The Centre for the Study of Existential Risk is an interdisciplinary research centre within the University of Cambridge dedicated to the study and mitigation of human extinction-level risks that may emerge from technological advances and human activity. We aim to combine key insights from the best minds across disciplines to tackle the greatest challenge of the 21st century: safely harnessing our rapidly-developing technological power.
If and when we as a species, or nationally, turn to SRM (which I see as most probably happening), it will be seen as a virtual green light to keep emitting CO2, until the oceans are irrevocably turned into crustacean-shell-dissolving saline acidity. Humans are hopeless, yet will always maintain forlorn hope.
I submitted a hypothetical new energy source, to replace fossil fuels, to Artificial Intelligence Chat GPT and it stated that my energy hypothesis is viable. The energy source is splitting water for a water plasma. This is an ideal solution, as the energy reaction combustion recombination is water. This reaction uses a Nobel prize winner Negative Refractive Index Meta Material of bismuth ferrite. This catalyst takes an infrared light and refracts a water splitting ultraviolet radiation. This is frustrating that no one is taking this seriously. The Scientific Community could use this method, but this is ignored.
I think only reaching 2 C over pre industrial temperatures leves .Our civilización is doomed because is no possible war spread across the planet . In other words humans trying survive will use full scale war everywhere no matter the. Future !!
This really twisted psychotic individual, wrote a long presentation laying out how they're going to murder millions of citizens across the world but especially in America. How he's still walking around I have no idea. If there were ideas that were actually not a scam, people would embrace them. He's making excuses using the C02 lies, all we need is to plant more trees and shut down massive companies that pollute the planet and are not needed. Our planet has not gotten warmer, it's like 1 ° 😂.
One of the only people with a real take on this. Most people don’t think it will be sentient and most people haven’t fathomed the dangers that they entities could pose.
The only way mankind has had an affect on the planet has been down to numbers! we have gone from less than a billion to over 8 billion in a matter of two centuries. and the associated food supply that is needed to sustain them! Yes we have had the industrial revolution but at the start of it the planet was heading for all life extinction. Had we not started to burn fossil fuel in the form of Coal which released all the trapped CO2 back into the atmosphere the planet would have died!
This is all produced from computer modeling which has no bearing on the actual reality on the planet! Polar bears are at their most prolific, Coral reefs are recovering at an alarming rate, The Maldives are not being flooded but are actually rising and expanding with massive development going ahead! The melting of Sea ice makes no difference to the sea level or the salinity of it! Any increase in the amount of rain across the planet has much more to do with the amount the Sun evaporates the oceans (which has nothing to do with mans actions). Then we come to CO2 levels, Point 1) Plants all die when the level of CO2 drops below 150 ppm. 2) In 1850 it was measured at only 180 ppm. 3) The current level is at 420 ppm, which has allowed crops to flourish, but farmers know to increase that level to over 1000 ppm to give even better crops, with less chemicals etc. 4) The millennia average for CO2 is over 2500 ppm or 6 times the current.level. 5) When we have a gathering of humans in a closed space for even a short time the level of CO2 can reach over 7000 ppm without any ill effects! 6) There is no direct correlation between CO2 and the global temperature and CO2 is definitely NOT a driver of TEMPERATURE!
Humans will be the downfall of the human species not climate change, Earth has survived worse things than humanity. We are but a few minutes in earth's history time-line. Nothing humans can do will change Earth for long. The earth will continue to change, the climate on earth will continue to change irrelevant of what humanity does.
For those of us living in the US, and who were sentient and paying attention in the past decade, the movie "Don't look up" is not a flawed analogy, it's a carbon copy of reality. They even drew things to the logical conclusion they reached with Covid. We did completely fail to prevent the Covid comet from hitting the earth. It is now an endemic disease, with millions becoming disabled following complications from the disease every year. We go about our normal business calling it "the new normal". We may not be there to continue business as usual in the "new normal" climate.
I believe partial extinction is quite possible this century largely because of the combined effects of soil erosion acceleration, soil degradation, extreme spring and summer temps, inc rates of photorespiration in vulnerable crops, inc rates of pest herbivory, and of course aquifer depletion. Aside from the ag problems fishery collapses are also just a few decades away as is sea level rise impacts to coastal communities. I retired in Phil and have interviewed local fisherman. CC and overfishing plus coral reef destruction is clearly having an effect on livelihoods here. Finally, if northern hemisphere serial crop failures do take place and wheat exports are reduced signif the fallout will be massive here in the tropics as ASEAN countries have adopted western eating habits. Phil imports roughly 6 million tons of wheat yearly and a massive amt of chicken and pig feed. Businesses and people throughout Asia are going to be hit hard when crop reductions occur and globilization fails. The sys is already beginning to unravel.
Kind of sobering that the talk show watched 2 years later shows consequences based on a time line that has already been greatly exceeded. Recent work on calcified sponges show that we likely passed 1.5 C back in 2012 and are currently at 1.7 C in 2024. This revised baseline explains why the IPPC expectations for sea ice, terrestrial ice loss, and sea level rise are all "ahead of schedule". One aspect of the talk stands out is that carbon from permafrost and clathrates reservoirs are actually much larger and actually from these sources are rising much faster than science thought just two years ago, apparently largely due to the rapid heating of the oceans. The slowing of oceanic cold water formation at the poles is now known to be much more rapid than science anticipated just two years ago.
