. Both of you are sharp as a tack!

[@user-ku2ev4gk1m]

I object to the term "the biosphere", which would give the uninformed the impression that many biospheres exist, and they interact with each other, where their edges intersect. Believing only one exists, and realizing how damaged some parts have become, could lead to giving up. Parts can survive, and it's just not helpful giving up.

[@graemetunbridge1738]

50:00 'The present system cannot continue' (physics), but I suspect that our dopey politicians will milk it till it breaks.

[@friedrichjunzt]

Or the voters, electing those politicians!

[@shannonsexton8921]

Inevitable. Even if 3 in 4 countries change the rest will grow faster as they don't limit themselves. Greediest we allow will always triumph.

[@john1boggity56]

The invisible hand of ecology - I think we're on the way out...

[@catmom23]

We are

[@shannonsexton8921]

Or a population collapse leading to evolution reasserting itself.

[@basspig]

If the world leaders were really concerned about the environment but it would put a moratorium on the war making and they would disassemble all of their nuclear weapons.

[@Glen-uy4jt]

The problem is not chemical, geological nor physics, it is the “ state of mind “. Our choices are driving the chemical changes in the carbon cycle. The state of mind causes the state of affairs.

[@danielmcardle3476]

Brilliant moment at 52.20. The raw emotion and honesty is touching.

[@michasosnowski5918]

Important topic. It can give you chills to think about all the things mention here, if you really take it seriously. The second part of the conversation was lagging a little. I think its good to have some topics prepared to cover and move on, and when you cover them, just finish the conversation. If you dont ask questions but just ponder and think out loud, it can quicly become all over the place conversation. The guest needs some direction to explore and show his knowledge.

[@dalbert42]

Peter, I appreciate your honesty and that you are sharing your knowledge. This is complex, so it’s not easy to communicate. You did well. Keep doing this.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

strange how he hasn't mentioned nuclear war destroying the ozone layer. Or just nuclear power plants melting down en masse due to massive famine.

[@Bookhermit]

Ozone regenerates quickly - that's a very short-term issue.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

@@Bookhermit with no ozone life fries even faster than it takes ozone to regenerate.

[@DoomsterInc]

I guess it would only regenerate quickly in the absence of the radioactive elements that destroyed or damaged it in the first place​ @@Bookhermit

[@AkaRyrye83]

Why would famine cause nuclear plants to melt down?

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

@@AkaRyrye83 Nuclear power plants are already aging out - they were meant to only last 40 years. So the concrete is cracking and the fuel rods are cracking. It takes a lot of labor to try to repair and replace parts. If there is complete failure of our food system - corporate agribusiness is completely dependent on fossil fuels - and photosynthesis shuts down after 104 degrees Fahrenheit. Most crops will fail well before that also. So if people are starving with no food then obviously the nuclear power plants are going to fail en masse. France already had to do emergency shutdowns of their nuclear power plants due to drought. But when the drought gets so bad that it undermines the ability to eat then the situation is much worse. Consider the Nuke power plant for NYC that was shut down: When operating, Indian Point needed to take in three Olympic swimming pools’ worth of Hudson River water to cool its reactors. The water went in through these grates. And then it was filtered through a grill, then flowed on into the plant. It was supposed to keep fish and other organisms from getting in and being killed but often, it didn’t. WEBSTER: And there are organisms that are either pushed onto on the grill or they're entrained in the water, go through the plant and get killed. And, you know, we estimate that about a billion organisms a year were being killed in that way. LIPSCOMB: The ecosystem can't bear that kind of assault. LIPSCOMB: We think the river has its own rights. In addition to the harm that the cooling system did to wildlife, in 2015 a fire at the facility leaked thousands of gallons of oil into the Hudson river. And in 2017 a deal was struck to shut down the plant." The price of electricity from nuclear has gone up - in part because of regulation to address safety concerns. Existing nuclear plants are struggling to compete. And building new plants has become prohibitively expensive. So when you combine cost plus the fear of a disaster plus the environmental threats, it's not hard to understand why nuclear plants are closing." Tepco in Japan is too corrupt: "but in the ensuing global climate of fear over the potential fallout from fukushima all seven reactors were again taken offline so additional safety measures could be implemented these additional safety measures which set tepco back an estimated 1.3 trillion yen and counting were designed with the fukushima nightmare scenario in mind at fukushima the textbook response to a big emergency was for the reactors to immediately shut down with cooling water circulated to keep the fuel rods stable but the massive unforeseen tsunami interrupted this process inundating the lower levels of the reactor building with seawater this flooded fukushima's diesel generators so its cooling systems had no power that's how the reactor melted down spewing radiation into the local atmosphere worse the overheating fuel rods split the very water molecules in the surrounding steam creating violent hydrogen explosions and still further damage engineers at kashiwazaki kariwa sought to avoid that scenario by raising its on-site seawall to 15 meters in height this is despite evidence that a local tsunami could only ever reach about 6.8 metres above sea level such conservatism would be repeated across a raft of new safety measures but what if even this gigantic wall was breached the buildings themselves were expensively barricaded in waterproof covers to ...staff anxious that a forthcoming inspection might cause closure carried out what tepco itself has since called dishonest acts by manipulating steam isolation valves to mislead auditors into thinking the leak rate on a valve was lower than in reality it's also come to light that in 1995 a diesel backup generator at unit 3 went down but this was not reported when it should have been an on-site thermal output reading a critical safety metric was exceeded on five occasions between 1991 and 1998 but workers entered inaccurate figures in the log we apologized from the bottom of our heart for causing anxiety to the public and local residents grovelled tepco vice president katsutoshi chikudati at the time worse in january of 2021 it came to light that the site had inadequate provision of protection against terrorism and inadequate protection in place for its nuclear materials at multiple locations across the dormant plant from 2018 onward it also emerged that unauthorized individuals had somehow breached the central control room using an employee id card in addition an intruder detection system had not been functioning and had remained unreported for an unspecified period of time these administrative slip-ups are still causing tepco headaches as

