That scene with the eleven torches going at the same time stresses me out! I'd probably end up knocking at least one of them over while trying to turn them off
@@tubester4567 He also burned the millions of people who got killed in conflicts fueled by global warming and the other tens of millions who had and have to flee with his ignorance, RIGHT NOW, right at the moment as we are writing this. "Not in our lifetime". How cynical and disregarding towards a big part of humanity, especially to the inhabitants of the southern hemisphere! That is why experts should be asked when trying to report on such complex topics. Nothing against TF, but as a chemist ... really? This hubris possibly doesn't help with his views on nuclear energy either. You can statistically compare the radiation in Chernobyl to a plane flight. Nice. The chance to inhale milligrams of Iodine or Cesium on A FLIGHT are actually zero. In contrast, that "little" bit of stuff will get a part of your body and most likely kill you ... or make your life very miserable in the long term. And the best: A flight on a plane is at the end of the day: A CHOICE! YOUR CHOICE! Which the pollution by a nuclear disaster (or any disaster/catastrophe) is very seldom. Well, I guess this can also be "achieved" by the right amount of hubris, or?:) BTW that TF gets some things wrong or some of his examples and arguments are strange (like you mentioned with your funny "by burning a bunch of fossil fuels" comment), absurd or even disgusting, does not mean that he is wrong in the big picture. I guess such provocative statements and claims are needed to feed the hunger of the viewers for sensationalism, clickbait? I don't care! Such oversimplification of reality (read effing Genetic and Ecological Studies about Chernobyl , about the unnaturally high cancer rates among the animal species native there. Yeah, the cute ones in that "paradise", shown in the video. Why not sent your kids there? ALL SAFE! **FACEPALM** ) does just harm to the cause: Educate people to come to senses. Educate people to NOT KILL OFF THEIR OFFSPRING and give them a chance ... like normal humans did through the centuries ... until now. Hey, and don't forget that cigarettes are good for you and your children!!! yours sincerely, Dr. Marlboro (For the youngsters: That is a reference to a not far behind REALITY and how big companies care about and love you, the people;) )
elon is on the task, hes on his way to making the first "lifetime" battery, with the help of neuralink u too will be able to become a lifetime battery, or donate ur unborn offspring for one. kinda like matrix
@@irvingchies1626 Of course. The machines in The Matrix are just serial rapists. Look at the depiction and the symbolism with the body-hoses and connections, all the latex and leather. At least they are feminists (=equality) who don't make a difference by gender when abusing their energy-cattle... No wonder that all of that resonates with Tate[1]. But in a psychopathic way, because he IS a criminal and sociopath. [1] On a surface level of understanding which he can contribute himself, so effectively very little. That's no wonder after the many blows to the head during sports, after the drug and alcohol abuse and, above all, the steroids. They make a person so intelligent, of which Tate is an absolute prime example;)
@@pawelzybulskij3367 Now imagine that we end up using giant blimps to do the aerosol injection.. with "Gates Foundation" on written on the side. There would be a world shortage of tin foil.
@@pawelzybulskij3367funny how something so blatant and open is being called a conspiracy Christ sakes it’s on their website and conferences all public easy to access information
Hank Green recently made a video about how dirty burning ship fuel actually caused noticeably more rain, counterintuitively lessoning the effects of climate change in the ocean and now that there are more strict pollution standards, the effects of climate change aren't being negated any more. The only viable solution is obvious, we just aren't desperate enough yet.
The solution of releasing tons of chalk into the atmosphere to completely counter act the increased thermal energy and return to normal global temperatures?
I don't think that's what he said, he said that it was artificially masking the effects of climate change, making it appear like they made things worse. Where in reality it just revealed the truth.
@@jacob818tanner Is there any chance of that increasing soil salinity through rainfall? Or would the concentrations of salt they use/whatever falls on land be too low to have any impact?
From the way we want to just keep talking at this point, I don't see us(the world) actually doing anything for a VERY long time. All we want to do is point fingers at someone else to go first. What a lovely society we live in. RIP future generations.
Pretty much, it's just how people work. When asked most people agree climate change is a big problem, when it comes time to do anything they vote against anything that would require them to change the way they live.
@@boggart1062 I also think there is a huge gulf between what the average person thinks "climate change is a big problem" means and what it actually means. I don't think they really have a clue how massive the problem actually is and how devastating it is actually going to be.
Hey, marine cloud brightening has been demonstrated to work, too! That's why, following regulation for cleaner maritime fuels, ocean surface temperatures are warming at an unprecedented rate - basically the same thing as post-war pollution and subsequent Clean Air Act. But right, I've long since arrived at the same conclusion. Other approaches ought to be pursued with seriosity of total war, but even conditional on taking things seriously, the only real solution would seem to come from climate engineering, and it's disheartening it barely even gets talked about (I guess environmentalists, those who are aware of it anyhow, choose not to do so in order to pick more winnable battles even if they know them to be undecisive skirmishes, but come on...).
Agree. Whenever someone is saying that we should not talk about "geoengineering" solutions because it will make us stop to decarbonise it feels like patient with cancer who would not want to hear about (working) chemotherapy in a hope that some new drug will just come to market. Insanity. There are very good reasons to decarbonise apart of climate change (tyranny of fossil fuels coming from frequently unstable countries), constant inflation and crisis after crisis because of fossil fuel volatile markets, wars, finite supply of cheap stuff, health effects of burning stuff etc.
@@msxcytb Problem is any geoengineering solution has also drawbacks. E.g. global dimming will cause a decrease in plant grow in any area, where sunlight is a limiting factor (basically everywhere, where both nutrients and water are abundant, so do not limit grow). many of the bread baskets around the world, will be affected (less than drought / floods cause if global warming is unchecked).
@@beyondEV Hard not to agree that everything done will have some consequences. Huge experiment is running without any control- current global climate change. I'm ok with adding some controlled actions. Many climate engineering methods are controllable, reversible (cloud seeding, carbon capture by enhanced weathering, ocean fertilisation). Would it be beneficent to paint all the rooftops/parkings/dare I say- roadways;-)/ white reflective vs covering them with heat absorbing(strongly) solar panels for example?
i want everyone to check out the historical global temp chart on this site called earth. which has all the climate change data. and look at the temps between 1mil and 100k years ago. theres always huge temp spikes as ice ages end, and those spikes are higher than what the average temp is today, and by looking at the pattern, u can see each spike grows in average temp each time, and right now were in another, all natural, spike. sadly it wont be until 2050+ until all the legacy co2 will start to expire, which will look like the carbon capture machines are doing something, but the only thing those machines will be doing by 2050, is siphoning 30% of all global wealth. by 2100, 50% of global wealth, except by 2100 we will realize there was nothing to be worried about. are you guys prepared for the biggest scam in history?
That could be a good thing. Fewer humans will allow the Earth to heal. So those who remain will live better, but we have to do our part. Procreate less, and live small.. consume less. Let the wealthy continue to living the lap of luxury (it's cool, they'll buy carbon credits).
@user-df5ym9dv5g I sometimes write these facetious comments without real solutions instead of a series of nuanced paragraphs. The truth is that I have concerns about many of the more popular solutions. I'm also bothered that suggestions of nuclear fission are sometimes shot down by popular science communicators. One of the answers in this vein states that enough nuclear power facilities can not be built prior to the ACG point of no return. I had hoped that there would have had a greater willingness to seek scientific progress to safely build more fission plants in a shorter time. Even with this global-scale emergency being what it is, more fission reactors to displace the burning of hydrocarbons ought to be embraced alongside other strategies.
TF: "But how will you deliver 50 million tonnes of SO2 to the stratosphere? you will need something huge... oh no." Musk: "Mwuhahaha! I knew you would come crawling back for my Starship!"
The future is going to be very interesting to say the least, and I've gotten fond of studying previous civilizations that fell apart under their own weight with the help of external environmental factors. This one may be on it's way out but we can hope to just undo some damage. On the matter of trees, simply planting them is not a fix at all, but i do a bit of rewilding when i can. Here in Ireland, while it does have the stereotype of being lush ajd green, its mostly just farmland where native forests and ecosystems are in major decline having been replaced by agricultural sprawl, urban sprawl or commercial imported spruce plantations that do nothing for natural wildlife. I have little optimism in our species avoiding the madhouse that is to come, but working on rebuilding the ecosystems that have been degraded and destroyed at least gives the life around us more chance of surviving this mess caused by the conceit of one species of intelligent ape that convinced itself it owned the world.
@@gwahli9620 not necessarily the cause but an important factor at play, and it was also due to soil degradation due to intensive farming. Civilisations often don't collapse for just one reason, but a multitude of factors that increase instability of a system that became overly complex due to conditions at first having been able to support that big bureaucratic state. As it grows, it becomes more and more complex and reliant on more sensitive supply chains to get necessary products from A to B. Further complexity also makes it much more expensive to see similar improvements that happened before, and the great big thing ends up working so hard just to support itself. Another factor in the fall of Rome was popular unrest due to the currency losing value over decades where a lot of wealth ended up getting very concentrated among the powerful. Sound familiar? Money is just a concept our species came up with to simplify trade between strangers, but we allowed it to become a great big all encompassing entity in itself and gave control of it to a predatory financial sector that obsesses over immaterial (and arguably imaginary) billions and trillions dependent on large scale consumer debt, and they're more interested in focusing on how many hundreds of billions of this "money" will go through the stock market than recognising that the value of normal people's wealth has declined drastically because of this. We're just told to blame inflation.
Seems like not all of these apes are very intelligent then. How do we not own the world if we're (allegedly) able to kill off everything on it? Either we're walking gods who can shear the planet in half and take everyone with us or we're insignificant and can only cut our noses to spite our faces. This summer was hardly any worse than the one before it yet these graphs keep increasing the temps for seemingly no reason. Then they turn around and sell you carbon credits and other bullshit so you can "save" the planet while at the same time taking away more and more of your rights. You cannot reasonably afford a home, cannot repair your devices, everything is lent to you with subscriptions or a use license (which can be revoked when they see fit), you're propagandized into consuming processed waste from plants as a substitute to meat and other animal products, they lock you in your home for two years without any care if you can afford to survive it and you think some fairy tale hot summer in (it changes every year) 100 years will be what we should be worried about?
@@martincrotty Pointing at inflation is like diagnosing an illness with "You have a fever" - While fever IS a sympton of sickness, it itself is a reaction of the body and not an illness.
Yesterday, after one co-worker mentioned he found a deal on a flight to Mexico that I should take for vacation, I mentioned I don't fly anymore. My other somewhat liberal non-religious co-worker asked why, so I briefly said because of the environmental impact. He started laughing and asked if I was serious, and then spent the next 30 minutes attempting to mock me and belittle my stance, suggesting that not doing everything possible to enjoy life was a waste of life and a pointless life. Yep... that's what we're dealing with. A world full of extremely selfish people that couldn't give a rat's behind about anybody but themselves and their own enjoyment. They don't care even the slightest about the future of the entire planet because in their minds they'll "be dead by then", and anyone who says or does otherwise is insane in their eyes. Ironically this person has a young child, and eventually he may have grand children, all of which will in fact have to worry about the impacts of climate change. Obviously he only reacted that way because in my brief response, I essentially said I don't do the thing that he and his family do often because of the damage it's causing to the planet. I mean, it's a simple fact that I should hope by this point everyone understands... even if they completely ignore it. I guess having someone walk the walk really makes them feel like they have to be defensive about their actions, or better yet, belittle a person as to make them out to be insane, because that's the only rational explanation for why a person wouldn't throw their ideals aside and rape the planet into oblivion, just like them. I obviously have strong feelings on this or I wouldn't walk the walk, but I mostly try to keep my feelings of others choices to myself. But as we can see here, I don't even need to call other people out. All I needed to do was mention that "I don't fly for environmental reasons.". 🤣🤦♂
@@Civsuccess2 No one is going to give up their opulent lifestyles to reduce global warming however, when the planet goes bad, we will have no other choice and it will be much worse than giving up our opulent lifestyles now.
@@updlate4756 The S.A.I. solution is very interesting. Knowing human nature, what will probably eventually happen is a last ditch effort to implement something like that, kicking and screaming. The planet will spend whatever it takes to keep S.A.I. going as we as a planet frantically finally put an end to selfish levels of global warming. The world-wide financial drain will force the change. Who knows how many decades it will take before only manageable natural green house emissions remain. Nasty lesson to learn...
😂 Love the SAI Easter Egg 🥚 I noticed it on the table in previous videos and wondered, "Why the hell would he put that there? People will think he's not credible." But I guess it's true that good things come to those who wait, and people who judge a book by its cover miss out on the rewards in its pages.
I feel this must have been said to you before about the Chernobyl clip. But she did not say a nuclear explosion, nor was that the fear. The fear was a second steam explosion like what caused the reactor to blow in the first place.
