Climate Tipping Points in Oceans, Ice, Forests - Myles Allen
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 мар 2024
- The impacts of climate change that probably worry people the most are irreversible changes that affect the entire world, such as a collapse of the west Antarctic ice sheet, shutdown of the global thermohaline circulation, loss of the Amazon biome, or a melting of Arctic permafrost.
Sudden, unpredictable and irreversible changes can happen in response to a gradual warming. What is known about these risks at 1.5°C, 2°C and higher levels of warming?
This lecture was recorded by Myles Allen on 5th March 2024 at Barnard's Inn Hall, London
Myles is the Frank Jackson Foundation Professor of the Environment.
He has contributed extensively to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), including as Coordinating Lead Author for the 2018 IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C. He has published extensively on how human and natural influences on climate contribute to observed climate change and extreme weather risk, and the implications for adaptation and mitigation policy.
The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website:
www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/t...
Gresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: gresham.ac.uk/support/
Website: gresham.ac.uk
Twitter: / greshamcollege
Facebook: / greshamcollege
Instagram: / greshamcollege
Thank you for such an accessible (for a non-physicist) presentation. Look forward to the next one.
Dense, supercool highly saline water comes from beneath the ice sheet. There are wonderful videos of the effects of dense supercooled water sinking to the polar ocean floor and instantly freezing the numerous animals on the ocean floor.
Polar precipitation leads to dilute low density surface water which freezes more readily as the semiannual polar winter progresses.
Thank heavens we do not live on a planet that runs on models, but instead runs on physics, and unpredictable chaos.
Excellent presentation! Wish I could be as optimistic as Myles.
Myles Allen is always very clear. So the ocean overturning is slowed by more rain towards the poles. The rain must be drawn from more southerly oceans for this to be an issue. Clearly as warm air travels north it reaches a due point after which there is no more precipitation. So the question is how far on average the moist air travels. If the overturning takes place and the weather cools then the due point will move south again. Has the possibility of a self regulating system been eliminated from the range of possibilities? Also less rain in the Amazon which is Tropical. How does this square with increased tropical evaporation going to the poles? Next question: If moist air is moving to different locations do the ocean currents affect the wind - trade winds and so on? My guess is yes. To my mind still more work to be done on all this.
It would take several lengthy paragraphs to even address one of your questions. As a general point Earth is already seeing disrupted weather patterns as the Arctic warms rapidly (This being what was predicted). Hence heavy snow in Texas, above freezing temperatures in Northern Siberia, and generally more extreme events. Specific to the Amazon, rainfall patterns have started to change. This is exacerbated by the clearing process which is proceeding whether it's declared legal or not. Unfortunately even the best science communicators can only tell us so much in 45 minutes. If one considers that the last full IPCC report was over 10,000 pages in length, and even then it's only a synthesis of many thousands of scientific papers published in recent years, the difficulties faced by the likes of you or I grasping the complexity of the issues faced today are stark.
At what hubris index does one's personal casual unskilled speculations override the detailed examination of someone with expertise and experience in the minutiae of doing the science ?
Or....
On another tack...
At a general level, when you encounter information, you can choose to classify it on your plausibility spectrum ...
From definitely wrong, through most likely wrong through the seesaw zone to the "cointoss" pivot and then through most likely correct through to definitely correct...
based on various criteria
Diving into the details and purporting to critique the minutiae of mechanisms one can only speculate upon requires a degree of rigour and specific knowledge bolstered by evidence.
If one's entire "analysis critique" is speculative, it is best to place the onus on oneself to fill in the blanks rather than the researcher one is purporting to "critique".
(and at the very minimum, to communicate ones "work" directly to the researcher)
If you look up videos by the late Professor Steven Salter, he discusses these matters. In the context of marine cloud brightening - an interesting idea, proposing spraying salt water mist, the salt acts as nucleation for cloud formation. He and colleagues did simulations of moisture flow. His proposed solution would reduce precipitation over the oceans and increase it over land.
@@StabilisingGlobalTemperature Myles' latest lecture deals with the problems such solutions would cause.
