India now has a TFR below replacement. The world population will peak ca. 2060 (when 50% will be over 50) at 9bn and then decline v v fast. SO 'simmer down' if humanity goes extinct it will not be because of climate change, but because we all got too obsessed with our virtual friends.
Just today, early August 22, France has to switch it's nuclear reactors to low level, due to rivers that should provide cooling water, have warmed up too much thanks to a months lasting extended heat wave. in future, France is expecting much more of that kind of heat, endangering it's nuclear dependent energy generation in summer. Perhaps be better off filling those increasingly deserted deep France fields with solar cells.
another professor,Jean Marc Jancovici summarizes this topic very similar to hansen,if you combine this lecture with jean marcs lectures you will understand how nuclear is necessary for many reasons,wind and solar wont solve our problems
That the public no longer trusts nuclear operators is entirely their fault. For decades, the public was lied to and deceived about the risks of the plants. The possibility of a major accident was completely denied and even excluded. Now, however, it has already happened several times and that although there are only a few hundred nuclear power plants. If one would follow Mr. Hansen one would have to build however in the next 20 years 2,000 to 3,000 such big plants so that it can make at all a difference before the tipping points strengthen themselves further and further mutually. Totally impossible to do that. France, a country that strongly supports nuclear energy, has not managed to build even one new power plant in the last 20 years.
@@Medley3000 Hansen outlines the risks of nuclear and fossil fuels. Planet of the Humans critiques renewables and so called green marketing by builders developers and solar corporations. But the public is asking for it they fail to educate themselves.
There are even worse threads than sea level rise. Let's start with droughts that leads to wildfires and food production failures. In large scale these can be really bad. Then 6th mass extinction that is worsened and sped up by climate change. Ie. We have already lost around 50% of the coral reef that support around 25% of marine life (meaning ~12% of marine life is lost already, because of coral bleaching and dying?). Overall climate driven water scarcity can produce deserts over most of the global land areas (including most of USA and central/southern EU). So, I'm not that worried about sea level rise. It's serious issue, yea, but not a life ending issue. Worst things about sea level rise is not drowning megacities, but drowning nuclear plants and chemical factories (including petrochemical plants that produce oil products). These can make a bad situation a lot worse.
Martin the Australian coral reef has fully recovered over the last two years to levels above the 1985 levels. The correlation of climate change and CO2 to the coral reef health is plain wrong. Go look at the Australian data it is there for all to see.
@@davidramsay6142 Thats weird i can only find sources saying the state of and outlook is poor , Its all about the sea temperature as far as i can find on searches and the sea temperature is getting warmer as its good at absorbing atmospheric heat which is increasing because of the increase of co2 in the atmosphere . All easily verifiable on basic searches
It gets really exciting when you ask the same experts where sea level will be in 2200. Answer from the same scientists: 3-9 meters (10 to 30 feet) higher than today. That means all coastal cities are in danger. Whole countries will sink like the Maldives. And remember, 180 years may seem a long time, but it's closer to our time than Napoleon.
Market this, market that... A good place to start is Nate Hagen's (The Great Simplification) which is an aggregation of expertise in an array of sciences and professions. It is an effort to gain a macro understanding of all of the existential threats that are coming to a singularity in our lifetimes. And Daniel Schmachtenberger systems based understanding of objective reality are the best places to start to look for solutions. Global overshoot is the at the core of our problems. The Market is not going to get us out of this mess.
The 590 exajoules / year for 2020 at 5:00 is 18,500 gigawatts. Here for your interest are the actual energies of some things, all accurate within +/- 10% for little numbers and +/- 0.1% for big numbers: Gigawatts 173,300,000 Sun's input towards Earth at top-of-atmosphere (TOA) 50,800,000 Sun's input towards Earth reflected back to space. 122,500,000 Sun's input to Earth that isn't reflected back to space (gets absorbed & heats). 6,000,000 Moved to Northern latitudes by atmosphere (78%) and oceans. 1,340,000 The Gulf Stream water heat moved north (included in the 6,000,000 above). 2,200,000 Moved to land from oceans by atmosphere.
430,000 Heater heating Earth ecosphere (oceans 93%, land 3%, air 1%) for 2010-2020 because "greenhouse gases (GHGs)" 393,000 Extra would be heating Earth ecosphere if all "global dimming" atmospheric aerosols air pollution was cleaned up back to 1750 AD pristine per IPCC AR5 745,000 Extra would be heating Earth ecosphere if all "global dimming" atmospheric aerosols air pollution was cleaned up back to 1750 AD pristine per Daniel Rosenfeld, Yannian Zhu, Minghuai Wang, Youtong Zheng, Tom Goren & Shaocai Yu February 8, 2019 paper (probably an outlier). 51,400 HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE being the heat addition to the massive 125 Sv flow of the Antarctic circumpolar current (easily the biggest low of water on Earth) for each +0.1 degrees increase of its average water temperature. The top 1,000 m depth of the global ocean has warmed on average by +0.10 degrees in the last 22 years. 47,000 Non-volcano geothermal heat seeping to surface (it's 0.12 w/m**2 for the ocean sea bed, much smaller on land) per J. H. Davies, D. R. Davies 22 Feb 2010
18,500 Total human net energy production per this video 27,800 My estimate of total human WASTED heat energy (generation + line losses) based simply on assuming 40% average efficiency for all turbines & engines. 8,000 Volcano heat blasting to surface from the lava from 3,000,000 or whatever land & undersea volcanoes. It totals ~300,000,000,000 tonnes / year of lava at say 1,000 degrees reaching the surface. The heat from this tiny amount of hot rock is utterly negligible as you see from the numbers. 4,000 Example of what would be added to Earth ecosphere if volcanoes increased a ludicrously huge 50% (they haven't) 2.5 The active volcanic heat source beneath the Pine Island Glacier on Antarctica. -1.04 The dimming shadow of 60,000 Starlink satellites in low earth orbit 630 km up with 100 m**2 of solar PV panels each. 0.377 Biggest solar mirror concentrator (in some California desert).