Steam explosions in pressurized piping/vessels are common. The corium dipping into the water under the plant would have not flash boiled the entire pool.
The clip still said that a steam based explosion would destroy "everything in a 30 kilometer radius". Which would make it more powerful than the fucking tsar bomb. So still pretty fucking ridiculous considering if I recall the actual largest explosion was best case scenario only a few hundred tons of tnt equivalent, and has been calculated as low as 10 tons. The 30 kilometer radius thing was the exclusion zone people were told to evacuate from, not the fucking blast radius like it's still absurd.
Not likely to happen so long as more than half of the people in the world think that waiting for a higher power to step in and save us is a practical solution.
you would think everyone should be on top of this idea. people who don't believe in global warming can spend penies combating it in this way and never having to do anything else. people who believe in global warming get a fix as well. both sides win with this. the biggest obstical really are people who are scared of it because of the nature of it being "global engineering"
I think it would be fair to say that the map at 14:57 is not about agricultural yields in total, but rather specifically about corn. Wheat, as shown in the same article/video by NASA, will likely have an increased yield due to climate change. So whether a country will suffer or gain from climate change in terms of agricultural yield is based on their current and planned plants.
@@Dark-28200 You are right in terms of plants which have been there naturally. Agricultural yield, however, is usually created by plants which are introduced by humans, which are rarely to be found naturally in that habitat, e.g. corn, tomatoes, potatoes for Europe etc.
I thought this was actually quite a good video on climate issues Doesn’t deny the problem Doesn’t make it a doomsday scenario Doesn’t fearmonger Aligns with a lot of my own understanding Trees are terribly inefficient The problem won’t be solved instantly No change, such as “just stop oil” is remotely feasible Touches on infrastructure and manufacturing processes And touches sliiiiightly on the irrational fear of nuclear energy Yeah, a long time coming An alright vid
I've always had a bit of a fear of planet-scale geoengineering because of how often we screw things up, but you really put it into perspective for me.. We're doing geoengineering on a planet-scale already, and have been for centuries - but we've been doing it mostly by accident and then undoing negative things as we start to see the consequences. The difference is just that we would be actively trying to make things better, instead of just yolo'ing it. I think I heard that same argument somewhere else before, but it just really didn't stick back then. The phrase "we're already geoengineering on a global scale" is a familiar one.. but I hadn't put together the part about it's much much better to do it intentionally than to just keep fucking up. Fuck-ups happen even when trying intentionally, but they happen far less often. I immediately think about all the myths surrounding nuclear weapons in early development, how it was so dangerous they weren't sure if they would blow up the planet or not, and how.. no, that thought came up and became obviously impossible before we ever got near detonating a bomb.
the benefit of doing it intentionally is that we would be building infrastructure around collecting data in order to seriously study the effects, whereas yolo'ing it leaves research behind and we may not notice effects until it's to late!
It's a shame it was mostly bs. He should explain why the Arctic sea ice extent hasn't changed in the last decade. Ice doesn't lie, but climate scientists do.
@@glennmartin6492 RUclips won't allow me to source my comments. There is another thread in the comments section where all my comments are blocked. The graph Phil used to back his argument for this video is historically inaccurate, if you know climate history. If I even list dates for you to search for yourself, RUclips will nuke it.
@@glennmartin6492 RUclips won't allow it. There are 4 comments in this thread (now 5 with this one), and 2 of them have been removed, one of them being mine. My guess is the other removed comment was someone who agreed with me and liked my original comment.
9:45 Energy companies like Xcel Energy pay local municipalities with hydro to rip out their generators and sell them in exchange for a low per kwh cost (10 years expiry). Then they continue price hiking to the federal maximum. The cost of installing hydro is a monumentous effort. Needless to say, we end up relying on coal and nuclear despite having the unique geographical advantages for hydro. Well played.
@@fellzer That tends to happen when coal and natural gas are significantly cheaper than every other method of power generation. Nuclear is actually economical when there is a large demand for power, where 1 nuclear facility can output the same power as 20-30 conventional power plants.
It's an... irony? That the sai is also called the "iron ruler". That's probably what we'll need to get the various countries to actually cooperate on any meaningful plan that isn't a bunch of ineffectual hand-wringing about corporate profits.
The period from 40s-70s saw a decline in temps. They thought it was the start of an ice age. Leonard nimoy even did a show on it. In search of the next ice age. The same experts who said an ice age was coming in late 70s pivoted to global warming by 1988.
@@sentientflower7891 It's pretty common knowledge that we were warned over and over of the coming ice age for people who lived back then. My school textbook definition of global warming was word for word - the earth getting a little cooler.
As long as we do not yet have a final storage site for radioactive waste and we do not take the costs of this into account in the price of electricity, the nuclear option is just another expensive loan that we are passing on to our children (+ 1000s of generations)
Sorry to disappoint but "stick it in a hole in the ground till later" is very viable for radioactive waste. The reason is simple, globally, it's a tiny amount of material. It's relatively easy to dig a hole and hide it until it becomes useful. Remember, the entire output of decades of "waste" from most US reactors is, currently, easily stored on-site right next to the reactor. The only problems are political.
You mean we can't solve this problem by building giant new "net zero" houses where we disregard the carbon emissions used in the production of said house even though they're 1000x the emissions of running an existing house with a new insulation install for a year?
We also have to build newer, more efficient cars instead of driving the ones we have because making those cars doesn't produce any carbon via machinery or transport of the parts and vehicles and the workforce to make them. And don't forget to have people fly and drive all over the world to talk about all these new, environment-saving things!
Even an old house with old insulation is better than these new one sometime, my house is an old farm from the 1800, one of our neighboring house is a very modern house done with all the modern insulation technique. During the winter, the snow smelt the quickest on their roof than ours, our insulation is literally wheat husk, and it seems pretty efficient. But for the government my house is so bad that I would probably not be able to sell it in 20 years time; because it "lack" insulation, because they can only compute modern insulation technique so my house is as good as a tent for them. I still do some work to better the insulation but when I bought it I thought I would have to do a lot more than what I did. One example, they say that the walls are not insulated, but the walls are 50 cm of width, so 50 cm of stone, which is not the best at isolating something but 50 cm of it still insulate, so for the government I should buy a 20 to 25 cm of modern chemical stuff, that I'm sure is pretty good for the environment, to insulate a wall that is 50 cm so that they can say "alright your wall is insulated".
3 more doable (?) solutions. 1. All ocean freight transport installs salt water ionizers to eject cloud seeding particles over the oceans to shade the planet. 2. Pumping air deep into the ocean to lift nutrients to the surface to cause phytoplankton blooms. Side effect if done in the right tropical zones is reduction of hurricane/typhoons intensity. Tiny addition effect of increasing carbon dioxide dissolution in oceans. 3. Ocean going freight transport disperses iron “fertilizer” that cause phytoplankton blooms.
@@kingflynxi9420 then its no fair comparing prices, when only half of the prices is calcuted via electrical bill, and der rest is paid by shadow budget of government.
We're already at a point within my own lifetime, in which I can remember, fifteen years ago when I was still in elementary school, I could go outside in the summer, and chances were it would be a nice, enjoyable day. Now, in current year and me much older, I can barely stand to go out to mow the lawn until mid-late autumn because it's absolutely sweltering, all the time. Actually affecting out lives isn't just on the table for the future, it's already happened so long as you go outside to see it, to feel it. Something needs to be done.
For me, I think its just that I got older. But I started being sceptical of climate claims when I was in school and saw an article on Earth Day about all of the expected things which will go wrong in 10-20 years if we do nothing according to the top people in the field. The claims went back 50-60 years and we never got close to any of them.
@@cp1cupcake Then you should stop listening to "science" media and go to the source/paper directly. Those "prediction" is made using worst-case scenario. It's like saying "we didn't jump into Grand Canyon (i pressed the brakes), therefore your fear of us dying is wrong!"
@@hanifarroisimukhlis5989damn right. So often people take sensationalist journalists and celebs as the sources of their news on science and climate and rarely check how backed up that article actually is, then throw a hissy fit when this nonexpert turns out to be wrong Things are fairly on track with what even papers in the 70s and 80s were predicting but because it wasn't some immediate Hollywoodesque disaster as was talked about by reporters of the era, people deny it.
This anecdotal story is a bogus way to confirm global warming. We may have had a hot summer or two but we would have had the same hot summers without global warming. I asked ChatGPT 4: "Isn't it true that global warming is only thought to have raised temperature one or two degrees, which is not a noticable enough change for someone to notice just by going outside?" "Yes, that's a valid point. The average global temperature has increased by about 1-2 degrees Celsius since the late 19th century, according to scientific measurements. While this may not sound like much, it's a significant change on a planetary scale and has wide-ranging impacts on ecosystems, weather patterns, and sea levels. However, the change is generally too subtle to be noticeably felt in the day-to-day experience of an individual. Therefore, relying solely on personal perception to gauge global warming isn't a reliable method."
@@cp1cupcakeI remember doing a class presentation in 5th grade back in 1990 about an article in National Geographic that said we will run out of oil by the year 2000.
Regarding how long it takes to build nuclear power plant- there are the troubled projects in EU that we all know about but there are also quite recent success stories. Check KASHIWAZAKI KARIWA-6, fairly recent, very modern and done way bellow 6years. There are more good examples to. I guess that if build times would come back to this reasonable/predictable times and cheap credit would be used (like law forces now for wind and solar) then there would be no question about "expensive nuclear that is to slow to deploy". Sometimes it feels like we evolve backwards as society...
Agree! Sweden built 12 reactors in 25 years (1960-1985). Locally designed, locally sourced and built by swedish workers. I dont think we are able to do that again.
A big part of the reason why nuclear reactors haven't been build recently is because the return on investment of one is much higher than for more conventional power plants (the specific example I saw was for natural gas). Sure, they make more in the long term, but you have to get there. Something which also makes a difference in that is government subsidies. Many governments used to subsidize nuclear reactors for military purposes, but more recently they have been pushing "green solutions". My parents once got solar panels on their room because the subsidies made it worthwhile, but I think they ended up thrown out because it wasn't worth the hassle to keep them once the constant repairs after transformers (at least, I think it was the transformers) blew out stopped being free. Considering it normally takes a decade or two of use in optimal placement to make back the energy used to create solar panels, I think those ones ended up being a net energy negative, but because of the subsidies, made a lot of people a lot of money.
@@cp1cupcake What, did you mean inverters? PV if done properly can last decades (it's just hunk of silicon). The most complex part of it is the inverter, which converts DC current from PV into AC current. Transformer converts between different AC voltages.
@@sstephkate86 nothing to do with earthquakes as I raise you Japan who use them and has just as many earthquakes (they are also on the ring on fire) Its our silly anti nuclear weapons stance, even though scientific and nuclear power does not fall under that accord.
@20:00 'bottom line - stratospheric aerosol injection is a stopgap measure', exactly, to allow for the transition to nuclear and solar/wind. This is a great argument for Geoengineering, which is inevitable, since it is so cheap and effective. Joe Scott, Kurzgesagt, and other Geoengineering RUclips essayists could learn something from this video.
just gotta run your thorium car on the solar freaking roadways while breathing down a pumpable can of oxygen with your gills on and getting your water from the air. That will fix it, I'm sure of it
That will not work unless you control all the processes via Neuralink. Ask Matt What-was-his-last-name-pretending-to-be-a-science-communicator, he'll explain you how it all fits together.
RE aerosol geoengineering- I remember reading that artillery would be the most cost effective and efficient method of delivering aerosols to the stratosphere. There are a few issues that could maybe go in a follow up video: 1) international agreement would be required but also very difficult. 2) there is confidence in the cooling effect, however climate change could still happen, just without the warming. 3) if we did go ahead with it the fossil fuel industry could hail it as a long term solution to enable continued use of FF. This would be bad as more aerosol injection would be required to keep up, and if we stopped for any reason a powerful runaway greenhouse effect would result. Not to mention the health benefits of decarbonising roads and cities. Probably a load of other considerations too.
The most efficient way to inject aerosols is through large volcanic eruptions, and anthropogenic climate change is likely to cause more erratic weather/more frequent natural disasters. Therefore, there will be more volcanic eruptions and it'll even itself out
We've known since 1824 that anthropogenic climate change could occur and got the empirical confirmation in 1856. We had over 150 years to do something against. But we didn't. And for everyone's who's not discouraged enough, we've been over the tipping-point for a few years now. Most estimates on this topic (I would even say in meteorology as a whole) are conservatve, not alarmist. The conservative tipping-point was 2021. In all likelyhood, it was somewhere in the middle of 2010s. Also, nuclear is not just useful, it's necessary. Only a select amount of countries like Austria and Switzerland can utilize renewables and phase out fossil fuels completely without the assistance of nuclear energy because of the terrain and environment (Austria is already at I think 80%, but don't quote me on that, I just know that if they turn on their shut-down nuclear-reactor facility, they could already phase out fossil fuels completely).
