The Politics of Climate Change | Steve E. Koonin
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 июн 2024
- As world leaders, including PM Scott Morrison, prepare to attend the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, there is mounting pressure for governments to apply a net zero energy policy by 2050.
In this interview, John talks with Steve E. Koonin, a theoretical physicist and policymaker, about the future of energy and the politics of climate change. Steve reflects on how the politicisation of climate science has led to a lack of transparency regarding climate statistics.
From 2009 to 2011, Steve served as the Under Secretary for Science, Department of Energy in the Obama Administration. Steve now works as director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University and as a professor in the Department of Civil and Urban Engineering at New York University’s Tandon School of Engineering.
Steve is also the author of two books. His recently published book, Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters, was a Wall Street Journal Bestseller.
#ClimateChange #Environment #IPCC #RenewableEnergy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
00:00 Introduction
3:35 Are humans to blame for climate change?
11:52 The Problem with Climate Modelling
21:29 The Costs & Benefits of Climate Policy
27:47 The Future of Renewable Energy
34:19 Adaptation and Climate Change
42:49 Net Zero: Is it Possible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversations feature John Anderson, former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, interviewing the world's foremost thought leaders about today's pressing social, cultural and political issues.
John believes proper, robust dialogue is necessary if we are to maintain our social strength and cohesion. As he puts it; "You cannot get good public policy out of a bad public debate."
If you value this discussion and want to see more like it, make sure you subscribe to the channel here: / @johnandersonconversat...
And stay right up to date with all the conversations by subscribing to the newsletter here: johnanderson.net.au/contact/
Follow John on Twitter: / johnandersonao
Follow John on Facebook: / johnandersonao
Follow John on LinkedIn: / john-anderson-ao
Support the channel: johnanderson.net.au/support/
Website: johnanderson.net.au/
Podcast: johnanderson.net.au/podcasts/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Koonin
www.unsettledsciencebook.com
My goodness, John Anderson, you are an excellent interviewer, and Stephen Koonin, you are not alone in speaking the truth, but your voice is greatly welcomed.
I'm an engineer who keeps asking politicians for the detailed, fully costed and technically sound plan, sector by sector. Stunned silence. Pardon me for being a cynic.
There's an LA-based botanist on RUclips who sends complete professional evaluations to the town hall every year regarding their repeatedly failing (and expensive) efforts to add some much needed greenery to the landscape, including lists of plants that have a chance to survive in their climate. Silence is the only answer. Some university has even sent them an official letter with an offer of conducting a pro bono project and it too fell on deaf ears.
The peak of madness is how a guy called Tony Santoro illegally plants native Californian flora in dirt patches and oversees their growth in many parts of the city just to see it all destroyed and replaced by townhall workers. Replacements are of course imports from a lot colder and more humid states and Europe, which inevitably leads to them dying within a few months. And those planting projects aren't cheap, in my hometown (in Poland) 400 trees along a road cost 100k USD (with avg physical labourer's wage sitting around 5/h). Madness.
I am also an engineer. Yes it’s very frustrating to watch and listen to politicians spew garbage on this , not to mention other issues . They won’t cost out the plan properly because they can’t . But they are likely funded by Big Tech maybe the CCP , George Soros and have MSM to help spread this nonsense . Until this matter can be adequately debated by scientists and engineers , the activists , with their deep pockets , will steer us down this path which is destined to fail on a number of fronts .
@@johnnyraven4217Unfortunately it isn't a big conspiracy in that there are some secret organizations doing this and funding them. Its more a smart PR way to plunder the taxpayer and ever increase regulation and political power of the state that is the main success model of their ecolocialist ideology.
Hi I can remember, that at the end of ww2 we had success cold winters. In 1963 London was frozen, and Spain was covered by snow. Which doesn't happened now. But may happen again soon. Who decides what an expert is. Or are we all just guessing what happens next.
@@johnburnett3942 Watch Tony Heller at Realclimate science . Also Friends of science, Stephen Koonin, William Happer, Richard Lindzen and others . They don’t have all the answers but they have some degree of credibility. I think they could take on the likes of Michael Mann quite successfully.
Steve Koonin's book 'unsettled' is vital reading for anyone interested on what's happening in climate science. Thanks for doing this interview John. It needs wide circulation as redress to the climate catastrophe message, that's propagated by the media and a broad range of politicians on a daily basis, engendering fear and forcing hasty and poorly fitting energy policy commitments
This is a really important conversation. Thank you both.
Questioning the climate change theories is absolutely not denying it. We recognize changes through reporting of temperature tracking changes or yearly rainfall accounts. What we are doing by questioning claims is challenging all the spin to pressure us to buy theories that may, or more likely be influencing for a purpose that doesn't comport with the science. Thank you both for speaking truth to power.
An increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will increase global mean temperature by about 1 degree C. This is settled knowledge based on physics.
Any additional supposed temperature increase comes, as per the IPCC climate models, from positive feedbacks, mainly water vapor and cloud feedbacks.