Unquestionably huge amounts of energy are present in Earth environment. How exactly does CO2 increase the amount of heat energy again ? Why is there no practical application for the planet changing heat gain it creates ? Just curious.
Why doesn’t Hansen cite the projected level of sea rise? NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) projects 2-3 feet of sea rise by 2050. And that’s enough to render our coastal cities inoperable. Plus we have to be concerned with storm surge and heavy rain. I think people don’t want to accept the implications of 420ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not an expert or anything. From my understanding the SLR (sea level rise) data is pretty difficult to make predictions, it's a controversial part of the most recent IPCC studies. Factors like the ice sheets (which were already melting due to pre-industrial climate change) and "dark snow" are relatively unknown and the models have a lot of uncertainty with even fitting to past levels of sea rise. So we know sea levels will rise but not how much with certainty. I can't find a source for 2-3 feet, but the lower end scenario seems to be at least 1 foot. From NOAA website: "By the end of the century, global mean sea level is likely to rise at least one foot (0.3 meters) above 2000 levels, even if greenhouse gas emissions follow a relatively low pathway in coming decades".
Lowering sea level is blowing water up in cold air to fall to snow ice storing CO2 as ice floats it will sink to the bottom .. solar orbital shading targeted accelerates such effects ... so lower sea level 400 feet and we breathe 280 ppm .. this is the Math. We understand sea level rise ... now is the time to understand how to lower it ...
@@perrydimes6915 the Math is here today based on partial differential equations .. Applied Relativity, the step beyond General Relativity, tic tac the water molecule G sub c, so we know where entropy goes .. manufacture gravity engines is just a water column to clean energy technology by water and air surplus the light for utility ..
It gets really exciting when you ask the same experts where sea level will be in 2200. Answer from the same scientists: 3-9 meters (10 to 30 feet) higher than today. That means all coastal cities are in danger. Whole countries will sink like the Maldives. And remember, 180 years may seem a long time, but it's closer to our time than Napoleon.
@@Medley3000 intervening generations will be pre advised to establish new cities Real estate values are such the loading and unloading of marble blocks and bananas 🍌 is not worth waterfront it would require. Thus being at sea level is vestigial... other than maximizing Temps for that latitude ofc 😼
Government has never seriously addressed the issue with liberals being somewhat ineffectual and conservatives actively obstructing progress. To the degree corporate interests influence government it fails to address the needs of the public and cRepublicans are the party of corporate interests.
Another problem with nuclear power is how to cool them off. France nearly had to shut down its nuclear power plants because river water cooling off the hot water waste was diminishing (rivers were drying up). And the water coming from the nuclear power plant was too hot for the fish and wildlife in the river.
Eisenhower wanted nuclear plants to generate WEAPON =GRADE materials ! My brother worked for the Naval Lab when they were using lasers to develop FUSION ENERGY they were well funded and thought they were making progress until REAGAN was elected and in addition to removing solar panels Carter had installed he killed the Navy Fusion Energy program and put the Billions of funding into his Star Wars Program ,probably to benefit the OIL CORPS ! Carter was our one President who was a Nuclear Scientist !
Very sad, and very concerning to hear such a great scientist like Hansen focusing on the Nuclear topics only, as if it was the key point of the issue, while totally removing from the equation maybe more important parameters, like the unsustainable lifestyle for the planet of the Western economies, not only for energy reasons, but systemic ones, so taken in its entirety. For instance, that delirious level of meat consumption in the United States, which if it were the model followed by developing countries, would in any case absorb all efforts at energy regulation. The rebound effect is never mentioned here, even though it is essential for the functioning of the human species in its habitat. Climate change is not an isolated problem. It's one of the symptoms.
Read the description. This was a keynote speaker for a 2 day symposium on the role of nuclear energy in a clean energy system. Furthermore energy accounts to 70% of global emissions. So while meat consumption surely is a big issue. It's fair to say energy is more important. You can argue with merit that western lifestyles are unsustainable but that ignores that 80% of the world population lives in energy poverty. 800 million people don't have access to light. Globally we will need to produce more energy not less.
There is no easy answer nor is the furture beautiful. We have already disrupted the climate. But we need to do what we can to mitigate the effects. The situation will be dynamic as human behaviour and attitude will change as climate change intensifies. Just like how people are unwilling to be vaccinated or wear mask till COVOD-19 hit hard. There is rationale with using nuclear. Reducing meat consumption is useful but it will not enable us to reach carbon free.
Hansen is addressing the largest contributor to global warming - electrical energy generation. That IS the key issue, at least until it is fixed. Meat consumption is still down in the noise, compared to burning coal. You are confusing ideological issues with climate change issues. This tendency to use climate change to promote pet viewpoints is a major source of distraction.
@@KarlTykke Well, it seems to me that your answer indicates a very personal bias, and that illustrates not only my point, but the mediocrity of your argument. The lifestyle of western economies is unsustainable for the planet, not only in terms of CO2 emissions but for a whole lot of other parameters (there is a global collapse of biodiversity, did you know that?). If tomorrow, each human consumed as much meat as the average American (150kg/year against 2kg in India), the emissions associated with this item would be a big concern. It is the responsibility of the most emissive societies, starting with the USA, to drastically reduce their lifestyle, on all items. France, which is almost entirely nuclear, still has an unsustainable average level of emissions per capita compared to the objectives of the Paris Agreement. The substitution of fossil fuels by nuclear power is not only incompatible with the deadlines, but will be insufficient, and tends to make people like you believe that the solution will be without effort on your personal comfort.
Undoubtedly it seems to you that.... However, my statement that CO2 emissions from electricity generation is the most important contributor to global warming is a fact, not an opinion. Hansen is focused, no doubt, on that problem for that reason. His lack of interest in your topic of interest, meat eating, is a consequence of the relative unimportance (14% of emissions) to global warming. Worry about it if you want, but why criticize Hansen for his focus on the most important problem? Without the effort on his problem worrying about meat consumption is completely pointless.