[@Xandercorp]

Omg. We can't replace everything with renewables. :)))

[@harry664]

incredible interview, thank you

[@pwagzzz]

The rich in their comfotable excesses turn a blind eye. The masses struggle with economic survival. The system of economics demands ever more progress, more consumption. The political cycles are measured in a few years and isolated to our arbitrary national boundaries. The world is over-populated and consuming evermore resources. The problems are global. The problems seem beyond lifetimes of the living. Unless individual goals can be aligned to global protection goals we will simply accelerate into catastrophe.

[@nathangant7636]

I'm estimating 500 ppm of atmospheric C02 in less than twenty years, with average (linear) temp increase of 2.27 deg C. above baseline. Based on a global carbon growth of 2.2% or higher each year. It's a deadly trajectory we're looking at in the very near future. For comparison, the rate of injection of CO2 into the late Permian extinction 252mya was extremely slow compared to the rate we're seeing now. The Permian extinction event took as much as 10,000 years to saturate the atmosphere with the same amount of CO2 we're generating today in the Anthropocene. All complex life on Earth will be adversely affected.

[@JimmyD806]

And pathlengths from the surface are how long? Wait. What? What's a pathlength?

[@GrinchDec23]

BS we need to get c02 to 1000ppm and the planet will likely be more balanced across the board

[@rebdomine1]

Really appreciate this one, not a lot of holding back

[@susansparkle6812]

We are going to experiance global average temperatures 5 C (9 F) higher, because that is how hot our atmosphere was last time co2 levels were this high (420 ppm). And sea level was 35 meters higher, above where most of us now live. But the heat will kill most humans, and our food supply, before the cryosphere shrinks that much. The question is, how fast will this happen? Most scientists talk centuries, but some studies put it at less than 2 decades. Looking at the speed of heating in the last decade the faster scenario seems more likely. We are well past that 350 tipping point, we are tipping now. Our best hope of survival is to form into small groups, 100 or less, move underground, eat mushrooms and whatever else we can grow on the surface, and most important: Love one another. Insatiable greed, caused by a lack of love (bonding) in the formative years, has brought us here. Love will save humanity.

[@danleclaire8110]

Thank you, but no thank you. I have a wonderful life to live you know, and watching your channel occasionally is sufficient for me. I find a lot of unnecessary chatter in this conversation with Mr. Brannen. I personnally believe that he is very optimistic with very little to support this disconnected drive. From what I understand, this sixth mass extinction event we are living is the most rapid degradation of Earth's geological systems ever recorded. We have already surpassed the tipping point; it is now irrefutable, irreversible, unstoppable, and undeniable. By 2032, all vertebrate mammals, including humans, will be extinct due to habitat loss. No living habitat means no living mammals-it's not complicated. We should continue living fully, mindful of death, and appreciate what we have, as if today could be our last. No Shame, No Blame, No Viable Solutions, just live as you are and be kind to one another. Stop the wars and start hugging!!

[@nirvonna]

Well said. Reading comments first. I too hate needless chatter and also tire of silly hopium. Sounds like I shouldn’t bother listening.

[@rickknight3823]

Whoever you listened to or read is vastly wrong and out of order to suggest this 2032 end of life.. CO2 is life giving, the planet has greened like never before. NASA has shown this all over the world. Yes things may change, but not in the Nostradamus version you put forward. Climate models are notoriously inaccurate . Earth is a miracle.. often we should marvel at how we survived for so long.. We could of had a mass extinction event in July 23rd 2012.. with several massive CMEs that went right through earth's orbit in-between our planet and the moon.. 9 days earlier.. it would have been game over.. There are so many variables that we have no idea which affect our planetary system.. we kid ourselves thinking we have all there is t know at our finger tips... Don't let fear and human false intellectual superiority make you feel ots all wrapped up.

[@BadOompaloompa79]

Oh it can't happen that fast. 2080-2100 and now your talking.

[@youthculture523]

Rachel if you could make your intro a bit shorter I think that would increase audience viewing time a bit.