But there are also massive negative cloud feedbacks !
The pseudo scientific and reductionist focus on CO2 emissions as the only driving factor of the global climate impedes the IPCC scientists to see the following:
Nature works mainly via theses negative feedbacks. The negative feedbacks or climate regulators work obviously very well since 10 000 years in our interglacial period. Therefore we have a remarkable stable climate as never before in earth history.
Since 1750 humanity has increasingly impaired the regulatory and cooling function of the water cycles and warmed this way the local, regional and also the global climate.
What happens if you extract every year worldwide 1% of the amount of water of the water cycles? After 100 years you have huge amount of desertified areas and an increase of extreme weather events.
This destruction of the water cycles goes on completely independent of the increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
By the way. Every additional CO2 part per million in the atmosphere has a decreasing effect on global warming since the CO2 absorption bands in the 15 micron bandwith are since longtime very much saturated.
@@matthauslill4577 Very well said.
In regards to clouds I have seen a decline in clouds where I live over the last 50 years. Is there any correlation between the loss of clouds and the weakening of the earths magnetic field.
You could look through ‘the science’, but you could also just check to see if the alarmism is even a problem when put up against huge technological ability that exists today and will exist in the future.
Maximising human ingenuity is actually the solution to all problems. Than means individual freedoms and property rights and the most reliable form of energy to the masses regardless of CO2.
Proportionality is most important and alarmism has none
i bet if climate money was banned the emergency ends....all the actors go home....
When I have told people about the severe drought in the 1930's, the reaction I get is eyes glazing over. I then tell them that the world pop. was about 2billion people. One quarter of today 2021.
Terrific discussion. I've got a chemical engineering background and have known all along that we do not have scalable battery technology required for intermittent power sources like wind and solar to work. Huge problem we have is politicians and opinion makers have little to no real understanding of the technology and science required for our 21st century standard of living.
Hi Christopher...Excellent post....Dr Koonin makes total sense but what he says is blasphemy to the CO2 catastrophists. To build Wind and Solar energy sources for developing countries is lunacy for a whole host of reasons. What then would the back-up power source be? Maybe riding a bike with a generator on it?
"There was a somewhat cynical journalist in the early 20th century named HL Mencken"
SOMEWHAT cynical?... You have a gift for understatement, Dr. Koonin.
Hope brings innovation. Bjorn Lomborg contends that is the way of the future. I totally agree with all three of you!!!
Another excellent programme/interview. Our state broadcaster in the UK could learn a lot.
Your broadcaster in the UK is likely aware that Koonin has been widely debunked.
John, thank you for a wonderful conversation. The 'silencing' of highly qualified people is extremely disturbing. I don't accept a single word of the climate catastrophists. This is a technocratic power grab which supine politicians and self-interested businesses are happy to jump aboard. It would be wonderful to hear you talk to Professor William Happer of Princeton, who is firmly in the sceptics camp..
I was told in 2000, that world would end in fifteen years...I bought it all. I dropped out of highschool, even at the top of my AP class. The hysteria has real world consequences and it's nothing much more than an attempt to nationalize industries and seize power.
I bought it also. After my retirement I began to study by myself the climate sience and come to the following conclusion:
An increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will increase global mean temperature by about 1 degree C. This is settled knowledge based on physics.
Any additional supposed temperature increase comes, as per the IPCC climate models, from positive feedbacks, mainly water vapor and cloud feedbacks.
But there are also massive negative cloud feedbacks !
The pseudo scientific and reductionist focus on CO2 emissions as the only driving factor of the global climate impedes the IPCC scientists to see the following:
Nature works mainly via theses negative feedbacks. The negative feedbacks or climate regulators work obviously very well since 10 000 years in our interglacial period. Therefore we have a remarkable stable climate as never before in earth history.
Since 1750 humanity has increasingly impaired the regulatory and cooling function of the water cycles and warmed this way the local, regional and also the global climate.
What happens if you extract every year worldwide 1% of the amount of water of the water cycles? After 100 years you have huge amount of desertified areas and an increase of extreme weather events.
This destruction of the water cycles goes on completely independent of the increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
By the way. Every additional CO2 part per million ((ppm) in the atmosphere has a decreasing effect on global warming since the CO2 absorption bands in the 15 micron bandwith are since longtime very much saturated. A doubling of CO2 concentration from now 415 ppm to 830 ppm would therefore have an almost unmeasurable effect.
@@matthauslill4577 excellent explanation
@@matthauslill4577 yep funny how the climate alarmists forget to mention co2' logarithmic relationship with temperature.
Funny how the alarmists never mention that satellites have been reporting a greening of the earth because of slightly higher co2 levels.
You would think that the "greens" would be shouting this from the rooftops, but not a peep!
Guess that doesn't fit in with their doomsday cult mindset!
If you dropped out of high school because of what AOC said, you need to seriously examine why you really dropped out of school. No scientists were saying the world was going to end.