I really wonder if Hansen ever looked at the cost to build and sustain a nuclear power plant. There's a reason why solar panels and wind are on the rise - they are by now the cheapest means of generating electricity known by man. Whereas the costs for building nuclear plants are on the rise. And the 4th generation plants he's fantasizing about currently have major issues. Given the time frame CO2 emmissions need to be reduced in, nuclear is an expensive and dangerous way to go. When he speaks of having essentially endless supply for those plants, because you can find the isotopes you need in the oceans - did he ever look at the concentrations and the costs to extract them? The "fuel" for PV and Wind turbines is essentially free - this is why the cost of operation is extremely low. As much as I admire his work as a climate scientist, I fear the misinformation of the public he's complaining about in this case is on his side.
There are many cheaper things we can do. But, he says they will not solve climate change. Depending on the weather for a reliable source of energy is a mistake. Today, Germany, the former poster child for renewable energy, is INCREASING its use of coal and natural gas, an finishing the construction of another gas pipeline to import Putin's gas. This exactly the outcome Hansen predicted 10 years ago as the response to energy shortages. As long was we place a major dependence on the weather, we will have energy shortages and politicians will fix the problem with what is available. Storage is the same promise that it was when Hansen predicted this. Temperatures will continue to climb.
@@KarlTykke The pipeline is seen as a mistake and a step by many people and scientists in Germany. And increasing the use of coal is simply not true. The amount of electricity from renewables is on the rise actually. And one should also not forget that the "Energiewende" has been actively blocked over the last decade by conservative political powers in charge of the government.
@@yarodin There is NO available alternative to the use of fossil fuels and French nuclear power as a backup to cover for intermittency in weather-dependent energy. Your statement about coal is a falsehood, yarodin, Coal generation in Germany INCREASED in 2021, from 21% to 27%. Why post falsehoods to support your argument? Hansen is a world renowned expert on the weather. He is trying to tell you that your faith in the ability of renewable energy to provide a RELIABLE supply of energy is misplaced. There is NO storage capability today that can deal with weather variability and never will be. So, why do you choose to ignore his advice? Your responses, up to now, are evasive and ignore this problem. Instead , you post irrelevant falsehoods.
@@KarlTykke Yeah, the reliability of nuclear can be seen in France rather good where 15 out of 59 reactors where in shutdown in February and the prices for electricity on the spot market were higher than in Germany. And about the non availability of storage - that's simply wrong. Germany has enough storage for gas to run the country for a week straight - a timespan that virtually never occurs with enough Solar and Wind installed. This has been modeled many times using actual weather data and consumption values. And take a look at the 3(!) nuclear reactors being build in europe at the moment: many years overdue and way out of budget. How you want to switch the whole power supply to this kind of energy is beyond me. And this does not even include the availability of nuclear fuels like uranium. Hansens "plan" is utter nonsense.
@@yarodin typed "Germany has enough storage for gas to run the country for a week straight - a timespan that virtually never occurs with enough Solar and Wind installed". Sheeesh, talk about dark storm clouds gathering on the horizon about to rain on your meadow of lambs & buttercups.
The graph at 1:17 should be enough to convince anyone of the rapid and extreme changes occurring on this planet. Eighty percent of temperature anomalies occurred outside the 51-80 normal range. It has only increased since 2015. No need to wait another thirty years to act decisively.
About a year on and the weather has turned even more crazy. 40+ in UK, and the hottest March April in India, and, and, and.. However, some highly influential right wing types, still argue it's just a temporary anomaly, maintaining climate is a much longer term process, waiting for the climate to calm back down to glide into next Ice Age (Like, _that_ would be a boon to human civilization...)
@@reuireuiop0 Local and regional anomalies are expected in a complex system with higher energy input and therefore a more chaotic nature. We are very lucky in the timing of techno civilizations rise, yet also quite unlucky and stupid about allowing it to proceed without strong constraint.
I was trying to really hard to go along with James Hanson on his pro nuclear stance. I’ve been anti-nuclear all my life so that was quite a leap for me. Then he said “let the market and the utilities decide“. That is how we got in this mess in the first place! we let the oil companies who run the market, ruin the planet! Maybe nuclear is OK on a very limited basis since we have to figure out how to store the waste somewhere. Japan right now is trying to dump their waste nuclear water from Fukushima into the ocean. Sorry, Mr. Hanson, nuclear is not a benign technology.
The waste is pretty diluted, is it not? We have a lot of radiation exposure from other sources, natural and unnatural. I have viewed footage of undersea life where nuclear tests were conducted for decades. Where humans are not allowed in these so called toxic zones life thrives. It is of course not pleasing that the Japan accident was not averted.
China maintained coal plants to stabilise the grid and is now ready to move across to a mix of nuclear, on which they have expended a lot of research, and other alternative power sources. They have been methodical and strategic.
Nuclear power why has some nation's fazing out nuclear power. The storms are getting stronger the earth is heating always liked James Hanson but this sounds like a sales pitch for nuclear building these plants take a long time. If this is the answer nuclear plants needs built all over the planet who's flipping the bill for the poor countries. My argument against the nuclear power plants not the newer one mentioned. these older nuclear power plants we have been so lucky we haven't had a situation like Japan and the fact that no life's from accident didn't mention long term sickness causing death or the amount of radiation in the leaking in the ocean that's affecting all life within the ocean storage is a big problem these storage units has to be monitored for life times and it's reported by other scientists as a ticking time bomb
Nuclear power has it's own problems, but it is safer than fossil fuel burning. What I have been suggesting is: Keep nuclear plants online around 2050-2070's and after renewables has grown as large as needed, then we may phase out most nuclear plants. Phasing out nuclear at this point is just madness and causing shift toward more renewable usage. In worst case (core meltdown) we can see that even then life will continue. Chernobyl area has more wildlife than many other areas nearby. This means that even after nuclear plant's total failure life will continue and even prosper in that area. Risks are there, but yet still killing around 9 million per year by fossil burning is even a higher one even without worsening climate change. Nuclear plants will not be life threatening when used peacefully. Climate change is an existential threat.
