Overshoot... also known as, ''actually, we expected our grandkids to have to pick up that tab... so we racked the bill up heaven-high and set the whole place on fire!'

@TheFlyingBrain.

2 ай бұрын

I agree. This has been the most disgusting hour I've spent in a long time. At least now I understand: What's happened to the IPCC is not an accident by any measure. The oil corps planned to take it over all along. And anything that comes out of the IPCC now is going to be all about what the fossil fuel industry wants. Also, they really have known about the risks to climate since 1970, and what's being covered here is what they planned for right along. The 20 urs of silence. The 30 yrs of doing nothing. All part of the plan. And lets not forget the profound confusion during those 30 yrs of disinformation that knowingly played on Americans' primary mental and emotional weaknesses. Furthermore, as long as the fossil fuel industry controls the US gov't, nothing but what we've listened to here is going to be on the agenda. And in the end this will suit the majority of Americans just fine. That is, until they finally realize, far too late to do anything about it, just how badly they've been duped. In the meantime, I really don't believe any more that Americans care at all about the environment in any real way. It's about as real to most of us as Disneyland. People want their comforts, their big gas-guzzling SUV's, cheap gas, sales at Walmart, and their phones. Period. And if they don't get those things, to hell with everything, and to hell with you, and it's the current President's fault. Take your Prairie chickens and eat them. So unless enough of us get in the streets and stay there until the system grinds to a genuine halt, then continuing along the kind of path outlined here is what its going to be. And please note, there is no evidence in any of this, of any care whatsoever for what happens to to our ecosystems, and the potential mass extinction of species in response to elevated temperatures and increased levels of CO² beyond anything the planet has seen in millions of years... While they're having their so called "overshoot." All that's being discussed here is economic impact. Of course. Because that's all these sociopaths care about. $$. And who gets to boss the dying world sitting at the top of the bloody garbage heap we all created holding the biggest bag of it.

@phil20_20

Ай бұрын

Not to worry, Elon Musk will nuke Mars for us.

@kated3165

Ай бұрын

@@TheFlyingBrain. There's always going to be selfish idiots who would rather the world burn than have to learn to make their burger patties a bit different... but I suspect most people would actually be on board for more drastic changes IF they genuinely knew how dire the situation actually is. A lot of folks seem to believe that the consequences in their area will just be a few degrees warmer... and that it will mean having to switch a tomato variety or two for another. To be fair, governments are NOT sounding the Alarm the way they should, so it's easy for most to assume that Climate Change can't possibly be THAT dire. Governments wouldn't be more focused on tons of other dumb stuff if the friggin apocalypse was right on our doorsteps right?! Governments have failed us all so miserably. Mega corporations are completely psych..otic, but also the ones holding the steering wheels. Much of the ruling class are straight up delusional, hellbent on maintaining the status quo and thinking that their families will somehow survive the consequences of 3+ global warming by living in luxury bunkers in New Zealand... We have taken fully for granted our planet being habitable, and never questioned how fragile that balance might actually be. Yet we also keep finding planets that show signs that life might have been possible on them... once. What we struggle to find are other planets currently in a habitable window. Heck, the "long-term plan", and thinking model, behind treating our resources as if they were infinite? The idea that our technology would get so advanced that (by the time we started to run out) we would be colonizing and mining other planets anyway... 😬

I'm not sure economists actually deserve to be called "scientists".

@garrenosborne9623

2 ай бұрын

Steven Keen does & Kate Raworth too

@kurtklingbeil6900

2 ай бұрын

While there are individual economists who live up to their role as scientists, certainly the run of the mob cronyCorpiratist laissez-faire-ist apologists Smith- Randists do not

@brianwheeldon4643

2 ай бұрын

They are not scientists plain and simple. Nordhaus is a great example of a theory for money and a Nobel prize. What a disgrace the corporate west is.

@phil20_20

Ай бұрын

Sort of like psychologists, it's all in their minds.

@kimweaver1252

Ай бұрын

Well, at least it has been relegated to "the dismal science." That's SOMETHING, eh?

We are doomed. That much is 100% certain. The only question is when and the answer is "probably much sooner than most people expect".

@SamsungSamsung-md9xq

2 ай бұрын

Bs!

@Livingthewild

Ай бұрын

​@SamsungSamsung-md9xq No, it's called "science".

@phelixtaylor4973

22 күн бұрын

OMG these freaking drama queens predicting our extinction just cause it might maybe get a few degrees hotter. So what, man-up and stop being a wimpy Girlyman.

@guillermodiaz8061

22 күн бұрын

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Another video points out 4 items used to support 8 billion people. Concrete, steel, plastics and fertilizer. All use tremendous amounts of oil, coal and natural gas. Even Teslas are basically steel and plastic. Unsustainable.