You dropped out of school because why? You're full of it, bud.
John I saw your Jordan Peterson interview, and now I'm subscribed to your channel, excellent content my fellow Australian, keep up the great work.
Proud to be Australian even with what's happening in this country at the moment
Finally, the truth is exposed. I have read Steven Koonin's book and he is now my mentor with respect to climate. Thank you John Anderson...as the comments will reflect, you are an excellent interviewer and educator of the public in general.
Very interesting discussion. I just ordered a copy of Steve Koonin's book.
Why is everyone so scared of being termed a climate denier?
I'm proud of the fact that after at least 10 years of enquiry into the potential problem, I could happily conclude that any possible problem could mostly be explained by systems that covered hundreds or thousands of years and that to deny the alarmism was the only sensible course.
For the same reason as being called a "racist", "anti-vaxxer", "homophobe", "bigot", etc..
These are leftist tactics that work.
What "systems"? I think you've just made that up. I call BS. The planet is warming rapidly because of Anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
The term "climate denier" makes no sense anyway.
Because some environmentalists' tactics work by provoking deniers into showing what horrible people they are. No one knew it would work as well as it has done, because it's hard for decent people to understand how horrible deniers are. Deniers have abused, witch hunted, and lied so much it's like the boy who cried wolf. Fortunately genuine sceptics are very rare with climate science, most pretend sceptics are really deniers, so the conversation isn't losing much when everyone who's fact checked has learned from hundreds of examples that deniers speak nothing but lies.
You are wrong. 100% of scientists agree that Climate Change is happening and man made. The science and physics re obvious. This guy worked for BP, his arguments are all fallacies to be believed by ignorant uninformed idiots.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
Your interviews are wonderful and help to shed light on the world and human nature. Thank you sir.
Excellent discussion. Would love to hear Koonin's reaction to William Happer's assertions regarding the role of CO2 as an atmospheric component.
He thanks Will Happer in his acknowledgements in the book ... so he's definitely in touch.
Love the channel and content. If Australia is serious about climate change then nuclear is the only option.
Also just be aware every time you bang the table it reverberates into the microphones.
This video deserves many millions of views. Please, everyone, share it as widely as you can.
I read Koonin’s book, “Unsettled “. Excellent discussion. Thanks again Mr.Anderson.
Thanks for listening!
Just watched this again John - Looking for vids to show my Dem voting friends here MA USA, a Democratic bastion as you know.
So I'll just say thanks again for your calm demeanor, pertinent questions drawing out the positions of Mr Koonin, and choice of he and his book as one of your subjects.
I'm happy to say I have some younger friends 30 - 50's who are beginning to listen. Gives me hope in my 70's that they are opening up to hearing the other views, not only on climate, but foreign policy, borders, national security, etc.
Merry Christmas to you and yours - Luv the Aussies.
Thank you for being true to the oath of what a scientist should be attesting to.
The Host and Guest presentations by John A are very much appreciated, particularly when they address vitally important topics like the Climate Change agenda and the need for clear Scientific input by those qualified to do so. Let's hope our Nations' leaders take note of this presentation by the ably qualified Dr Koonin. At 25min:10secs in, we hear a fascinating recollection by Dr Koonin, “There was a very astute and somewhat cynical journalist in the early 20th century, H I Mencken, who said … that ‘the purpose of practical politics is to keep the public alarmed by a series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary, so that the populace will be clamouring to be led to safety’.” Let's hope we in our time think through the Climate Change matter carefully particularly as it impacts jobs, stable energy sources, and future economic viability.
Your discussions are so interesting!
Thank you for enlightening us!
We seek the truth!
Great interview. Hearing the issue discussed with the application of a little common sense is refreshing.
Great installment, John Anderson. Big thanks to you and Steve Koonin.
This is a helluva time for so much personal enlightenment to be dawning on me. I always thought I had a grip on how to live life, as difficult as it can be. Now, rapid, popular revelations are shredding my previous, quaint understandings of the modern narrative. I was complacent, now I have to put everything in a new, aggressive light of seeking the signal amid the noise.
Insufficiently characterized as Wokeism, the stinking global and local projects of BS are mounting a destructive campaign against the personal and collective competence of our awesome human existence.
Hysteria is so seductive. It really is not helping.
I wish we had more people like you here in the States brother. Stay safe
Fantastic talk John! Really getting a true perspective on this subject. Getting your videos out to Universities would be so beneficial for debate - not sure how you go about this task but I'd say its worth doing to get some of your videos to the younger people. Keep up the great work.
The IPCC, about as trustworthy as the WHO and the UN.
It has Climate Change in the name, hardly going to be science led when the outcome is already decided.
The IPCC is a communist propaganda organisation, run by the communist run "united nations". Some 8 of the "UN" Dept. Managers now are Chinese and members of the communist Party of China.