When used peacefully - however Russia and Ukraine are now targeting Europe's largest nuclear plant, just one unforeseen risk of nuclear. And, as climate changes intensifies, so will conflicts resulting from harvest failures, droughts, hunger and migration. If the frequency and intensity of weather extremes continues to go up like the last 5 years, we be having serious conflicts over food and water within 15 years. That's way quicker than it takes to build sufficient nuclear plants to ease carbon emissions. We may already have passed a critical point; in the 1990s, 400 ppm was considered a safe max, we're over 420 already, while CO2 equivalent (including other greenhouse gases) is over 500. Seems we're way late with such solutions.
Nice to see you back in the game, now that people in government are starting to take things seriously, I’m sure you don’t remember me or prefer not to….lol
You would think that someone supposedly as intelligent about climate and statistics as Mr Hansen would know that you can’t use bell curves on multi variable complex systems. This man is an embarrassment to climate science and has entirely to much influence. We are in trouble especially if we have someone like Mr. Hansen misrepresenting climate information.
sorry solar or wind and storage is way cheaper and more importantly, faster. Nukes are over budget over complicated over watered, its crazy you might need a reactor for a big city or Factory but most residential needs on a microgrid widely distributed makes far more sense for the 21stCentury
nuclear is still not perfected- the waste issue/costs still exists- and a nuclear power plant takes 10 years or so to build. and we only have 10 years or so before the environments positive feedback loops are irreversable. so the renewables and extreme energy efficiency is the way to go now. we also waste 50% of the power we produce- thus we don't need the amount of power we produce now. and YES the only way to motivate the economy to use and develope the cleaner alternatives is a pollution tax and also a wealth tax- we need all of those funds to research/develope and impliment the alternatives.
That the public no longer trusts nuclear operators is entirely their fault. For decades, the public was lied to and deceived about the risks of the plants. The possibility of a major accident was completely denied and even excluded. Now, however, it has already happened several times and that although there are only a few hundred nuclear power plants. If one would follow Mr. Hansen one would have to build however in the next 20 years 2,000 to 3,000 such big plants so that it can make at all a difference before the tipping points strengthen themselves further and further mutually. Totally impossible to do that. France, a country that strongly supports nuclear energy, has not managed to build even one new power plant in the last 20 years.
... And with the ongoing and continuing heat wave, overa month already, rivers have warmed too much to longer reliably provide cooling water for France's reactors. Had to turn m low - and now wonder how to fuel all them brand new airco systems ...
@@reuireuiop0 The French are constantly moving the limit for the maximum water temperature upwards. Soon you will be able to fish cooked fish directly from the Rhone.
join and give emotion and feeling to God's free will kingdom central authority; push out political governments in every nation, NATO and other region alliances, and UN
you don't understand what you are talking about do you? At some point, Hansen did talk about the cooling from volcano, and got it incredibly right, actually.
Mass and energy are the same, gravity induction engines, how in the sky is how the earth is by particle wave duality .. heat compresses cold or per UFO inducts to center as the POPE TO GALILEO .. 1935 Einstein by the exact solution to General Relativity has the Gift of Light .. to applied by math to manufacture the manifest DNA matches pattern to equation .. g = Me G / r^2 ( 1e -/+ Ef/Eo ) r=c to the 3rd plane of water vapor the prong triangles of water to line pi ..mercury column to content is not as safe as water and air method ... good luck to all who combat climate change .. we have the energy math to manufacture the technology ..
No step beyond General Relativity to G sub c .. the Math .. who is credible without the step, g = Me G / r^2 ( 1e -/+ Ef/Eo ) Does the theory of everything ruin him?
Wisdom states they want sea level rise 💪 😀 Knowledge knows how to lower it. Do not be afraid to lower sea level or manufacture clean energy technology 🛸🏋♀️🛸
No matter what we do to mitigate the damage (and we should do all we can) it will get much worse for some time. There is a time lag between our actions and the full consequences.
1e manifestation to the particle wave duality, the G sub c entangled to the SUN -/+ Ef/Eo by what we are sync to, the earth, Me times G divided by c of the 3rd plane of interaction r^2 .. manufacture Gravity Engines the Step beyond General Relativity published book, (RAM) Relativity Applications of Mass ..learn how to tic tac the water molecule like satellites and build better climate change models .. to directly pump CO2 out of atmosphere modify propane tank ..throw the slave chain drive over a shaft, flooded car axle example, drop flooded tank onto check valve of bottom of water column to pop CO2 to capture while rotating a shaft for mechanical or electrical output .. heat from just water and air .. direct CO2 ... lower sea level, ice floats and sink to bottom ..Greenland is going to Melt and the equator, the controlling proportional mass of the circle to sphere by Archimedes of Syracuse to triangle the poles of little circles ...U I C how to control Einstein's elevator equation .. Step a world on fire past General Relative to Applied.
Climats are chaotic systems (7 climat zones in US), modeling is not easy, great sensitivity to initial readings, J Hansen knows this he is matematicien. He takes into account ALL greenhouse gases not only CO2.
Nuclear energy is very low risk environmentally but we need to also need to move toward a sustainable global population.
I agree 100%. Nobody wants to talk about over-population. Humanity has some tough problems to sort out before reality bits us hard.
India now has a TFR below replacement. The world population will peak ca. 2060 (when 50% will be over 50) at 9bn and then decline v v fast. SO 'simmer down' if humanity goes extinct it will not be because of climate change, but because we all got too obsessed with our virtual friends.
The world population growth has been continually DECREASING, and will hit zero in 50 years
Just today, early August 22, France has to switch it's nuclear reactors to low level, due to rivers that should provide cooling water, have warmed up too much thanks to a months lasting extended heat wave.
in future, France is expecting much more of that kind of heat, endangering it's nuclear dependent energy generation in summer. Perhaps be better off filling those increasingly deserted deep France fields with solar cells.