[@piopapae2724]

Yeah this guy isnt really telling a coherent story at all. Rambling the same stuff for an hour.

[@valoriethechemist]

We're likely completely misunderstanding what the carbon we've released today will do over the next few hundred years. The concept that we're only on a course for 3-5 is a short term model problem. We simply don't have enough data to project what occurs further out... we do have 10x the release of the PETM... that also came with huge mitigating factors... and we don't know much about how that release is interrelated over large time periods. Geological time under 500 years is difficult to measure let alone predict. But what we do have at current is at least an 800 year carbon problem. Over that time... with our current levels... and no natural mitigation but lots of potential natural feedbacks... we're ending our society as we know it at minimum.

[@john1boggity56]

I am afraid to say that I completely agree with you. Since I have succumbed to the idea of our extinction, I have a much clearer idea on what's important. Live a life of excellence as Guy McPherson says.

[@nyoodmono4681]

bla bla bla. There is 0,04% Co2 in the atmosphere and our yearly share of 4% all goes into the sinks, plants and oceans.

[@rickknight3823]

Think of it this way... What do plant and food growers pump into their greenhouses to increase production?? Carbon dioxide.... Increases in CO2 around the world has already shown a massive increase in the greening of of our planet as NASA has shown. More greening means more oxygen.. It's good to be concerned.. but this insane almost religious climate end of days obsession is a clear sign we have lost our way and looking to attach ourselves to something that's bigger than us...

[@valoriethechemist]

@@john1boggity56 I think collapse happens before we push to extinction levels. Without additional major negative events we'd likely be capable of surviving as a species or an evolution thereof... but eliminated may be a stretch. Not saying we'd be able to sustain much. And I think that's the big question of our era. Society will be changed. One way or another. Holding onto the past and present is just making that change more violent. But we could push toward a society that can retain emergency services, food distribution and housing energy so we can survive and for the most part live our lives while the impacts hit us. There's some mitigating factors to the severity of what's going to happen. We simply aren't engaging them on the scale we need to be.

[@Jc-ms5vv]

People are in for a rude awakening once we lose the arctic ice

[@cuana2]

Thank you for this interview. Very smart guest!

[@rapauli]

Oh this is a great one! Important message. Clear science. Thank you

[@SeegerInstitute]

Rachel, my dear, if you were simply wrong in your assessment, it would be one thing, but it’s counterproductive to your overall goal of trying to enlighten people it would be very nice to blame the fossil fuel industry. It would be very nice to blame white European civilization for everything that’s going on but that’s simply not the truth. If we really want to look at placing blame, we have to go back at least 10,000 years to the dawn of agriculture into the aggregation of larger groups of people, such that the complexity of the institutions required exploitation of the land, resources, animals, and other peoples. the cycles repeat themselves: a group of people is successful. They grow to the point where the surrounding resources are not able to sustain them at which point they develop a Belicose nature and expand outward, assuming the resources of others in the surrounding area. The Dawn of agriculture, signifies human beings disassociation with nature and our lack of an ability to live from a posture of stewardship. As long as we demonstrate a willingness to survive on exploitation and extraction, and not understand our unique ability to self regulate and care for all of life as a whole, we will continue to go downhill. When the argument is framed in a way that pits the fossil fuel industry against our society it’s no differentthan the drug addict, blaming the pusher. Simply humankind has no choice at this point, but to grow up and evolve beyond our petty superficial differences to grasp the reality that we are all in this together regardless of race, religion, skin, color, history, belief, or any other seemingly distinguishing characteristic. We all go down together at the end.

[@saskwatch123]

Not all humans are the same. The worst cultures like to diminish their role by saying all humans are the same.....but they are not. Unfortunately, those that did not completely destroy the world they lived in had their land taken away from them by those that did. Going back to the episode with William Rees, the same issue came up. The western European colonial cultures, their monetary systems and exploitative mentalities are behind the development of the fossil fuel age, the destruction of much of the natural world and the predicament we find ourselves in. We need to face the truth.

[@lana-jg4ho]

but is it not Western Europeans fault tho, why do yall love preaching personal responsibility for everyone else but YALL (the exact reason we're in this mess--the industrial revolution was YALLLLL doing, remember that!)

[@DoomsterInc]

Spot on!!

[@john1boggity56]

I don't think there is anyone or anything to blame. Our species has expanded into its niche in fact cobbled a whole new set of niches and shut down any immediate feedbacks as any other species would do if it could. The invisible hand of ecology will come into play soon and extinctions will rapidly increase. When the extinction rate flattens out in say 100,000 or more years then diversity will increase again over say 20 million years to the same or more than current levels. What's happening is a function of society and a species instinct and it is not any one particular person or things fault. I know I'll get some flack for this but the test is this. Imagine the board of Exxon having to replace a CEO. Who do they get? Someone who'll produce profits better than their predecessor..if they don't, then other companies will take their markets and Exxon will disappear. There is literally no way out of this and it is literally no one's fault.

