We Are Not the First to Suffer Through Climate Change | Brian Fagan

[@alexmclaren9159]

Excellent. So good to hear someone who actually knows what Climate Change is.

[@ChrisTheAdMan]

Absolutely fascinating! Never heard of this guy before. Thank you for sharing this video. A hundred points I could I make...Agreed I'm not worried about the temperature rising or the rising seas (apologies Vanuatu!) but the most pressing concern is FOOD. Increasingly variable weather means unpredictable harvest yields, you can't instantly move a wheat field 200 miles. There will be a lag in production. This is what any climate interested person should be focused on, preparation. A break down in food will also result in civil unrest or put simply, the four horsemen. 1250 med-evil warm period ends 1287 massive volcanoes going off, befouling the weather 1315 famine 1300's floods and erratic weather 1347 The Black Death 1381 Peasant's Revolt (England) ...and on and on... 1600's Maunder Minimum revival of the 14th century in full swing and deathly cold too. Get ready folks. War, Pestilence, Famine and Death. In this the age of Covid, the other 3 are just waiting in the wings. Humanity will survive...will you?

[@mu99ins]

That will happen if climate changes quickly. It's not changing quickly. There has been a dramatic rise in CO2, which is plant food. Agricultural production yields have been increasing due to increase in carbon in the atmosphere. With the increase in carbon, plants require less water. The Earth has been on a general warming trend for 10,000 years, since the end of the last glacial period.

[@stephenbrown9998]

Fascinating lecture thank you sir your style is brilliant

[@sunflowerheather7019]

Brilliant lecture! Excellent content. Much appreciated

[@mu99ins]

Earth climate changes and always has. Humans will adapt. The idea that water will be scarce is a very important issue. One of the things that is new is that, with political consensus, salt water can be desalinized, currently using nuclear power, but with the advance of technology, it will be desalinized by solar and wave energy as well. In extreme drought, Los Angeles can desalinize water to keep their water supply at adequate levels to remain a major population center. We have to learn to elect a higher quality of politician, though, because the current crop of politicians are inept and crooked.

[@raptorshadowsuit1815]

At NO point in the past has there EVER been 43,000 jets in the skies. This amounts to106,000 - 2,000 degree jet turbine engines consuming atmosphere all day - everyday of the year NON-STOP. In one year there are over 39,000,000 flights. This equate to OVER 1,000,000,000 - 2,000 degree jet turbine engines consuming atmosphere.

[@direwolf6234]

good talk .. would have been better if they'd showed the slides he was talking about ...

[@matthewkashnig3061]

Mag field getting weaker at same rate as warming. Or solar activity has been weak last 30 years. Yet we are 100% convinced MAN is to blame for 100% of warming

[@Raydensheraj]

Why are you constructing a straw man. No climatologist claims "Human is to blame for 100% warming"...the evidence is that "homo sapiens is speeding up the warming and keeps speeding the process up." Our understanding that increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere could change the climate is not new. The greenhouse effect was first identified by famed French mathematician and physicist Joseph Fourier in 1824. Fourier calculated that the planet should be colder than it was if it was only being warmed by the incoming solar radiation, and suggested that the atmosphere might be acting as an insulator of some kind, trapping heat. In 1861, Irish physicists John Tyndall discovered that water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane all trap heat while oxygen and nitrogen do not. This relationship between carbon dioxide, water vapor, and climate was explored in greater detail in 1896 by the Swedish physicist Svante Arrhenius, who estimated that a doubling of carbon dioxide levels would cause global warming of 4.9 to 6.1 degrees Celsius. In his landmark paper, Arrhenius reported that "a simple calculation shows that the temperature in the Arctic region would rise about 8 to 9 Celsius, if the carbonic acid increased to 2.5 or 3 times it's present value," and he suggested that, over time, the burning of fossil fuels - then largely five hundred million tons annually of coal - could have an influence... This "influence" vegan to be noticed in the early part of the twentieth century as Earth began to warm. In 1938, English engineer and inventory Guy Stewart Callendar concluded that atmospheric CO2 had increased by 10% in the previous 100 years, potentially explaining the warming. Scientists began to take notice and when they really had time to focus on the problem after the conclusion of WW2, they became increasingly concerned. At first they argued that Callendar was wrong, and then that the Oceans would absorb the extra CO2 humans were generating. But in 1956, Canadian physicist Gilbert N.Plass showed that the ocean saturation argument was wrong, and that CO2 increases do in fact increase Earth's energy balance (the increases were in fact trapping additional heat). Roger Revelle, the director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, followed this up in 1957 by showing that the Oceans we're absorbing atmospheric CO2, much more slowly than had been previously thought. The exact level of atmospheric CO2, was first documented experimentally by Charles Keeling in the 1950s...his "Keeling curve" and work was verified and expanded by thousands of scientists gathering massive amounts of data about greenhouse gases, ocean acidification, ica and albedo (Earth's reflectivity), weather patterns, and hundreds of other aspects of Earth's complex climate system. What they found, using many different methods, was that the increasing CO2 levels were indeed causing global warming, just as Arrhenius had predicted, and we definitely are approaching levels that will cause in radical change in climate patterns that will destabilize our economy, our national security, our social structures, and if course our environment. Humans are obviously burning fossil fuels in outrageous amounts....of course these facts go against the established political and economic power elite that view these facts as threat to their authority, power and business....the fossil fuel industry (sponsor number one of the Republican Party and propaganda outlets like the Heartland Institute or Discovery Institute for example...) The need to limit carbon emissions was something the world's nations, as well as the energy and extraction industries, we're aware of at least since 1988, when climate scientist James Hansen first testified before the US Congress...but the science had been known to oil companies well before that... A senior EXXON company scientist named James F. Black had informed Exxons top executives of the EXACT SAME conclusion in July 1977 delivering a slide presentation where he told them how sciences showed that carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels was warming the planet and could eventually endanger humanity. "In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels." - James F.Black to the Exxon executive board.

[@matthewkashnig3061]

@@Raydensheraj okay I can go with that so then why in the news is every single weather event and every single forest fire having to do with man-made global warming. Technically I shouldn't hear their mouth except for maybe 12 to 20% of the time. They can flood the African depression but is more money in dealing with sea level rise than there is stopping it. Yeah I can go with that I can go with that definitely but then the general public doesn't know that they get corn fed this b******* and they think it's 100% And it's not 100%, and that's where I'm making it clear.

[@vgrof2315]

Not the first, by a long shot!

[@0532phillipjoy]

Sucks Lord Monckton - except - if only it were a matter of intellectual point scoring, not of millions at risk and billions on the move...As a proportion of today's population a similar impact of that Indian drought would be 210 million dead. No wonder he's worried.

[@mikestirewalt5193]

Londoners stopped having parties on the Thames because they had built bridges? Building bridges prevented the water from freezing? It's amazing how an authoritative accent can command attention even when the speaker spouts nonsense. (Somewhere just past the 37 minute mark. Possibly I heard him wrong.) Great description of life in medieval times in England & Europe. Shudder . . . .

[@tribouletrabelais4473]

You heard him right. Buildings create an urban heat island. This is why in cities it is averagely warmer during day and especially at night vs countryside.

[@stefke5862]

I can imagine bridges make the water flow faster due to narrowing the flow and make water more difficult to freeze?

[@mikestirewalt5193]

@@tribouletrabelais4473 That makes sense. I didn't even think of that. The depth of my thinking rises and recedes like the tide.

[@sislertx]

Really a fool in a lot of.ways...but interesting.

[@Ma1nspr1ng]

What do you mean by this?