@@fullmontyuk Are those problems worse than doing nothing? We have stark choices to be made.
Thanks a lot for the geophysical explanation;
I didn't know that before.
@58:30 Yea, likelihood of wars rises when natural resources like food and water dwindles.
Losing coral reefs means 1 billion people are our of job and food. That amount of people that are seeking something else will make many areas unstable.
Places where sea level rise wil hit are yet another. Already in Florida people are starting to see this and they are migrating away.
Mass migration from dried conditions in Africa and Central America has pushed people away. And have created multiple conflicts. And are rising hatred against refugees.
If things go wrong we may even accelerate our own doom by starting nuclear war over climate driven issues.
Florida is losing people? 😂
@@RonGreeneComedian That's what I have red. Also it would be wise thing to do within decadal timescale. Sunnyday flooding has been an issue in some parts of Florida for some years now.
There has been no loss of coral reefs, African droughts were worse in the 1980s. Mass migration is because of an agenda. Hello climate bot:)
How effing illiterate one has to be to think coral reefs are dying due to CO2. Factually, the GBR is booming.
"we" won't be starting any nuclear wars
It is important to always keep in mind that the current crop of interest-conflicted influence-peddlers who infest governance structures and the predatory-parasitic psychosociopathic corpiratist executives are in no sense "we"
Very clear præsentation. Perhaps I missed it, but I would have liket to hear a word on the recent Dithlevsen/Dithlevsen article on the AMOC.
Unhelpful does not mean incorrect. We can still help, it is too late to stop!
Could we harvest the melt water? Build water pipelines to some of the major reservoirs? Would that reduce some of the sea Ievel rise and other issue's? Such as temperature, current and salinization levels? I know that it sounds like a nearly impossible feat with logistics and cost but I would say that our survival is priceless.
Greetings from Scotland. Snow overnight, lasting into the morning. The bus and cars couldn't get up the hill. Heavy sleet / rain in the afternoon.
But that'a just weather isn't it ?
Yes, it's weather, not climate. Climate is a large scale long term trend in the averages over many years that can weaken ocean currents, melt ice caps, raise sea levels, shift an entire climate zones, cause raging forest fires from Russia to Canada, dry out the Amazon jungle and turn it into scrub. Climate change is not a single day's weather report to from your door step. Scotland covers 0.015% of the Planet (77,940 / 510 million square kilometres). This small spot is not representative of the planet. Even in the middle of the Last Ice Age, roaming herds of Mammoth hunted by our ancestors (the Gravettians) experienced a few days or weeks of warm summer weather each year, may be even a heatwave, in their little patch of western Siberia. A few days of exceptionally warm weather didn't contradict the fact there were in the middle of an Ice Age and Scotland was buried under a mile of ice. What matters is the large scale and long term climate conditions, not a sunny summer's day in Siberia 27,000 years ago or a cold today outside your font door.
Yes, that is weather.
last month was the hottest on record here in Florida
I'm from Canada and this year in some parts we had almost no snow. We had our biggest snowstorm on Saturday and we barely got 15cm. The day after the temperature increased to 9C and it was all gone. Where is the snow that we used to get? We used to get several days a year below -40C and several weeks below -20C but it never got below -20C even once this year.
@@Trygvar13 I am more than happy to accept that climate is changing as in my 60 years of life I, like you, have seen it. What I am less convinced about is a) that the change is 'entirely' down to human influence (although it undoubtedly is to some extent) and b) that we can actually do much about it. Yes, we are technologically adept species but we operate within natural cycles and timeframes that are immensely bigger and longer than the very, very, very brief time we have been around in our modern form. In my view, we are just one of very many species that have evolved and died out repeatedly over the eons and I can't see much stopping that process continuing. Our technological capability - while amazing - has developed untempered by reflective thought. Like a child in a candystore our species has given in to greed and avarice and cannot change. The fact that just the other week our 'leaders' advocated further bloodshed based on arbitrary religious and tribal boundaries demonstrates our true nature. No I think we will continue to delude ourselves that we are taking action while the planet goes about it's business as it has for 4.5 billion years without us.