[@regentoronto]

@@lana-jg4ho Tyson Yunkaporta (Sand Talk) and Vanessa Andreotti (Hospicing Modernity) agree. Human exceptionalism, human supremacy, narcissism - anyone thinking they're better or worse than a stone - all of these aspects of our spiritual disconnection from the rest of the Earth's metabolism have built empires on the backs and bodies of those who have lived in harmony with Earth's systems for 1000's of years.

[@danwatson171]

If you understand biological agriculture and also atmospheric chemistry and weather dependency, you’ll understand that humanity does not have even a decade until food plants cannot grow outside and our species starves to death.

[@GrinchDec23]

IS THAT SO lol...my garden is booming like never before. Geeee

[@miketaylor7023]

The oil company CEOs need proof of global warming. "I just don't see it! " They were saying. "Prove it! " , They used to say .

[@cdineaglecollapsecenter4672]

Our ancestors, including those reptile-like proto mammals in the Permian, survived all those mass extinctions. But I'm not that sanguine about humans surviving the one we are creating.

[@evilryutaropro]

Either this shit starts rapidly changing soon or our species is done for in the next XXX years or less

[@martiansoon9092]

@17:20 Overall human emissions are more than that. We are near 60Gt CO2e per year range, when all our actions are added together. It is misleading to talk about human emission without all ways how we add emissions. It is sadly that this kind of lowering emission amount talks are used in so many talks these days. We have adopted a sad way to express lower emissions that we really do emit.

[@mrjonno]

Thing is we understand what we're doing and why. People won't vote to be worse off. They don't need to be it's a case of moving away from a carbon economy to a sustainable one. We have a huge energy potential as long as the sun shines and the moon is in orbit.

[@TheReaderOnTheWall]

57:00 What we actually do. We get together. Form networks. Understand who can do what. Then we decide what to do. We work together to both sustain us and attack on every fronts we can. We physically go stop the machines that eat the Earth.

[@rickknight3823]

Don't be an ignorant.. Climate fear mongering is pushed by the very Corporations you wish to fight against.. Get with the program..

[@pvmagnus]

"we not going to become Venus" Hey Peter, you can't just say that. We dont know. Earth in a different place now rhan 250mn yrs ago.

[@pvmagnus]

For starters there's probably much more potential shallow carbon that will be released into the atmosphere in addition to what we're adding & what cycles in & out in interglacial cycles.

[@RebeccaTreeseed]

I worked in Dallas, could not afford to retire there. I did the same but much smaller. I was shocked at how depleted the species are here in the mountains, and harder to find, rarer. I had a 10000' beautiful rare delphinium show up in my raised vegetable beds. It grows wherever it wants. K dropped European vegetables and only grow native edibles.

[@Charlie_2_3_7]

"go for the tires" - basically we are out of options and need to stop or will be forced to stop, it will be abrupt and dangerous. Maybe I looked too deep into that, but thats how it came off to me.

[@robertmikes619]

I worked for BELL LABS in the 60 ,s and we tried to warn about GLOBAL Warming in a televised TV show in 1958 ! We need to simply lookat Nature to see what happens to a species which over populates its food supply / environment etc !

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

the cloud tipping points does kick in at 1200 co2 ppm - so we could become Venus.

[@nyoodmono4681]

Hmm but life was fine with 5000ppm in cambrian

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

@@nyoodmono4681 Yes you have mentioned an amount but that's not the same as "rate of change." Algae is 4.6 billion years old on Earth. So some algae survives in extreme conditions. Algae can sequester 100 gigatons of CO2 per year if algae is focused on. Algae is 50% of photosynthesis on Earth but only 1% of land biomass equivalent.

[@nyoodmono4681]

@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 The rate of change when it comes to ppm in the atmosphere is regulated by temperature, because the oceans release CO2 when it is warming. The CO2 therefore increased in the atmosphere since the end of the little ice age. With the Kieling curve we observe this rate instrumentaly since the late 1960s. A rate of ~3ppm per year. This rate does not change with our emission output, which suggests that all our human caused extra CO2 goes into the sinks: Oceans and plant life. This is only logical, because what dominates in this system is the atmospheric partial pressure. Thus in the Silurian ice age even 4000ppm where absorbed by the cold oceans. In the permian Karoo ice age later the same happened with 2000ppm before and after the ice age. And now it happened again, after the hot mesozoic, we are in an ice age and only 0.04% (400ppm) are in the atmosphere.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

@@nyoodmono4681 yes the rate does change. Read 2011, Professor Raymond Pierrehumbert in Physics Today on planetary climate change. As the co2 increases then the photon radiation bandwidth also increases.

[@Muddslinger0415]

@@nyoodmono4681not for fucking humans 😊

[@YukikoAkazui]

wonderful interview and very insightful!

[@johnsheehan5109]

I believe the geologic community is coming around to the postulate the Chicxulub event triggered the Deccan tarp event and that the extinction event occurred over a longer time.

[@graemetunbridge1738]

35:00 The optimum level of fright is enough to act, but not so much that they just give up.