@@reuireuiop0 Perhaps those are water cooled reactors. The question is when will advanced nuclear plants come on line?.
another professor,Jean Marc Jancovici summarizes this topic very similar to hansen,if you combine this lecture with jean marcs lectures you will understand how nuclear is necessary for many reasons,wind and solar wont solve our problems
That the public no longer trusts nuclear operators is entirely their fault. For decades, the public was lied to and deceived about the risks of the plants. The possibility of a major accident was completely denied and even excluded. Now, however, it has already happened several times and that although there are only a few hundred nuclear power plants. If one would follow Mr. Hansen one would have to build however in the next 20 years 2,000 to 3,000 such big plants so that it can make at all a difference before the tipping points strengthen themselves further and further mutually. Totally impossible to do that. France, a country that strongly supports nuclear energy, has not managed to build even one new power plant in the last 20 years.
@@Medley3000 Hansen outlines the risks of nuclear and fossil fuels. Planet of the Humans critiques renewables and so called green marketing by builders developers and solar corporations. But the public is asking for it they fail to educate themselves.
There are even worse threads than sea level rise. Let's start with droughts that leads to wildfires and food production failures. In large scale these can be really bad. Then 6th mass extinction that is worsened and sped up by climate change. Ie. We have already lost around 50% of the coral reef that support around 25% of marine life (meaning ~12% of marine life is lost already, because of coral bleaching and dying?). Overall climate driven water scarcity can produce deserts over most of the global land areas (including most of USA and central/southern EU).
So, I'm not that worried about sea level rise. It's serious issue, yea, but not a life ending issue. Worst things about sea level rise is not drowning megacities, but drowning nuclear plants and chemical factories (including petrochemical plants that produce oil products). These can make a bad situation a lot worse.
Martin the Australian coral reef has fully recovered over the last two years to levels above the 1985 levels. The correlation of climate change and CO2 to the coral reef health is plain wrong. Go look at the Australian data it is there for all to see.
@@davidramsay6142 Thats weird i can only find sources saying the state of and outlook is poor , Its all about the sea temperature as far as i can find on searches and the sea temperature is getting warmer as its good at absorbing atmospheric heat which is increasing because of the increase of co2 in the atmosphere . All easily verifiable on basic searches
Worse are atolls = animation atoll formation.
Yes, but there will be droughts AND and wildfires AND increased rainfall flooding, AND sea-level rise.
It gets really exciting when you ask the same experts where sea level will be in 2200. Answer from the same scientists: 3-9 meters (10 to 30 feet) higher than today. That means all coastal cities are in danger. Whole countries will sink like the Maldives. And remember, 180 years may seem a long time, but it's closer to our time than Napoleon.
Market this, market that...
A good place to start is Nate Hagen's (The Great Simplification) which is an aggregation of expertise in an array of sciences and professions. It is an effort to gain a macro understanding of all of the existential threats that are coming to a singularity in our lifetimes. And Daniel Schmachtenberger systems based understanding of objective reality are the best places to start to look for solutions. Global overshoot is the at the core of our problems. The Market is not going to get us out of this mess.
The 590 exajoules / year for 2020 at 5:00 is 18,500 gigawatts.
Here for your interest are the actual energies of some things, all accurate within +/- 10% for little numbers and +/- 0.1% for big numbers:
Gigawatts
173,300,000 Sun's input towards Earth at top-of-atmosphere (TOA)
50,800,000 Sun's input towards Earth reflected back to space.
122,500,000 Sun's input to Earth that isn't reflected back to space (gets absorbed & heats).
6,000,000 Moved to Northern latitudes by atmosphere (78%) and oceans.
1,340,000 The Gulf Stream water heat moved north (included in the 6,000,000 above).
2,200,000 Moved to land from oceans by atmosphere.
430,000 Heater heating Earth ecosphere (oceans 93%, land 3%, air 1%) for 2010-2020 because "greenhouse gases (GHGs)"
393,000 Extra would be heating Earth ecosphere if all "global dimming" atmospheric aerosols air pollution was
cleaned up back to 1750 AD pristine per IPCC AR5
745,000 Extra would be heating Earth ecosphere if all "global dimming" atmospheric aerosols air pollution was
cleaned up back to 1750 AD pristine per Daniel Rosenfeld, Yannian Zhu, Minghuai Wang, Youtong Zheng,
Tom Goren & Shaocai Yu February 8, 2019 paper (probably an outlier).
51,400 HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE being the heat addition to the massive 125 Sv flow of the Antarctic circumpolar
current (easily the biggest low of water on Earth) for each +0.1 degrees increase of its average water temperature.
The top 1,000 m depth of the global ocean has warmed on average by +0.10 degrees in the last 22 years.
47,000 Non-volcano geothermal heat seeping to surface (it's 0.12 w/m**2 for the ocean sea bed, much smaller on land) per J. H. Davies, D. R. Davies 22 Feb 2010
18,500 Total human net energy production per this video
27,800 My estimate of total human WASTED heat energy (generation + line losses) based simply on assuming 40% average efficiency for all turbines & engines.
8,000 Volcano heat blasting to surface from the lava from 3,000,000 or whatever land & undersea volcanoes.
It totals ~300,000,000,000 tonnes / year of lava at say 1,000 degrees reaching the surface. The heat from this tiny amount of hot rock is utterly negligible
as you see from the numbers.
4,000 Example of what would be added to Earth ecosphere if volcanoes increased a ludicrously huge 50% (they haven't)
2.5 The active volcanic heat source beneath the Pine Island Glacier on Antarctica.
-1.04 The dimming shadow of 60,000 Starlink satellites in low earth orbit 630 km up with 100 m**2 of solar PV panels each.
0.377 Biggest solar mirror concentrator (in some California desert).
0.06 Fukushima Daiichi reactors Unit 1, 2, 3 total warm cooling water heat into the Pacific Ocean.
Broken into multiple comments because His Lordship of The Universe GooglesTubes kept deleting it.
Unquestionably huge amounts of energy are present in Earth environment.
How exactly does CO2 increase the amount of heat energy again ?
Why is there no practical application for the planet changing heat gain it creates ?
Just curious.
