11 Unsolved Problems in Climate Change
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 май 2024
- What are the gaps in our understanding of climate change? Reach across academic boundaries with Nebula: go.nebula.tv/simonclark
This video looks at this report from the European Commission written by IPCC lead authors: op.europa.eu/en/publication-d.... In it, the authors detail 11 areas where our understanding needs to improve. That's 11 areas you could start your research career in!
Book I mentioned: geni.us/buckgeo
Just Have A Think: / @justhaveathink
Minor erratum: permafrost thaws, it doesn't melt! D'oh!
You can support the channel by becoming a patron at / simonoxfphys
--------- II ---------
More about me www.simonoxfphys.com/
My second channel - / simonclarkerrata
Threads - www.threads.net/@simonoxfphys
Instagram - / simonoxfphys
Twitch - / drsimonclark
--------- II ---------
Music by Epidemic Sound: nebula.tv/epidemic
Some stock footage courtesy of Getty.
Edited by Luke Negus.
What are the unanswered questions about climate change? What don't we know about the climate crisis? What do IPCC scientists say we don't know? Where could I do research on climate change? In this video I look at a report written by IPCC scientists about our gaps in understanding of climate change.
Huge thanks to my supporters on Patreon:
Norm Zemke, I want to roll down a hill into a river of beans, Whitefang, David Mann, Jilbin George, Ben Thayer, Eric A Gentzler, Glen Monks, Daniel Chen, Gary Stark, dryfrog, Marcus Bosshard, Peter Reid, bitreign33 .
Bastian Pranzas, Lucas Johnston, Jeffry ., Marius Kießling, Jon Arlov, Pawel Piwek, Matze, Artem Plotnikov, Paul H and Linda L, Dan Sherman, Andy Hartley.
Steamrollerman , Andy Parr, Ricky Jones, Guy Markey, Nicholas Hamdorf, Katharina Hartmuth, Mark Phillips, Jor Eero Raico Svederic, KJ Xiao, Martin Sinclair, Matt Beer DFC, Tschäff Reisberg, Faficzek, Tobias Ahsbahs, James Gaskell, Denis Kovachev, Michael Thomas, Victor Gordan, Joona Mäkinen, Tanner , Dominik Rihak, Laura Glismann, Mark Harper, Ryan, Inten, Tyler Schwartz, John, James Haigh, Rick Kenny, Bailey Cook, Sergio Diaz, Command Chat, Aisolon, Christopher Mullin, I'm stuck in a PhD and I blame Simon., Joseph , Nicklas Kulp, Thomas Newman, Anže Cesar, Josef Probst, Kevin B, Phineas, Ishaan Shah, AngryPanda, Circuitrinos, Mark Richardson, Brian Moss, Hampus Sandell, Thomas Miller, Knut Nesheim, Dajeni, AYS , Forever Bulking, Kim Parnset, Crisan Talpes, Ted CLAY, Mike, Seb Stott, xawt, Diederik Jekel, Fuzzy Leapfrog, Jan-Willem Goedmakers, Samat Galimov, Ashley Hauck, Nico, Thibault , GGH, FireFerretDann, Ciotka Cierpienia, Sam, szigyi, Marcin Wrochna, Tom Painter, Phil Saici, Tom Marsh, Ashley Steel, Simone, Tomás Garnier Artiñano, Steffan , Adam Gillard, Christopher Hall, Miguel Cabrera Brufau, Sylvus , Florian Thie, James Gurney, Eddy Torres, Clemens, Andy Giesen, Jacob Speelman, Robin Anne McDuff, Jean-Marc Giffin, Cifer, Felix Winkler, Christian Weckner, Quinn Sinclair, Ebraheem Farag, Ivari Tölp, Thomas Charbonnel, Sekhalis, Mark Moore, Philipp Legner, Zoey O'Neill, Justin Warren, Heijde, Trevor Berninger, streetlights, Gabriele Siino, David Mccann, Leonard Neamtu, James Leadbetter, Rapssack, Matthew Powell, Adrian Sand, Haris Karimjee, Alex, The Cairene on Caffeine, Cody VanZandt, Casandra “Kalamity Kas” Toledo, Igor Francetic, Daniel Irwin, Sean Richards, Michael B., Colin J. Brown, Thusto , Lachlan Woods, Dan Hanvey, Andrea De Mezzo, Real Engineering. 
Наука
Hydrologist here, specialised in the soil moisture part: I agree with the middle child idea. Drought, salinisation, drinking water... It's baffeling how strong people's opinions are on agriculture yet how little they want to do for a resource that's mostly invisible... I work in groundwater research and I think it is overlooked because a lot happens under the ground and you can't touch it until it's pumpedout.
so sewer systems under a city works great for underground life?
compared to farm soil?
i will eat a crop coming from a field but i wont even torch a crop grown in a sewer system
the reason people hate climate people on farming is because the climate people not care about the real sciences or how farming is done they care for one thing get people into there 15 minute city's where concrete is magically made and food grows in a freezer
Geoengineering scares the hell out of me. Our track record of unintended consequences would suggest it would be highly risky.
but we already didi it, and making the China, US, EU sulfate peaks coincide would lover the temeprature by about 1°C as IPCC underestimated the effect. It's doable, even with salt.
Dear people who are fortunate enough to never study in grad schools: when experts say something is a "gap" in research and/or understanding, it means that those experts are partially or mostly certain about what they don't know. This is because they know of many similar topics to said gap already answered by someone else. A "gap" in research is more like a pothole on a highway and not a gaping maw with a sign that reads "hic sunt dracones." Sure, such potholes sometimes turn out to be the tip of a massive sinkhole, and major gaps in climate change research worthy of a report to the European Commission can be like such sinkholes. But even in those cases, those sinkholes will not "sunt dracones." Just like how this video started with, climate science is a *mature science.*
@knpark2025 this is why uneducated people believe that Unidentified Flying Objects _must_ be alien spacecraft and will start conspiration theories. If an object is "unidentified", it means it hasn't been identified and so can in no way be identified by anyone as spacecrafts from outer space.
Lol no that's not what it means. This is classic con man talk "scientists" use to confuse and brow beat normies.
@@SebastianKrabs why don't you go ahead and enlighten us then, genius?