Records of temperature only go back around 150yrs on a planet that's millions of years old, records are ridiculous
@@Trygvar13 Oh no, it only snowed a bit where I am, so Globull Warming.
@MrAlhaines
"last month was the hottest on record here in Florida"
Nope. Hottest temp. ever in Florida was June 29, 1931 (108 °F (42.2 °C)). Unless they 'corrected' the temperature records again to make the past look cooler than it was. The satellites, unaffected by urban sprawl which MASSIVELY inflates the temps of ground based measurements, do not show you beat that one.
And it has been for the last 20 thousand or more years!...back then the ice was a mile thick over chicago.
What about the effect of the increase in water distillation and the increase of salinity in the waters around the coasts especially in the Mediterranean?
At one time the poles had no ice
Sorry but pretty dumb comment. For one thing we built our agricultural infrastructure based on a planet where the rainfall patterns, mean average temperatures, and climate stability are determined by an Arctic with multi-year ice! Not to mention the danger this poses to habitat stability world wide. We've opened Pandora's Box through sheer greed and arrogance.
@@paxwallace8324 Clearly you know little about the real history of the earth, you'll probably deny it was 8C warmer than today and plant life was in abundance. Agriculture started well before thermometers existed. Many things affect climate stability including the activity of the sun, heat islands where most temperatures are taken today even if they were used 100 years ago would be higher today in those vastly inhabited cities that continue to grow and put false readings when you come to temperature averages .
@@seewhatifoundyou obviously demonstrate great insight, nearly that of Mr trump.
@@tonycollyweston6182 Are you part of the money game ?
Opening sentence, “ net zero “ was mentioned. That recent, duplicitous phrase that can mean anything you want because it’s effectively dishonest accounting. Great start. Watching and waiting for redemption.
Al Gore won a prize predicting end of Artic ice by ten yrs ago. End hasn't even begun.
Net Zero, don't create more emissions than the earth can absorb/decays.
You could say that about the term "profit". Doesn't change the fact that the word profit has a definition.
Net zero is a scam. Tipping points are as well. Physicists can be as deceptive as anyone else.
@@antonyjh1234 Not increasing emissions year on year would be a start.
“I accepted to come to this meeting to have a sober and mature conversation. I’m not in any way signing up to any discussion that is alarmist. There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5C.”
- Sultan Al Jaber, President of COP 28, also CEO of Abu Dhabi National Oil Company
Mukhtar Babayev will be the president for COP 29; he is also a former executive of the State Oil Company of Azerbaijian Republic.
Seems more and more likely, scenario SSP5-8.5 of the IPCC assessment may come to fruition (or at least the higher end of the spectrum). I say enjoy what you can, while you still can; pity the generations to come.
Sorry to point out another error, but modern geological thinking has the drainage of Lake Agassiz as causing the 8.2 event at 8,200 years ago rather than the Younger Dryas. This might actually help your argument as no AMOC collapse occurred at that point. The 'recent' AMOC switches relate to the DO events within the glaciation period.
Except that William Happer has calculated that CO2 is significantly non-linear: he states that doubling CO2 will not double its contribution to temperature rise.
If Happer is correct, why do the models show a linear temperature rise?
Maybe you don't really understand Happer, and maybe Happer himself is just a tool or not an honest actor.
@@TheDanEdwards Name calling and accusations will not solve this problem that we all face. Happer appears to be logical in his arguments. He does not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. He does state that most of its heating effect is at low concentrations, with much less increase at higher ppm concentrations. His point is that doubling CO2 from 400 ppm to 800 ppm would increase its heating effect, but only marginally. My suspicion is that he is only looking at CO2 and its effect on radiant flux, and not considering other factors such as positive feedback loops.
Stage lights up!
Surprisingly, i remember something dimly from old lectures.