The IPCC's written Charter states that the IPCC is to accept and report on submitted evidence of "human caused climate change" ONLY. The IPCC CAN and DOES reject evidence of NATURAL CAUSED climate change as Professor Fred Goldberg, Sweden attests in his RUclips video. He was amazed to find the IPCC people at the time did not know of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which occurs every 67 years and carries cold CO2 laden waters from the north pole to the equator and some of the World's ocean's 39,000 mega tonnes of CO2 comes out of solution as the water warms. Mankind releases 6.3 mega tonnes of CO2 p.a.
Don't forget NASA and the EU! David Cameron, Chris Huhne, Greg Barker, the Coalition's energy spokesman in the Lords Lord Marland, and all but five members of the last parliament. And also by the BBC, the Prince of Wales, almost every national newspaper, the European Union, the Royal Society, the New York Times, CNBC, the Obama administration, the Australian and New Zealand governments, your children's schools, our major universities, our minor universities, the University of East Anglia, your local council and 99.9% of the world's scientists!
That makes them trustworthy then.
Over 88000 climate science papers published since 2012 agree that human activity is driving climate change, according to a new Cornell Univertsity survey. So do you think all of those studies are bogus as well? Do you have an equal measure of distrust for Steve Koonin, who formerly worked for the oil industry?
A Wonderful conversation! I can’t wait to read the book! Thank you!
This is one of the best, if not the best, conversation on the climate change topic that have been privileged to watch this year. This was time well spent - and yes, I just ordered the book.
Thanks Pierre! So glad you enjoyed it!
Excellent interview and very important discussion.
Improvements in communication, then proliferation of cameras, then the internet and now the phone have increased the reporting and coverage of "weather events" dramatically. So hearing and seeing more "weather events" does not mean there are more.
That sounds like a form of *frequency illusion,* also known as the *Baader-Meinhof phenomenon* or *frequency bias,* is a cognitive bias in which, after noticing something for the first time, there is a tendency to notice it more often, leading someone to believe that it has a high frequency (a form of selection bias).
@@DanielSMatthews : It is common sense reasoning.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 Indeed!
Intense rainfall events are increasing because of Climate Change. Hurricanes are becoming stronger because of Climate Change.
@@richardlong7291 : And your word for that is undisputed ! Sorry, it is not just disputed but "the science" says Hurricanes are becoming weaker not stronger. I suggest you check a reliable "science" site :-)
Outstanding discussion.
Thank you!
Thanks John! That was a brilliant interview. I am dreaded the outcome of the COP26. I fear much more of the same destructive climate change measures. Will Steve Koonin attend?
Very interesting and informative.
I think that as a layman you should investigate 2 sides of an argument. One might summise conflicting views as opportunities to ask questions. If one side of the debate, the mainstream view cannot adequately provide answers to basic scientific questions a layman might ask red flags should go off. It was interesting to hear the mention of the triad, the full IPCC report, the summary (which ive read) and the policy report for governments the latter being just about the only one discussed by politicians and the media.
All in all the book Steve wrote provides a healthy counter balance..
The issue with computer simulation is computer speed. A clouds guy said in a talk couple years ago that he's using "super parameterization" in which 100 or something little grid boxes are held within 1 regular size grid box for only a small sample of the grid boxes (so's it's quick on the computer). Of course the tiny boxes reproduce the clouds much better the the 90 x 90 km by 500 m tall big boxes (like a cheap supermarket) so somehow they use an algorithm to adjust the cloud results from the 15-minute time slice (the step forward) of the coarser, bigger, less accurate boxes all around the little, detailed, boxes using information from the special "detail box" set in the middle of the big boxes. Apparently, this lets them improve the accuracy in the surrounding big boxes without needing say 100 times as much computer time by having all the grid boxes be the tiny size.
Good work John Anderson!
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential.”
IPCC report 2018
very refreshing truths spoken here
I believe that we will have to go with nuclear power. Love it or hate it. Renewable energy will not be able to fill the gap. So until we have something better. Its got to be nuclear.
Yep, ultimately the only answer for power.
Liquid salt thorium
I did my thesis on energy, back in 2009.
It is amusing that back then, I was the only person anywhere who realised that nuclear was the future, and I was ridiculed by everyone.
The internet has done a great deal to educate people. Back then, people believed that thousands had died in Three-Mile-Island, millions in Chernobyl, and that people who lived near nuclear power stations all grew two heads.
@@tonycatman You were not alone.
@@tonycatman I agree with you
ATT JOHN: Would you think about covering China's influence on Australian agriculture and how a sudden severe decline in China trade would affect agriculture.
Another subject might be how Australia has helped China's agriculture over the last 5 decades.
Good thinking !
Thanks John, I suspected as much. But as JBP says 'suspect incompetence before malevolence' in Trudeau's case it is probably both!
Hi John. Really appreciate you balanced programs. Always thoughtful.