@@SebastianKrabs SCIENCE: "The )ab is Safe and Effective!" ALSO SCIENCE: _"We never told you to take the )ab! It was always your Free Choice!"_
The editor of Nature quit because fake-Science has so _monetized_ the Commons, that most 'peer reviews' are their own academia pals, and most claims are specious future casting or pre-IPO fluffing. al-G0re's "97% of climate scientists!' FRAUD used LEXUS-NEXUS crawler bots to detect the word 'climate', pro or con, in scientific reports. That was their '97%' ratio. Now academia's 'The Hottest Day on Record! says in the report fine print (...climate model simulation...) That should win an Academia award! : )
@@critiqueofthegothgf Start with Atmospheric physics, Solar cycles, Milankovitch cycles, Ice Ages, modeling chaotic systems .........
Council member from the Netherlands here. When trying to implement legislation on climate adaptation, the main character of most measures is water again.
All these topics are so interconnected, and so very very important!
I think water is Hollands unique cc problem, what we can learn from you Dutch folk can help and is helping many ppl around the world. Each area on earth I'm guessing will all have their own unique (and shared) problems, some too much water, some a lck of, others will see too much heat and other maybe too much cold, how each adapt to meet these issues and how quickly others take up those sollutions will be a key part of the overall strategy to combate cc.
@DJWESG1 I don't live in Holland tho ;)
Thank you for doing such important work it must be very hard and for that we are all grateful
@@OpenTanyao behind door number 12 is the large gap in knowledge surrounding the difference between Holland and the Netherlands.
Water. Everyone uses it, someone's got to legislate it.
Having RUclips scrobble bar chapters in RUclips videos is a nice thing to have if you feel like adding them.
Agreed! Especially good for going back to a video you've already watched for a refresher or to share with friends.
Possible video topic? Misguided efforts both sincere and fraudulent. IMO an example is building huge structures with wood. SMR vs large nuclear plants. Hydrogen as large scale replacement for flammable fossils vs niche areas where it would work. Surely there's many many more...
SMR vs Large reactors? Didn't know this binary was a controversial topic. Could you elaborate on that? (Would especially love it if you could share a good source!)
Yeah, it would be quite interesting seeing a take on SMR vs. Conventional.
Much of our national discourse in Sweden on nuclear power seems to be pointed towards building SMR and not conventional, large scale nuclear facilities. Mainly due to being faster to implement? If I'm not mistaken.
I see the reasoning, but I also don't see why we wouldn't want to build large scale reactors akin to the ones we already have, as our electricity demand is about to skyrocket with the new factories opening in our northern parts.
@@florianvancitters3674 I dont have a source for you sorry, but my understanding of it is that small scale reactors have existed for decades to power ships/submarines, but they've never been economical enough to make small scale nuclear power plants. Nuclear energy is just most efficient when its scaled up, there are just fundamental limitations that prevent SMRs from ever being economical precisely because of their size
@larllarfleton I agree that nuclear will inevitably be more efficient at larger scales, but my understanding is that SMR's focuses more on building time, scalability, funding and with that political feasibility (which inevitably has to be considered).
Haven't really found many unbiased sources on the topic though, the only people really talking about SMRs are those developing them (e.g. Rolls Royce), or those who are against them in principle.
SMRs may be an issue best left to the specialists atm. Right now, renewables far outperform traditional reactors in cost/kwh and feasibility for rapid mass production. If SMRs can't drastically outperform conventional reactors, economically, they're a dead-end technology (or at most a very niche application).
Glad to see nature based solutions finally getting more attention
It is a slippery slope, though. For instance "nature based solution" could be construed as "plant more trees". But the problem isn't that there aren't enough trees to suck up CO2 (it is terrible for other reasons) - we've taken CO2 that had been sequestered inside the Earth for millions of years and pumped it into the atmosphere. We can't just plant more trees and expect to suck up all the CO2...
@@FuriousImpthe way I understand nature based solutions in the context of grey solutions (I’m a civil engineer) is regular regular concrete based infrastructure design vs designing and building infrastructure using natural processes. For example, the Sand Motor in the Netherlands to control coastal erosion versus the regular break waves and jetty’s that end up causing more troubles down the line but implement a solution right away.
@@FuriousImpwe can plant more trees and suck the co2 we released when we cut them down. I know it’s a case by case thing when planting but where i’m from the colonisers employed my people to log our forests, and these weren’t just any trees, many trees native to my land live upwards of 1000 years with diameters measured in the meters! I think regeneration and restoration are good things
@@uggali Did you just completely ignore the fact that the CO2 was taken out of the ground, and the trees will never be able to suck it all back up? Exactly like I explained in my reaction? Thank you for proving my point for me.
@@josea7804 Thank you for clarification.
“Put that thing back where it came from or so help me, so help me!” But for hydrocarbons?
It's the carbon. Sequester it. Put the carbon back underground where it came from.
Remember, that carbon was at one time overground and put underground over thousands and millions of years. We need to come up with ways to stick it back underground fairly rapidly.
Mike wizzowwski
@@bobwallace9753 it was pulled from the ground in highly concentrated forms. Meanwhile, it is dispersed in our oceans and in our atmosphere in quite low concentrations by comparison. Unless we find some way to scale natural means of capture, the energy required to reconcentrate it would dwarf that used and released in the process of using fossil fuels.
@@bobwallace9753 That fairly rapidly is pretty difficult though. If you think of it in terms of energy fossil fuels are the result of millions of years of photosynthesis taking CO2 from the air and putting it into organic materials, a portion of which became trapped and slowly turned into fossil fuels. At the moment the only vaguely economic carbon sequestration is taking it direction out of power plants and the like before it enters the atmosphere. With all that carbon dispersed it would take a lot of resources and energy to successfully sequester it all again.
@@bobwallace9753 It will take as much energy to sequester the carbon as it took it take it out. Between 10% and 30% of the global GDP. We will live to live with lower living standards and we need to make peace with that. Worse, modern agriculture is the use of land to turn petrochemical products into food. Minus that the earth could not feed more than 2 or 3 billion people. Worse still there is no choice because the world is at #PeakOil as we speak. We will see a dieoff this century whether we like it or not. Fossil fuels over the last 200 years are what caused the population pulse of the human population doubling 3 times from 1 billion to 8 billion and a plague species responds with dieoff when a temporary increase in carrying capacity is withdrawn. In addition to geo drawdown of energy we have pushed all other species and appropriated their share of the biosphere for ourselves by biospheric takeover. That's why we have inadvertently started the 6th great extinction.