Global Ocean Circulation: Antarctica . Two DIFFERENT things happen in this region. The surface water driven north as shown "pulls" deep water below south to Antarctica at depths 200m to 800m or thereabouts (so below the 0m-200m, roughly surface water being driven north above by the wind). That's a simple local overturning cycle of 200m-800m warm (0-2 degrees) water coming in, melting 2.3 trillion tonnes of ice per year off the Antarctica ice, freshening, getting "light", rising to surface because it's light, cooled to about -1.8 degrees and driven north (*so it came in at 1.0 degrees, cooled to -1.8 degrees, melting ice, rose to surface and wind drove it north.
---------
Separately, the vast high--pressure, cold, salty water pumps (like pile drivers) at locations around Antarctica force water under increased pressure to the sea bed at -0.5 degrees northward up all oceans at a huge flow of 25.8 Sv and travel the sea bed at 0.0 degrees lifting the entire global ocean depth of 5,800 m above them by their high force except that the force is withheld in North Atlantic by the same thing around Greenland (the AMOC force and 17.5 Sv flow) with a Mexican Standoff at the Atlantic equator and this Antarctica AABW denser water then lifting the Greenland AMOC LNADW-UNADW to the surface further south (like a crowbar wedged under it). Arctic Ocean is a tiny paddling pool not an ocean and the 25.8 Sv AABW from the Antarctica vast high--pressure, cold, salty water pumps lifts the rest of the global ocean by about 2.7 metres (9 feet) per year. The permanent thermocline is only 650 m deep and temperature 5.0 degrees at the bottom, 27.0 degrees at the top, the lowest 89% of ocean 650 m down to 5,800 m deep is 0.0 degrees at the bottom and 5.0 degrees at the top so this vast area of "warm water lens" is literally lifted by being wedged up underneath by 2.7 metres per year which entirely replaces it with nice new 5.0 degrees water once per 650/2.7 = 240 years (of course, the sunshine and various mixings warm the water as it rises). That's called Global ThermoHaline Circulation (THC) or "Global Ocean Conveyor" and an old bloke "Wally Broecker" invented it using a giant stirring spoon and got a big bowl of pancake batter dumped on his head when he crossed the Pacific Equator. Serves him right.
0.8 Celsius / 50 year... It is un unmeasurable...
Yet it was measured 😉
@fullmontyuk Ok. What was the average global temperature in 2022? (not model estimation)
@@peterbecskeiwhy don't you google it?
I lasted 11 minutes into this program and decided he's going nowhere.
We all know how inaccurate these models are so using them as key discussion points irks me.
Secondly, he said he's already shown how the CO2 changes are causing warming. Yeah right. We all know historically that CO2 levels rise following warming.
Lastly, he appears to completely ignore key factors outside of CO2.
Seems very limited to me.
Please let me know if he addresses these issues later in his speech and I'll watch it later.
Just spent an hour listening to Prof Dilley at a Tom Nelson podcast so I'm now feeling I'm at a tipping (or is that sleeping point?!)
Dilley was brilliant with the graphs, data and ideas he covered. Thoroughly recommend viewing it.
even if it would get colder there is a natural max to the height a glacier can reach,
if it grows to much it will collapse and push itself to the ocean..
all due to gravitation and the properties of polar ice.
We have time to act, but not time to waste. Also I think we can mitigate the worsening of it in general, but 'fix it', is idealistic. We can make the best of a bad situation, by trying to do our best, but we can't return to a 'fix' of how it was before carbon. So let's make the best go of it, for what it's worth in regards of that, and not give out/give up
How can you stop night time freezing, nobody explains this.
More co2
@@PavelDatsyuk-ui4qv No, you need wild fires to melt glaciers.
@@woodchipgardens9084 And wildfire produce CO2, so the answer is more CO2
@@yancgc5098 Westerly Winds push the Beaufort Gyre in a clockwise rotation draining the Sea ice into Siberia and the Atlantic, if you change to Counter Clockwise Rotation the ice goes to the Bearing Strait and Southwest Greenland Glaciers. It's all Natural, Study Physics and Weather Patterns not Scam Studies.