[@TomWarren-u8g]

I found this interview helpful on many levels, but in the end not completely transparent. While sharing many statistics and historical comparisons to extinction events of the past, and explaining how what we’re doing now is worse, great effort was made to not be categorized as doomers. The hedging was revealing of the “rock and a hard place” we are really in. The intellectual discourse was impressive, but led nowhere except to a joint gnashing of teeth.

[@beefandbarley]

I don’t know. People are short sighted, needlessly competitive, generally selfish and of average intelligence. I remain emotionally hopeful but scientifically skeptical about our chances. We’re destroying our only spaceship’s life support systems! It’s really insane.

[@Glen-uy4jt]

A single droplet of moisture within a cloud does not form the cloud. The cloud follows natural principle. We were formed with natural principle but we also received imagination, a very potent force. With this force we changed wisdom into intellectualism. Wisdom sees the whole while intellectualism is focused on the parts, especially based upon comfort and utility. Also the intellectual mind has bias, habit, opinions, emotions, etc, which dominate wisdom. We have confused our needs with our desires. As we are a part of the universe, not apart from it, we must look deeply at our choices because they have far reaching effects.

[@sevenspaulding123]

Subbed ⚔️

[@iluvmuusic]

Thank you. Don't mean to complain, but I will. We don't care about the earth in 10 million years, or about whether "our species will survive". That's really, really not the point. The point is now, and the next decades. India, becoming uninhabitable soon enough. Societal breakdown, mass migration, technology and infrastructures, chemical, nuclear, military, etc... abandoned? There can be no understanding of our situation without system thinking, tipping points, and taking into account the fragility of our high-tech, interconnected world. Cheers.

[@Tyranthraxus78]

It’s not a simple Linear degradation of the planet; it’s Exponential. It will get worse, faster. 😅

[@alderom1]

excellent feature

[@ExtraDryingTime]

Mass extinction from climate change happens so frequently geologically speaking that paleontologists talk about something called "the killing model", which we could be seeing now. Not a paleontologist though, ask one for confirmation.

[@subcitizen2012]

It was about a year ago, there was a US representative that commented how climate initiatives would threaten the economy with the loss of "$trillions and $trillions." So I spent several hours doing some napkin math find a dollar figure for the cost of not doing climate initiatives. The easiest data to find was real estate and economic output (hard to dollarize a first fire or flood, especially future hypothetical ones). So, I went with just sea level rise to affect real estate and the effects on coastal cities - just the cities. So this an extremely low balled estimate. In 300 years, the most conservative sea level rise scenario I could find was 15 meters. That's roughly 6% of the land surface area that goes under water. Then assuming it affects the cities at 100% to offset the regional coastal areas I couldn't easily quantify here's what I found. 18 of our 20 or so mega city regions account for 1/3rd of global GDP. Sonin 300 years, we lose almost 1000 years worth of economic development. I tried to adjust for inflation as well, but this amounts to a current dollar price of $8 quadrillion (1000 years of economic output). That's what we stand to lose if we aren't net zero by 2070-2100. ONLY by the impacts from sea level rise! So maybe slap another zero or two at the end of that for the real figure once everything else from climate impacts could be factored in. I approximated that the global economy will be driven and dominated by climate change itself by 2150. 1/5th of the worlds population will need to migrate. Heat waves have the potential to eventually cause mass death events for humans (not to mention flora and fauna). Amidst unprecedented floods, there will also be rivers that permanently run dry; mass regional wild fires, desertification, crop failures, ecological collapses, institutional failures and collapses. Long story short. The if the US representatives think they're worried about the costs of trying to implement climate initiatives today, they are unaware that the problem of costs are 2 orders of magnitude higher. We are effectively entering a state where we might as well be in covid lockdowns for 300 years. Effectively generating negative 33% GDP on that time scale. Literally going backwards economically. For scale, human carbon related activity is on par with an asteroid impact. Or similarly, on the human impact economically, it's on a similar scale as the Mongol invasions or the black plague. And that's just 300 years from now, and ONLY from sea level rise. If I remember right it's approximately $150 billion cumulative per year. So next year is $300 billion GDP. The year after that it's $450 billion, etc. On this basis, the global GDP will effectively be zero by around the year 2600. That's as good as not existing. If the global economy were a boat in the ocean, we would need to spend more time bucketing water out of the hill to keep it from sinking than actual time sailing. It's not that this isn't achievable to prevent, or that technology might produce results, or that attitudes won't change, or better case scenarios can't happen. The point is, we are in trouble and our generation will especially be held accountable in the history books. If there are any history books...

[@Youbetternowatchthis]

Thanks. Just bought the book that was talked about

[@russtaylor2122]

Ha..1 We're all fleas, squabbling about who owns the dog...

[@mrrecluse7002]

He was trying his best to pull his punches, and I don't think he did a good job of it. How can you be hopeful, and honest about this grim subject, at the same time??

[@chadreilly]

Heck, his book was published six years ago. You would think he'd have time to work out the ramifications.