I am afraid that SC is only a blue pilled environmentalist with a limited appreciation of biospheric, energy and thermodynamic system flows.
We need to plant way more trees, especially in cities that are at risk from urban heating.
That would help a little bit. But we would need massive amounts of tree (and perennial grass) planting.
That's more of a heat island and quality of life thing, with very minor carbon impact. Very.
Not so easy! It's more important to stop deforestation. And that it's important to plant the right tree in the right place.
But than, and in this way, it's really necessary to restore millions of square kilometers brought down the last 50 - 100 years!
Carbon wise it is anecdotal.
But for making cities more liveable during heatwaves it is indeed needed.
Fountains also help
Really excellent video. As a machine learning phd student I really hope to use my skills for helping find solutions to the climate crisis. This was a really inspiring presentation.
Machine learning engineers unite
You get points from me for calling it machine learning.
FWIW: I decided to become a biologist when I took a course on microbial diversity/evolution, a computational economics course, and machine learning in the same term and [its_the_same_picture.gif]
What crisis?
"AI comes with good & bad" The energy consumption alone is bad enough. The rest of possible bad outcome is horrible - and I don't mean the agi_moloch👀
The social consequences....
Explore MIT and Climate Interactive's climate policy simulator for some idea of what we need to do. It's called En-roads and it's made available for free online.
Regenerative agriculture solutions are not a complex bio-supply chain. The existing political framework supports exploitative land management. Adjusting that framework will naturally provide opportunities for smallholding farms and native land practice.
The key to keep in mind is that regenerative solutions are modular. They don't need complex scaling. They need replication.
If you do complex scaling you get intensification and you get the mess that was planting random trees everywhere to get carbon credits and "fix the climate". Good call out, most people miss that sort of thing, gess we've gotten used to the traditional more is better way of doing things
well regenerative agriculture is a fun idea but its not gonna feed 8 billion+ people
Regenerative farming is great. But it does lower food production resulting in either higher food prices or more foreign imports from areas that are more likely to use monocrops and lots of chemical fertiliser and pesticides. There's a middle ground somewhere.
@quillo2747 or we could just keep what we doing using basically no artificial fertilizer and have food for millions of years to come
@@quillo2747 it actually depends a lot, i am not disproving your point but in certain situations regenerative farming outproduces intensive monoculture, usually because of resilience against a sudden plague and stuff like that so it isn't really valuable, there is also the sad fact we throw about half the food we produce so there isn't a real undersupply but yeah sure we need to tackle those points and that is why we need to find an equilibrium, a mix of intensive and regenerative in different areas focusing on having regenerative near other natural spaces that way creating buffer spaces
12 Forceful reacquisition of all fossil fuel capital
Absolutely, comrade!
Hate to break it to you, but those most likely to survive, even proper during widespread climate catastrophe are those holding the most fossil fuel capital,
If we just charged all emissions, fossil fuel companies would go bankrupt quickly and the investors would lose their investment. That's a good step.
This should be number 1
@@tristanridley1601 They'd take the capital to take control of the nature of the transition. As they now do.
Excuse me, Dr Simon, the colour of carbon atoms is black, not red.
Except in diamond. Or as gas or plasma. Carbon is a diverse atom.
I very much doubt, "atoms" do have any colour whatsoever. They might emit some colored light when ionized and recombine with their missing electrons. The colour results from entire groups of atoms and how these reflect light. we are just used to represent different atoms by their appearance in the most common macroscopic structures like coal.
@@horst4439 Yet more proof posters need to use /sarc tags.
At least quarks still have colors.
@@horst4439 Chemists, who deal with atoms on a regular basis, have long had color conventions for the common biological elements. Carbon is black, oxygen red, nitrogen blue, hydrogen white, sulfur yellow.
@@bartroberts1514 sweetie, I was referring to his model of a molecule of methane in which the carbon atom was represented as red.
Great video Simon. Something to add from the Canadian perspective for prospective environmental scientists. Canada is extremely lacking in grad students interested in atmospheric science and computational hydrology/climatology. Incoming grad students overwhelmingly want to do field work and our original core of modellers from the 80's are retiring without nearly enough people trained to replace them.
My background is in computational climatology and remote sensing and I've been told at conferences I'll be 'Canada's most employable post-doc' when I graduate because of how in demand the fields are.
It's the same in Europe! We train Master students for field work as they mainly go into engineering disciplines in industry - but also there's a lack of introducing computational methods and modelling from an early stage in studying. It's almost daily that I see people lacking fundamental knowledge in modelling when the cross section into field work is so easily accessible... (hydrology here).
@@theresalwayssomethingtobui944 Sounds exactly the same. I've often thought that if I do end up going into academia rather than government (which is where I'm leaning) I'd push hard to include an undergraduate course (ideally two) on Earth System modelling. Students never know what they will enjoy until they're exposed to it so it would be nice to have the option available (like how earth sci/enviro sci/geography departments now almost universally offer GIS courses).
Do you think a background in mechanical engineering could open up doors to pursue atmospheric science? Or even with a background in civil/structural engineering?
I am in my 4th semester in ME and have found my solid mechanics and Finite Element Analysis course to be quite interesting, but I have also realized that I don't find machines and industry that interesting. However I have always had an interest in our planet, physics and mathematics. I was wondering if my skills developed in FEA could carry over to modelling of for example the atmosphere. Or do I not have much to offer without a degree in math or physics? I am also studying in Europe if that influences anything
I'm in the US and a junior studying environmental science but I'm incredibly interested in pursuing a masters in atmospheric physics and doing research with modeling and statistics; it's a bit of a funny feeling because I know how in demand the work will be due to the decreasing number of students pursuing it but at the same time, we need more people interested in this; to add a bit of optimism however, my degree program requires 2 GIS classes so it's a start, at least
@@TheWalkingSteakhouse environmental engineering is EXTREMELY in demand, if that's something you'd be interested in. engineering in regards to every single type of renewable energy construction; batteries, solar, wind, geothermal, hydropower, nuclear etc.