On climate change, would be interested if you could have a look at Tony Seba (videos on YT) who talks about and demonstrates the achievability of solar and wind power for the US. He comments on the misleading basis of many coal, gas powered electricity generation. Also, in your chat with Mr Koonin the mention of the cost and questionable production of battery storage. On this, we know that Tesla is building megapacks for battery storage and is demonstating how this can be used in South Australia, also feeding in solar power to the grid. One of the technologies developed by Tesla is AutoBidder a system for selling/buying electricty to/from solar generated homes etc to the grid and to other buyers. Thus, a discussion with Elon Musk on his perspective on solar power - along with his huge impact on electric vehicles which are going to kill of GM, Ford, Merc, Toyota and others it seems. Two great future guests which you may be able to have accept invites. Cheers and thanks. Mike
Adelaide relies on businesses using their back up diesel generators running to help power the grid, it wasn’t the battery.
The pricing for various sources of electricity on an energy grid needs much improving. Electric companies were paying people when their solar panels added excess power into the grid. It’s largely not done now. Using the grid as a battery turns out is really inefficient for the power companies and causes more CO2 emissions because of how the grid has to compensate and the types of gas plants used. Though to be fair, I haven’t double checked that.
Great discussion. Very clear speakers.
Most informative!
Last thought to address your title "Net zero : Is it possible? I might ask: Is it desirable? And at what cost?
Great man, great interview, to me nuance is a value in itself. Processing it all on daily basis is draining, but I'd rather be tired, unwashed and earn half as much as I could but have a proper picture than be an ignorant millionaire
PS Oh no, 23:10 has compound percents, I'm having high school flashbacks :v
As a retired power engineer, I have enjoyed the pragmatic analysis. Electrical system stability requires a large proportion of generation to be generation to be synchronous which wind and solar are not. Thus wind and solar must be relegated to bonus help at times and not mainstream. The only storage system of scale is pumped storage and it depends on local factors. A D
"You have to make assumptions about what's happening in each of those boxes [in your computer model]" -- Yes. And each of those boxes is known as a "convection cell".
You make assumptions about what's happening in there, because it is formally impossible (yes, I use the term IMPOSSIBLE advisedly) to make an accurate computer model of a convection cell.
This is because of sensitivity to small changes in initial conditions -- and you get new initial conditions (including inevitable roundoff errors) every ten minutes or so, for centuries. The term for it is "Chaos", and it was very much in the public consciousness back in the 1990s (when Jurassic Park came out, for those of us old enough to remember that).
Yes, the climate is a non-linear system. It's interesting, however, that it's nevertheless fairly stable the great majority of the time. It has built-in stabilizers and dampeners, like the ocean, which can absorb far more heat than the atmosphere.
I am now curious to read these policy guiding documents for my self
An atom of truth is worth more than a mountain of gold.
Donald Trump will soon be showing you the Truth. It's time to buy yourself into a bit of that gold. MAGA!
I've got the book (well the kindle version) and it's very good. Another great book that I purchased along with 'Unsettled' is 'The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels', written by Alex Epstein. And if I may suggest another is 'Apocalypse Never', written by Michael Shellenberger (who was also a concerned Climate Activist but the truth was too glaring for him to continue. We definitely need more Koonin's and Shellenberger's and Epstein's.
Unsettled was an excellent book. I`d also recommend Inconvenient Facts, the science al gore does`nt want you to know about, by Gregory wrightstone.
Computing 101: extrapolating should be done with great caution or better yet, not at all. And what are they doing with the models? Extrapolating 100 years, the fools! Stupidity.
They don't have much choice but to attempt long range projection. The energy system we've built can only be altered very slowly. We need as much advance notice of problems as possible.
Great interview - the word is finally getting out on the BS associated with "criminate change."
I can't make out a word that Professor Koonin uses here. At 23:44, he states: "It's right there in the reports. Not '***** science but the consensus science..." It sounds like 'seeve' which doesn't mean anything. Any help would be gratefully received.
Aside from my question, great discussion. Really enjoyed it.
He says, 'It's not Steve science, but consensus science.' So I would assume that he is referring to himself and just his scientific opinion, such as what he states in his book.
Nils Axle Morner an expert in sea level rises has stated that the sea is barely rising if any.
Also the IPCC report has its own summery that states worse effects than their data indicates.
Great chat. Stephen reminds me a bit like Mini-Me.
Great information however I think we are still missing some of your hand thumps on the table. John please put microphones on your hands so we don't miss any of the thumps
Models, for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.
All models are wrong. Some are useful.
Climate models are quite accurate. Hausfather - Climate models - Geophysical Research Letters.
It appears sea level has risen 120 meters since the Younger
Dryas, which was approximately 12k years ago. That’s about 10mm per year. Over the last 30 years, reported sea level rise is about 93mm. That’s about 3.1mm per year. Predicted rise by 2100 is 600-1000mm. Given the terrible track record of their models and predictions, a more realistic prediction is in the 200mm ballpark, which is 2.5mm per year rise. And if you take the models at face value, it’s between 7.5mm to 12.5mm which is awfully close to the average over the last 12k years.