[@jocelynevkb5889]

Thank You for bringing up previous mass extinction events on Planet Earth in relation to the current man-made situation. The Anthropocene era is however currently causing about 70% reduction of species population sizes worldwide, WWF estimate 2022. Many species are just surviving on 2 to 1000 animals in zoos or reserves. The critical number of individuals for a species NOT to become extinct (that is sufficiently genetically diverse) is about 2,000 individuals! Bye-bye to anything wild & bigger than us shortly & to fish & crustaceans thereafter! Microbes will find a way to survive, though!

[@pennysmith3803]

Our situation is driven by capitalism and political systems intent on growing at whatever cost. The likes of the WEF, WHO, big pharma, lobbyists have built a lethal spiders web we are entangled in whether we like it or not. Warmongering by so called peacekeepers NATO but wars are good for business right? Why are there no referenda on huge issues like getting involved in wars which we have no say in. Western governments and the elite ignore or pay lip service to to climate change whilst they witness the suffering caused by it. Maybe wars are purely distraction? A British professor in climate change has written a book called Breaking Together describing the societal collapse we are experiencing and the climate catastrophe. He doesn’t do that job anymore… he’s moved to Thailand to help local people build resilience and regeneration in their farming communities. Interestingly he notes that an ancient and animistic connection with nature, one of rituals and reciprocity has changed him to the core.

[@5353Jumper]

You are so close yet so far with some of your comments. Like your total blame on socially leftie organizations while completely ignoring the socially right wing. Sure lefties get involved in wars maybe prolonging them or escalating them in an attempt to control which side wins, but the wars were started by the right wing in the first place. And lefties are forming all these climate actions which are sometimes corrupted, or incompetent, but the core beginning is them trying to counter the harm caused by traditionally right wing supported industries. But sure yes, more of us should adopt a more minimalist lifestyle to reduce consumption of everything. Again a leftie concept, and the righties are doing their best to oppose this. And it would be great if humanity could let go of bigotries so we can efficiently share resources and stop wars, like the lefties are trying to to incompetently. Great ideas, needs work. But you are blaming all these organizations for being ineffective at stopping the evil greed of the world, without actually blaming the evil greedy people and that seems a bit off. You are blaming the people attempting to regulate capitalism without actually blaming the late stage capitalists or the politicians they have baught who obstruct any progress.

[@sultanbev]

20:20 How do you collapse? Very slowly, then all at once. A bit like bankruptcy and divorce. Which is very apt, as human activity is a bankrupt notion, in both economic and ecological terms; and humans are very divorced from the reality of this overshoot.

[@dandilion62]

I wish I could "buy you a coffee"....I can't afford any more subscriptions

[@atanacioluna292]

You terrified me, and re-traumatized me in my PTSD from writing Pluvinergy; ) I simplified the process in my book Pluvicopia. We can harness the energy in latent heat, over dry lands to control CO2, temperature, and biosphere microclinates. Please read my life's work.

[@Glen-uy4jt]

Predicting the future, when in uncharted waters, based upon the past is foolish. Does humanity have the willpower to change the way they treat their mother? Complete respect or uncontrolled desire. Wisdom or intellectualism?

[@nonearlylove]

'NOVA Polar Extremes' on YT ; Very Entertaining and explains it all..! Not boring and lotsa Laughs..!

[@Glen-uy4jt]

Is ionization of the atmosphere possible? Caused by massive releases of radiation from abandoned nuclear power plants?

[@bill8985]

Derbyshire's Law of Collective Imprudence always comes to mind.

[@friedrichjunzt]

There is no way around living on huge space stations and mining asteroids. Unfortunately, we only have Elon Musk, who wants to repopulate Mars with his wife and may be a handful of billionaire friends.

[@stephangleiner1333]

mistake, there is NO public consensus. not by far. very important for all your reasoning why things continue...

[@BigMikeGuitar]

It is a misnomer to characterize the situation as “an experiment being run on Earth.” Alternatively, what is being run on Earth is an instinctive species given to tribal exceptionalism and supremacy exerting a zero-sum evolutionary arms race game through winning is everything in the pursuit of insatiable power. Nations and individuals are determined by tribal in-group/out-group dynamics including classism, by tribal instincts with authoritarian characteristics, by irrational ideological fundamentalism, by social Darwinism and social murder, and pathologies of narcissism, megalomania, sociopathy, and psychopathy. In-group cooperation, sharing, and altruism, is developed to increase competitive ability. Meanwhile, virtually everything about the self-interested state competing in the interstate system is undesirable and unsustainable. The human condition is on rails, and it will end speeding off those rails as fast as it can.

[@billmarriott1871]

Hi Rachel, As part of your look into carbon cycles, Could you please investigate 1. the continuing reduction of photosynthesis (draw down of CO2) across the world due to desertification, industrial farming and urbanisation. 2. the loss of soil fertility (carbon) because of minimal recycling of human poo back into our soils? Bill

[@rickknight3823]

NASA has shown the earth has massively greened since a slight increase in CO2. In fact if humans hadn't created a bit more CO2 we would be facing a significant cooling effect resulting in far more devastation as the long term cycles indicate.