@@yancgc5098 How can you have a Tipping Point if Heat is always Temporary, Night Time is always cooling, Winter is always freezing, No Tipping Point Possible.
coral reef recovered 2022
It's Solar System change. The Sun is what drives the whole change.
If you don’t believe in climate change, please relay your opinions to your children & grandchildren. They will hold you accountable in the decades ahead as the consequences for climate change become an unavoidable reality.
How can you have a Tipping Point if Heat is always Temporary, Night Time is always cooling, Winter is always freezing, No Tipping Point Possible.
Maybe if heat builds up to the point where water stops freezing.
@@ClimateScepticSceptic-ub2rg wont happen until we are all dead.
It's like you don't know that 70% of the planet's surface is covered in water.
Is starting off at 1900 a mere 100 yrs , just a blink ?
Let the war industry with their nifty machinery turn to
geo-engineering in the heavens.
Planet Earth is suspended in Space where the temperature is minus 273 degrees Celsius . The world remains in an Ice Age .❤
Obviously not a Sun worshipper.
Is your argument about crying wolf to often ?
I'm not Doomer, I'm a Doomalist.
Global Ocean Circulation: Antarctica . I disagree with Lynne & the lady. Two DIFFERENT things happen in this region. The surface water driven north as shown "pulls" deep water below south to Antarctica at depths 200m to 800m or thereabouts (so below the 0m-200m, roughly surface water being driven north above by the wind). That's a simple local overturning cycle of 200m-800m warm (0-2 degrees) water coming in, melting 2.3 trillion tonnes of ice per year off the Antarctica ice, freshening, getting "light", rising to surface because it's light, cooled to about -1.8 degrees and driven north (*so it came in at 1.0 degrees, cooled to -1.8 degrees, melting ice, rose to surface and wind drove it north.
---------
Separately, the vast high--pressure, cold, salty water pumps (like pile drivers) at locations around Antarctica force water under increased pressure to the sea bed at -0.5 degrees northward up all oceans at a huge flow of 25.8 Sv and travel the sea bed at 0.0 degrees lifting the entire global ocean depth of 5,800 m above them by their high force except that the force is withheld in North Atlantic by the same thing around Greenland (the AMOC force and 17.5 Sv flow) with a Mexican Standoff at the Atlantic equator and this Antarctica AABW denser water then lifting the Greenland AMOC LNADW-UNADW to the surface further south (like a crowbar wedged under it). Arctic Ocean is a tiny paddling pool not an ocean and the 25.8 Sv AABW from the Antarctica vast high--pressure, cold, salty water pumps lifts the rest of the global ocean by about 2.7 metres (9 feet) per year. The permanent thermocline is only 650 m deep and temperature 5.0 degrees at the bottom, 27.0 degrees at the top, the lowest 89% of ocean 650 m down to 5,800 m deep is 0.0 degrees at the bottom and 5.0 degrees at the top so this vast area of "warm water lens" is literally lifted by being wedged up underneath by 2.7 metres per year which entirely replaces it with nice new 5.0 degrees water once per 650/2.7 = 240 years (of course, the sunshine and various mixings warm the water as it rises).
That's called Global ThermoHaline Circulation (THC) or "Global Ocean Conveyor".
5:20 ah, those Grauniad yellow labels, warning the reader to check whether we are currently at war with Eurasia or Eastasia right now, and that the article may not follow the most up to date form of Newspeak.
Nature is not linear, nor are tipping points, and graphs are full of squiggly lines as global heating is definitely moving at an accelerating rate and we are already beyond the 1.5 C. This discussion is behind the science and times, particularly if you consider aerosol masking and earths energy imbalance.
And you also have to consider that globally we are still increasing co2 emissions year on year.
Seems to be a lot of "coulds" in this message.
Because if we collectively do something those things won't happen. It's no different to crossing a road. I could get hit by a vehicle but if I look in both directions I almost certainly won't ........ unless I have a death wish.
Because science almost never talks in absolutes, but probabilities. Allowing for further research and future correction.
just how many "coulds" does "seems" mean? I don't believe you. An accusation with no evidence is a false accusation.