Netherlands probably is in a good position for that as well, felt like half their country consists of dams. Or you do the same as my country and despite being one of the safest countries in the world geographically speaking, just get rid of nuclear energy because of "safety" aka personal gain.
Citation please. Seems dubious to propose there was sufficient anthropogenic climate change occurring before we started releasing the chemicals that do it. And by your proposition it was not only occurring but occurring dramatically enough as to make a definite confirmation of it after an extensive study.
Austria can't work without nuclear, unless they want to spend significant periods of year without power. They do import from Czech Republic during those periods (mainly from South Moravia (Dukovany NPP) and South Bohemia (Temelin NPP)). To further laugh on the topic - there was at least one Austrian company that sold thing you plug into your power plug (in which you plugged your device), that was "guaranteed to filter out nuclear generated power out".
@@fullyawakened 1824 Joseph Fourier published the paper "Memoir on the temperature of the earth and planetary spaces" in which he theorized that the atmosphere retains heat through what eventually developed into the greenhouse-effect. In 1856 Eunice Foote described how carbon-dioxide and water vapor retain heat through small-scale apparatus which replicated the earth's atmosphere. This was independently corroborated by John Tyndall three years later when he found the connection between the heat-retention and longwave-infrared radiation.
I once heard someone on RUclips say "the temperature has been going up and down for centuries... that's science folks..." and everyone around him agreed. We're done.
@@LordSandwichII It's nonsense. It's just that humans exist for an incredibly brief period of time and we don't see the big picture. We are still technically in an ice age so warming is far more likely to happen and should happen more quickly than if the planet was already hot. Thinking the earth's climate can stay static is just silly. Thinking warming is a bad thing goes against facts. Humans prosper in warmer climates. Cold is the biggest killer. More CO2 is better for plants, food production, eco systems etc. The fact CO2 makes the world greener just shows the brain washing that has been going on for decades. Profiteering and control agendas at play. TBH humans need only worry about coming ice ages, meteor or comet impacts, GRBs, massive volcanic eruptions. Something like that will eventually happen and probably wipe out humanity. Hard to profit from it though.
@@LordSandwichII You don't know how fast or slow temperatures changed in the past. The world started collecting data in the 1920's and in 2023, high quality data in parts of Africa and other places are not available. Phil's scary looking graph does not match historical news reports. 10's of millions of people perished from heat in the years this graph claims world temperatures were low. Phil blew it on this video catastrophically.
@@glidercoach We do know. From sediments at the bottom of the oceans and lakes, locked away in coral reefs, frozen in glaciers and ice caps, and preserved in the rings of trees.
A major focus of this study was on the heating rates of SAT (Surface Air Temperature) that would arise in different scenarios in case of an abrupt cessation of sulphur injections into the stratosphere. Our model results show that heating rates after geoengineering interruption would be 15-28 times higher than in a case without geoengineering, with likely important consequences for life on Earth.
@@Max-uo9nf You can't provide links on RUclips anymore. Also I haven't read the paper either. It was a short article in a magazine. If i can find it, i will post the title of the paper.
An engineering phd recently gave me a document on how he wants to paint roofs a certain shade of white, so it reflects short wave heat that can leave the atmosphere instead of long wave that heats. He claimes it would decrease warming by 14% just by painting roofs. After looking it over it seems to be true. I would consider myself knowledgeable but im no scientist. He was about 90 he said i should try giving it to all my professors but im sure noone cares. And as i said im not sure it makes sense but i do think its worth looking into.
It's easier to convince someone to buy Aircon than white paint. It is happening but it's not popular with anyone selling electrons and industrial growth. It's only ever about the money.
I wouldnt agree that we burn the co2 the same way we did 100 years ago. Our engines and factories are way more efficient that ever before. The problem is that we have more and more of them. We need to research nuclear more and make smaller and mpre efficient reactors. Someday we could find nuclear running in our cars, homes, and heck even phones. Smaller reactors would be way easier to contain in case of malfunction.
Ok, the thing with Chornobyl water explosion was a bit different. There was a lot of water in underground tunnels beneath reactor as a result of firefighters pouring god knows how many gallons onto the whole thing. If radioactive lava reached that water, turning water into steam (thus raising pressure in mostly enclosed space), it could lead to explosion, scatter of radioactive material and, since tunnels were under the whole plant, compromising structural stability of rest of the reactors. It was exaggerated in the movie, but knowing how soviet government (and by extention all commie block governments) operated, that exaggeration might have been necessary to convince them to actually taking the situation seriously. Just like you said, Commie governments were not interested, unless it was already a disaster.
Great points. The dramatization depicted in the Chernobyl series was painting a "worse case" scenario that the scientifically illiterate would understand. The military officials (and the modern audience) understood things like "explosions" much more than than the nuance of steam being able to spread dangerous fission materials in an uncontrollable way.
You picked that up too, It was a steam explosion they were talking about not the reactor itself. Overplayed maybe but water to steam can make quite a big boom.
Steam wint explode unless its expansion envelope is too small. Water expands 2500x its volume when it becomes steam, the only way it explodes is if its in a pressure vessel. There was zero chance fie it to do so on chernobyl as they state.. it mat have compromised the buildings foundations, nothing more. I work directly in tgis trade ( plumber, electrician, gasfitter and steam fitter certification ) it can explode for sure, but must be contained to do so..
@@MrDmadnessit was water storage tanks they were worried about. They emptied them, but they were unintentionally refilled by the firefighters spraying water on the reactor. The initial explosion sent radioactive material airborne and it spread hundreds of miles away and was how it was even discovered there was a meltdown outside of the soviet union. Another explosion would send even more material airborne and was what they were dramatizing in the tv show. They were not even suggesting it was similar to a nuke in any way other than the potential fallout from a steam explosion propelling more material into the atmosphere.
Will it impact any corporation's bottom line? If yes, then no, we can't, because corporations are our new kings and emperors and have more power than entire communities or states.
Interesting video. I noticed and pondered this oddity in the global temperature rise many years ago. Obviously WW2 had an effect on global temperatures, partly due to the large number of cities that burned to produce large amount of particulate pollution, along with a lot of dirty industrial activity. When looking at many published graphs of annual global temperatures the early 60s seemed to shown the worst/best cooling effect. Now overlay a graph of 'Nuke tests per annum' on top of the 'global annual temperatures'. 😯🤔 During the 60s the Superpowers were detonating around 50 to 80 a year, and in 1962 it was over 170 Many of the tests during this time were above ground and would have affected the Stratosphere noticeably. Could we be looking at a 'Nuclear Winter' effect. Food for thought!
It is not only carbon capture that trees are good at. It is microclimate. Trees can reduce city temperature by multiple degrees. Also plants absorb water, which might be useful if sea level rises. Building wood cities like in Finland reduces carbon footprint by not using materials such as concrete and again it helps with microclimate. So planting trees is necessary.
Yeah but it probably won't get as much reach as all the videos bashing Elon Musk for not making progress on the things that he has thrown 0.1% of his time and money at. Hating Elon is so hot right now.
im not sure what to make of the background radiation chernobyl arguments. isnt the danger that you may consume nuclear waste and have is stuck in your body, rather than just recieving a couple more times background radiation? or is it something i am missing?
Nuclear waste stuck in your body? Hello metabolism? Even if nuclear waste would be “stuck” inside you, then they must be stuck in the wildlife surround the site right? It’s clearly stated in the video that research shows there’s no clear cut evidence showing damage to wild life.
Yeah, that's a huge danger. Also, most animals don't live anywhere near as long as humans do. A fox only lives 4 years or so, for example. Not long enough to suffer the effects of even a fairly high level of background radiation. In some ways, Fukushima was a lot more troubling than Chernobyl. It demonstrated that our nuclear plants are extremely vulnerable to natural disasters, and worse, that spent fuel could get swept up in those disasters. In the case of Fukushima, the spent fuel was stored in cooling pools on top of the reactors. Had those failed, or had engineers not been able to resume pumping fresh cooling water over them, they could have boiled dry and burning plutonium could have contaminated everywhere. It would have been an unmitigated disaster. Fortunately, nuclear power is so ludicrously expensive I don't think anybody is seriously considering a large scale move toward it. Given how cheap natural gas, solar and wind power have become, there's simply no economic case that can be made for it. The French for example are having tremendous trouble getting their next-generation reactors built and online - they're a decade late and tens of billions over budget. They'd have been far better off financing the construction of solar panels in Spain and Portugal, or even in northern Africa, along with long range transmission cables.
yeah, as those russian soldiers found out. They scratched the surface of the soil to try and dig some trenches and went home in body bags. And do you really think that if nuclear plants gets prolifirated then they won't be built by the lowest bidder?
There is a bright side to the Chernobyl. That is rewilding which has resulted in the surrounding area. If we can abandon areas of the world to return them to the wild accompanied by downsizing our economy, population and energy use. Our sickness is that humans make up by weight 355 of the mass of mammal and our livestock to keep us alive takes another 60% of the mammal mass leaving only a few percent for all other mammals. Poultry including chickens and turkeys and a few others make up by weight 70% the mass of birds. Thus we have started the 6th great extinction since the Cambrian. We have become a plague species. Humans to the world are like cane toads to Australia. Address that and we start to address all other environmental problems. But will not happen. Like lemmings we will follow the path to disaster. No cause for hope.
@@sunspot42 Fuck i hate the engineers designing Fukushima. Why the hell did build a reactor close to a coast facing THE RING OF FIRE, that receives multi earthquakes a year with a risk of tsunamis.... AND FUCKING PLACE THE BACK UP GENERATOR IN A CELLEA WITH NO FLOOD PROTECTION. This accident stained Nuclear power reputation because of terrible design and work culture.
@@BigDuke6ixxI got tired of climate alarmists when I was around 10 years old and say an article about claims from the top people in the field about how something needs to be done now or the end is nigh. The claims went back decades and, for example, around the '80's NYC was not forced to start massive cannibalism efforts because the world heated too much to grow crops.
@@cp1cupcake all explained in the video. Shame you didn't watch it. In short, your brain won't care about this issue until it's about to kill you. Now, you might make it to the end of your natural life before that happens. You're issue is that you are no good at critical thinking.
The two biggest problems with nuclear power are that invariably 1) the power station will be used to manufacture weapons grade isotopes and 2) somebody will consider their design to be "infallible" Item 2 is not unique to power stations like Chernobyl, don't forget that Titanic was "unsinkable," right up until the moment it sank. So yes, there are huge risks involved in nuclear energy, but not because of the physics, or the radiation, but because of the attitudes of humans.
I'm certain that there will be critics of this idea, but I'm sharing it in the hopes that some of you might offer an improved alternative: Why not utilize green electric power to produce a synthetic hydrocarbon from seawater and biomass? The process is essentially carbon-neutral and could serve as a temporary solution until we have more sustainable options. If you're a follower of this channel, you already understand that "lithium batteries" are not the ultimate solution.
we burn hundreds of millions of tons of corn stover that could easily be converted into methane, and then into syn gas, which can be turned into the black gold hydrocarbons in the fischer-tropsch process. The only problem is that turning this corn stover into gasoline costs about 3x as much as pumping it out of the ground. The problem with nuclear is that it is too expensive to build; the capital investment cost is a really high barrier to overcome.
3:39 Your graph is fake. In 1880, only the US and a few other places around the world were documented surface temperatures. You can't use this data to say the whole world was this hot or cold. This graph also doesn't reflect the brutal heat when 10's of millions of people perished around the world in the 1800's and 1900's. In fact this graph shows these years as the coolest in history. Very disappointed in you Phil.
Why do these delusional lefties always want to use censorship and other fascist means to reach their goals? :( "Let's be honest, public opinion on this issue would be different if I were able to censor my opponent" actual fcking antidemocratic brainlets...
Yea no, it isn't just conservatives it's liberals as well. You tell them about this, and they start clutching their plastic 'eco friendly' pearls. It's the main stream media and governments that are causing all this fear spurred on by lobbyists for big corpos.
Let's be real here, public opinion would be negative if it were actually reasonable to just "trust the science"(which is the most anti-science phrase outside of organized religion) We live in a world where 9 out 10 experts agree on whatever the hell it is they're paid to believe in and "publish or die" is the mantra of academia, which leads to things like faking human cloning, plastic transistors, and the discovery of new elements. Meanwhile, journalism has no integrity, so they publish whatever Even when not just making things up, academia is rife with people starting with a conclusion then cherry-picking the data to fit. That's why with climate change, like so many other topics, the *truth* isn't what *either* side of the debate make it out to be. Climate Change is no different. Since you likely already know the deceptions of the denier side, so I can bring up one from the advocates side: why do all of the temperature charts start with just before the Industrial Revolution at the absolute earliest? Thanks to geology, we know about much earlier climates, so why is that data ignored? At some point, I finally thought to look into it more instead of just "trusting the scientists without question." Apparently, all of the credible climate change predictions put temperatures by the end of the century to be amounts that are still lower than the highest in the history of human civilization. I speculate the reason for not including that information hurts the attempt to scare people into changing their ways *before* it's truly a problem instead of waiting until it's too late. The problem with that approach is that once the manipulation is discovered, *all* trust is gone. People who have been lied to about some of it will just assume that the whole thing is made up and go to the other side.