What does this mean one way or the other? Probably not much. It’s interesting though. Since the the planet is going to catch fire and explode any day now, it’s probably too late after all, you’d think the data would easily paint a clearer picture and would so easily withstand the criticism, that name calling and censorship wouldn’t be necessary.
Most Americans don't realize that October in their hemisphere is April in Australia. Bask in the new-day sun my other-hemispheric brethren. I wish I were with you because we all love our Sun.
Oh dear, you think most Americans don't know that?
I see we need more intersectionality in K-12.
Please take to Michael Schellenberger too!
What wasn't discussed at all is Nature's ability to react to changes in environment such as the significant increase in the growth rate of plants along with their ability to tolerate other stresses such as drought, along with their massive absorption of CO2. Another subject is the extraterrestrial climate forces both solar and other which are likely the drivers of major climate changes in past and for sure will be in the future.
Anyone know what Mr Anderson farms and how big his farm is?
When economists calculate gdp the equation does not include energy or cost of energy. A harvester without diesel is a lawn ornament
a harvester without portable ENERGY is a lawn ornament
I don't know how they equate that the planets temperature is rising. If you look at the Antarctic, it is reported that they had the lowest temperatures in 2019 of 22.7 degrees lower.
The actual reason for reduction of fossil fuel use should be set out clearly and unassailabley.
Fossil fuels are a finite resource.
The least expensive these have already been consumed.
The energy used to procure new fuel supply continually goes up in relation to the excess produced.
This occurs as an inverse relation.
So, maybe, we should look to replacing them with some alternatives in a timely fashion.
Most anyone can understand and support such simple truths, and then there would be no real need to speculate on climate change in this context, we will adapt to whatever change occurs.
People are all intelligent, to engage them in achieving a goal they must be treated as such.
The climate change rhetoric is a sideshow that begs termination as it creates adversarial relations between those who need to cooperate.
The models are almost as legit as Michael E Mann's Nobel prize.
After a deep dive into measuring global temperature, there seems to be a tiny fraction of the necessary data. In the future, satellite data may provide a good measurement, but accurate temperature data is just one of many metrics that would be necessary for even a chance at predicting weather a month out, let alone climate decades out. My research also leads me to believe that the increasing CO2 will have a clear net benefit to the whole planet to at least 2000 ppm, which is probably more than possible even if we tried in the next 100 years.
You clearly did not include any peer reviewed paper in you research.... 2000 ppm would destroy every current eco system in the world.... Including the ocean... If anything remains after the absurd level of ocean acidification caused by this... Of course all those ecosystem will recover in time... Probably a few hundred thousand years.... Humans? Who knows
@@Dundoril Lol! You exhale CO2 at 38,000 ppm. All life evolved at much higher CO2 levels. The ocean is basic, there is no way it can become 'acidic', and in any case corals evolved at much higher CO2 levels, the reef's calcium carbonate is literally CO2 combined with Calcium. CO2 is good, it is at the center of all biological energy transfer reactions essential to all life.
@@Dundoril the warming affect from 2000ppm is not really any different from the warming affect at 1000ppm. That’s because the narrow band of energy frequency that CO2 absorbs is largely fully absorbed around 250ppm.
If you’re going to suggest feedback loops, well explain why that doesn’t happen in the past.
@@bennyl7224 you did not respond to my comment at all. Did you realize that you were wrong about that or do you intent on argue against them?
@@Dundoril no. I’m not wrong
Good discussion but interrupted by far too many adverts.
We grow plenty of food to feed the world. What is the quality of said food nutritionally, how does that effect health in the western world?
Hydrogen is missing from the conversation, hydroelectric could be used for the conversion, Nuclear for the desalination; both being secondary industries. . . Hydrogen for off hour electric generation.
9:45 through 11:07 "The truth is out there ... There is opportunity for mischief [along the chain of climate change narrative]." Hold that observation foremost.
Edit: timestamps
I wish the former President John Anderson would interview someone like U.S. Representative Jim Jordan from Ohio. We could not only "change the world", we could "bring back the world" to sanity.
John would you do us all a favour and interview Prof William Happer.
Happer is not a Climatologist. Why?
@@richardlong7291 there's no such thing as a climatologist, the subject matter is too complex. Happer is a physicist specialising in carbon and knows more about the CO2 molecule than any of the so called scientists that scream doom and gloom. He's really worth listening to but I think John Anderson's insights and questioning would make it a very interesting interview.
@@richardlong7291 Happer wrote the models.. probably a great reason why..
Nobody has mentioned the influence of the Sun ❓
Many people have but they get shut down and labelled as deniers.
In fact, the influence of the Sun is mentioned with tiresome regularity.
Nothing can be done about it. So let's concentrate on the things that can be addressed.
@@tonycatman obviously, but not in the vid.