[@goranrudback5858]

@@rickknight3823 You're both partly right. The human desertification of temperate and tropical areas, urbanisation, lowers absolute humidity; as there is less water to evaporate the surface temperature increases (part of the urban heat island effect). Plants encourage infiltration and groundwater recharge by precipitation as long as the ground is not frozen, making more water available for plants to evaporate during growing season, thus cooling the surface. That means that as the planet becomes greener, temperature in the greened areas will decrease - and the only way to get more plants on the planet is to have more plant food - more CO2 - available in the atmosphere. Accordingly, less CO2, will lead to less green areas and will result in higher surface temperatures, not lower. All in all, plants stabilize the local climate, thereby making themselves thrive.

[@noelwilson7128]

a smart guy, honest, but ultimately conservative. He really knows it’s going to be off the scale bad, but he can’t quite say it out loud yet somehow. Understandably. He still lives in this civilisation and needs a career and research grants. Can’t be an alarmist, not yet. Soon enough though I think. 🤔

[@NivuagYdna]

We’re in the seventh, not the sixth.

[@Yerpyerp14]

What was the 6th?

[@NivuagYdna]

@@Yerpyerp14 559 to 550 million years ago, in the Ediacaran period.

[@petergleeson295]

To change humanity we all learn overtone singing and master human sound and participate in choirs filling sports stadiums. We then master human movement and behaviour. Future people are born into an enlightened age as we all become polymaths

[@firstlastlastfirst7143]

Down vote for not even mentioning capitalism. If you are completely oblivious to the economic drivers of climate change, you shouldn't even waste you time learning about.

[@mysticalskiessuriname]

To be honest, the lady did mention that several times, but the guy is clearly mostly focusing on his field and i was surprised with some of his comments. But i agree with you. It starts with greed and luxurious lifestyle.

[@subcitizen2012]

While you're not entirely wrong, you're addressing a scientist, not an economist. Remember it's easier to imagine the end of the world than it is the end of capitalism. We will likely need capitalism to get out of this mess first. It's much easier to market solar panels and electric cars to people that are climate skeptics than it is to convince them to accept abolishing money. Get your head out of your ass.

[@lionrocklr9217]

Rachel, please consider having John Vaillant, the author of Fire Weather; On the Front Lines of a Burning World. The scope of his thinking which includes the impact of building a civilization on a toxic chemical: oil, would be a valuable contribution to your work at Planet Critical.

[@JimmyD806]

For the two-dimensional thinkers out there who think their demise is going to come as soon as tomorrow morning, I have some bad news for you. It's only 113F in Death Valley right now. Nowhere NEAR a record. We aren't doomed.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

"A shorter period of cooling, such as the “Little Ice Age” between the 14th and mid-19th centuries, saw temperatures that were half a degree Celsius (about 1°F) cooler in Europe than today's average temperatures." half a degree in EUROPE!! "Even though average annual temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere decreased by 0.6°C (1.1°F), certain areas experienced cold episodes for several decades with temperatures dropping by as much as 2°C (3.6°F) relative to thousand-year averages."

[@HalifaxPeacock]

This place we call plane(t) earth, rotates through a 26,500 year cycle. A big astronomical clock on a series of timers - with a climate that is ever changing.

[@TheDiversifiedFarmer]

Would not be all of Earths history with outside inputs like space debris.

[@michaelporter261]

Sounds like he never heard about the Younger Dryas. I think there have been many asteroid hits

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

The small amount of atmospheric CO2 humans have released into the atmosphere is not at all comparable to the End Permian extinction event. We are presently at 0.0415% atmospheric CO2. The vast majority of earth's history had a significantly higher atmospheric CO2 content. We are talking about billions of years where the atmospheric CO2 was over 1.0% of the atmospheric content. There are so many things he overlooks or quickly skips over that people are not getting a good picture of what actually happened during the End Permian extinction event. Tremendous amounts of heat were released by the Texas sized volcano that was literally an open sore on the earth's surface for an estimated 200,000 years. The amount of heat released by all the coal that was burned was also tremendous. Then you have all the gases he does not even bother mentioning: H2S, SO4, methane, and all manner of other toxic and corrosive gases that were released into the atmosphere that kill organisms, which are emitted during a volcanic eruption. Much of these gases were subsequently dissolved into the ocean making it highly acidic due to the high sulfur content. He claims there is no reason ocean life would die off because of this eruption. That is abject nonsense. Sea organisms shells are made of calcium carbonate, CaCO3. That is one calcium atom, one carbon atom, and three oxygen atoms chemically combined together. If you add more CO2 to the water and sea organisms simply have more materials with which to make shells. It was the sulfuric acid and the extreme heat released from the volcano and coal that was the problem, not the CO2. He does not think we will reproduce the End Permian conditions, which he states as if it is even possible when it is quite impossible for us humans to do anything close to what occurred. It is rather difficult to take a man seriously who equates the tiny effect we have had on the atmosphere with a volcano the size of Texas which burned a massive coal field for over 200,000 years. He might as well be talking about reproducing the meteor strike that caused the dinosaurs to become extinct.