Look up the polling data. Support for nuclear power is far higher among Reuplicans than Democrats in the US. Similar trend is true in Europe among conservatives. When your done looking up thise polls check out "Green" / "Environmental" organisations official statements about Nuclear power. One of the founding principles of the Green party in Germany was being anti-Nuclear as they were formed in the wake of the Chernobyl disaster. To my knowledge all of the Green parties in Europe have the same stance in relation to nuclear power. They have consistently lobbied against it and prevented it from being classified as a "renewable". Even non-political organisationa like greenpeace have the same anti-nuclear agenda. What right wing organizations are you even talking about?
That's because that period remains largely unchanged in "unadjusted" data sets. Everything before that has been adjusted down and everything after has been adjusted up, which creates ~1*C of global temperature increase where there otherwise would be none. For reference 2020s are actually about as warm as 1930s/1940s were, yet that similarity is impossible to see on those graphs, because of those "unadjustments".
Is the rise in surface temperature in the early 1940s from war production, new production methods, the war itself, or a combination of all? Or something else?
I love Nuclear power. I live 15 miles from a poower plant near Raleigh NC. I'm not glowing green and have no fear from its operation. We need several dozen more at least. California needs several of them along with many desalinization plants to become water independant. California wioll never do the right thing and will continue to burden its neighboring states until they are forced to change.
I highly recommend playing the PC game called The Fate Of The World. Here is the wiki entry for stratospheric aerosols. I have never beaten the three degree without them. > Stratospheric Aerosols (2050) A cheap but highly controversial technique to cool down the planet by deploying aerosols into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight back into space, essentially decreasing the extra radiative forcing of the world. Deploying stratospheric aerosols is the only way to lower global temperature, and especially important once the Arctic circle starts to melt and release methane. However, regions with green outlooks will lose a lot of support if you deploy the aerosols in them. Eco-Fanatical regions can lose up to 5 hearts of support at a time. Also, suppressing temperature increases with stratospheric aerosols while atmospheric carbon levels continue to rise may create an imbalance in the global climate which results in decreased rainfall and increased risk of drought throughout many, if not most, regions of the world. This in turn can greatly increase water stress throughout the world; thus widespread stratospheric aerosol deployment should ideally be accompanied by even more widespread anti-drought and water management programs.
the problem with a geoengineered temporary(!) stop to global warming: some people would use it as "reason" to put even more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere instead of using the engineered reduction as a stopgap measure . So in my opinion we should only use it *after* we have solved the problem and already are on a sustainable CO2 emission level, to battle the decades of long-term effects. If we use it at all.
We can’t fix it because it’s too expensive. But it has nothing to do with “capitalism” or the oligarchical practical structure of capitalism or “trickle down economics” or the predatory oil industry, car industry, etc.
When talking about the global food supply and global food security there's also always the insane geopolitical state of the world, And socioeconomical state even of first world countires, that have to be taken into consideration. With those in mind you get an even more serious perspective. We already produce enough food to inhabit earth without hunger as 10 billion or so people. It's the global hegemonies and income inequality that produce hunger in the world we currently live in... not overpopulation... not crop failure... Solving world hunger right now is merely political. Imagine what would happen in the world, if there was actual shortage. The kind of starvation, war and immigration that would inevitably cause.
The reason why nuclear is out of the question is because its economics, not its dangers. Yes, France at some time got 80% of its electricity from nuclear, but take a look at how is goning for the "white knight of nuclear": * They built a insane amount of reactors in the 60s essentially to socialize the cost of creating their nuclear arsenal. * In the 70s, nuclear weaponry peaked over 72k warheads, so military aknownledge that had "enough dakka" and cut funds for breeders and other civilian nuclear facilities, so costs for the civilian market starts to spike. * After Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, deeper safety requirements increase the operative cost of nuclear power plants in service and ramps up the cost of any further design. * At the corner of the century nuclear is already deficitary and renewables are cheaper. Most of the nuclear industry is crumbling, including General Electric, Whestinghouse and the frenchies. * In 2013, a year after Fukushima, third largest French nuclear conglomerate enters in bankrupcy. * In 2017, Areva (second largest nuclear operator in France) is on the verge of bankrupcy and bought by EDF (the largest nuclear oparator in the world). In 2019 EDF mid term debt exceeds 70.000 million €. * In summer 2022 French Goverment withdraws EDF from the stock market since is on the verge of bankrupcy: mid term debt is estimated over 100.000 million €; half of the french reactors are halt due a long drougth which made cooling unfeasible and the inspections for maintenance also showcased problems of corrosion and structural problems in some of the designs (including maaterials not aging in the way it was predicted and needing expensive refurbish). So: nuclear energy IS NOT part of the solutions to climate change. Never was economically viable, and now is less than ever. The cost of a regular power plant exceeds 20k million $. The average building time is 12 to 25 years. The levelized cost is unable to compete vs renewables AND the levelized cost DOESN'T even include the cost of dismantling the facilities and management of wastes after the operative life of the complex expires. Going furher: nuclear isn't even relevant as "base load" since the concept is outdated: what you need to run entirely on renewables is having an oversized capacity (around x2 to 2.5 times your peak demand), diversification (you have times with no sun, no win or no hydro, but you won't have lack of all at all times) and good grid interconnection (so areas with excess of output can deliver to others with excess of demand). Is arleady working very well and the way to which Europe is heading...
Always good to remind people of how strong an effort will be needed to tackle this uncontrolled climatic drift, which is definitely the most trending planetary limit these days. However, I think engineering acid rains is maybe not the nicest way to ensure large scale human survivability medium to long term... I would love to see a video from you on why the always mentioned biodiversity actually is important for us, and not just for the ethical "we are killing the butterflies and that's sad" which is the most frequently mentioned argument.
I'd suggest rigging up all the commercial planes with the stuff that would be needed to be sprayed in the stratosphere in mini rockets and launch them while they fly their routes.
CO2 does NOT cause much temperature increase. Increase temperature causes a rise in CO2! A lot comes from oceanic volcanic eruptions, hence why we also have some ice depletion in selective areas.
As a famous general once said to a famous physicist, Richard Philips feynman, I like the way you use the science to cut through the bullshit.
Год назад
The Chernobyl series over-dramatized the discussions, but the dangers were real. The melted 1+ tonne of uranium / corium would practically not cool down when surrounded by water, the flow of water would keep it constantly in chain reaction, while the evaporating water would carry radioactive material the equivalent of the mentioned atomic bombs all over Europe. Not the detonating force, but the contamination. The radiation level is now small in Chernobyl, but that's the area where people are allowed to be.
Reminds me of the quote from Raphael. "Try to cure yourself, shop around, beg, borrow and steal. Exhaust every possibility until none are left...and when hope has been whittled down to the very marrow of despair, that’s when you’ll come knocking on my door."
i want everyone to check out the historical global temp chart on this site called earth. which has all the climate change data. and look at the temps between 1mil and 100k years ago. theres always huge temp spikes as ice ages end, and those spikes are higher than what the average temp is today, and by looking at the pattern, u can see each spike grows in average temp each time, and right now were in another, all natural, spike. sadly it wont be until 2050+ until all the legacy co2 will start to expire, which will look like the carbon capture machines are doing something, but the only thing those machines will be doing by 2050, is siphoning 30% of all global wealth. by 2100, 50% of global wealth, except by 2100 we will realize there was nothing to be worried about. are you guys prepared for the biggest scam in history?
Isnt this video a big confirmation bias compilation? Lets talk about the disadvantages and uncertainty of that solution. It would be easy to do it there is some in the wikipedia article that you left out
I live in Germany and legally im not allowed to eat the animals i hunt because of radiation left for chernobyl, have to test every single one and 30% are unedible. So in theory yes but the dangers of nuclear power are just so high. It doesnt matter how safe it is because if something happens its such a katastrophy that its undefendable.
![Yailin La Mas Viral, @kreizyk.official - Dale 2 (Remix) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JaYHBzgqz94/mqdefault.jpg)
Turns out Doctor Evil had the right idea by making every volcano on earth erupt with a nuclear warhead
This is what happened in 1991-1993 where ash from Mt Pinatubo explosion cooled the world by 0.1C-1C.
in 2021 the Tonga Volcanoe cooled the Earth by 0.2c @@rzpogi
That scene with the eleven torches going at the same time stresses me out! I'd probably end up knocking at least one of them over while trying to turn them off
Hes showing us how important it is to limit our carbon emissions by burning a bunch of fossil fuels.
@@tubester4567 He also burned the millions of people who got killed in conflicts fueled by global warming and the other tens of millions who had and have to flee with his ignorance, RIGHT NOW, right at the moment as we are writing this. "Not in our lifetime". How cynical and disregarding towards a big part of humanity, especially to the inhabitants of the southern hemisphere!
That is why experts should be asked when trying to report on such complex topics. Nothing against TF, but as a chemist ... really?
This hubris possibly doesn't help with his views on nuclear energy either. You can statistically compare the radiation in Chernobyl to a plane flight. Nice. The chance to inhale milligrams of Iodine or Cesium on A FLIGHT are actually zero. In contrast, that "little" bit of stuff will get a part of your body and most likely kill you ... or make your life very miserable in the long term. And the best: A flight on a plane is at the end of the day: A CHOICE! YOUR CHOICE! Which the pollution by a nuclear disaster (or any disaster/catastrophe) is very seldom. Well, I guess this can also be "achieved" by the right amount of hubris, or?:)
BTW that TF gets some things wrong or some of his examples and arguments are strange (like you mentioned with your funny "by burning a bunch of fossil fuels" comment), absurd or even disgusting, does not mean that he is wrong in the big picture. I guess such provocative statements and claims are needed to feed the hunger of the viewers for sensationalism, clickbait? I don't care! Such oversimplification of reality (read effing Genetic and Ecological Studies about Chernobyl , about the unnaturally high cancer rates among the animal species native there. Yeah, the cute ones in that "paradise", shown in the video. Why not sent your kids there? ALL SAFE! **FACEPALM** ) does just harm to the cause: Educate people to come to senses. Educate people to NOT KILL OFF THEIR OFFSPRING and give them a chance ... like normal humans did through the centuries ... until now.
Hey, and don't forget that cigarettes are good for you and your children!!!
yours sincerely, Dr. Marlboro (For the youngsters: That is a reference to a not far behind REALITY and how big companies care about and love you, the people;) )
If we do this we must first build a railroad around the world and a locomotive with an eternal engine.
that took me a minute and a requiem
elon is on the task, hes on his way to making the first "lifetime" battery, with the help of neuralink u too will be able to become a lifetime battery, or donate ur unborn offspring for one. kinda like matrix
@@MrPaxio not what we're talking about
@@MartinMenge oh..... so ure telling me.... a railway around the world with an eternal engine wasnt a joke?
@@MrPaxio No joke, but my requiem reference was a bit off. I should have pointed to Chris Evens instead.
"We don't know who struck first, us or them. But we do know it was us that scorched the sky"...just in time for AI!
As a matrix stan: thank you.
That jerk, Andrew Tate talking about the matrix sounds more sane after reading this
@@irvingchies1626 Of course. The machines in The Matrix are just serial rapists.
Look at the depiction and the symbolism with the body-hoses and connections, all the latex and leather.
At least they are feminists (=equality) who don't make a difference by gender when abusing their energy-cattle...
No wonder that all of that resonates with Tate[1]. But in a psychopathic way, because he IS a criminal and sociopath.
[1] On a surface level of understanding which he can contribute himself, so effectively very little. That's no wonder after the many blows to the head during sports, after the drug and alcohol abuse and, above all, the steroids. They make a person so intelligent, of which Tate is an absolute prime example;)
@@irvingchies1626You mispelled Taint
exactly what I thought of
A substantial demographic will just love this idea. Let's call it Project Chemtrails.
That would be an amazing name
Especially if it is going to be suggested by Klaus Schwab/Gates/Soros on World Economic Forum.
@@pawelzybulskij3367 Now imagine that we end up using giant blimps to do the aerosol injection.. with "Gates Foundation" on written on the side. There would be a world shortage of tin foil.