@TheFlyingBrain.

2 ай бұрын

Exactly. And they know it. These people are just so blinded by what they personally want, and therefore want to be true, they can't open their eyes to the plain fact that they're ignoring what they already know.

@rogerlong6969

2 ай бұрын

Well said, keep speaking the truth!

@liamhickey359

2 ай бұрын

Wilful detachment is the hallmark of the skeptics. If I ever talk about this subject (not very often) to people I know, there is a stock reply from some.:" Do you want to go live in a cave".

@redrockcrf4663

2 ай бұрын

@@liamhickey359 My stock reply is the opposite...People weren't living in caves right up to the moment we started using fossil fuels at large scale.

@Debbie-henri

2 ай бұрын

This is why I'm just not in love with EVs, Tesla especially. It fools customers into thinking they are doing some good - when everything their car has an impact, and continues to have an impact due to the need to mine for and industrialise more resources for those batteries, spare parts, replacement tyres. The emphasis 'should' be on better public transport links, every time. My location has seen a 'reduction' in public transport, rather than an improvement, despite the fact the buses are popular and well used. My husband has a hell of a day in front of him as he takes our little car in for an MOT today, because of insufficient bus services. Yes, we have a car. We live in the countryside, it's an 8 mile walk to the nearest supermarket, and I cannot ride bicycles (joint and balance problems. Plus you try carrying a week's shopping on a bike). Our son uses public transport. I used public transport up to the age of 52, when necessity forced me to learn to drive. My husband used public transport to get to work. We do not fly anywhere for holidays. So we haven't done badly over a lifetime - but the government could certainly help local councils to do a lot better. Transport is a serious issue for a lot of people, and many would prefer to leave their cars at home if public transport was really competitively priced, less crowded and more reliable.

Today is memorial day 2024 in the US. Over the past couple of weeks in Mexico and the countries of central America monkeys are falling out of the trees and dying from heat stroke. Time is up. The problem with reliance on carbon removal technologies is that they do not exist except as a verbal diversionary tactic to allow continuance of "business as usual". Can you say extinction?

@dbadagna

Ай бұрын

Someone just posted on another KZread video saying that a special type of algae could be farmed in the oceans to sequester 10 gigatons of CO2. Is that true?

@Muddslinger0415

Ай бұрын

@@dbadagnaeven if it was we would need to remove trillions of tons of

@dbadagna

Ай бұрын

@@Muddslinger0415 10 gigatons = 0.01 trillion tons

@blinkingmanchannel

Ай бұрын

@@dbadagna Dry ice is solid CO2. We need to remove 1 trillion tons of CO2 from the air. Global GDP is about $100 trillion per year. A dry ice machine capable of 1 ton per hour (let's say electricity is free) costs $20,000. What's my allowance for this project?

The mood on the planet is dangerously shitty. We will say ....that we had no idea... we were going crazy **well before** the really bad weather. Actually this is obvious - > *people anticipate the future* If tomorrow looks dark_gray to black for a long time - a large part of us lose our minds - the rest follows immediately. Nobody can stand 30% crazy people on the streets. But sure - we all have damn titan strong mentality... LOL

@pismopleasure

Ай бұрын

The human species is an evolutional dead-end. Of course the civilization built by such a flawed species is also destined to collapse. If the word "crazy" is being use to describe the mental capacity of the human population, honestly it's WAY more than 30% crazy.

But...the latest innovators are telling us that sprinkling iron into the ocean and shooting water vapor into the air (marine cloud brightening) is going to restore the atmosphere to preindustrial levels. (And to continue overshooting with business as usual!)

@kimweaver1252

2 ай бұрын

Make the clouds brighter, you reflect away more actinic light needed for photosynthesis. Given that phytoplankton in the Atlantic is at about 10% or less of the mass it was a hundred years ago and photoplankton need sunlight to perform photosynthesis, it seems like a particularly bad idea to reduce the necessary energy input needed to sustain the food chain in the oceans.

@EnvironmentalCoffeehouse

2 ай бұрын

IKR!!!!!!

Are alternative fuels so inexpensive as to threaten the wealth and power of oil barron's? PLEASE SAY SO.

@TheFlyingBrain.