Another gem. Of course the amoc situation is most worrisome in that once data verifies collapse is in progress it's too late to mitigate. Nothing good can come from it's collapse. Thanks for your work! Consider hooking up with Nate Hagen's Great Simplification. His recent video was with Potsdam Institute climate physicist Level Caesar. She spent good amount of time on amoc. You+Nate more GHT amplify the message and bring more viewers into the conversation
The heck with this noise. REBUTTAL: There is so much compartmentalization here, the eleven doors each begging for research money -- but total neglect of different ... not doors, but .... different entire buildings! other fields of human involvement such as adaptation of economy by market mechanisms, learning, economic system change and behavioral cultural adaptation, not by billionaire oligarchs who are so inferior. This kid is not interested in war cost or central banking cartel rigged monopoly of credit -- hobbling human welfare here and now and costly. And how come there is no mention of weather warfare, weather redirection -- highly suspicious that all that is left out of account.
YES! Nate Hagens!
Well the climate people think if we just collapse the farming industry world wide making everyone go hungry and die the world is a better place with more hunger and suffering what a future they will have no thanks
AMOC 'collapse' remains a theory that can't be tested, therefore speculation, and 'mitigation' an evangëIical absúrdíty. What, are you going to flush the toilet backwards?
@@richardeastman9846Am in my 70s and worked at EPA in Clean Air Clean Water as one of first environmental scientists then taught STEM at HS and CC right up until Obama Common Core top down heads down Federal Instruction on the Cloud. Had our first suicide then our first mvrder, but Common Core memes and tropes spread like al-Gore's Carbon Cap & Trade Scheme (actual legal name). Now it's metastasizing as that first cohort of CCC graduates enters the 'work' force.
always top content, one of the best voices on these topics
Such a useful video! I'm a climatology student in search of a master thesis topic right now and i will definitely look into that report
Consider: Moving to cultured meat should free up massive amounts of land now used for feeding animals. That freed up land will mostly revert to carbon sequestering forest and prairie grasses.
Tie that in with some data that suggests the Earth experienced cooling periods follow the massive slaughter of humans by Genghis Khan and again when diseases introduce to North America wiped out huge numbers of Native Americans. I don't know how well that population drop = cooling data is, but a master's thesis is all about doing research. Look into whether those studies are being accepted as likely by people working in those areas.
@@bobwallace9753or a simple public information programme to discourage the consumption of beef and lamb.
The fact I keep getting road and suburb expansion ads on climate videos saddens as much as it annoys.
It shouldn't. You can bellyache all you want about growing suburban and metro areas in the developed world, but the reality is it's the 2/3rds of the population still living in underdeveloped countries that are the issue. You're not getting ads about them.
AIP has a great timeline of climate science going back 200 years to Fourier, through Foote, Tyndall, Arrhenius, Hogbom, Callendar, Plass, Lamb, Keeling, Revelle, Smagorinsky, Broeckner, Alley.. We long ago passed the point of refutation of the basics of the CO2 thermostat of global temperature.
How that was directly linked to capital.and growth though is still a contested issue, even though that too is also well studied and documented.
@@DJWESG1 Could you cite some of that documentation? Some of those studies?
Because to rise to 'controversial', wouldn't someone have to have taken such documentation and studies seriously?
Was it Smil? Lomborg? Patrick Watson? One of those other enviro-mole trojan pseudointellectuals?
John Tydell's experiments with CO2 never accounted for the effects of gravity on convection in the real world, and this is where the myth and lie that CO2 increases in the earth's atmosphere will increase temperatures was begun and it has yet to be corrected.
@@tompallowseconomicsofquali9034 Let's break down the statement and address the mistakes and fallacies:
"John Tydell's [sic] experiments with CO2 never accounted for the effects of gravity on convection in the real world"
Mistake in Name: The scientist referenced is likely John Tyndall, not "John Tydell." John Tyndall was a 19th-century physicist who conducted important experiments on the absorption and radiation of heat by gases, including CO2, confirming Eunice Foote's earlier findings, and building on Fourier's 1824 conclusion that climate variability occurred internal to the atmosphere.
Gravity and Convection: While Tyndall’s experiments primarily focused on the radiative properties of gases, understanding of atmospheric convection and the role of gravity was not absent from the broader scientific context. Atmospheric science incorporates convection and gravity, lapse rate, adiabat, density, compression, air pressure, etc. into mathematical Navier-Stokes climate models predating computers, and also used in proven weather predictions.
"this is where the myth and lie that CO2 increases in the earth's atmosphere will increase temperatures was begun and it has yet to be corrected."
Fallacy of Misrepresentation: The statement misrepresents the mountain of scientific studies that create the consensus. The understanding that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and contributes to warming the Earth's atmosphere is not based solely on Tyndall's work but on a robust body of scientific evidence accumulated over more than two centuries.
Scientific Consensus: Numerous studies, empirical data, and independently audited and validated climate models have consistently shown that increased levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases lead to higher global temperatures. This consensus is supported by stringent review of work methods by organizations such as NASA, BEST, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
Appeal to Conspiracy: Referring to the understanding of CO2’s role in climate change as a "myth and lie" suggests a conspiracy theory. The overwhelming majority of climate studies converge to agree on the fundamental principles of greenhouse gas-induced climate change, based on extensive research and evidence.
Summary
Incorrect Scientist: The correct name is John Tyndall.
Incomplete Context: Tyndall’s experiments were foundational but part of a broader scientific exploration that includes convection and gravity effects in climate models.
Misrepresentation of Science: The claim disregards the extensive body of evidence supporting the role of CO2 in global warming.
Conspiratorial Thinking: Suggesting the scientific consensus is a "myth and lie" is an unfounded conspiracy theory.
Addressing these points, the statement is corrected to reflect a more accurate understanding of the history and science of CO2’s role in climate change:
"John Tyndall’s experiments in the 19th century were foundational in understanding the radiative properties of CO2. Since then, extensive scientific research has consistently shown that increased CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere contributes to global warming. This understanding is supported by comprehensive climate models and empirical evidence, considering various factors, including convection and the effects of gravity and far more."