@@pawelzybulskij3367funny how something so blatant and open is being called a conspiracy
Christ sakes it’s on their website and conferences all public easy to access information
What is a contrail
Jonovens is correct, as its not what its made out to be
Hank Green recently made a video about how dirty burning ship fuel actually caused noticeably more rain, counterintuitively lessoning the effects of climate change in the ocean and now that there are more strict pollution standards, the effects of climate change aren't being negated any more. The only viable solution is obvious, we just aren't desperate enough yet.
The solution of releasing tons of chalk into the atmosphere to completely counter act the increased thermal energy and return to normal global temperatures?
What's the solution?
I don't think that's what he said, he said that it was artificially masking the effects of climate change, making it appear like they made things worse. Where in reality it just revealed the truth.
@@damenwhelan3236 Spraying salt water into the air. not kidding you, too lazy to post a link but i did watch the video.
@@jacob818tanner Is there any chance of that increasing soil salinity through rainfall? Or would the concentrations of salt they use/whatever falls on land be too low to have any impact?
Captain, may I have a word with you?
-No.
It's an emergency!
-Come back when it's a _catastrophe_
From the way we want to just keep talking at this point, I don't see us(the world) actually doing anything for a VERY long time. All we want to do is point fingers at someone else to go first. What a lovely society we live in. RIP future generations.
Pretty much, it's just how people work. When asked most people agree climate change is a big problem, when it comes time to do anything they vote against anything that would require them to change the way they live.
@@boggart1062 I also think there is a huge gulf between what the average person thinks "climate change is a big problem" means and what it actually means. I don't think they really have a clue how massive the problem actually is and how devastating it is actually going to be.
Except make electric cars. Oh but Elon bad because he likes free speech or something.
@@locke03 Yep, ignorance is bliss.
If its any consolation, 4 billion years ago the earth was a rock. Maybe whatever comes after us will be wiser?
chemtrails? people gonna love that
"But even though it's the only thing that's been shown to work, people tend to hate it." That was a truth bomb.
Hey, marine cloud brightening has been demonstrated to work, too! That's why, following regulation for cleaner maritime fuels, ocean surface temperatures are warming at an unprecedented rate - basically the same thing as post-war pollution and subsequent Clean Air Act.
But right, I've long since arrived at the same conclusion. Other approaches ought to be pursued with seriosity of total war, but even conditional on taking things seriously, the only real solution would seem to come from climate engineering, and it's disheartening it barely even gets talked about (I guess environmentalists, those who are aware of it anyhow, choose not to do so in order to pick more winnable battles even if they know them to be undecisive skirmishes, but come on...).
Agree. Whenever someone is saying that we should not talk about "geoengineering" solutions because it will make us stop to decarbonise it feels like patient with cancer who would not want to hear about (working) chemotherapy in a hope that some new drug will just come to market. Insanity.
There are very good reasons to decarbonise apart of climate change (tyranny of fossil fuels coming from frequently unstable countries), constant inflation and crisis after crisis because of fossil fuel volatile markets, wars, finite supply of cheap stuff, health effects of burning stuff etc.
@@msxcytb Problem is any geoengineering solution has also drawbacks. E.g. global dimming will cause a decrease in plant grow in any area, where sunlight is a limiting factor (basically everywhere, where both nutrients and water are abundant, so do not limit grow). many of the bread baskets around the world, will be affected (less than drought / floods cause if global warming is unchecked).
@@beyondEV Sounds like when a big volcano erupts
@@beyondEV Hard not to agree that everything done will have some consequences. Huge experiment is running without any control- current global climate change. I'm ok with adding some controlled actions. Many climate engineering methods are controllable, reversible (cloud seeding, carbon capture by enhanced weathering, ocean fertilisation). Would it be beneficent to paint all the rooftops/parkings/dare I say- roadways;-)/ white reflective vs covering them with heat absorbing(strongly) solar panels for example?
i want everyone to check out the historical global temp chart on this site called earth. which has all the climate change data. and look at the temps between 1mil and 100k years ago. theres always huge temp spikes as ice ages end, and those spikes are higher than what the average temp is today, and by looking at the pattern, u can see each spike grows in average temp each time, and right now were in another, all natural, spike.
sadly it wont be until 2050+ until all the legacy co2 will start to expire, which will look like the carbon capture machines are doing something, but the only thing those machines will be doing by 2050, is siphoning 30% of all global wealth. by 2100, 50% of global wealth, except by 2100 we will realize there was nothing to be worried about. are you guys prepared for the biggest scam in history?
It sucks knowing that we're hurtling towards humanities greatest disaster and the people either don't believe it or exclude solutions to the problem.
That could be a good thing. Fewer humans will allow the Earth to heal. So those who remain will live better, but we have to do our part. Procreate less, and live small.. consume less. Let the wealthy continue to living the lap of luxury (it's cool, they'll buy carbon credits).
boomer mentality.
@user-df5ym9dv5g I sometimes write these facetious comments without real solutions instead of a series of nuanced paragraphs. The truth is that I have concerns about many of the more popular solutions. I'm also bothered that suggestions of nuclear fission are sometimes shot down by popular science communicators. One of the answers in this vein states that enough nuclear power facilities can not be built prior to the ACG point of no return.
I had hoped that there would have had a greater willingness to seek scientific progress to safely build more fission plants in a shorter time. Even with this global-scale emergency being what it is, more fission reactors to displace the burning of hydrocarbons ought to be embraced alongside other strategies.
TF:
"But how will you deliver 50 million tonnes of SO2 to the stratosphere? you will need something huge... oh no."
Musk:
"Mwuhahaha! I knew you would come crawling back for my Starship!"
I will be impressed when it is actually finished until then it is just wishful thinking.
The future is going to be very interesting to say the least, and I've gotten fond of studying previous civilizations that fell apart under their own weight with the help of external environmental factors. This one may be on it's way out but we can hope to just undo some damage.
On the matter of trees, simply planting them is not a fix at all, but i do a bit of rewilding when i can. Here in Ireland, while it does have the stereotype of being lush ajd green, its mostly just farmland where native forests and ecosystems are in major decline having been replaced by agricultural sprawl, urban sprawl or commercial imported spruce plantations that do nothing for natural wildlife.
I have little optimism in our species avoiding the madhouse that is to come, but working on rebuilding the ecosystems that have been degraded and destroyed at least gives the life around us more chance of surviving this mess caused by the conceit of one species of intelligent ape that convinced itself it owned the world.
I remember a documentary that claimed the collaps of rome was caused by a streak of years with poor harvests due to bad weather.
@@gwahli9620 not necessarily the cause but an important factor at play, and it was also due to soil degradation due to intensive farming.
Civilisations often don't collapse for just one reason, but a multitude of factors that increase instability of a system that became overly complex due to conditions at first having been able to support that big bureaucratic state.
As it grows, it becomes more and more complex and reliant on more sensitive supply chains to get necessary products from A to B. Further complexity also makes it much more expensive to see similar improvements that happened before, and the great big thing ends up working so hard just to support itself.
Another factor in the fall of Rome was popular unrest due to the currency losing value over decades where a lot of wealth ended up getting very concentrated among the powerful.
Sound familiar?
Money is just a concept our species came up with to simplify trade between strangers, but we allowed it to become a great big all encompassing entity in itself and gave control of it to a predatory financial sector that obsesses over immaterial (and arguably imaginary) billions and trillions dependent on large scale consumer debt, and they're more interested in focusing on how many hundreds of billions of this "money" will go through the stock market than recognising that the value of normal people's wealth has declined drastically because of this. We're just told to blame inflation.
Seems like not all of these apes are very intelligent then. How do we not own the world if we're (allegedly) able to kill off everything on it? Either we're walking gods who can shear the planet in half and take everyone with us or we're insignificant and can only cut our noses to spite our faces. This summer was hardly any worse than the one before it yet these graphs keep increasing the temps for seemingly no reason. Then they turn around and sell you carbon credits and other bullshit so you can "save" the planet while at the same time taking away more and more of your rights. You cannot reasonably afford a home, cannot repair your devices, everything is lent to you with subscriptions or a use license (which can be revoked when they see fit), you're propagandized into consuming processed waste from plants as a substitute to meat and other animal products, they lock you in your home for two years without any care if you can afford to survive it and you think some fairy tale hot summer in (it changes every year) 100 years will be what we should be worried about?
@@martincrotty Pointing at inflation is like diagnosing an illness with "You have a fever" - While fever IS a sympton of sickness, it itself is a reaction of the body and not an illness.
Why do you think animals would survive if humans don't? Like you realize, humans would likely survive even if Earth was mostly a desert wasteland
So the solution is Chemtrails.
Thunderf00t Illuminati confirmed.
In desperation a substantial part of the population won't lift a finger but will pray to an imaginary spook asking why they're being tested this way.
What are you doing about it
Yesterday, after one co-worker mentioned he found a deal on a flight to Mexico that I should take for vacation, I mentioned I don't fly anymore. My other somewhat liberal non-religious co-worker asked why, so I briefly said because of the environmental impact. He started laughing and asked if I was serious, and then spent the next 30 minutes attempting to mock me and belittle my stance, suggesting that not doing everything possible to enjoy life was a waste of life and a pointless life.
Yep... that's what we're dealing with. A world full of extremely selfish people that couldn't give a rat's behind about anybody but themselves and their own enjoyment. They don't care even the slightest about the future of the entire planet because in their minds they'll "be dead by then", and anyone who says or does otherwise is insane in their eyes. Ironically this person has a young child, and eventually he may have grand children, all of which will in fact have to worry about the impacts of climate change.
Obviously he only reacted that way because in my brief response, I essentially said I don't do the thing that he and his family do often because of the damage it's causing to the planet. I mean, it's a simple fact that I should hope by this point everyone understands... even if they completely ignore it. I guess having someone walk the walk really makes them feel like they have to be defensive about their actions, or better yet, belittle a person as to make them out to be insane, because that's the only rational explanation for why a person wouldn't throw their ideals aside and rape the planet into oblivion, just like them.
I obviously have strong feelings on this or I wouldn't walk the walk, but I mostly try to keep my feelings of others choices to myself. But as we can see here, I don't even need to call other people out. All I needed to do was mention that "I don't fly for environmental reasons.". 🤣🤦♂
Sorry buddy. I pray in a AC room and I turn the power to the maximum. In reality, nobody give damn about Global Warming, a not so serious problem.
@@Civsuccess2 No one is going to give up their opulent lifestyles to reduce global warming however, when the planet goes bad, we will have no other choice and it will be much worse than giving up our opulent lifestyles now.
@@updlate4756 The S.A.I. solution is very interesting. Knowing human nature, what will probably eventually happen is a last ditch effort to implement something like that, kicking and screaming. The planet will spend whatever it takes to keep S.A.I. going as we as a planet frantically finally put an end to selfish levels of global warming. The world-wide financial drain will force the change. Who knows how many decades it will take before only manageable natural green house emissions remain. Nasty lesson to learn...
😂 Love the SAI Easter Egg 🥚 I noticed it on the table in previous videos and wondered, "Why the hell would he put that there? People will think he's not credible." But I guess it's true that good things come to those who wait, and people who judge a book by its cover miss out on the rewards in its pages.
I feel this must have been said to you before about the Chernobyl clip. But she did not say a nuclear explosion, nor was that the fear.
The fear was a second steam explosion like what caused the reactor to blow in the first place.
Steam explosions in pressurized piping/vessels are common. The corium dipping into the water under the plant would have not flash boiled the entire pool.
Yeah, he was way off on that clip. It's weird no one is calling him out on such a basic detail.
Yes, please!
The clip still said that a steam based explosion would destroy "everything in a 30 kilometer radius". Which would make it more powerful than the fucking tsar bomb. So still pretty fucking ridiculous considering if I recall the actual largest explosion was best case scenario only a few hundred tons of tnt equivalent, and has been calculated as low as 10 tons. The 30 kilometer radius thing was the exclusion zone people were told to evacuate from, not the fucking blast radius like it's still absurd.
Not likely to happen so long as more than half of the people in the world think that waiting for a higher power to step in and save us is a practical solution.
Ack yeah religion really is cancer
You should give the song "Kyoto Now" by Bad Religion a listen. Your comment sums the song up pretty nicely.
you would think everyone should be on top of this idea. people who don't believe in global warming can spend penies combating it in this way and never having to do anything else. people who believe in global warming get a fix as well. both sides win with this. the biggest obstical really are people who are scared of it because of the nature of it being "global engineering"
You expect the big brother to ration you base one your carbon credit?
@@Civsuccess2 What has that got to do with my comment?
This scheme is the basis for Neal Sstephenson's novel, "Terminal Shock." It's a great story and digs pretty deeply into the science behind it.
Thank You Thunderfoot for your videos. It’s People like you that help to keep me sane and grounded ❤️. I really mean it
I think it would be fair to say that the map at 14:57 is not about agricultural yields in total, but rather specifically about corn. Wheat, as shown in the same article/video by NASA, will likely have an increased yield due to climate change. So whether a country will suffer or gain from climate change in terms of agricultural yield is based on their current and planned plants.