2 ай бұрын

In a way, but no. Alternative fuels will never be able to replace the kind of technology fossil fuels have given us. And that's the problem. People are so stuck on our present way of life, they can't conceive of or accept the sacrifices we will have to make in technology, and economically, in order to have any hope of realistic course correction. So they are desperately holding on to any way to stave off the economic crash that most certainly is going to happen one way or another, and are trying to keep on drilling and pumping the dollars that oil represents for as long as there's a single drop left to be refined. It's a sickness of the mind and heart that's at work. Recommend you look up and listen to Nate Hagens podcast here on YT. It goes by the name "The Great Simplification." Nate has been a fossil fuel investment advisor on Wall St, retired now; he understands how the fossil fuel industry works, and exactly what's going on around it. He was so successful during his career in the Market, he's been an advisor to heads of state on the topic. Then he woke up, and now he's using his connections to try to help heads of state understand reality and change course. He has some amazingly intelligent guests from all over the world talking at length about what we're really facing right now from the point of view of their expertise, no BS about any of it, and what can be done about it that doesn't involve these insanely risky ideas from the fossil fuel corporations. It's good stuff: Grim, of course, but it's not all bad news. 💚

@wizzyno1566

27 күн бұрын

They're not.

Stop traveling and driving around! Stay home or walk or bike! Stop taking airplanes and cruises just to have 'vacation." Stop buying new clothes; a million people in the US died during the pandemic and second hand clothing stores are overflowing - - buy used clothing. Grow a garden and buy locally grown food. Eat a healthy WFPB diet. Pay attention to plastic wrapping and use less; reuse zip lock bags, etc. Turn the heat down during the winter and put on a sweater. WE are causing the climate crisis!

@SeanStehura

2 ай бұрын

Stop eating meat.

@antonyjh1234

2 ай бұрын

There is 636 kw of energy in a tank of diesel, around 3 months of my same energy in an australian summer with the air con going 24-7. One litre of petrol is more energy than a human working all day. Walking brings more than driving, limit driving as much as possible if you can't stop.

@Muddslinger0415

2 ай бұрын

We are causing but it to late for such simple measures sorry, we are soon to be at 3degree Celsius by 2040 and 6 degree Celsius by 2100! We need immediate abandonment of fossil fuels world wide and pray that will save us! This isn’t going to happen therefore we are completely screwed

@antonyjh1234

2 ай бұрын

@@Muddslinger0415 For some people these aren't simple measure. I agree with complete abandonment, but that cost is too much to bear. Fifty percent of people are alive because of fertiliser. Plastics and medicines are still going to be needed and they come from the same barrel as the rest. Political Nihilism and a new system would be enough, we could take electricity, 20% of our energy, with us into the future and we have lowered our emissions 80 percent. Show that to developing world.

@PeevyMctweevy

2 ай бұрын

You think everyone has a garden. ?

I’ve come to this as the only solution. A radical forced shift to small collectives minimally powered by renewables.

@UnknownPascal-sc2nk

2 ай бұрын

After the dust has settled and all the cannibals are fed, yes, a society of survivors that have sworn off greed forever.

@antonyjh1234

2 ай бұрын

Political Nihilism has to happen first.

@lshwadchuck5643

2 ай бұрын

Fifteen years ago we were gathering in our rural outpost to talk about root cellars and skill-sharing. Now we have a global trend toward fascist petro states. I love every time Wim says 'not innocent'.

@garrenosborne9623

2 ай бұрын

yep forced by consequences {natures reactions to our behaviours & our reactionary ones to eachother in fight or flight} not by conscious choice { of any administration, which would have long broken down into infighting factions . With the exception of a shift in collective consciousness short cutting the need to re'invent civilisation post dystopian collapse waves. Re build B4 collapse... Asimov's Foundation got a retelling { badley} because of an unconscious feeling the premise is relevant , not just some tvs execs IP cash grab { which superficially it obviously was}. We are not just singular points of rational self interest [as defined by stuff dollar & non'cents], as the legacy criminals of the right would have us believe. Or the helpless needy sheeple the left would like us to be. We are spiritual beings have a material experience & need a culture of conscious engagement in the principles of civilisation, the sleep of reason produces nightmares, the worship of reason makes AI monsters. Post complacency {Climate & all the other existential hydras of the meta crisis}, the real biznez end of this is foundational constitution building thats as future proof as our current Cassadras can make it.... Lets learn from history, myth & scifi, crunch the psychohistory numbers, hedge our bets & realise we cant survive a techo feudalist great filter phase without guarding against legacy 1% psychopathic genes rise to corporate/gov .... Billionairs & their unilateral mad scientists off the leash, wont save us. Neither will nation states, nor a new world order.... Only WW2 ++ level of effort, by conscious sovereign! individuals who value cooperation & can actually cooperate rather fracture into the oblivion of waving flags & guarding a stockpile of shit roll with a shotgun - shooting windmills wearing redcoats. An old school startrek future is better, but cant happen without getting out shit together.

@SamsungSamsung-md9xq

2 ай бұрын

Bs!