Why doesn’t Hansen cite the projected level of sea rise? NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) projects 2-3 feet of sea rise by 2050. And that’s enough to render our coastal cities inoperable. Plus we have to be concerned with storm surge and heavy rain. I think people don’t want to accept the implications of 420ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not an expert or anything. From my understanding the SLR (sea level rise) data is pretty difficult to make predictions, it's a controversial part of the most recent IPCC studies. Factors like the ice sheets (which were already melting due to pre-industrial climate change) and "dark snow" are relatively unknown and the models have a lot of uncertainty with even fitting to past levels of sea rise.
So we know sea levels will rise but not how much with certainty. I can't find a source for 2-3 feet, but the lower end scenario seems to be at least 1 foot. From NOAA website: "By the end of the century, global mean sea level is likely to rise at least one foot (0.3 meters) above 2000 levels, even if greenhouse gas emissions follow a relatively low pathway in coming decades".
Lowering sea level is blowing water up in cold air to fall to snow ice storing CO2 as ice floats it will sink to the bottom .. solar orbital shading targeted accelerates such effects ... so lower sea level 400 feet and we breathe 280 ppm .. this is the Math.
We understand sea level rise ... now is the time to understand how to lower it ...
@@perrydimes6915 the Math is here today based on partial differential equations .. Applied Relativity, the step beyond General Relativity, tic tac the water molecule G sub c, so we know where entropy goes .. manufacture gravity engines is just a water column to clean energy technology by water and air surplus the light for utility ..
It gets really exciting when you ask the same experts where sea level will be in 2200. Answer from the same scientists: 3-9 meters (10 to 30 feet) higher than today. That means all coastal cities are in danger. Whole countries will sink like the Maldives. And remember, 180 years may seem a long time, but it's closer to our time than Napoleon.
@@Medley3000 intervening generations will be pre advised to establish new cities
Real estate values are such the loading and unloading of marble blocks and bananas 🍌 is not worth waterfront it would require.
Thus being at sea level is vestigial... other than maximizing Temps for that latitude ofc 😼
We got into this situation by trusting the government. We should stop doing that, especially now.
Government has never seriously addressed the issue with liberals being somewhat ineffectual and conservatives actively obstructing progress. To the degree corporate interests influence government it fails to address the needs of the public and cRepublicans are the party of corporate interests.
Another problem with nuclear power is how to cool them off. France nearly had to shut down its nuclear power plants because river water cooling off the hot water waste was diminishing (rivers were drying up). And the water coming from the nuclear power plant was too hot for the fish and wildlife in the river.
Eisenhower wanted nuclear plants to generate WEAPON =GRADE materials ! My brother worked for the Naval Lab when they were using lasers to develop FUSION ENERGY they were well funded and thought they were making progress until REAGAN was elected and in addition to removing solar panels Carter had installed he killed the Navy Fusion Energy program and put the Billions of funding into his Star Wars Program ,probably to benefit the OIL CORPS ! Carter was our one President who was a Nuclear Scientist !
Very sad, and very concerning to hear such a great scientist like Hansen focusing on the Nuclear topics only, as if it was the key point of the issue, while totally removing from the equation maybe more important parameters, like the unsustainable lifestyle for the planet of the Western economies, not only for energy reasons, but systemic ones, so taken in its entirety. For instance, that delirious level of meat consumption in the United States, which if it were the model followed by developing countries, would in any case absorb all efforts at energy regulation. The rebound effect is never mentioned here, even though it is essential for the functioning of the human species in its habitat. Climate change is not an isolated problem. It's one of the symptoms.
Read the description. This was a keynote speaker for a 2 day symposium on the role of nuclear energy in a clean energy system.
Furthermore energy accounts to 70% of global emissions. So while meat consumption surely is a big issue. It's fair to say energy is more important. You can argue with merit that western lifestyles are unsustainable but that ignores that 80% of the world population lives in energy poverty. 800 million people don't have access to light. Globally we will need to produce more energy not less.
There is no easy answer nor is the furture beautiful. We have already disrupted the climate. But we need to do what we can to mitigate the effects. The situation will be dynamic as human behaviour and attitude will change as climate change intensifies. Just like how people are unwilling to be vaccinated or wear mask till COVOD-19 hit hard. There is rationale with using nuclear. Reducing meat consumption is useful but it will not enable us to reach carbon free.
Hansen is addressing the largest contributor to global warming - electrical energy generation. That IS the key issue, at least until it is fixed. Meat consumption is still down in the noise, compared to burning coal. You are confusing ideological issues with climate change issues. This tendency to use climate change to promote pet viewpoints is a major source of distraction.
@@KarlTykke Well, it seems to me that your answer indicates a very personal bias, and that illustrates not only my point, but the mediocrity of your argument. The lifestyle of western economies is unsustainable for the planet, not only in terms of CO2 emissions but for a whole lot of other parameters (there is a global collapse of biodiversity, did you know that?). If tomorrow, each human consumed as much meat as the average American (150kg/year against 2kg in India), the emissions associated with this item would be a big concern. It is the responsibility of the most emissive societies, starting with the USA, to drastically reduce their lifestyle, on all items. France, which is almost entirely nuclear, still has an unsustainable average level of emissions per capita compared to the objectives of the Paris Agreement. The substitution of fossil fuels by nuclear power is not only incompatible with the deadlines, but will be insufficient, and tends to make people like you believe that the solution will be without effort on your personal comfort.
Undoubtedly it seems to you that.... However, my statement that CO2 emissions from electricity generation is the most important contributor to global warming is a fact, not an opinion. Hansen is focused, no doubt, on that problem for that reason. His lack of interest in your topic of interest, meat eating, is a consequence of the relative unimportance (14% of emissions) to global warming. Worry about it if you want, but why criticize Hansen for his focus on the most important problem? Without the effort on his problem worrying about meat consumption is completely pointless.
Let's hope Mr Hansen didn't turn the air conditioning off at this one.
#DEGROWTH
I really wonder if Hansen ever looked at the cost to build and sustain a nuclear power plant. There's a reason why solar panels and wind are on the rise - they are by now the cheapest means of generating electricity known by man. Whereas the costs for building nuclear plants are on the rise.