[@Tasmantor]

Ocean acidification makes shell formation harder not easier. This is like the CO2 is plant food argument but shifted to the ocean.

[@john1boggity56]

Excellent contribution

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

@@Tasmantor Tell me exactly from where you think crustaceans, mollusks, and other shell bearing sea organisms get the carbon to make their shells. Also, tell me why there were huge population explosions of shell bearing organisms during the cretaceous period which is why we have huge limestone formations all over the world from that time period when the atmospheric CO2 content was between 600 and 4,000 ppm. That minimum is about 50% more than present levels and that maximum is literally about 10 times our present level of 415 ppm. Explain to me why they did not go extinct then, but rather had huge populations if it is so bad for them. Are you going to tell me the fundamentals of chemistry have changed since then?

[@5353Jumper]

Shal we point out that those times when atmospheric carbon was higher than today, there were less mammals. Little things like low oxygen levels made it not great for mammals to survive. Most creatures have evolved to relatively high oxygen levels the last million years of relative stability. If this change in CO2 quickly changes the O2 levels (maybe a bloom or extinction of some key algae species or something like that) then all mammals could die off quite quickly. FYI humans are mammals.

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

@@5353Jumper You are wrong. All the dinosaurs that ever lived and died lived when atmospheric CO2 was at a higher level than the present.

[@cdineaglecollapsecenter4672]

Siberian traps cover 3 million square miles. By comparison, the National Forest nearest me (it's a big one) covers around 3000 square miles.

[@kayakMike1000]

I need a list of all the species that went extinct directly from clinate change.

[@CalmerThanYouM8]

I see the biggest issue arguing climate change as a negative is the historical evidence shows the planet has shown to be highly productive especially at evolving new clades and having more biodiversity at 800-1200ppm CO2 and 10f warmer on average.

[@john1boggity56]

The rate of change is far too fast for the emergence of new species before a ten to twenty million year recovery if diversity

[@john1boggity56]

But these posts don't talk to the rate of change which is very rapid. Evolution is a painfully slow process. The new biodiversity that emerges in millions of years from this disturbance event won't include a lot of species we know today. Most will be new.

[@5353Jumper]

You also need to look at oxygen levels which tend to be opposite CO2 levels. Back when atmospheric CO2 was high, O2 was low at a point where most currently evolved species cannot survive. Mammals need higher O2 in the atmosphere than plants, lizards/birds. So sure, big plant growth and thriving lizards, but no mammals. FYI humans are mammals.

[@rickknight3823]

​@@5353Jumperare you serious?? I'm often floored by the low end comprehension of simple science related to science.. Increases in CO2 has led to the increase in plant life and the greening of our planet as NASA has clearly shown.. Increases in plant life means the increase in oxygen... Plants breathe it out... Increases in CO2 mean the increase in ocean algae blooms of which is the biggest absorber of CO2 and expeller of 02.. It also feeds and nourishes the ocean ecosystem at every level... Way too much fear mongering.. Climate fear mongering is Corporate manipulated to capture mankind in another CO2 based slave system.

[@christianzilla]

At 1,000ppm of co2, the human brain loses 20% of its cognitive function. I think you're probably at about that now.

[@koltoncrane3099]

I always ponder how did massive animals and plants ever live in a world with huge amounts of carbon way more then exists today? Huge amounts of plants and animals died and was fermented to make the nice brew of refined oil we have today. Like seriously if carbon is so bad how did plants and huge animals live back in the past?

[@TwinFishAudio]

Excellent, thank you. Couple of questions for you. AI has put emissions up for Google near 50%, is it worth those extra emissions for the use of AI to create more accurate climate models? Secondly could things potentially get so bad that we push the climate back to anaerobic (I've wondered that for ages)?

[@jonmyles4531]

Modern Civilisation relies upon Coal, Oil & Gas as its very COG's; diesel is the modern workhorse of our lives. When people mention Electricity supplies this is around 1/5 to 1/4 of all energy use made by mainly these days Coal/Wood, Oil, (Natural) Gas, Nuclear, Hydroelectric & a very small amount from Wind & Solar. Diesel is the Workhorse of our Modern Humanity. The slight increase in coming out of the last Ice Age maybe added to by CO2 we produce but the return of this molecule to where it came from is part of this Carbon Cycle. We cannot run society without these COG's, even to build Nuclear Fission (U or Th) or even fabled Fusion if it ever works will require huge amounts of these FF's. The big elephant in the room is these COG's. All the political shenanigans seems driven by Greed not real need. Enjoy FF's ('FossilFuels') whilst they last!

[@timmah941]

Good information, thank you. People should know that Big Carbon and Big Carbon Energy is changing the generator working fluid from water steam to supercritical CO2 at 97% carbon capture and sequestration, e.g. NET Power (NYSE: NPWR).