The Overshoot theme song I’m an Idiot (A parody based on Monty Python’s I’m a Lumberjack) Lead: I’m an idiot and that’s ok. I believe the lies media vomit out each day. Chorus: He’s an idiot and that’s ok He believes lies media vomit out each day. Lead: Let’s cut down trees. Let’s eat our lunch. Let’s go to the lavatory. Every day let’s go shopping and have buttered scones for tea. Chorus: We cut down trees. We eat our lunch. We go to the lavatory. Every day we’ll go shopping and have buttered scones with tea. We’re all idiots and that’s ok. We believe the lies media vomit out each day. Lead: I cut down trees, breathe wildfire smoke Bulldoze wild fields of flowers What bugs me most is watching Men dress up like me ma. Chorus: He cuts down trees, breathes wildfire smoke Bulldozes fields of flowers What bugs him most is watching Men dress up like his ma?… (As in the original, the Chorus fidgets and looks nervous, but resumes heartily on the refrain) We’re all idiots and that’s ok. We believe wha media vomiteaches up each day. Lead: I cut down trees, pollute the land, the oceans and the sky. I’m living large for right now. The rest of life can die. Chorus: He cuts down trees, pollutes the land, the ocean and the sky. He’s living large for right now. The rest of life can die…? (As in the original skit during this last bit the Chorus begins to breaks down, using questioning, agitated, raised voices but in this version turns and accosts the lead singer)

Get interviewed by Nate Hagens

The real problem is overpopulation. Sadly it’s people in richer nations that have huge carbon footprints compared to those in poorer nations.

@evilryutaropro

2 ай бұрын

It’s all fossil fuels. There’s no overpopulation without abusing coal oil and gas to scale up food production so massively and unsustainably

@wizzyno1566

27 күн бұрын

​@@evilryutaropro^ this. Over population couldnt have happened without fossil fuels. Getting rid of them will also solve the over population problem though 🤔

Industrialists ask “how can I protect my earnings and stock price?” This question rarely has more than a 6 month window.

The book title has been used has been used. Carton, William. You will need a subtitle.

@aliendroneservices6621

Ай бұрын

Catton. William R. *_Catton_* Jr. Both books have their respective unique subtitles.

2000 billions tree to get out from the emergency for 70 years. A surface like Canada. This is all what we have at the moment. But we are doing just the opposite. There is not also any tecnology to substitute fuel in tractors, lorries, caterpillars, ships, airplane and every production site where needs high temperature...

The Scripps Institution of Oceanography UC San Diego reported a daily average carbon dioxide of 428.63 ppm on April 26,2024. The methane is also extremely high. If you are replacing your roof anytime soon, you will do yourself and the planet a big favor by choosing a white roof.

the only solution is to live on the land the way the indigenous, of that area, did for thousands of years. in balance. ugly true of it is this system will brake down. not if, but when?

This deserves broader exposure.

Overshoot was a self-economically-fulfilling dogma that ignores the dynamics of phase changes

Excellent conception of where the political / social compromise boundaries are. Provoked a lot of internal thoughts for me.

It's not climate that needs management, it's people.

"We don't know why they scorched the sky, but we know the machines didn't do it." - Morpheus, the Matrix Using pollution to block out the Sun is probably not the safest idea.

Ocean carbon into the abyss goes back into solution due to pressure. Shallow carbon is mixed back into the air by storms. Good sites are rare and must be carefully monitored.

Iron fertilisation of oceans will end up being used, as it is the cheapest, most effective, and least destructive if implemented off the edge of the continental shelves and at the location of the zones of the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn. In this way it reduces the impact on indigenous and commercial marine practices because these areas are the least historically productive areas of the sea.

ES URGENTE FRENAR EL CALENTAMIENTO GLOBAL CAPTURANDO CO2 DE LA ATMÓSFERA Y SECUETRANDOLO EN EL SUBSUELO, TAL COMO SE PENSO EN HACERLO DESDE HACE VEINTE AÑOS. SI ES NECESARIO INCAUTAR EL DINERO OCIOSO QUE SE REQUIERA PARA CONSEGUIRLO ASAP (TAN PRONTO COMO SEA POSIBLE).

@Muddslinger0415

2 ай бұрын

Your are absolutely correct it’s sad that there is so many people that don’t realize how bad this is going to get and soon

@TheFlyingBrain.