@@tompallowseconomicsofquali9034 ".. Tydell's [sic] .."
Mistake in Name: The scientist referenced is John _Tyndall_. Tyndall was a 19th-century physicist who pioneered experiments on absorption and radiation of heat by gases, like CO2. He confirmed Eunice Foote's earlier findings and built on Fourier's 1824 conclusion that climate variability occurred in the atmosphere.
Gravity and Convection: After Tyndall’s experiments showed radiative properties of gases, the understanding of atmospheric convection and the role of gravity was studied in Thermodynamics and is well understood. Mathematical Navier-Stokes climate models, which predate computers, are beyond the scope of this format.
"this is where the myth .."
Fallacy of Misrepresentation: The statement misrepresents extensive scientific studies. The understanding that CO2 is the thermostat of global warming is not based solely on Tyndall's work but on a robust body of scientific evidence accumulated over more than two centuries.
Scientific Consensus: Numerous studies, empirical data, and experiment are supported by stringent reviews of methodologies by organizations such as NASA, BEST, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
Hostile Thinking: Referring to the understanding of CO2’s role in climate change as a "myth" suggests intentional misunderstanding.
Aaah.... A list of "11 more things to worry about". Lovely. I'll add it to the pile...
If your list already included worries about climate change, you can remove those in the stead of these 11 problems.
Sure, worry about those, but act on the ones that are most meaningful toward pushing the pile down:
Cut 2% of today's level of fossil trade per month down to zero by 2030 by regulated limits on finance and licensing;
Avoid methane emissions as much as possible as soon as possible;
National programs to increase energy efficiency 8% per year;
Diversify wildlife by conservation efforts equivalent to 40% immediate drop in shipping traffic at sea, and like measures on land, such as Miyawaki Forests;
Increase biomass equivalent to a trillion new trees afforested -- and harvested to avoid new methane from their decay -- worldwide by 2060;
Educate key policymakers on the economic benefits of climate action;
Stop leakage offshore by border measures to keep fossil equipment and materials from moving internationally.
CANDIES. Have some, before the climate gets any stranger.
There is only one thing to worry about: our future
@@bartroberts1514 2% per month reduction in fossil trade would result in chaos throughout the world. We need to stop burning fossil fuels, but have to be smart about it.
@@incognitotorpedo42 Perhaps you didn't notice, but the CANDIES list is SMART: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bounded.
The chaos throughout the world you speak of? Fossil already bred that, and it is breaking through faster and faster by the day. We have little time left if we are to succeed in taming climate chaos that already kills people throughout the world faster than war, today.
2% per month is a carefully metered number, prompted by understanding how Joven's Paradox requires rationing fossil at the same pace as replacements come on stream.
Replacements as of 2023 came on stream 2.3% per month.
We're overdue for stopping fossil trade -- more than just fossil fuels .
Or perhaps you have carefully studied this issue and have at hand libraries of materials to demonstrate your claims?
I'm doing social interdisciplinary research for my dissertation and it overlaps with a few of the small topics among the doors: land use, land governance, and social intervention.
To put in a way that is analogous with your content, the last 8, 9, 10 are interlinked in a way that I can only say "It's all important and there is no way prioritizing only a door makes sense"
It's basically OH MY GOD 😮 and OH MY GOD 😱 at the same time.
All this report does is make this topic look and sound so complicated and stupendous that I throw my hands in the air and go for a walk in mother nature for a much needed hug
Think this might be one of the best video you've made, great way to break down the three IPCC reports :)
as if we ever get there…
We know exactly how to get to net zero. The problem is, nobody wants to do it. We don‘t need machines to calculate what we have to do. they will tell you to not do fucking hotdog eating contests, don‘t throw away half of all the food, don‘t produce cheap shit and ship it around the world, use public transport, get used to heat and get rid of your AC, and stop buying shit.
But that won‘t exponentionally grow your GDP and won‘t grow shareholders assets. So the people who are in power won‘t do anything. And even if they would do anything, people would get mad and vote them out. We are fucked and we should be ashamed of what we have become.
Hell, with current technology you could even stick with the AC the only real requirement would be "once someone has something don't make them buy it more"
@@Solstice261 but who is gonna make money from that? I heard you can have the same AC in pink now.
well they are doing something
buying up farmland so they can sell lab grown meat instead
politician outlaws farming indirectly with taxes they know a farmer cant pay
so the government can step in and make state owned "farms" and control the food
control the food = Control the People
only reason farming is even a toptic in the climate debate is control
the top 1% wants to be the once makeing bank on selling the "new thing"
and the goverment wants to control the people soo win win for both
Its not about GDP growth which only benefits corporations, its about standard of living. Its an imposition to tell everyone that they can no longer drive, that they have to eat certain foods, especially when cars are still avaliable at very high cost you have just created a new aristocracy where the rich have everything and the poor just get by. The only alternative is no one has anything, which necessitates a tyrannical government who will inevitable keep the cars and caviar all for themselves. All you do in punish the poor.
@@quillo2747 that is way the way to tackle consumerism is at the consumer level, which is short of what we are doing
Door #9. Yes! We've had the benefit of early industrialization and the ability to use coal and other fossil fuels for abundant energy over the last 400 years. Who are we to look to developing nations where only half of homes have electricity and running water and tell them they can't do the same without offering viable alternatives.
So you want to instate a massive form of political, educational, technological, and economic colonialism to try to bring clean energy solutions to 2/3rds of the world's population.
@@Objectified what in the living fuck are you talking about?
Door 12, how to transition away from capitalism and profit based economies to one that is compatible with sustainable existence. Not sure how this is not a bigger part of the debate. I know science tries not to interact with politics or economics, but we don't have a choice. Lets be real, none of these things will be worked on currently unless directly profitable. Capitalism is too short sighted to deal with this issue.
My areas of expertise happen to intersect pretty strongly here; climate, economics, AI (my degree is within AI development). I can tell you with full confidence that AI will break our current economies anyway, so we really need to do it intentionally in a way that benefits the climate / humanities long term existence.
Although you could argue this falls into climate education. This fact is blatant to anyone who has studied the climate and has a good understanding of modern economics; profit based economies are fundamentally incompatible with sustainable living.