How are people like Randall Carlson so sure about what he thinks about climate change as opposed to this guy?
Does Randall Carlson know something this guy doesn't or vice versa?
I'm not sure Randall Carson knows anything more than what his own opinion is.
@@fullmontyuk but Randall tends to always have a paper from Google scholar up to support all his stuff. This guy and Randall both seem so right and legit 🤔
I don't know Randall Carlson but normally the people who know most about a topic are less sure about their knowlege compared to people who just know a little more than the basics. The experts now that there is much more to learn.
@@user-ol2mr4bx7cIf you search enough you can find an academic paper supporting whatever opinion you choose to hold. Electric universe? Check. Iron sun? Check. Intelligent Design? Check. If Carlson were to put more time into primary research and less into writing coffee-table books or appearing on Joe Rogan's show (for example) his opinion might carry more weight.
Try to remember that truth is a popularity contest! If some clueless dude is promoted well enough then I encourage you to follow him full on. that's how the interwebs works.
Every time I see a sub surfacing in the Arctic I see plenty of thick ice and cold temperatures are reported so it makes me wonder if the people who say the place is melting are in a nice air conditioned office in NYC!
It's colder in some places due to the amoc slowing down, less mixing of tropical and artic, Paul Beckworth recently did a vid on it.
If the arctic matched your imagination we'd be in serious trouble. Sounds like you need to actually watch the videos.
Listen to what Dr. Peter Wadhams has to say on the topic. He's been on expeditions under the North Pole ice cap in British submarines regularly since the 1970s.
We have satellites that take pictures of the ice cap, and we can see it shrinking.
The water gets warmer, the ice melts. Not rocket surgery.
@@tiffmeek I saw the video of a sub surfacing in the Arctic
@@abelgarcia5432And?
20,000 years ago where Lake Erie is currently located the ice was up to a mile thick, it reached south nearly to the Ohio River.. The Earth's population was estimated to be 5 million hunter gathers, their main fuel was wood. How did that ice melt in a blink of Geologic Time? Asking for a friend.
Your friend must be assuming that earth’s climate oscillates wildly between glacial maximums and glacial minimums.
Thanks for proving the Ice Age never ended even over geologic time and the ice that covered Lake Erie was among the last bit that survived the Milankovitch Cycle and was washed out to sea as many other ice mountains.
"How did that ice melt in a blink of Geologic Time? "
It's a secret. A secret as in it's taught in basic science classes all over the world, right along with anthropogenic climate change.
AMOC is most likely the last tipping point to take effect and therefore the least worrisome of them all. By the time the AMOC collapses we will be long gone. Consideration of habitat, food production and the heat stresses on all species are much more valuable studies of climate change than the circulation of the oceans. Now if you want to talk about fish die off, I would take your lectures more seriously.
" i do remind people, that less than the what we paid for gas lasy year less than the profits everbody made of gas we all paid for gas we could have captured it all the CO2 it generated up and put in under the north sea twice over last year""
is this accurate?
All those straws.
You are correct, Tony Blair did use hyperbolic language. These last 17 years could have been used to really pump up the global temperature and not scream about the encroaching disaster. As a lifeguard, i wait for the swimmer to be unreachable and beyond saving before I raise the alarm.
if you wait till then the swimmer will be dead. this is the whole argument to be pro active with clmate change
We need more warming. It would be wrong to try to stop it. Our current climate is what we're used to but is hardly optimal.
Tell that to the residents of Phoenix, who suffered through 31 straight days above 110 degrees last summer. Growing crops at that temperature is not possible as all photosythesis STOPS at 104 degrees, and many seeds won't even germinate. Think of other places like Phoenix around the world, and especially the over one billion people who still struggle to make a living with subsistence farming.
Is this 3 days old really ?
Fact check ! Did we just pass 2'c ?
Check ....... Yes we did temporarily
Did the interviewer contradict himself ?
Yes he did on 3 occasions
Have we actually made progress on reducing our emissions ?