2 ай бұрын

And we have no guarantee any of this will work. We could make an even worse mess that will take even longer for the planet to self-correct. And I DO know just how bad it's going to get and how soon. I agree with this: People have no idea what's coming. It's gonna be real nasty for awhile. A lot of people are going to die now, and none of these crazy ideas are going to make near enough difference in time to stop what's imminent. We've blown it guys. The time to do this was 30 years ago, but nobody could be bothered to listen then. Running around like panicked chickens now, grabbing the nearest solution just because it sounds good on paper, isn't going to help anything. I can point to a very long list of technological miracle ideas that turned out to be a disaster, starting with PFOS, and whole myriad of forever chemicals that we have unleashed into the environment and are still dumping there. Let's remember that it's the biosphere of the living planet that is the smart one here. Not us. Our technology is in complete opposition to the way nature works, and that is exactly why we are in big trouble now. So if you're smart, you'll cool it, and slow down. Stop panicking. Get ready for a bumpy ride, because that's coming no matter what. Realize the dye was cast, by us, decades ago. Now we need to stop what we're doing and let Nature show us the right way to resolve this.

It's way too late also to acknowledge the Indigenous land your facility is on, because they aren't going to get it back. The same for the Indigenous in America where I live. Acknowledging this Indigenous loss may just be putting salt on a wound, regardless of how well meaning the comment is.

People use to live in a warmer far north Canada ,before the ice age

@grindupBaker

Ай бұрын

Needs a reference

if #manmadeglobalwarming wasn't worth *$TRILLIONS* it wouldn't be a thing.

@grindupBaker

Ай бұрын

Yes it would. @theuktoday4233 == Ignorant Troll

Thanks for this,very informative.

Planet Earth is getting colder . We are in an Ice Age.

I am looking for a shrewd, pragmatic discussion of options. I don't see it here. I'm at 38:00 and you guys are busy attributing motives to the entrenched asset owners. It really doesn't matter HOW we got here. What matters is how to get out! Let's define the objective: bring the level of CO2 in air down from 425ppm to 350ppm. In case we need a more flexible objective, we could also say we need to get 1 trillion tons of CO2 out of the air, or find a way to recirculate that much air up high enough that it can shed heat into space.🤔 In any scenario imagined so far, we're going to live like Europeans did in 1890... except we have antibiotics and electricity. Also, a bunch of what are densely populated coastal areas, in 2024, will be underwater or too hot to live in during the summer. Why is this so emotional???

@JamesCurcio

Ай бұрын

Good luck.

The reason problem is scientists chasing funding and adopting insane climate alarmism.

Our capture of CO2 is poor and will continue to be so.

@malthus101

2 ай бұрын

trees do it, we don't need to do anything you numpty.

@rdallas81

2 ай бұрын

Fake. We can't capture not even .00001 percent. They are destroying our forests while increasingly the use of fossil fuels.. Any idea that some technology will fix it is a con for profit. Money, and the lust for it is the reason this disaster is happening. And it won't stop- Because the powers that be all know they will be gone before the real heat occurs- but their children and yours will be here. Mass migrations, mass suffering, job losses, food shortages, water shortages, epic storms, civil unrest will all be in the not so distant future. If people act like they do now, imagine what it will be like when 5 degrees increase is reached.

Algo boost!

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 I will save this video for the year 2045. Let's see what they will invent in the future to say that the world is going to end and that humans are responsible 🤣🤣

And still ,the one topic, factor, vector influencing the climate debate is NOT mentioned ! TOO MANY PEOPLE.... all wanting the lifestyle and consumption patterns of the West. This means Nth Asia, Sth America and especially Africa !

@wizzyno1566

27 күн бұрын

This is absolutely true. But what is your solution? Are you willing to go first as an example...

At 54:22, the presenter says, "strategically deployed to..." [support entrenched interests...] Snap out of it man! We are all just trying to think about what might work. Obviously nobody likes where we are. Everybody is blown away by the scale of this issue. Let's try to get some basic facts agreed. I bet we can't even do that... 1 trillion tons of excess co2 had us at 425ppm instead of 280 tp 350. We make the hole deeper at a rate over 20 billion tons per year. Global GDP is about $100 trillion. What are we spending to replace aging PP&E, per year, in power generation worldwide? Same question for transportation of goods and people? Same question for production of food shelter and clothing? While you're working on that, if I gave you a budget of $10 trillion dollars, how would you spend it, exactly? No more whining until you can answer these questions. Solve.

@jonovens7974

2 ай бұрын

Money isn't the problem, money is just a tool ...the diverse and mutually exclusive ideologies are the problem.

@blinkingmanchannel

2 ай бұрын

@@jonovens7974 I agree about the ideologies. I feel like we should be able to discuss and find ways to be tolerant, but you'd be right to say our history with that is not too good.