I mean every plant has their own climate so the moment the average goes up it will start doing worse
@@Dark-28200 You are right in terms of plants which have been there naturally. Agricultural yield, however, is usually created by plants which are introduced by humans, which are rarely to be found naturally in that habitat, e.g. corn, tomatoes, potatoes for Europe etc.
Almost all the "hottest temperatures" being incredulously being recorded are surface temps rather than ambient temps....btw
3:20 They can't become "poorer", only "less insanely rich"
I thought this was actually quite a good video on climate issues
Doesn’t deny the problem
Doesn’t make it a doomsday scenario
Doesn’t fearmonger
Aligns with a lot of my own understanding
Trees are terribly inefficient
The problem won’t be solved instantly
No change, such as “just stop oil” is remotely feasible
Touches on infrastructure and manufacturing processes
And touches sliiiiightly on the irrational fear of nuclear energy
Yeah, a long time coming
An alright vid
I've always had a bit of a fear of planet-scale geoengineering because of how often we screw things up, but you really put it into perspective for me.. We're doing geoengineering on a planet-scale already, and have been for centuries - but we've been doing it mostly by accident and then undoing negative things as we start to see the consequences. The difference is just that we would be actively trying to make things better, instead of just yolo'ing it.
I think I heard that same argument somewhere else before, but it just really didn't stick back then. The phrase "we're already geoengineering on a global scale" is a familiar one.. but I hadn't put together the part about it's much much better to do it intentionally than to just keep fucking up. Fuck-ups happen even when trying intentionally, but they happen far less often. I immediately think about all the myths surrounding nuclear weapons in early development, how it was so dangerous they weren't sure if they would blow up the planet or not, and how.. no, that thought came up and became obviously impossible before we ever got near detonating a bomb.
the benefit of doing it intentionally is that we would be building infrastructure around collecting data in order to seriously study the effects, whereas yolo'ing it leaves research behind and we may not notice effects until it's to late!
the problem is not climate change, the problem is trying to stop climate change.
CO2 is not a pollutant.
“There are no solutions, only trade offs.” Thomas Sowell
Congratulations Thunderfoot. This is one of your best edited videos I've seen. Concise and comprehensive and focussed. keep up the good work.
It's a shame it was mostly bs. He should explain why the Arctic sea ice extent hasn't changed in the last decade.
Ice doesn't lie, but climate scientists do.
He based his video on a graph that doesn't reflect reality. 🤣
Sources?@@glidercoach
@@glennmartin6492
RUclips won't allow me to source my comments. There is another thread in the comments section where all my comments are blocked.
The graph Phil used to back his argument for this video is historically inaccurate, if you know climate history. If I even list dates for you to search for yourself, RUclips will nuke it.
@@glennmartin6492
RUclips won't allow it. There are 4 comments in this thread (now 5 with this one), and 2 of them have been removed, one of them being mine.
My guess is the other removed comment was someone who agreed with me and liked my original comment.
9:45 Energy companies like Xcel Energy pay local municipalities with hydro to rip out their generators and sell them in exchange for a low per kwh cost (10 years expiry). Then they continue price hiking to the federal maximum. The cost of installing hydro is a monumentous effort. Needless to say, we end up relying on coal and nuclear despite having the unique geographical advantages for hydro.
Well played.
Not knocking nuclear btw. It's just that coal is a big percentage of our grid.
@@fellzer That tends to happen when coal and natural gas are significantly cheaper than every other method of power generation. Nuclear is actually economical when there is a large demand for power, where 1 nuclear facility can output the same power as 20-30 conventional power plants.
It's an... irony? That the sai is also called the "iron ruler". That's probably what we'll need to get the various countries to actually cooperate on any meaningful plan that isn't a bunch of ineffectual hand-wringing about corporate profits.
- I'm glad global warming never happened.
- Actually it did. But thank god nuclear winter cancelled it out.
[Futurama]
The period from 40s-70s saw a decline in temps. They thought it was the start of an ice age. Leonard nimoy even did a show on it. In search of the next ice age.
The same experts who said an ice age was coming in late 70s pivoted to global warming by 1988.
Liar.
@sentientflower7891 in what way? I am just giving you the facts.
@@rjbiker66 you are just a liar.
@@rjbiker66and those are the facts
Scientific American ran a piece on it
@@sentientflower7891 It's pretty common knowledge that we were warned over and over of the coming ice age for people who lived back then. My school textbook definition of global warming was word for word - the earth getting a little cooler.
As long as we do not yet have a final storage site for radioactive waste and we do not take the costs of this into account in the price of electricity, the nuclear option is just another expensive loan that we are passing on to our children (+ 1000s of generations)
Sorry to disappoint but "stick it in a hole in the ground till later" is very viable for radioactive waste. The reason is simple, globally, it's a tiny amount of material. It's relatively easy to dig a hole and hide it until it becomes useful. Remember, the entire output of decades of "waste" from most US reactors is, currently, easily stored on-site right next to the reactor. The only problems are political.
You mean we can't solve this problem by building giant new "net zero" houses where we disregard the carbon emissions used in the production of said house even though they're 1000x the emissions of running an existing house with a new insulation install for a year?
We also have to build newer, more efficient cars instead of driving the ones we have because making those cars doesn't produce any carbon via machinery or transport of the parts and vehicles and the workforce to make them.
And don't forget to have people fly and drive all over the world to talk about all these new, environment-saving things!
Even an old house with old insulation is better than these new one sometime, my house is an old farm from the 1800, one of our neighboring house is a very modern house done with all the modern insulation technique. During the winter, the snow smelt the quickest on their roof than ours, our insulation is literally wheat husk, and it seems pretty efficient. But for the government my house is so bad that I would probably not be able to sell it in 20 years time; because it "lack" insulation, because they can only compute modern insulation technique so my house is as good as a tent for them. I still do some work to better the insulation but when I bought it I thought I would have to do a lot more than what I did. One example, they say that the walls are not insulated, but the walls are 50 cm of width, so 50 cm of stone, which is not the best at isolating something but 50 cm of it still insulate, so for the government I should buy a 20 to 25 cm of modern chemical stuff, that I'm sure is pretty good for the environment, to insulate a wall that is 50 cm so that they can say "alright your wall is insulated".
If that house lasts 1001 years it will be worth it
Ah a BANANA
no dummy, you also need a personal 2 ton battery electric vehicle with a 500 mile range to drive 50 miles
3 more doable (?) solutions. 1. All ocean freight transport installs salt water ionizers to eject cloud seeding particles over the oceans to shade the planet. 2. Pumping air deep into the ocean to lift nutrients to the surface to cause phytoplankton blooms. Side effect if done in the right tropical zones is reduction of hurricane/typhoons intensity. Tiny addition effect of increasing carbon dioxide dissolution in oceans. 3. Ocean going freight transport disperses iron “fertilizer” that cause phytoplankton blooms.
Awesome work! Everything you need to know about Climate Change without the lies and agendas. This short series will stand the test of time.
Aha, but greenwashing nuclear, talking about "average energy cost" ignoring that France Energy production is heavily supported by tax payer money....
Unfortunately his graph is a fraud and the whole video is based on it.
@@muten861dude it's nationalised energy I'd expect it to be paid by tax
@@kingflynxi9420 then its no fair comparing prices, when only half of the prices is calcuted via electrical bill, and der rest is paid by shadow budget of government.
We're already at a point within my own lifetime, in which I can remember, fifteen years ago when I was still in elementary school, I could go outside in the summer, and chances were it would be a nice, enjoyable day. Now, in current year and me much older, I can barely stand to go out to mow the lawn until mid-late autumn because it's absolutely sweltering, all the time. Actually affecting out lives isn't just on the table for the future, it's already happened so long as you go outside to see it, to feel it.
Something needs to be done.
For me, I think its just that I got older. But I started being sceptical of climate claims when I was in school and saw an article on Earth Day about all of the expected things which will go wrong in 10-20 years if we do nothing according to the top people in the field.
The claims went back 50-60 years and we never got close to any of them.
@@cp1cupcake Then you should stop listening to "science" media and go to the source/paper directly. Those "prediction" is made using worst-case scenario.
It's like saying "we didn't jump into Grand Canyon (i pressed the brakes), therefore your fear of us dying is wrong!"
@@hanifarroisimukhlis5989damn right. So often people take sensationalist journalists and celebs as the sources of their news on science and climate and rarely check how backed up that article actually is, then throw a hissy fit when this nonexpert turns out to be wrong
Things are fairly on track with what even papers in the 70s and 80s were predicting but because it wasn't some immediate Hollywoodesque disaster as was talked about by reporters of the era, people deny it.
This anecdotal story is a bogus way to confirm global warming. We may have had a hot summer or two but we would have had the same hot summers without global warming. I asked ChatGPT 4:
"Isn't it true that global warming is only thought to have raised temperature one or two degrees, which is not a noticable enough change for someone to notice just by going outside?"
"Yes, that's a valid point. The average global temperature has increased by about 1-2 degrees Celsius since the late 19th century, according to scientific measurements. While this may not sound like much, it's a significant change on a planetary scale and has wide-ranging impacts on ecosystems, weather patterns, and sea levels. However, the change is generally too subtle to be noticeably felt in the day-to-day experience of an individual. Therefore, relying solely on personal perception to gauge global warming isn't a reliable method."
@@cp1cupcakeI remember doing a class presentation in 5th grade back in 1990 about an article in National Geographic that said we will run out of oil by the year 2000.
For the last 20 years our states power grid struggles when it's summer , Due to Air con.... And everyone's pushing electric cars.
KID: Can we do some scary Halloween stuff?
MOM: We have Halloween at home already.
HALLOWEEN AT HOME: *Thunderfoot noises*
Regarding how long it takes to build nuclear power plant- there are the troubled projects in EU that we all know about but there are also quite recent success stories. Check KASHIWAZAKI KARIWA-6, fairly recent, very modern and done way bellow 6years. There are more good examples to. I guess that if build times would come back to this reasonable/predictable times and cheap credit would be used (like law forces now for wind and solar) then there would be no question about "expensive nuclear that is to slow to deploy". Sometimes it feels like we evolve backwards as society...
Agree! Sweden built 12 reactors in 25 years (1960-1985). Locally designed, locally sourced and built by swedish workers. I dont think we are able to do that again.
A big part of the reason why nuclear reactors haven't been build recently is because the return on investment of one is much higher than for more conventional power plants (the specific example I saw was for natural gas). Sure, they make more in the long term, but you have to get there.
Something which also makes a difference in that is government subsidies. Many governments used to subsidize nuclear reactors for military purposes, but more recently they have been pushing "green solutions".
My parents once got solar panels on their room because the subsidies made it worthwhile, but I think they ended up thrown out because it wasn't worth the hassle to keep them once the constant repairs after transformers (at least, I think it was the transformers) blew out stopped being free. Considering it normally takes a decade or two of use in optimal placement to make back the energy used to create solar panels, I think those ones ended up being a net energy negative, but because of the subsidies, made a lot of people a lot of money.
@@cp1cupcake What, did you mean inverters? PV if done properly can last decades (it's just hunk of silicon). The most complex part of it is the inverter, which converts DC current from PV into AC current. Transformer converts between different AC voltages.
@@martinbengtsson244That "quick" upscaling of nuclear power is comparable to the capacity of renewables Germany adds in 10 months
@@heyho4770 110MW every 10 months?
Nuclear Power in New Zealand? I can't see that happening in my life time.
The earthquakes make me think not
@@sstephkate86 nothing to do with earthquakes as I raise you Japan who use them and has just as many earthquakes (they are also on the ring on fire)
Its our silly anti nuclear weapons stance, even though scientific and nuclear power does not fall under that accord.
@20:00 'bottom line - stratospheric aerosol injection is a stopgap measure', exactly, to allow for the transition to nuclear and solar/wind. This is a great argument for Geoengineering, which is inevitable, since it is so cheap and effective. Joe Scott, Kurzgesagt, and other Geoengineering RUclips essayists could learn something from this video.
just gotta run your thorium car on the solar freaking roadways while breathing down a pumpable can of oxygen with your gills on and getting your water from the air. That will fix it, I'm sure of it
I prefer to travel by Hyperloop.
That will not work unless you control all the processes via Neuralink. Ask Matt What-was-his-last-name-pretending-to-be-a-science-communicator, he'll explain you how it all fits together.
I'll just go to Mars. I heard there will be cinema there.
RE aerosol geoengineering- I remember reading that artillery would be the most cost effective and efficient method of delivering aerosols to the stratosphere. There are a few issues that could maybe go in a follow up video:
1) international agreement would be required but also very difficult.
2) there is confidence in the cooling effect, however climate change could still happen, just without the warming.