The Limits to Growth thesis isn't wrong as you say: ‘because it predicted starvation but we have enough food for 10bn'. It was Paul Ehrlich in 1968 with his book Population Bomb who predicted starvation in the 1970s. And he was the one who lost the bet in 1980 with Julian Simon - who authored the book The Ultimate Resource (being human ingenuity). Ehrlich isn't associated with the LTG. Instead, LTG in 1972 had a 100 year timeframe in which human population would rise then crash. Dr Graeme Turner (former CSIRO) has written in 2008 and 2014* about the history of the debate about LTG and also collates data from the last 30 years showing how the thesis is still on track.
* the 2014 paper title - Is Global Collapse Imminent?
In the 1950s communists were printing books, that the working class of western countries, would not rise up and overthrow the means of production, because access to affordable electricity was making their lives too comfortable. Even then they sought global reasons to deny people access to affordable electricity.
Model's and Data.
Being a layman I never here about the Earth,s Iron core the molten magma layer or Plate Tectonics.
The variation of Axis
The Electric Magnetosphere.
Only the sun's solar cycle is mentioned.
Years ago scientists were talking about the
Ice age cycle and being overdue on entering it.
👍🇬🇧
Totally agree, U.S. claims used by the EPA to justify the new regulations are not based on scientific facts but rather political opinions and speculative models that have consistently proven to be wrong
Is it that climate change has a fever and spreads like a virus or does global warning have a virus and spreads like a fever … either way most people are intoxicated on being scared shitless and wanting reassurance to feel safe with this topic. I really enjoyed this discussion. Great interview!!
That is half a bucket of BS rather than a full one but it still stinks! Recent measurements have confirmed that quantum thermal tunneling can occur at the macroscale and this completely blows away the radiative forcing hypothesis. It also means that all of the processes involved in thermodynamics are linked in that they all contribute to heat transport in the atmosphere with there being no form of thermal diode effect (AKA greenhouse effect) that can "trap" heat, it isn't actually possible. The Earth's surface is mostly ocean and the convective cells over the oceans are a massive adaptive heat engine and transport system, reaching right up into the top of the atmosphere above 90% of it by mass, where heat is radiated off into space, and they also act as light reflectors too being far brighter than the low albedo deep oceans. The entire climate fuss is a complete fraud, so perhaps we should be asking what the motives of these people really are. The UN knows human produced CO2 is not the primary contributor to global CO2 level rise because the economic slowdown in 2020 due to covid did not show a proportional drop in the rate of CO2 rise as measured in the "official" dataset, the Keeling Curve. So there you have it neither the science nor the most recent data supports any of this netzero nonsense and the only reason we need to move away from fossil carbon fuels is that we will eventually run out of them, but not for a very long time, centuries. Also for the record, even the projected temperature rises are not applicable to Australia and mostly impact on the arctic, and while I can understand why certain people don't want Russian agriculture growing significantly I see no reason to cripple the Australian economy on some fraudulent and impossible plan to stop it happening. Speaking of economics, I have calculated that every living person in Australia has about a $30,000 stake in the potential mining royalties from existing winnable reserves, so agreeing to netzero is the equivalent of going around and mugging each and everyone of us of that amount of money. Look at who is pushing the climate fraud, mostly nations who will profit from the IP on new technologies or from their manufacture. I challenge them to all agree to providing the world with these technologies at cost and with no limits such as patents on who can use them. They will not do that and so their true motives are betrayed. I suggest that the entire scam should be rejected outright, however if you need to be pragmatic and deal with coercion from those self interested players then I suggest that we implement enough nuclear power in remote parts of Australia's coast to be able to offset our entire economy via exported hydrogen to other nations, without otherwise disrupting our way of life, and if you can't work out how to do that profitably then don't lump the cost of it on the taxpayer on top of stealing $30,000 off each of them!
Thanks 😊
@@paperclip612 My pleasure, somebody had to say it because none of the usual pundits seem to have the knowledge and the courage to call out the climate fraudsters. I have five kids and this future that certain individuals are engineering is going to impact on them, therefore I have a strong interest in ensuring that drastic proposals be supported by an extraordinary level of evidence and rational argument, which sadly seems to be lacking in much of the public discourse.
@@Peter-yt7xm What part of what I have written is not relevant? Do you have an issue with the points I have made? Perhaps you did not understand the metaphor I used?
@@Peter-yt7xm You didn't answer my questions either. What part if the interview do you want me to specifically discuss? I thought I made myself clear enough.
@@johnsalamito6212 Yes H2O is fundamentally different as it naturally exists on Earth in three different phases, unlike CO2.
Great interview. But lm bothered when nuclear is deemed emissions free. True, nuclear is the cleanest power with no poluting emmissions. BUT, there is a radioactive waste created that the industry and scientists have not found a good solution to be rid of it. Currently one country has built a deep geological repository with no sure long term prognosiss of radiation being permantly contained. In the mean time nuclear waste has been steadily stockpiling since the 1960s.
#CreativeSociety #GlobalCrisis🌍📢🌏📣🌎🕊🙏🔝🔝
Thank you very much!