From the analysis and studies published by Mr. Belisario H Romo PhD 2020-2023 This further reinforces the argument that attributing atmospheric temperature changing forcing to anthropogenic causes “is and absolutely ignorant, stupid and unsupported dogma,” given the immense thermal inertia and timescales involved in the Earth's climate system, particularly the soil respiration, photosynthesis, trees and plants, continental rift, and oceans degassing (97.03% of CO2 equivalent emissions). Present technology can not "model" all these variable parameters not even in a magical mode. That's why 126 climate+ models are WRONG! A joke. A bad one. On top of which other major forcing have to be accounted for: water vapor, particulate matter, dust, cosmic rays’ albedo ...and of course, the main source of energy the Sun. Now beyond these considerations, we have physics, thermodynamics, and nuclear chemistry. To convert gigatons of carbon (GtC) to gigatons of CO2 (GtCO2), we use the molecular weight ratio of CO2 to C, which is approximately 44/12. Photosynthesis: 120 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 440 GtCO2 Ocean Degassing: 90 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 330 GtCO2 Soil Respiration: 60 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 220 GtCO2 Plant Respiration: 60 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 220 GtCO2 Fossil Fuel Emissions: 10 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 37 GtCO2 Updated CO2 emissions Summary 2023: Photosynthesis: 440 GtCO2 per year 35.28% Ocean Degassing: 330 GtCO2 per year 26.47% Soil Respiration: 220 GtCO2 per year 17.64% Plant Respiration: 220 GtCO2 per year 17.64% Fossil Fuel Emissions: 37 GtCO2 per year 2.97% ~Total: 1,247 GtCO2 per year 100% Conclusion: Natural earth's emissions of CO2 eq are in fact, 32.7 times larger than anthropogenic emissions. Annual increments of 2.5 ppmv into the atmosphere include all sources. Since man-made or anthropogenic contributions are only ~ 2.97% of the total earth’s emissions, the unfeaceble results from the global ignorant + stupid policies of Net Zero CO2 are perverse, twisted, and fraudulent, since the retarded, childish, and silly absurdity of reducing absolutely all anthropogenic CO2 emissions will refer exclusively to that ~ “2.97%” therefore the reduction of the total earth atmospheric temperature will reflect an infinitesimal change only relative to that minuscule percentage. Unless all emissions and forcing remained univariable which will never happen. Soil respiration has a season variability of up to ~30-50 % this variability alone is 17 times greater than all anthropogenic coal, gas, and petroleum emissions combined. Conclusion: water vapor, particulate matter, dust, cosmic rays’ albedo ...and of course, the main source of energy the Sun (not included) The estimated temperature changes due to each source of CO2, based on their radiative forcing contributions, are as follows: • Photosynthesis: 0.365°C • Ocean Degassing: 0.275°C • Soil Respiration: 0.185°C • Plant Respiration: 0.185°C • Fossil Fuel Emissions: 0.030°C arxiv.org/html/2406.07392v1 Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase R. Lindzen Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, U.S.A W. Happer Department of Physics, Princeton University, U.S.A W. A. van Wijngaarden Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Canada (June 11, 2024) Abstract Using feedback-free estimates of the warming by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and observed rates of increase, we estimate that if the United States (U.S.) eliminated net CO2 emissions by the year 2050, this would avert a warming of 0.0084 ∘C (0.015 ∘F), which is below our ability to accurately measure. If the entire world forced net zero CO2 emissions by the year 2050, a warming of only 0.070 ∘C (0.13 ∘F) would be averted. If one assumes that the warming is a factor of 4 larger because of positive feedbacks, as asserted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warming averted by a net zero U.S. policy would still be very small, 0.034 ∘C (0.061 ∘F). For worldwide net zero emissions by 2050 and the 4-times larger IPCC climate sensitivity, the averted warming would be 0.28 ∘C (0.50 ∘F). Conclusion As shown by (1), (23), (25) and (26), there appears to be no credible scenario where driving U.S. emissions of CO2 to zero by the year 2050 would avert a temperature increase of more than a few hundredths of a degree centigrade. The immense costs and sacrifices involved would lead to a reduction in warming approximately equal to the measurement uncertainty. "It is impossible to find a more perfect example of a sublime global stupid policy: "all pain and no gain. Data, physical facts, and calculations conclusively determine that even if the entire world achieved “net zero” emissions by 2050, even with the perversely exaggerated IPCC’s 4 larger positive feedbacks climate sensitivity, the reduction in global warming would be a mere 0.28 ∘C (0.50 ∘F). The net zero policy is a dogmatic, narcissistic global initiative that is utterly absurd. Natural factors like solar cycles, atmospheric dust, water vapor variability, volcanic activities, soils respiration, ocean degasification, and naturally generated aerosols will vastly outweigh any negligible temperature reduction from eliminating global CO2 emissions. The Net Zero Global Agenda, based on fabricated false syllogism of a non-existent climate change crisis, is indisputably stupid: "all pain and zero gain." Even if every nation on the planet could miraculously reduce their CO2 emissions to Net Zero by 2050 (or any other “always in the future target” year), the temperature increase averted would only be a few hundredths of a degree Celsius, a change too minuscule to be measure accurately, and well within the margin of error and uncertainty. This fact demonstrates the sheer futility and absurdity of the “Net Zero” imposing by decree and obscene subsidies, the even more polluting Green “Sustainable + Clean” Energies agenda. Dogmatic: The term implies an unyielding adherence to a particular doctrine and blind activism, without considering facts, data, or science. Given that the Net Zero policy is promoted based only on beliefs, consensus, and manipulated false convictions, crisis, and urgency, disregarding the scientific method and data, describing it as "dogmatic" is appropriate. Narcissistic: The climate change crisis is a self-centred, grandiose approach to a fabricated existential false threat. Global policies are being pushed with an “argumentum ad baculum” sense of moral superiority, with total disregard for data, knowledge, science, logic, or the practical real-world impacts on humans. It is, in fact, sociopathic narcissism. Global Stupid Policy: The Net Zero “goal” is indeed a global initiative. Climate change is a natural and ongoing process, with the Earth's climate always experiencing fluctuations. Globalists have rebranded “Global Warming” as “Climate Change” as a sale publicity pitch. In reality, the Earth is still recovering from the last Ice Age, a process that undeniably and naturally involves periods of warming none of these caused by anthropogenic emissions, since man did not exist at the time or didn’t use coal gas or petroleum. If globalists assume they can control the global climate, they might naively believe they can achieve a state where the climate remains static. This delusion leads to the absurd conclusion that they could inadvertently halt natural climate variations altogether, potentially causing more harm than good. Such a belief exemplifies sublime stupidity-an Olympic-class level of ignorance. The notion that human intervention can regulate the Earth's climate to a perfect equilibrium is not only scientifically baseless but also dangerously arrogant. Furthermore, increased CO2 levels have directly contributed to numerous benefits, including enhanced food production, higher GDP, improved greenery, and increased human longevity. These factors demonstrate the complexity of the climate system and the essential role CO2 plays in supporting life and economic growth. Reducing CO2 emissions drastically without considering these benefits could lead to unintended negative consequences, making the Net Zero agenda not only impractical but also criminal, genocidal and suicidal. Utterly Absurd: Since there is absolutely not a single potential benefit of the Net Zero global policy to justify the social and economic costs and self-imposed civilization collapse, furthermore when natural emissions overshadow any minimal impact of human emissions.