Suggest you start paying a lot of attention to AI humanoid robots. How close we are to them starting to replace humans. Potentially humanoid robots will be able to do anything a human can do, do it better, and do it more reliable for far less money within 25 years.
If/when that happens human labor will have no value. Capitalism cannot survive since capitalism is built on labor, energy, and raw materials. If humanoid robots replace humans then there will be no customers to support capitalism as we know it. We need to be thinking about a new system of distributing goods and services.
I fear sometimes that poeple like this creator are so deep into the usual science environment that has been changed since the neoliberal reforms to operate basically in capitalist terms. He speaks about the importance of sustainable finance which is ok but the problem is not a lack of money but fossil capital trying to defend their artificial scarcity oligopolistic extorsion world economy with synergies in this power concentration with local car companies that lobby governments to keep car centric neighbourhoods intact.
I mean what is the problem is the fact that science has completely lost its radical character as it needs to produce studies that shows incentives and profit-based metrics that "prove" why in the long-term it would be nice to shift to a Green Economy while ignoring entirely this complete capture of all institutions, including their own, by company interests which make any type of real status quo changing implementation impossible.
Basically, the work of these scientists is next to worthless without a complete redirection of our democracies to expell all types of capitalist interests from decision-making.
Actually, science exists in the political climate and getting used to no growth has been recommended many times by many scientific papers, of course since a lot of them are direct to Europe and the US, that same understanding of the political climate means avoiding anything that may directly hint at anti-capitalist rhetoric because it will essentially make politicians and decision makers ignore your study
Your assumption is non capitalist societies like socialism and communism are sustainable and dont exploit the natural environment? Thats just not true.
The largest polluter on the plannet is China, the Chinese communist party. The only way you stop capitalism and proffit is by force with an authoritarian government, there is no guarantee that the system you replace it with is any better as it necessitates concentrated power in the government and restricted rights for the population just like China.
If a corporation can have a proffit incentive to pollute, a government can have a power incentive to pollute. At least with the separation of powers a government with regulations and fines can try to prevent and punish pollution from corporations. When the government and industry are one and the same there is zero incentive to reduce pollution. Your utopia is based on the assumption that a government is magically benevolent and doesn't suffer from the exact same corruption as massive corporations. You are mistaken my friend.
Perfect Simon Thanks for sharing
WOW! That was dense with facts and knowledge. I will have to watch this video again!
Imagine a world where the birthrate is collapsing, where there will be a falling population, not enough school leavers to fill all the courses at universities, not enough tax payers to fund research, not enough humans left to create harmful emissions?
invaled...
Simon, the Early Anthropocene Hypothesis has become increasingly accepted. Humans began raising CO2 7K yrs ago with agriculture, & did even more with rice farming 5,500 yrs ago, releasing methane.
This prolonged the Holocene, preventing the cooling we should have had related to Milankovic cycles. The Industrial Revolution dramatically increased human effects on the climate. But we’ve been affecting it for 7K yrs.
so your saying farming has put us here well what should we eat air not gonna happen we need food and not the lab grown crap
EAH is actually highly debated, and a lot of events prior to agriculture contributed to uncoupling the Holocene from orbital cycles. Plus methane emissions from wetland succession increased methane emissions at around the same time as agriculture.
It's not an unviable theory (for absolutely wild and impossible theories check out the Firestone Impact Theory) but there's not enough evidence one way or another.
I absolutely loved this format btw. I know you have been looking for identity on your channel, experimenting with cheap videos or really thought after like this one. Not that any of your videos are cheap but some as of late did feel that way. This was really good
Loved to hear the Just Have a Think shoutout at the end - this video definitely seemed inspired by his style
Great video, congratulations! I liked the deep dive into this kind of policy related documents. It reminded me when I was working at the European Commission's JRC, a lot of important and interesting scientific and policy work to be done!
Great video thank you!!
Thank you Simon. I'm not a student, but if I were, this would be very helpful.
You should make more of these deep dive videos. There are too few videos that go deep into the reports, and it is necessary for them to exist. Keep up the good work.
I will recommend this video to all young people I know and my peers who are in a period to choose a career path or research topic! Brilliant. Thank you 🙏
Great video. Hope it inspires some to take up the challenge.
when they want to do real science maybe but this bullshiti with farming is bad no thanks better to belive the earth is flat than
climate people "
Farming kills the climate and its environment "
Farmer "When did the climate start changing"
data "The climate started changed at the start of the industrial revolution"
Farmer "we been farming here since 3000 BC"
climate people "
Farming kills the climate and its environment why you not just shutting down your bossiness and your livelihood the city is a perfect climate utopia with more concrete and asphalt than the eye can see and food just magically gets to this place called "Supermarket" "
Thanks for another great one! As an aspiring climate scientist, I found this really helpful!
Intriguing content as always. Thank you.
As a physics uni student who's considering specialising in atmospheric physics, this was beyond interesting (and motivating)! Thank you, Simon :)
also, go get yo nebula subs kids, I've had mine for ages and it's amazing
Good reporting Simon! Excellent video! 🙂😎👍✌❤💯
Love the editing for this one.
Thanks for a great well done video as always. Only by recognising what we don't know can we move on and improve.
Great video as always
Commenting to boost engagement for good climate information
Adding a comment to do the same!
Excellent Simon! Extremely thought provoking. I look forward to the GeoEngineering video.
Thank you!
Yep. Like the new deep dive format. 💚
how timely of a video considering I've just started doing research into graduate programs regarding climate science/atmospheric physics!
Looking forward to the Geoengineering video, that'll be very interesting!
As someone about to start their master's in this field it's very helpful to know the paths I can work on thank you
Great video. Also absolutely LOVED the doors - I had to watch 23:36-24:16 several times, as it was so visually appealing! Thank you Simon and Luke :)
Thank you for a great video. (already a fan of "Just Have a Think" )
Just in time for my hot cup of tea 🍵
I have another interesting problem: Assuming we manage to get zero emmissions and even manage to filter out CO2 from the athmosphere. Which CO2 Level do we want to achive? Pre industrial 280ppm which leads to cold and harshy winters in the northern hemisphere. 350,400ppm or even more? At the moment we would be glad if we manage to stop the CO2 level rising. But later this topic could lead to complex political discussions.