Luar
Carbon Dioxide and Methane are both green houses, granted. But the one green house gas that that few people like to consider but which has a greater influence of the atmosphere because the proportion of it in atmospheric gases is water vapor. Carbon is in a closed cycle. Earth does not produce any more than what it already has unless some arrives on an extra terrestrial body such as a meteorite. Most people forget to mention that carbon is the building block of all life and that if we had less there would be fewer photosynthesizing organisms such as plants and algae, to produce oxygen for us. What does zero mean anyway? No more farming, no more grazing animals, no more manufacturing of goods? No more breathing? Carbon is not the problem with the enhanced green house effect anyway, it is relative amounts of solar irradiance and its variability that we need to be concerned about. The Earth has been in a Carbon drought since the end of the Carboniferous period as it happens. I am so sick of all the Marxists who have hijacked this debate, they don't even accept that should rational discourse.
Marxists is the point, James Delingpole's book Watermelons is excellent on the subject. You don't have to think about things for long before the inconsistencies are overwhelming. How come todays cattle destroy the planet, whilst pre-industrial, indeed even prehistoric cattle did not ?
You know that while "co2 is good for plants and oxygen" Talking point has multiple flaws... But the most obvious one: O2 levels in the atmosphere are falling... Because burning stuff needs oxygen....
Excellent men - the BBC won't like them though.
Net Zero CO2 is unachievable! More CO2 in the atmosphere is helpful for the whole of plant life without fail! That is why farmers are covering their fields with Poly-tunnels so they can increase the CO2 levels to three + times the current level purely to achieve better and healthier crops!
The climate Alarmists mix up CO2 emissions and pollution! If they concentrated on pollution reduction, be that smoke from coal or plastics recycling, etc.!
Tunnel vision is what you suffer from. There is a natural world and it can't adapt as fast as the human world.
What? You do understand the difference between highly controlled environments like farms and greenhouses and the world don't you?
We have always been at 'net zero CO2'. Man's influence on the Carbon cycle is zero.
@@thegeneralist7527 Not really, but the Left's influence on the economic cycle is about to become absolute in nature, partly thanks to fools who deny physical reality and have no political intuitions, much less political knowledge.
@@kreek22 I have started to study the data on the 'rise' in CO2. There is evidence that atmospheric CO2 has fluctuated between 400+ ppm in 1820 and 200- ppm 1920. I also question the persistence of CO2 and the merit of relying on a single measurement in Mauna Loa. It is junk science in my mind. The deeper I look the more flaws I find.
Koonin is substantively incorrect at 7:23 to 7:27 because although scientists keep putting a linear trend through it on no basis at all, it's obvious from the plot that 2012-2022 is at 4.1 mm / year and not the 3.6 mm / year that scientists keep putting through several decades. The 10 years is a trend for ice sheets (not for other things) because ice sheets are vast semi-solids and sluggish so they don't get fast natural fluctuations like air & ocean so you can bet your bippy that that increasing loss from ice sheets isn't going to peak and lower as a natural fluctuation with the ocean now being out of balance by 1.14 w / m**2 when averaged over ocean rather than the standard global-averaged metric. Koonin's plot for his "80 years ago" is a paper I'll look at later that has 3.5 mm / year as its biggest at 1940-~1945 or some time range like that.
“You can find this in reputable media, such as the New York Times.” Sure.
I do believe he was being facetious... it's his "strange, academic, sense of humour"
I thought that too.
As was I.
Why are my comments being removed?
Please do not anyone tell the young ones how many nuclear weapons are ready to launch anytime!!! They will not be able to deal with it!!
reduce, reuse, recycle!
The ONLY reason why 'renewables' are 'cheaper' is because they are the most heavily subsidised!
It is utterly depressing to see the mass delusion of the alarming nature of climate change. I only see benefit of whatever increases we have in CO2 because it is beneficial to crops and vegetation and many other benefits. Temperature is also better if that goes up as it's doing naturally anyway (but not for the last several years).
We have to be realistic and if we are wanting electric cars and trucks and trains and everything else we need Nuclear full stop. It is the cleanest of all. Gen 4 SMRs are so safe and so easy to install at a massively lower cost we need to get these in the grid and we wouldn't see them, they're buried underground.
Renewables are not cheaper, they are much more expensive than natural gas because they always leave out the natural gas power plant that they need to be reliable. So in essence, renewables only add cost to a natural gas plant.
Net zero is a very serious mistake.
I’m hoping it’s just political manoeuvring. And throw in some geopolitics too.
It’s good to see China, India and Russian not going. So this is probably a sign that they are over the BS. And also a sign that geopolitical issues are what will be discussed instead of CO2
ICCC recently proved that calculations that form the whole basis of the IPCC are flawed and should be regarded as rubbish. This involved Regession Methods to identify that many factors used as its basis are wrong. Those producing this flawed evidence 20 years ago are not able to justify what they did and nor are they able to refute the errors claimed. A scientific paper has been submitted and will be available soon It has been forwarded to the original composers for the comments noted above.