How much CO2 is the result of unnecessary manufacturing due to Planned Obsolescence? What do economists say about the depreciation of durable consumer goods which planned obsolescence must contribute to? What is NDP, Net Domestic Product?

You should read the actual Overshoot book instead of stealing the word and butchering Catton's ideology

@pascalbercker7487

Ай бұрын

It seems to be the co-author of that book - Carton - who is speaking! He helped write the book - so surely he has read it? Or are you being ironic?

@OurPredicament

Ай бұрын

@@pascalbercker7487 I mean Oversoot by Willaim Catton. Not this

@kurtklingbeil6900

Ай бұрын

pretty wild for Wim Carton to essentially co-opt the term/concept of William R Catton's Overshoot I am curious whether Carton cite/refer to Catton ?

@kurtklingbeil6900

Ай бұрын

@@pascalbercker7487 perhaps you are being (unintentionally) ironic ?

Sorry. So much B.S.

Nothing says Narrative driven Science better than starting with a Ideological narrative driven ritualistic "Acknowledgment to land" And you would be correct in thinking I didn't watch the full video.

@pascalbercker7487

Ай бұрын

They do tend to have to genuflect to these rituals now. But does that completely discredit their objectivity on the rest of these matters? I hope not.

You blame overshoot strategy as simple procrastination of the inevitable transformation in lifestyle necessary to prevent global warming, yet you ignore the wishes of the majority of people in the western democracies, and the desire of people in developing countries for a better standard of living. You characterize this as a conspiracy of corporations and dereliction of duty of elected officials in the west to make hard but necessary decision's driving lifestyle changes, and ignore priorities of people living in the developing world where the majority of greenhouse gases are being emitted today, and will be in future. Barring some new and miraculous energy source, you seem to imagine that the trajectory of continued fossil fuel use can be changed by fiat. Perhaps you should stop wishful thinking, and face reality.

@antonyjh1234

2 ай бұрын

Dinsiformation campaigns after their scientists told them what would happen could be seen as a conspiracy.