And the 4th generation plants he's fantasizing about currently have major issues. Given the time frame CO2 emmissions need to be reduced in, nuclear is an expensive and dangerous way to go.
When he speaks of having essentially endless supply for those plants, because you can find the isotopes you need in the oceans - did he ever look at the concentrations and the costs to extract them?
The "fuel" for PV and Wind turbines is essentially free - this is why the cost of operation is extremely low.
As much as I admire his work as a climate scientist, I fear the misinformation of the public he's complaining about in this case is on his side.
There are many cheaper things we can do. But, he says they will not solve climate change. Depending on the weather for a reliable source of energy is a mistake. Today, Germany, the former poster child for renewable energy, is INCREASING its use of coal and natural gas, an finishing the construction of another gas pipeline to import Putin's gas. This exactly the outcome Hansen predicted 10 years ago as the response to energy shortages. As long was we place a major dependence on the weather, we will have energy shortages and politicians will fix the problem with what is available. Storage is the same promise that it was when Hansen predicted this. Temperatures will continue to climb.
@@KarlTykke The pipeline is seen as a mistake and a step by many people and scientists in Germany. And increasing the use of coal is simply not true. The amount of electricity from renewables is on the rise actually. And one should also not forget that the "Energiewende" has been actively blocked over the last decade by conservative political powers in charge of the government.
@@yarodin There is NO available alternative to the use of fossil fuels and French nuclear power as a backup to cover for intermittency in weather-dependent energy. Your statement about coal is a falsehood, yarodin, Coal generation in Germany INCREASED in 2021, from 21% to 27%. Why post falsehoods to support your argument?
Hansen is a world renowned expert on the weather. He is trying to tell you that your faith in the ability of renewable energy to provide a RELIABLE supply of energy is misplaced. There is NO storage capability today that can deal with weather variability and never will be. So, why do you choose to ignore his advice? Your responses, up to now, are evasive and ignore this problem. Instead , you post irrelevant falsehoods.
@@KarlTykke Yeah, the reliability of nuclear can be seen in France rather good where 15 out of 59 reactors where in shutdown in February and the prices for electricity on the spot market were higher than in Germany.
And about the non availability of storage - that's simply wrong. Germany has enough storage for gas to run the country for a week straight - a timespan that virtually never occurs with enough Solar and Wind installed. This has been modeled many times using actual weather data and consumption values.
And take a look at the 3(!) nuclear reactors being build in europe at the moment: many years overdue and way out of budget. How you want to switch the whole power supply to this kind of energy is beyond me. And this does not even include the availability of nuclear fuels like uranium.
Hansens "plan" is utter nonsense.
@@yarodin typed "Germany has enough storage for gas to run the country for a week straight - a timespan that virtually never occurs with enough Solar and Wind installed". Sheeesh, talk about dark storm clouds gathering on the horizon about to rain on your meadow of lambs & buttercups.
The graph at 1:17 should be enough to convince anyone of the rapid and extreme changes occurring on this planet. Eighty percent of temperature anomalies occurred outside the 51-80 normal range. It has only increased since 2015. No need to wait another thirty years to act decisively.
About a year on and the weather has turned even more crazy. 40+ in UK, and the hottest March April in India, and, and, and..
However, some highly influential right wing types, still argue it's just a temporary anomaly, maintaining climate is a much longer term process, waiting for the climate to calm back down to glide into next Ice Age
(Like, _that_ would be a boon to human civilization...)
@@reuireuiop0 Local and regional anomalies are expected in a complex system with higher energy input and therefore a more chaotic nature. We are very lucky in the timing of techno civilizations rise, yet also quite unlucky and stupid about allowing it to proceed without strong constraint.
I was trying to really hard to go along with James Hanson on his pro nuclear stance. I’ve been anti-nuclear all my life so that was quite a leap for me.
Then he said “let the market and the utilities decide“. That is how we got in this mess in the first place! we let the oil companies who run the market, ruin the planet!
Maybe nuclear is OK on a very limited basis since we have to figure out how to store the waste somewhere.
Japan right now is trying to dump their waste nuclear water from Fukushima into the ocean.
Sorry, Mr. Hanson, nuclear is not a benign technology.
The waste is pretty diluted, is it not? We have a lot of radiation exposure from other sources, natural and unnatural.
I have viewed footage of undersea life where nuclear tests were conducted for decades.
Where humans are not allowed in these so called toxic zones life thrives.
It is of course not pleasing that the Japan accident was not averted.
Those who are in favor of nuclear power plants should take a close look at what is happening in Ukraine with the power plant in Zaporizhzhya.
China maintained coal plants to stabilise the grid and is now ready to move across to a mix of nuclear, on which they have expended a lot of research, and other alternative power sources.
They have been methodical and strategic.
Nuclear power why has some nation's fazing out nuclear power. The storms are getting stronger the earth is heating always liked James Hanson but this sounds like a sales pitch for nuclear building these plants take a long time. If this is the answer nuclear plants needs built all over the planet who's flipping the bill for the poor countries. My argument against the nuclear power plants not the newer one mentioned. these older nuclear power plants we have been so lucky we haven't had a situation like Japan and the fact that no life's from accident didn't mention long term sickness causing death or the amount of radiation in the leaking in the ocean that's affecting all life within the ocean storage is a big problem these storage units has to be monitored for life times and it's reported by other scientists as a ticking time bomb
Nuclear power has it's own problems, but it is safer than fossil fuel burning. What I have been suggesting is: Keep nuclear plants online around 2050-2070's and after renewables has grown as large as needed, then we may phase out most nuclear plants. Phasing out nuclear at this point is just madness and causing shift toward more renewable usage.
In worst case (core meltdown) we can see that even then life will continue. Chernobyl area has more wildlife than many other areas nearby. This means that even after nuclear plant's total failure life will continue and even prosper in that area. Risks are there, but yet still killing around 9 million per year by fossil burning is even a higher one even without worsening climate change. Nuclear plants will not be life threatening when used peacefully. Climate change is an existential threat.