No we still increase emissions by 1.5% annually
Is he confident and does he actually believe what he is saying ? No he is not and does not.
Does he state and believe temperature is increasing faster ...... Yes he does
Polar ice melting gives us the opportunity to explore new territories and search for more resources.
When it comes to being carbon neutral the world needs to help islands like hawaii with their old vehicles.
Right now people tend to burn old vehicles because that’s the only way they can get the junker towed by the government to be disposed.
Thousands of island cars just bursting into flames. Sad that there’s no other alternative for people.
As well there are tons of old cars with gaskets that no longer can keep oil from leaking out of the car.
I'm not worried about tipping points. They're all going exponential much sooner than expected. Like most aspects of the climate crisis.
blue kachina is here now and they will not change their ways so the blue will bring the red kachina to reset mother earth Mother earth will move A ho
Watch: climate the movie "the cold truth"
The circular reasoning offered by the speaker is insultingly shallow.
how is reasoning not circular? You mean Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is wrong?
Jolly hockey sticks!
According to Greta's word in 2018, the tipping point should have been happening within five year after her comment. Prophets of doom!
So you don't live in Tigray region of Ethiopia that has famine right now due to abrupt global warming? You don't live in Zimbabwe or Namibia or Zambia? I guess you are lucky. Exponential rate of change means the rate of change keeps accelerating. So when the petri dish is half full or half empty the day before it fills up with bacteria (and no food) you can successfully argue the petri dish is half empty since you are still in deNile about the trajectory of the rate of change. Hilarious.
@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 Do you believe Greta?
If is too late. It was too late 10 years ago. This guy just hasn't woken up.
If you don’t wanna give it then shut up
I hate his word whiskers. I’m. Um. Um .
1.During Roman times the earth was as warm as today. temperature anomaly .1
2. During the dark ages, the world became colder temperature anomaly -.4
3. Medieval ages 1000 years ago temperature anomaly .2
4. Little ice age 1700 temperature anomaly -.7
5. Today temperature anomaly .1
From Climate The movie
"Climate The movie"
Just another money rip off WEF A loas of bollox
As green house gases continue to accumulate, and the world warms, borel forests will increase burn rates and spread soot over the Arctic, and as the Arctic Ocean warms methyl hydrides, and other organics bound in permafrost will release more CO2, and CH4, and will lead to positive feed back.
We must have hit a dozen tipping points 12 to 13k yrs ago when the climate was changing 100X faster than now. Or even some during Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm Period, both warmer than today and within the written record.
All this anthropogenic alarmism is BS, the climate has been devastating for the last 2.5M yrs.
Hopefully the firse start soon. I think theyer still down by one by maybe 10 fold from what they were and its messing up many northern Forrests. The tree line is still a hundred miles north or more from before the 1600s
@@PavelDatsyuk-ui4qvHardly.
Made up ignorant gibberish.
@@fullmontyuk oh lol. Usgs and noaa must've messed up. Drive up and check out the tree line yourself . Also, check the wildire stats
How to confuse a subject. Lol
Maybe Tony Blair was right and we did pass some tipping points already. The Antarctic sea ice has clearly entered a new state. Fire behavior and high temperatures are clearly in new states. I would not be so quick to dismiss Tony Blair’s prediction just because his deadline has passed.
I agree - I am afraid we will be sure about crossing tipping points well after we cross them.
Without way back - so precautionary principle should be applied!
Yawn
Guy McPherson has the courage to tell the truth.
And no he is not working for Exxon.
Guy mc Pherson is showing papers (the 'truth'), from that quotes he makes his not optimistic predictions (that at the moment can't be nominated as truth).
McPherson hasn't written a single paper on the topic of climate change. He's been predicting human extinction in twenty years for twenty years (at least!). The last time I checked his website the lead essay cited blogs and newspaper articles as primary sources. This was a few years ago so it might be that he has reigned in his apocalyptic assertions these days. However I regard him as being no more reliable than Tony Heller or Anthony Watts.