3) if we did go ahead with it the fossil fuel industry could hail it as a long term solution to enable continued use of FF. This would be bad as more aerosol injection would be required to keep up, and if we stopped for any reason a powerful runaway greenhouse effect would result. Not to mention the health benefits of decarbonising roads and cities.
Probably a load of other considerations too.
About the whole Chernobyl thing: It´s way easier to fool a person, than to convince them they just got fooled.
Mmmm fantastic point
All you have to to is buy a Hummer EV!
Yes definitely!😂
It'd be a start, but there's a lot more to it.
I bet you can build 200 ebike batteries with the cells from an EV hummer.
@@heidenburg5445 Maybe, but soon enough it will be impossible to survive without air conditioning, so it needs to be enclosed.
There will not enough of the metals needed.
The most efficient way to inject aerosols is through large volcanic eruptions, and anthropogenic climate change is likely to cause more erratic weather/more frequent natural disasters. Therefore, there will be more volcanic eruptions and it'll even itself out
We've known since 1824 that anthropogenic climate change could occur and got the empirical confirmation in 1856. We had over 150 years to do something against. But we didn't. And for everyone's who's not discouraged enough, we've been over the tipping-point for a few years now. Most estimates on this topic (I would even say in meteorology as a whole) are conservatve, not alarmist. The conservative tipping-point was 2021. In all likelyhood, it was somewhere in the middle of 2010s.
Also, nuclear is not just useful, it's necessary. Only a select amount of countries like Austria and Switzerland can utilize renewables and phase out fossil fuels completely without the assistance of nuclear energy because of the terrain and environment (Austria is already at I think 80%, but don't quote me on that, I just know that if they turn on their shut-down nuclear-reactor facility, they could already phase out fossil fuels completely).
What would you have done in 1850s? Stop developing any fossil fueled technology?
Netherlands probably is in a good position for that as well, felt like half their country consists of dams.
Or you do the same as my country and despite being one of the safest countries in the world geographically speaking, just get rid of nuclear energy because of "safety" aka personal gain.
Citation please. Seems dubious to propose there was sufficient anthropogenic climate change occurring before we started releasing the chemicals that do it. And by your proposition it was not only occurring but occurring dramatically enough as to make a definite confirmation of it after an extensive study.
Austria can't work without nuclear, unless they want to spend significant periods of year without power. They do import from Czech Republic during those periods (mainly from South Moravia (Dukovany NPP) and South Bohemia (Temelin NPP)).
To further laugh on the topic - there was at least one Austrian company that sold thing you plug into your power plug (in which you plugged your device), that was "guaranteed to filter out nuclear generated power out".
@@fullyawakened 1824 Joseph Fourier published the paper "Memoir on the temperature of the earth and planetary spaces" in which he theorized that the atmosphere retains heat through what eventually developed into the greenhouse-effect.
In 1856 Eunice Foote described how carbon-dioxide and water vapor retain heat through small-scale apparatus which replicated the earth's atmosphere.
This was independently corroborated by John Tyndall three years later when he found the connection between the heat-retention and longwave-infrared radiation.
I once heard someone on RUclips say "the temperature has been going up and down for centuries... that's science folks..." and everyone around him agreed. We're done.
Well, he's not wrong. It's just that there has never been a time in history when the change has happened so quickly!
@@LordSandwichII
It's nonsense. It's just that humans exist for an incredibly brief period of time and we don't see the big picture. We are still technically in an ice age so warming is far more likely to happen and should happen more quickly than if the planet was already hot. Thinking the earth's climate can stay static is just silly. Thinking warming is a bad thing goes against facts. Humans prosper in warmer climates. Cold is the biggest killer. More CO2 is better for plants, food production, eco systems etc. The fact CO2 makes the world greener just shows the brain washing that has been going on for decades. Profiteering and control agendas at play.
TBH humans need only worry about coming ice ages, meteor or comet impacts, GRBs, massive volcanic eruptions. Something like that will eventually happen and probably wipe out humanity. Hard to profit from it though.
@@LordSandwichII
You don't know how fast or slow temperatures changed in the past. The world started collecting data in the 1920's and in 2023, high quality data in parts of Africa and other places are not available.
Phil's scary looking graph does not match historical news reports. 10's of millions of people perished from heat in the years this graph claims world temperatures were low.
Phil blew it on this video catastrophically.
@@LordSandwichII
You don't know how fast or slow temperatures changed in the past.
@@glidercoach We do know. From sediments at the bottom of the oceans and lakes, locked away in coral reefs, frozen in glaciers and ice caps, and preserved in the rings of trees.
"Thus solving the problem once and for all"
but...
"ONCE AND FOR ALL"
The university of Bern in Switzerland looked into this. They found out that it would have only a small or no impact.
U have a link to this?
A major focus of this study was on the heating rates of SAT (Surface Air Temperature) that would arise in different scenarios in case of an abrupt cessation of sulphur injections into the stratosphere. Our model results show that heating rates after geoengineering interruption would be 15-28 times higher than in a case without geoengineering, with likely important consequences for life on Earth.
@@jobyyboj Thank you - what would cause an increase in temperature rates in that scenario?
the paper from Micheal Sigl?
@@Max-uo9nf You can't provide links on RUclips anymore.
Also I haven't read the paper either. It was a short article in a magazine.
If i can find it, i will post the title of the paper.
An engineering phd recently gave me a document on how he wants to paint roofs a certain shade of white, so it reflects short wave heat that can leave the atmosphere instead of long wave that heats. He claimes it would decrease warming by 14% just by painting roofs. After looking it over it seems to be true. I would consider myself knowledgeable but im no scientist. He was about 90 he said i should try giving it to all my professors but im sure noone cares. And as i said im not sure it makes sense but i do think its worth looking into.
It's easier to convince someone to buy Aircon than white paint.
It is happening but it's not popular with anyone selling electrons and industrial growth.
It's only ever about the money.
I wouldnt agree that we burn the co2 the same way we did 100 years ago. Our engines and factories are way more efficient that ever before. The problem is that we have more and more of them. We need to research nuclear more and make smaller and mpre efficient reactors. Someday we could find nuclear running in our cars, homes, and heck even phones. Smaller reactors would be way easier to contain in case of malfunction.
Ok, the thing with Chornobyl water explosion was a bit different. There was a lot of water in underground tunnels beneath reactor as a result of firefighters pouring god knows how many gallons onto the whole thing. If radioactive lava reached that water, turning water into steam (thus raising pressure in mostly enclosed space), it could lead to explosion, scatter of radioactive material and, since tunnels were under the whole plant, compromising structural stability of rest of the reactors. It was exaggerated in the movie, but knowing how soviet government (and by extention all commie block governments) operated, that exaggeration might have been necessary to convince them to actually taking the situation seriously. Just like you said, Commie governments were not interested, unless it was already a disaster.
Great points. The dramatization depicted in the Chernobyl series was painting a "worse case" scenario that the scientifically illiterate would understand. The military officials (and the modern audience) understood things like "explosions" much more than than the nuance of steam being able to spread dangerous fission materials in an uncontrollable way.
You picked that up too, It was a steam explosion they were talking about not the reactor itself. Overplayed maybe but water to steam can make quite a big boom.
@@derekaarts4997 People yelling "the end is near!" have nothing but propaganda. Why would this surprise you?
Steam wint explode unless its expansion envelope is too small. Water expands 2500x its volume when it becomes steam, the only way it explodes is if its in a pressure vessel. There was zero chance fie it to do so on chernobyl as they state.. it mat have compromised the buildings foundations, nothing more. I work directly in tgis trade ( plumber, electrician, gasfitter and steam fitter certification ) it can explode for sure, but must be contained to do so..
@@MrDmadnessit was water storage tanks they were worried about. They emptied them, but they were unintentionally refilled by the firefighters spraying water on the reactor. The initial explosion sent radioactive material airborne and it spread hundreds of miles away and was how it was even discovered there was a meltdown outside of the soviet union. Another explosion would send even more material airborne and was what they were dramatizing in the tv show. They were not even suggesting it was similar to a nuke in any way other than the potential fallout from a steam explosion propelling more material into the atmosphere.
Can't wait for all the nations of the world to come together over this.
I think you're being sardonic but I can't quite tell.
@@scorpforge2696 I am.
Will it impact any corporation's bottom line? If yes, then no, we can't, because corporations are our new kings and emperors and have more power than entire communities or states.
Interesting video.
I noticed and pondered this oddity in the global temperature rise many years ago.
Obviously WW2 had an effect on global temperatures, partly due to the large number of cities that burned to produce large amount of particulate pollution, along with a lot of dirty industrial activity.
When looking at many published graphs of annual global temperatures the early 60s seemed to shown the worst/best cooling effect.
Now overlay a graph of 'Nuke tests per annum' on top of the 'global annual temperatures'. 😯🤔
During the 60s the Superpowers were detonating around 50 to 80 a year, and in 1962 it was over 170
Many of the tests during this time were above ground and would have affected the Stratosphere noticeably.
Could we be looking at a 'Nuclear Winter' effect.
Food for thought!
So basically nuke the Outback (real)
Here in Alaska, the glaciers are growing and our Temps never left the 70s.
Yet you ignore it. Convenient.
@@HavocHerseim Oh look - another twat who doesn't understand what GLOBAL means.
It is not only carbon capture that trees are good at. It is microclimate. Trees can reduce city temperature by multiple degrees. Also plants absorb water, which might be useful if sea level rises. Building wood cities like in Finland reduces carbon footprint by not using materials such as concrete and again it helps with microclimate. So planting trees is necessary.
This. This is why I've been subbed to this channel for almost a decade now.
Yeah but it probably won't get as much reach as all the videos bashing Elon Musk for not making progress on the things that he has thrown 0.1% of his time and money at. Hating Elon is so hot right now.
what blowback are you expecting exactly? a slightly more expansive beach front property?
So basically Snowpiercer, or Interstellar. But probably, The Book of Eli
im not sure what to make of the background radiation chernobyl arguments. isnt the danger that you may consume nuclear waste and have is stuck in your body, rather than just recieving a couple more times background radiation? or is it something i am missing?
Nuclear waste stuck in your body? Hello metabolism? Even if nuclear waste would be “stuck” inside you, then they must be stuck in the wildlife surround the site right? It’s clearly stated in the video that research shows there’s no clear cut evidence showing damage to wild life.
Yeah, that's a huge danger. Also, most animals don't live anywhere near as long as humans do. A fox only lives 4 years or so, for example. Not long enough to suffer the effects of even a fairly high level of background radiation.
In some ways, Fukushima was a lot more troubling than Chernobyl. It demonstrated that our nuclear plants are extremely vulnerable to natural disasters, and worse, that spent fuel could get swept up in those disasters. In the case of Fukushima, the spent fuel was stored in cooling pools on top of the reactors. Had those failed, or had engineers not been able to resume pumping fresh cooling water over them, they could have boiled dry and burning plutonium could have contaminated everywhere. It would have been an unmitigated disaster.
Fortunately, nuclear power is so ludicrously expensive I don't think anybody is seriously considering a large scale move toward it. Given how cheap natural gas, solar and wind power have become, there's simply no economic case that can be made for it. The French for example are having tremendous trouble getting their next-generation reactors built and online - they're a decade late and tens of billions over budget. They'd have been far better off financing the construction of solar panels in Spain and Portugal, or even in northern Africa, along with long range transmission cables.
yeah, as those russian soldiers found out. They scratched the surface of the soil to try and dig some trenches and went home in body bags. And do you really think that if nuclear plants gets prolifirated then they won't be built by the lowest bidder?
There is a bright side to the Chernobyl. That is rewilding which has resulted in the surrounding area. If we can abandon areas of the world to return them to the wild accompanied by downsizing our economy, population and energy use. Our sickness is that humans make up by weight 355 of the mass of mammal and our livestock to keep us alive takes another 60% of the mammal mass leaving only a few percent for all other mammals. Poultry including chickens and turkeys and a few others make up by weight 70% the mass of birds. Thus we have started the 6th great extinction since the Cambrian. We have become a plague species. Humans to the world are like cane toads to Australia. Address that and we start to address all other environmental problems. But will not happen. Like lemmings we will follow the path to disaster. No cause for hope.
@@sunspot42 Fuck i hate the engineers designing Fukushima. Why the hell did build a reactor close to a coast facing THE RING OF FIRE, that receives multi earthquakes a year with a risk of tsunamis.... AND FUCKING PLACE THE BACK UP GENERATOR IN A CELLEA WITH NO FLOOD PROTECTION. This accident stained Nuclear power reputation because of terrible design and work culture.
Nice to hear the truth being spoken.
This is nothing but hopium. Very disappointed in TF.
@@bumblebee9337 you obviously didn't have the attention span to watch it all then, if that's your take away..
@@BigDuke6ixxI got tired of climate alarmists when I was around 10 years old and say an article about claims from the top people in the field about how something needs to be done now or the end is nigh. The claims went back decades and, for example, around the '80's NYC was not forced to start massive cannibalism efforts because the world heated too much to grow crops.