Really useful content as always
Simon lives in a bubble where human beings seem to act rationally . A mistake is made when one believes we are any different to bacteria in a petri dish . I base my idea entirely on observation .
In terms of water availability for humans, there is a solution that exists and the technology exists and has been used at full-scale - it's called water reuse. It's taking water from your drains (and yes, your toilet, though this is a small percentage of the flow) and sending it through a very long series of super effective treatment steps at a city's facilities that remove pathogens and other contaminants. Out of it you can get highly purified water that's practically distilled. It's mostly just a matter of politics and public perception, similar to carbon emission reduction. It's not a silver bullet but it can greatly increase water security in times of drought. My research involves the treatment processes behind reuse and there's a lot of hope in my field that at least the water issue won't be as bad as other climate-related issues!
If you live in London, your tap water is guaranteed to have not more than a very small amount of human shit in it. It has been that way for decades. Quite a small amount.
Really looking forward to you talking about geo-enginneeing!
Excellent show Simon.
I'll use it for my science classes if you don't mind, please ???
I think this expose of the entire systematic interplay of each aspect provides the best pointer that I've seen for showing the upcoming generation the scope and range of the issues, and that their generation will be sorely needed to fill all those posts in prevention, mitigation, data collection, research, social needs, manufacturing and design, disaster management, financial placement, need and direction, governance planning issuance and enforcement, and the hundreds of other .positions that will undoubtedly be available.
Thank you.
Michael B
Please don't expose your students to such nonsense.
@@jamesgreig5168
It is you that is not looking at very concerning data. Students definitely deserve to loo at this stuff. It is their future.
Very interesting video, thanks!
Great video.
Add Biochar to shared agroforestry and agricultural soils. Add white ash on top during peak heat periods , on acidic soils, to improve albido effect. Its not that complex to incorporate CDR methods to regenerative agriculture, and offset our need to manufacture new concrete. Add Hydricity systems to desert regions where mining and commuity must occur. Do more green desal as part of that process.
I would LOVE to see more on the just transition side of things. Anyone got any recs?
honestly I need some hope about microplastics because like....they seem to be leading to infertility and cancers globally.
That's another thing that humans are going to need to deal with...
These seem like minor issues compared with "loss of the climate needed for agriculture and food production".
Cancer and hypofertility are issues, but compared to not having food or a survivable environnement, they are less of a threat to the specy.
If it helps, in the grand scheme of things, they aren't really a problem, if you try to live a healthy life they won't really affect you, would still be nice if we got rid of theme but as has been mentioned, simpler stuff like pollution from cars is probably taking a bigger toil on you than micro plastics, we should still en up forbidding the use of plastic
@@etienne8110 well if the climate people get there way we wont be here to deal with microplastics we would have staved to death because they hate farming and want it made illegal they think all food just appear in the freezer at the local supermarket
@@pingvingaming you forgot your tinfoil hat bro...
Great video!!!
I don’t think that it is going to single-handedly save the planet, but I absolutely love regenerative agriculture. There are so many different practices under that umbrella that it can apply to almost everywhere. Agroforestry, silvopasture, food forests, etc. I think the most exciting about it for me is that the benefits are often most visible for small scale farmers like the majority in the global south
Thank you for always presenting the facts in a way that is engaging, informative, and despite the gravity of the topic at hand never leaves me feeling too sad. But also never overly-optimistic.
Your channel is right in the goldilocks zone of climate outreach. Thank you, Simon.
(Also it's pronounced meh-thane, you neanderthal)
Wait, are those blood bowl, cursed cities, and 40k boxes in the background?
I knew I was in the right place 😎
Hey Simon, thank you for your high quality work on environmental and climate sciences. I think this is very valuable, especially for me who is into sustainability and decarbonization strategy, where summarys like this are interesting, save a lot of time and help me to keep getting inspiration and expand my knowledge.
Keep up the good work, greetings from Germany🌍🇩🇪
Based on the laws of physics, carbon capture and storage should only be done in high carbon environments, or when we're off of fossil fuels with the electric grid
In my field, what you call "tipping points" we call "quantal regions".
great video!!!
Yes Agroforestry is a great idea. There are indications that part of the rainforest are actually human made gardens. This is a huge opportunity to rebuild these systems to support biodiversity and our health. Coming together for such a huge endeavor is the great challenge of our time.
We have the knowledge and manpower it's just a matter of coordinating it.
A great idea for ecosystems, a terrible idea for food production. It will make food more expensive and either lead to famine or reliance on foreign imports from places that still farm industrially.
One of the conséquences not getting enough coverage imho is the post deglaciation rebound (glacio isostatic rebound).
Meaning, when continental ice masses are melting fast, it moves a LOT of water (and thus weight) from continental masses to oceans.
This in turn change the mechanic equillibrium between tectonic plates.
Tl:dr, lots of earthquakes and eruptions will happen at the end of the century, in a scale of frequence never seen before in human history.
It is known, logic and predictible, yet i don t see much people talking about it and anticipating the need for better seismic prévention and changes in building laws.
While it may sound logic to you I am very much afraid this is a conspiracy theory, there isn't enough ice and it isn't melting fast enough to in any way affect the continental plates, if I lived next to a quickly melting glacier I'd be more afraid about running out of water when sno melt disappears, I don't intend to call you out but be careful with what you read on the internet as it can easily get taken out of context
The glacio isostatic rebound is more of a thing that happens when the earth finishes a glacial snowball period and massive glaciers "quickly" return to the poles, you needn't worry about that happening in this case thank god, it's enough end of the world as it is but I encourage you to research more on the subject either to prove me wrong or because geology is just very cool and very underrated
I’d heard of an idea involving vast floating algae farms located in the pacific and Atlantic gyres. They would capture carbon and sequester it in the deep sea bed in the form of marine snow. A portion of the seaweed could also be harvested for biofuels and food. These would become oasis’s in the mid ocean increasing biodiversity and wild fish populations and could be grown on mesh made of iron to help fertilize the farms.
As this idea is scalable, this could be the magic bullet we’re looking for. Arthur C. Clark had an off hand line about this in his short novel Island In The Sky back in the sixties, (though only about it being for food production), and it kinda stuck with me.