McPherson isn't a Climate Scientist. He is by his own admission, an Anarchist, and was sacked from Arizona State University for preaching predictions rather than science. His PhD is in Evolutionary Biology
The TRUTH since you mention it, is that which can be proven by evidence, and you cannot prove something which is yet to occur in the future 😂
Following McPherson is no different to being in a religious cult 😊
@@fullmontyuk
He said, years ago, 2027 mass extinction events (will see ...)
Is true that in the last period he is saying 'in a short time'
@@LivingNow678In 2016 he said "I can't imagine there will be a human on the planet in 10 years,"
In 2007 he claimed that owing to peak oil there would be permanent blackouts in cities starting in 2012.
Now he says "Now even the IPCC admits we are in the midst of abrupt and irreversible climate change. Irreversible." (if one reads AR6 one can see this is a flagrant falsehood)
The man is a congenital liar and borderline insane! If it wasn't for the fact that his supporters would proclaim him a martyr for the truth I would recommend he be locked up.
His lip-smacking is so loud and distracting. I quit.
Uh. We’re coming out of an ice age so duh. What do you think we can do to stop an inevitable change in climate?
Move away from the coast lines, flood plains and fire hazards. That’s all you can do.
Don't embarrass yourself. Interglacials happen over tens of thousands of years. Not over a few decades.
Algo b-b-boost! Plaza Del Rey Plaza Del Rey
7:00 -- This graph is only 100 yrs old ... Useless in the climate changes the earth has experienced in it's 4 MIL yr history ...
"We" or "Everybody" must be a terrible person, it seems. I'm "Me". I don't even have a car and live in a normal 7 story building, and I don't pack 10 fridges, cause I have stores nearby. So talk about your own energy footprint. And nuclear winter is 1000 times more probable than "a boiling planet". And really depends on "We" to prevent it.
After nuclear Winter, the global warming will accelerate as CO2 has a much slower removal rate than soot. Both must be stopped.
Change the record.
Agree. The 10th lecture on net zero did he say ? Since Simon Thurley left Gresham has turned to focussing on lectures for Guardian readers - wall to wall identity politics and climate change. It is really dull.
Okei, mr. Allen, climate preaching might still be profitable, there is nothing wrong with that, because only the fools come listen and loose their money, they defenitely deserve it, nice.
idiotic nonsense.
I listened for twenty minutes. He showed a graph where someone in the 70’s predicted large warming in the decades to come. I gave up. I’m tired of catastrophic predictions that never come true. The prediction from Tony Blair that he quotes is a perfect example of why we shouldn’t believe him. Yet he strangely tries to use Blair’s lies as support for his own argument. Weird.
Do you mean the Nordhaus graph where he showed _population_ would increase dramatically over the coming decades? He uses Blair's quote as an example of what *not* to believe. He even outlines the issue at the start of the lecture!! People like you are the problem Prof. Allen alludes to during the Q&A at the end.
A private college going for this kind of popular WEF propaganda? A tipping point for me, I unsubscribe!
Bye. Don't let the door smack you over the head as you leave. Ooops, too late. 🤣🤣
Really doubt you were a subscriber, but sorry to see you go.
So what do you actually think the WEF gets out of this kind of content? What is their financial motive for supporting this kind of content?
And is there zero possibility that the millions of scientists, engineers, researchers, and economists who have studied these topics and generally agree with this speaker are correct? And maybe the 10 scientists, engineers, researchers, and economists who disagree with this speaker are wrong?
So cool how you're correct and the scientists, data and overwhelming evidence are wrong. You're so special!! Yay!!!🎉
@@fullmontyukhis head is fine, it was protected with tin foil.
I’m guessing QAnon is your major news source.
I have watched so many VERY dubious ideas being espused as fact on this channel I have stopped watching Grasham College. I know enough to avoid working with people who have received their education there.
In what way?
The earth will last, forever, it was made for a purpose. ‘World without end’.
Sun may absorb Earth in a billion yrs or so.
Stop lying.
Stop lying where?
Future = 🔮
Nobody knows exactly what will happen in details next few years. A supposition till become a fact can't be evocated as lies or truths