@@cp1cupcake all explained in the video. Shame you didn't watch it. In short, your brain won't care about this issue until it's about to kill you. Now, you might make it to the end of your natural life before that happens. You're issue is that you are no good at critical thinking.
@@BigDuke6ixx This was another video dedicated to climate change, while ignoring every other issue tied to ecological overshoot.
The two biggest problems with nuclear power are that invariably 1) the power station will be used to manufacture weapons grade isotopes and 2) somebody will consider their design to be "infallible"
Item 2 is not unique to power stations like Chernobyl, don't forget that Titanic was "unsinkable," right up until the moment it sank.
So yes, there are huge risks involved in nuclear energy, but not because of the physics, or the radiation, but because of the attitudes of humans.
After getting a degree in mining engineering in Sudbury Ontario Canada, I object.
Why?
I'm certain that there will be critics of this idea, but I'm sharing it in the hopes that some of you might offer an improved alternative: Why not utilize green electric power to produce a synthetic hydrocarbon from seawater and biomass? The process is essentially carbon-neutral and could serve as a temporary solution until we have more sustainable options. If you're a follower of this channel, you already understand that "lithium batteries" are not the ultimate solution.
we burn hundreds of millions of tons of corn stover that could easily be converted into methane, and then into syn gas, which can be turned into the black gold hydrocarbons in the fischer-tropsch process. The only problem is that turning this corn stover into gasoline costs about 3x as much as pumping it out of the ground. The problem with nuclear is that it is too expensive to build; the capital investment cost is a really high barrier to overcome.
3:39
Your graph is fake.
In 1880, only the US and a few other places around the world were documented surface temperatures. You can't use this data to say the whole world was this hot or cold.
This graph also doesn't reflect the brutal heat when 10's of millions of people perished around the world in the 1800's and 1900's. In fact this graph shows these years as the coolest in history.
Very disappointed in you Phil.
2:32 What's happening here. xD Are we sacrificing an unborn ninja turtle to the mighty Shredder? Constructing a new Technodrome in the background...
Let's be honest... Public opinion on this issue would be unbelievably different if it weren't for conservative media...
Why do these delusional lefties always want to use censorship and other fascist means to reach their goals? :( "Let's be honest, public opinion on this issue would be different if I were able to censor my opponent" actual fcking antidemocratic brainlets...
Yea no, it isn't just conservatives it's liberals as well. You tell them about this, and they start clutching their plastic 'eco friendly' pearls. It's the main stream media and governments that are causing all this fear spurred on by lobbyists for big corpos.
Stop
Let's be real here, public opinion would be negative if it were actually reasonable to just "trust the science"(which is the most anti-science phrase outside of organized religion)
We live in a world where 9 out 10 experts agree on whatever the hell it is they're paid to believe in and "publish or die" is the mantra of academia, which leads to things like faking human cloning, plastic transistors, and the discovery of new elements. Meanwhile, journalism has no integrity, so they publish whatever
Even when not just making things up, academia is rife with people starting with a conclusion then cherry-picking the data to fit. That's why with climate change, like so many other topics, the *truth* isn't what *either* side of the debate make it out to be. Climate Change is no different.
Since you likely already know the deceptions of the denier side, so I can bring up one from the advocates side: why do all of the temperature charts start with just before the Industrial Revolution at the absolute earliest? Thanks to geology, we know about much earlier climates, so why is that data ignored?
At some point, I finally thought to look into it more instead of just "trusting the scientists without question." Apparently, all of the credible climate change predictions put temperatures by the end of the century to be amounts that are still lower than the highest in the history of human civilization. I speculate the reason for not including that information hurts the attempt to scare people into changing their ways *before* it's truly a problem instead of waiting until it's too late.
The problem with that approach is that once the manipulation is discovered, *all* trust is gone. People who have been lied to about some of it will just assume that the whole thing is made up and go to the other side.
Look up the polling data.
Support for nuclear power is far higher among Reuplicans than Democrats in the US.
Similar trend is true in Europe among conservatives.
When your done looking up thise polls check out "Green" / "Environmental" organisations official statements about Nuclear power.
One of the founding principles of the Green party in Germany was being anti-Nuclear as they were formed in the wake of the Chernobyl disaster.
To my knowledge all of the Green parties in Europe have the same stance in relation to nuclear power.
They have consistently lobbied against it and prevented it from being classified as a "renewable".
Even non-political organisationa like greenpeace have the same anti-nuclear agenda.
What right wing organizations are you even talking about?
That's because that period remains largely unchanged in "unadjusted" data sets.
Everything before that has been adjusted down and everything after has been adjusted up, which creates ~1*C of global temperature increase where there otherwise would be none.
For reference 2020s are actually about as warm as 1930s/1940s were, yet that similarity is impossible to see on those graphs, because of those "unadjustments".
A good capitalist never waste a good crisis.
If a crisis lets authoritarians pass authoritarian laws, they will manufacture crises to pass more authoritarian laws.
Is the rise in surface temperature in the early 1940s from war production, new production methods, the war itself, or a combination of all? Or something else?
I love Nuclear power. I live 15 miles from a poower plant near Raleigh NC. I'm not glowing green and have no fear from its operation. We need several dozen more at least. California needs several of them along with many desalinization plants to become water independant. California wioll never do the right thing and will continue to burden its neighboring states until they are forced to change.
This prove to show that humans are really cousins of apes since we think like and act like them!
I highly recommend playing the PC game called The Fate Of The World. Here is the wiki entry for stratospheric aerosols. I have never beaten the three degree without them.
> Stratospheric Aerosols (2050)
A cheap but highly controversial technique to cool down the planet by deploying aerosols into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight back into space, essentially decreasing the extra radiative forcing of the world.
Deploying stratospheric aerosols is the only way to lower global temperature, and especially important once the Arctic circle starts to melt and release methane. However, regions with green outlooks will lose a lot of support if you deploy the aerosols in them. Eco-Fanatical regions can lose up to 5 hearts of support at a time.
Also, suppressing temperature increases with stratospheric aerosols while atmospheric carbon levels continue to rise may create an imbalance in the global climate which results in decreased rainfall and increased risk of drought throughout many, if not most, regions of the world. This in turn can greatly increase water stress throughout the world; thus widespread stratospheric aerosol deployment should ideally be accompanied by even more widespread anti-drought and water management programs.
the problem with a geoengineered temporary(!) stop to global warming: some people would use it as "reason" to put even more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere instead of using the engineered reduction as a stopgap measure .
So in my opinion we should only use it *after* we have solved the problem and already are on a sustainable CO2 emission level, to battle the decades of long-term effects. If we use it at all.
We can’t fix it because it’s too expensive. But it has nothing to do with “capitalism” or the oligarchical practical structure of capitalism or “trickle down economics” or the predatory oil industry, car industry, etc.
The problem with sulphur dioxide injection is that it will not solve the problem of ocean acidification. If anything, it will make it worse.
When talking about the global food supply and global food security there's also always the insane geopolitical state of the world, And socioeconomical state even of first world countires, that have to be taken into consideration. With those in mind you get an even more serious perspective. We already produce enough food to inhabit earth without hunger as 10 billion or so people. It's the global hegemonies and income inequality that produce hunger in the world we currently live in... not overpopulation... not crop failure...
Solving world hunger right now is merely political. Imagine what would happen in the world, if there was actual shortage. The kind of starvation, war and immigration that would inevitably cause.
Why did this sound like a video that thunderfoot would bust?
The reason why nuclear is out of the question is because its economics, not its dangers. Yes, France at some time got 80% of its electricity from nuclear, but take a look at how is goning for the "white knight of nuclear":
* They built a insane amount of reactors in the 60s essentially to socialize the cost of creating their nuclear arsenal.
* In the 70s, nuclear weaponry peaked over 72k warheads, so military aknownledge that had "enough dakka" and cut funds for breeders and other civilian nuclear facilities, so costs for the civilian market starts to spike.
* After Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, deeper safety requirements increase the operative cost of nuclear power plants in service and ramps up the cost of any further design.
* At the corner of the century nuclear is already deficitary and renewables are cheaper. Most of the nuclear industry is crumbling, including General Electric, Whestinghouse and the frenchies.
* In 2013, a year after Fukushima, third largest French nuclear conglomerate enters in bankrupcy.
* In 2017, Areva (second largest nuclear operator in France) is on the verge of bankrupcy and bought by EDF (the largest nuclear oparator in the world). In 2019 EDF mid term debt exceeds 70.000 million €.
* In summer 2022 French Goverment withdraws EDF from the stock market since is on the verge of bankrupcy: mid term debt is estimated over 100.000 million €; half of the french reactors are halt due a long drougth which made cooling unfeasible and the inspections for maintenance also showcased problems of corrosion and structural problems in some of the designs (including maaterials not aging in the way it was predicted and needing expensive refurbish).
So: nuclear energy IS NOT part of the solutions to climate change. Never was economically viable, and now is less than ever. The cost of a regular power plant exceeds 20k million $. The average building time is 12 to 25 years. The levelized cost is unable to compete vs renewables AND the levelized cost DOESN'T even include the cost of dismantling the facilities and management of wastes after the operative life of the complex expires. Going furher: nuclear isn't even relevant as "base load" since the concept is outdated: what you need to run entirely on renewables is having an oversized capacity (around x2 to 2.5 times your peak demand), diversification (you have times with no sun, no win or no hydro, but you won't have lack of all at all times) and good grid interconnection (so areas with excess of output can deliver to others with excess of demand). Is arleady working very well and the way to which Europe is heading...
Thunderf00t please make a video talking about the creative society's theory on climate change.
This was the coldest german summer in the last 15 years tf is America burning
Always good to remind people of how strong an effort will be needed to tackle this uncontrolled climatic drift, which is definitely the most trending planetary limit these days. However, I think engineering acid rains is maybe not the nicest way to ensure large scale human survivability medium to long term...
I would love to see a video from you on why the always mentioned biodiversity actually is important for us, and not just for the ethical "we are killing the butterflies and that's sad" which is the most frequently mentioned argument.
I'd suggest rigging up all the commercial planes with the stuff that would be needed to be sprayed in the stratosphere in mini rockets and launch them while they fly their routes.
CO2 does NOT cause much temperature increase. Increase temperature causes a rise in CO2! A lot comes from oceanic volcanic eruptions, hence why we also have some ice depletion in selective areas.
Ironically the tv series "chernobyl" convinced me nuclear energy is the best one they basically did everything wrong
As a famous general once said to a famous physicist, Richard Philips feynman, I like the way you use the science to cut through the bullshit.
The Chernobyl series over-dramatized the discussions, but the dangers were real. The melted 1+ tonne of uranium / corium would practically not cool down when surrounded by water, the flow of water would keep it constantly in chain reaction, while the evaporating water would carry radioactive material the equivalent of the mentioned atomic bombs all over Europe. Not the detonating force, but the contamination.
The radiation level is now small in Chernobyl, but that's the area where people are allowed to be.
Reminds me of the quote from Raphael. "Try to cure yourself, shop around, beg, borrow and steal. Exhaust every possibility until none are left...and when hope has been whittled down to the very marrow of despair, that’s when you’ll come knocking on my door."
yo thunderfoot, thtats some Bond villain type solution .Lmao....
i want everyone to check out the historical global temp chart on this site called earth. which has all the climate change data. and look at the temps between 1mil and 100k years ago. theres always huge temp spikes as ice ages end, and those spikes are higher than what the average temp is today, and by looking at the pattern, u can see each spike grows in average temp each time, and right now were in another, all natural, spike.
sadly it wont be until 2050+ until all the legacy co2 will start to expire, which will look like the carbon capture machines are doing something, but the only thing those machines will be doing by 2050, is siphoning 30% of all global wealth. by 2100, 50% of global wealth, except by 2100 we will realize there was nothing to be worried about. are you guys prepared for the biggest scam in history?
I'd like to see a discussion between Thunderf00t and James Lindsay on global warming, with Styxhexenhammer666 moderating.
Isnt this video a big confirmation bias compilation? Lets talk about the disadvantages and uncertainty of that solution. It would be easy to do it there is some in the wikipedia article that you left out
I live in Germany and legally im not allowed to eat the animals i hunt because of radiation left for chernobyl, have to test every single one and 30% are unedible. So in theory yes but the dangers of nuclear power are just so high. It doesnt matter how safe it is because if something happens its such a katastrophy that its undefendable.
That easter egg was so clever!
15:38 dirty air pollution. There, saved you a bunch of time.
Thank you! Talk about burying the lead...
SAI = weather modification net? I used to study high speed particles and I had this thought back then. Nice to see i wasn't crazy.
We’ll probably mess up and do Snowpiercer. This timeline is so cursed.