Great video
we are all stuck arent we. we just cant stand being in that state. we keep finding things to do to keep ourselves busy. so we wanna change the world !!
A really inspirational video!
I’m finishing my master’s in Forestry and Geostatistics. I’ve recently been hired as a carbon analyst at a company where I work with REDD+ projects in the voluntary carbon market. My educational background involves using statistics in remote sensing to predict biomass and estimate carbon sequestration potential.
I am highly skeptical of the value of the voluntary carbon market. In my opinion, it is a new colonial framework used by the imperial core to hide emissions. These projects should be funded but not used to offset emissions in a way that lets industries continue to pollute. Instead, industries should fund these projects and simultaneously reduce their emissions. Although many REDD+ projects are dubious, they often provide a positive impact on the global community and ecosystem.
Just a funny note to me as a Kiwi in Aotearoa New Zealand, and you talking about water as being the middle child, when here it is probably the favourite child
I think green building as in wood and hemp brick buildings with enough structure to have roof top plants would be a good option for medium density housing. It sequesters carbon has good insulation and adding plants to the roof helps mitigate heat islanding.
The more mitigation thats exists, the more forrests and mountains we lose.
Has anyone heard of the MIT break through on how water evaporates? It talks about just being able to use light and no longer needed heat. Which will change the water shortage drastically for the future.
Hopefully all the researchers behind these “doors” interact amongst each other. Solving for density or food without water considerations could be catastrophic.
After Net Zero? We collect the underpants, of course.
Huh?
@@enterprisestobart I couldn't resist, it was that comment or one for "Al Gore's Rhythm."
Such a cool video!!
headed over to nebula...
20:16 - this is easily the most important research field. It's the messiest, most difficult to understand well, and the one that underpins all actions. In order to achieve meaningful change, intentions must change - at scale. That's a big challenge, and clearly the part that is the biggest barrier to progress.
Perhaps we should start taking into account the fact that most of our activities are not necessary. We could drastically reduce the worlds economy and emissions by concentrating on what is really needed to live well, rather than praying that technology will save us. It requires no effort but it does require that we collectively change our perception of what it means to live well.
And maintain capitalism? This latter is fiercely incompatible with "collectively changing" anything. Know thy enemy.
Any discussion addressing climate change that does not lead or prominently feature nuclear energy is not going to produce sustainable solutions. The direct and knock-on benefits of widescale nuclear energy would be game changing on their own.
Nuclear energy can't compete with solar and wind in price. New nuclear reactors are so expensive you need them to keep running constantly. That means that they don't solve a shortage of electricity production by wind and solar since nuclear will already be producing at max capacity.
The great thing about Solar Radiation Modification, the ones we have done accidentally anyway and not the harebrained overengineered schemes, is that they provide local cooling.
Instead of cooling the entire planet, we can cool down areas most at risk from climate change. That way we can save wildlife and/or urban centres particularly vulnerable to these effects.
I became interested in the threat we pose to the environment and increasing global temperature thanks to Ronald Reagan. I now call that a Grand Old Irony.
Its like when you don't need to be on a diet to lose weight any more. Maintenance and new goals.
Out of curiosity, I took a look at the estimated cost of curtailing annual carbon emissions. On the one hand, $3 trillion is a lot per year. On the other hand, it's not that much compared to $100 trillion world GDP. Thinking of it as a 'carbon interest payment ' could give rational actors incentive to cut their emissions, or even invest in carbon capture technologies as they start to scale. We can enact further incentives and subsidies to develop this industry
Think a bit about your $3T costs. Fossil fuel plants and vehicles have useful lives. After 40 years or so a coal plant is worn out. In less than 20 years most cars are worn out. They have to be replaced. That is a baked in cost.
Now. New wind, solar, and storage are cheaper than new coal plants. Rather than spend X$ on new fossil fuel plants, spend less money and get the same amount of electricity cheaper.
The price of EV batteries has massively decreased over the last couple of years. We've reached the point where it's cheaper to manufacture an EV than a same-feature ICEV. Spend less money for a new ride. Run it on renewable energy and save per mile as well.
Finally, realize the very high amount of money we spend annually to treat fossil fuel pollution caused health problems. Get rid of fossil fuels and we'd save hundreds of billions of dollars per year. Easily one of those $3T in a decade.
Quit fossil fuels. Save money.
@bobwallace9753 where do you live that you can buy an EV cheaper than a comparable fossil fuel powered car? Here they're still quite a lot more expensive.
@@NovacificationUK
Take away what you get from no longer having to pay subsidies to fossil fuels, or even better, fossil fuel companies and countries using their money to transition and we have more than enough without really even affecting most countries' finances
@@Novacification
The US. A Tesla Model 3 starts at $38,990. A BMW Series 3 starts at $44,500. Then there's a $7,500 federal subsidy for the Model 3 that drives the price down to $31,490.
There are some extremely affordable EVs in China. And they are spreading to other countries.
As the owner of a self seeded (last fifty years of abandonment) of a pine forested Mediterranean ex-farm, I'd love to know what trees can both survive in my minimal rainfall climate and burn less.
If you are on a place like a fair bit of the eastern coast of Spain, there are some places where trees don't really work and you just get a bunch of reforested pinus alepensis which don't really help with carbon, encinas quercus ilex might work well, hardy plant can deal with the heat and dryness but light struggle if the soil isn't tight, quercus caducifolia might also do well
If you are going for forestry I am not really sure since most trees for wood and pellet production struggle with high temperatures, if you aren't then I recommend the two I mentioned, they're bark is a bit fire proof and it isn't like with pine trees that just look to burn at any chance they get
That's about as much as I can say from my fairly limited knowledge about the ecology of the area, hope it at least gave you some leads and good luck with the land
Quick guess? People get compliant, other get greedy and we bounce back right back into producing carbon dioxide emissions.
On the last door: clearly scientists just need to figure out a way to cut blocks of ice from Pluto to add to the oceans. Like dad would do with his drinks...
19:10 Hmmm... waiting on mention of the BIG systems change- the political hot topic of moving away from captialism! I dont see how we could do even half of this without that.
Such as doughnut economics, solar punk approaches and what ever else aspects of other poltical ideologies.