When used peacefully - however Russia and Ukraine are now targeting Europe's largest nuclear plant, just one unforeseen risk of nuclear.
And, as climate changes intensifies, so will conflicts resulting from harvest failures, droughts, hunger and migration. If the frequency and intensity of weather extremes continues to go up like the last 5 years, we be having serious conflicts over food and water within 15 years. That's way quicker than it takes to build sufficient nuclear plants to ease carbon emissions. We may already have passed a critical point; in the 1990s, 400 ppm was considered a safe max, we're over 420 already, while CO2 equivalent (including other greenhouse gases) is over 500. Seems we're way late with such solutions.
Nice to see you back in the game, now that people in government are starting to take things seriously, I’m sure you don’t remember me or prefer not to….lol
I was just wondering how we could cool down the nuclear reactor in power plants if the waters are getting warmer and warmer?
Or disappearing due to drought...
You would think that someone supposedly as intelligent about climate and statistics as Mr Hansen would know that you can’t use bell curves on multi variable complex systems. This man is an embarrassment to climate science and has entirely to much influence. We are in trouble especially if we have someone like Mr. Hansen misrepresenting climate information.
sorry solar or wind and storage is way cheaper and more importantly, faster.
Nukes are over budget over complicated over watered, its crazy you might need a reactor for a big city or Factory but most residential needs on a microgrid widely distributed makes far more sense for the 21stCentury
nuclear is still not perfected- the waste issue/costs still exists- and a nuclear power plant takes 10 years or so to build. and we only have 10 years or so before the environments positive feedback loops are irreversable. so the renewables and extreme energy efficiency is the way to go now. we also waste 50% of the power we produce- thus we don't need the amount of power we produce now. and YES the only way to motivate the economy to use and develope the cleaner alternatives is a pollution tax and also a wealth tax- we need all of those funds to research/develope and impliment the alternatives.
other countries have done better with nuclear power, you might explore those before generalizing
That the public no longer trusts nuclear operators is entirely their fault. For decades, the public was lied to and deceived about the risks of the plants. The possibility of a major accident was completely denied and even excluded. Now, however, it has already happened several times and that although there are only a few hundred nuclear power plants. If one would follow Mr. Hansen one would have to build however in the next 20 years 2,000 to 3,000 such big plants so that it can make at all a difference before the tipping points strengthen themselves further and further mutually. Totally impossible to do that. France, a country that strongly supports nuclear energy, has not managed to build even one new power plant in the last 20 years.
... And with the ongoing and continuing heat wave, overa month already, rivers have warmed too much to longer reliably provide cooling water for France's reactors. Had to turn m low - and now wonder how to fuel all them brand new airco systems ...
@@reuireuiop0 The French are constantly moving the limit for the maximum water temperature upwards. Soon you will be able to fish cooked fish directly from the Rhone.
join and give emotion and feeling to God's free will kingdom central authority; push out political governments in every nation, NATO and other region alliances, and UN
What about fuel oil in the bunker ship's
Hansen pushing nuclear unicorns.
at around 32:00 and before....please shut up about what people can talk about
this from a guy who was raging about Global Cooling in the 1980's....no credibility to this geophysicist
you don't understand what you are talking about do you?
At some point, Hansen did talk about the cooling from volcano, and got it incredibly right, actually.
You are so far from the truth
Nonsense
Mass and energy are the same, gravity induction engines, how in the sky is how the earth is by particle wave duality .. heat compresses cold or per UFO inducts to center as the POPE TO GALILEO .. 1935 Einstein by the exact solution to General Relativity has the Gift of Light .. to applied by math to manufacture the manifest DNA matches pattern to equation .. g = Me G / r^2 ( 1e -/+ Ef/Eo ) r=c to the 3rd plane of water vapor the prong triangles of water to line pi ..mercury column to content is not as safe as water and air method ... good luck to all who combat climate change .. we have the energy math to manufacture the technology ..
No step beyond General Relativity to G sub c .. the Math .. who is credible without the step, g = Me G / r^2 ( 1e -/+ Ef/Eo )
Does the theory of everything ruin him?
WE are all Micheal Man today .. if not Jim Hansen .. to defeat climate change, use MATH as if to lower sea level 5 years ... 400 feet
Wisdom states they want sea level rise 💪 😀 Knowledge knows how to lower it. Do not be afraid to lower sea level or manufacture clean energy technology 🛸🏋♀️🛸
Darwin knew that atolls are sinking but no one would listen to him : animation atoll formation.
No matter what we do to mitigate the damage (and we should do all we can) it will get much worse for some time. There is a time lag between our actions and the full consequences.
tundrafires and flaming cyclonadoes will ensure a clean start
Save Our Planet
is it ours to save?
Earth is a dynamic planet. Meaning when the atmosphere gets out of balance it will correct itself.
That is an oversimplified assumption.
Yes, it will find a way to shake us off!
Until we push ourselves off equilibrium. Then we will careen through meteorological state space until a new equilibrium is found.
1e manifestation to the particle wave duality, the G sub c entangled to the SUN -/+ Ef/Eo by what we are sync to, the earth, Me times G divided by c of the 3rd plane of interaction r^2 .. manufacture Gravity Engines the Step beyond General Relativity published book, (RAM) Relativity Applications of Mass ..learn how to tic tac the water molecule like satellites and build better climate change models .. to directly pump CO2 out of atmosphere modify propane tank ..throw the slave chain drive over a shaft, flooded car axle example, drop flooded tank onto check valve of bottom of water column to pop CO2 to capture while rotating a shaft for mechanical or electrical output .. heat from just water and air .. direct CO2 ... lower sea level, ice floats and sink to bottom ..Greenland is going to Melt and the equator, the controlling proportional mass of the circle to sphere by Archimedes of Syracuse to triangle the poles of little circles ...U I C how to control Einstein's elevator equation .. Step a world on fire past General Relative to Applied.
Climats are chaotic systems (7 climat zones in US), modeling is not easy, great sensitivity to initial readings,
J Hansen knows this he is matematicien. He takes into account ALL greenhouse gases not only CO2.