@cae7516

2 ай бұрын

The sunlight falling on the surface of the Earth in one hour contains energy equal to the entire global human population's *annual* energy use. Go do the math. There *is* an inexpensive, abundant energy source. And we have the means to utilize it - cheaply. There is no excuse to keep on using fossil fuels anymore.

@lshwadchuck5643

2 ай бұрын

Your comment is a perfect example of what Wim describes and its motivation is, as he says so delicately, 'not innocent'.

@tompeargin8319

2 ай бұрын

@@lshwadchuck5643 I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comment, and I say that with respect. It would help if you cited anything in what I said in my comment that was factually incorrect

@aliendroneservices6621

Ай бұрын

​@@cae7516"There is an inexpensive, abundant energy source." And it isn't solar. 200 countries on Earth, and not a single one majority-powered by wind and/or solar. 1 million factories on Earth, and not a single one powered off-grid by its own solar (despite promises by Elon Musk). There is no proof-of-concept for your idea on how to power global society. The reality is that wind-and-solar depend on fossil-fuels. *_No fossil-fuels = no wind-and-solar._*

Anyone ever think that just maybe that big orange ball out there we orbit around and the very stuff the planet is constantly traveling through, just might have an affect upon this LIVING thing we call a planet? Amazes me how so many seem to think those things are static and have no effect on what happens above the surface of the planet. Renewable energy, yeah right! And just how much carbon is used in all the products needed to make and keep the windmills, solar panels, and damns operable, not to mentions the human output required?

@jonovens7974

2 ай бұрын

WOW, your right....amazing that no-one else ever thought of that. 10's of thousands of scientists just missed the obvious. Good job your here. And....oh right we can't build alternatives because of the carbon produced......we just need to continue to build the same old stuff...that evidently doesn't cost any carbon at all. Do you really think what you wrote ?

@jamesprivet

Ай бұрын

Fjohnson9749! Yes we really need your armchair insight! You must have been trained at a good school with a STEM education, right? Tell us your credentials not your opinion! We are "dying" to know!

Carbon removal is not going to help cool planet Earth. Simply because carbon gas is not the issue. We can adapt to a warmer Earth physically and economically. However, if temperatures get to high (God forbid) like 150°F we can use simple technology like building, farming, living, ect... underground to survive.

@jonfklein

2 ай бұрын

Well, carbon dioxide might be causing some warming, but it's very uncertain, natural forces are likely also at play, and anyway the warming isn't expected to be too much, nothing that humans haven't experienced in the past and can probably adapt to quite easily. In other words the whole "climate crisis" is much ado about nothing and the world has more important things to worry about.

@antonyjh1234

2 ай бұрын

There has been no time in all of human history that the temperature has changed as quickly as we are going to. The measurement used is ppm and you then have to work out how many million sized parcels of molecules there are in just the metre above you. It's a lot, then you have to multiply that by 2.5 that we are adding to each million sized parcel of molecules. Then because we know that 99,97 percent of the mass of the atmosphere is only 100 km's high, that it all stays in this very tiny sliver. Using a percentage of the whole atmosphere is misleading yes? The last time it went to where the earth is going it was volcanic activity for seven hundred thousand years, a lot of sulphur etc. For us to equal that at our current rates it would only take twenty four hundred. It will be the speed that it will happen, at five Celsius, which looks like it could be in 80 years, it will be.two thousand years and all the ice melted, continual flood pulses depending on the summers and the release of carbon in the permafrost that will push the earth and it's inhabitants.

@Muddslinger0415

2 ай бұрын

@@jonfkleinyour completely wrong the leading scientists say we will be at 3degree Celsius by 2040 and at about 6degree Celsius by 2100. Human extinction is on the horizon

@DanielWatson-vv7cd

2 ай бұрын

@@antonyjh1234 We just need to build stronger infrastructure.

@antonyjh1234

2 ай бұрын

@@DanielWatson-vv7cd Stronger in what way? If 90 percent of the species die, that we depend on, what infrastructure will defend against 77 metres of sea level rise?

I am looking for a shrewd, pragmatic discussion of options. I don't see it here. I'm at 38:00 and you guys are busy attributing motives to the entrenched asset owners. It really doesn't matter HOW we got here. What matters is how to get out! Let's define the objective: bring the level of CO2 in air down from 425ppm to 350ppm. In case we need a more flexible objective, we could also say we need to get 1 trillion tons of CO2 out of the air, or find a way to recirculate that much air up high enough that it can shed heat into space.🤔 In any scenario imagined so far, we're going to live like Europeans did in 1890... except we have antibiotics and electricity. Also, a bunch of what are densely populated coastal areas, in 2024, will be underwater or too hot to live in during the summer. Why is this so emotional???