Lots of things will go extinct. Not humans, we're too adaptable, and it only takes a population of 100 or so to keep it going. It's our way of life, civilization as we know it, that's doomed.
Two things are missing for me in this conversation. One of them is the aerosol masking affect. The second one is the impact of temperature rises on the increase frequency of earthquakes and their severity.
Over conservative on his calculations, obsurd to say the least, 2045 3d. If we're not careful? keep dreaming bud, try now,we're not all fools ,like your playing us for! Dmyour data is false!
Your argument is based on CO2 bad. CO2 is the trace gas of life without which we and every other carbon based life form (all life) would not exist. CO2 is and always has been essential for life on Earth and therefore it can only be a good thing. Another pointless cult video desperately trying to convince the gullible that cannot be bothered to relearn basic CO2 science from primary school.
There’s climate refugees now. The corporate news blames immigration on democrats and economic issues, but I truly believe that a lot of them are leaving the south already because of the heat and inability to grow crops.
If it's really the case that an analog version of AI is inferior on balance, then perhaps we can allay our fears of AI by implementing them solely as analog machines.
The main use of AI is marketing and to shape content to keep us on different sites so they can make money from the marketing.... so we learn them manipulation by purpose...
Arctic sea ice extent 29th December 2023 - 13.90 million square kilometres 2022 - 13.13 million square kilometres 2021 - 13.40 million square kilometres 2020 - 13.30 million square kilometres 2019 - 13.39 million square kilometres 2018 - 13.00 million square kilometres 2017 - 12.73 million square kilometres 2016 - 13.07 million square kilometres 2015 - 13.28 million square kilometres 2014 - 13.53 million square kilometres 2013 - 13.32 million square kilometres 2012 - 13.51 million square kilometres 2011 - 13.80 million square kilometres 2010 - 13.18 million square kilometres 2009 - 13.65 million square kilometres As one can see 2023 ‘the hottest year on record’ saw the highest Arctic sea ice extent since at least 2009 or does anyone dispute these figures published on an official United States meteorological agency website and can be easily verified ?.
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) geoengineering considerations re. Asian monsoon etc. Worth considering AGU Paper dated 1 Aug 2007 Trenberth & Dai - Effects of Mount Pinatubo Volcanic Eruption on the Hydrological Cycle as an Analog of Geoengineering. I get Luke's drift that when we hit +2° there is an increased likelihood of a self-interested "rogue state" implementing SAI without regard for unknown consequences, & without regard for potential adverse effects upon other nations.
If ( ! ) we get to NetZero ( however unlikely that may seem with the current absence of political will ) - then surely the existing Earth Energy Imbalance forcing alone will perpetuate positive feedbacks (aside from the other positive feedbacks) & continue to raise global warming until such time as the Earth Incoming-Outgoing Energy Balance reaches an equilibrium ( much further down the line ) ?
Yeah, don't think that the world nations, en-mass, will reach net zero. I see this as possible for only a select few wealthy nations that have the capital to equip themselves with full EV roll-out, full renewable energy grid, full electrical/electric transportation build-out and manufacturing conversion. In the main, most countries will not have the time or reserves [financial or resource] to be able to achieve this. IMO sea level rise will have a significant effect on the human condition by the mid- 2nd half of this century. SLR so far has been doubling every 7 years (approx.) since c.2000 (ie. turn of the century). If this exponential increase is maintained for another 50 years, the sea-level rise will be between 5 - 7 metres. This rise would flood every coastal city and town on Earth, as well as every town and city on tidal rivers, inlets, bays and ports. This 5 - 7 metres is easily viable considering that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is teetering on the wrong side of its tipping point, where it will collapse quickly once it starts as its grounding-line dives down to 2km depth if the glaciers on its periphery calve back a mere 20km from its present extent.
Of course flying must be limited to what is absolutely necessary. When flying industries looses it's subsidiaries it will at large solve itself. I agree that taking carbon out of the atmosphere are fantasies, just as making flying carbon free. Boat transports can be made much more efficient, flying can't. I think we will have to adapt to traveling by boat, like to the Maldives and across the Atlantic, we have to rethink about the time spent on travelling.
Actually there are dozens and dozens of studies published each year, done by qualified scientists who have spent years in the field collecting and analyizing data. These studies are not easy reading and they cover all disciplines. Then you have to see how these studies impact each other. PBS specials, TED talks and other such programs cover what they can. Climate change is already an extinction event in some areas. It's going to get far worse. Future generations will be living in constant adaptation and struggle. There will be some who will get through the worst only to face an environment never before seen by man on Earth before. Denial is not just a river in Egypt and despair is not the tire in the trunk. Those who live between those states have the best chance. Just remember this, Nature bats last. Vaya con Dios Ya'll
Fukushima has at least four fully blown out spent fuel pools and china syndrome melted core reactors. The oceans have been convulsing with billions of dead sealife from plankton to krill to starfish to dolphin to whales and seabirds. If you get a pee test you'll find Fukushima cesium in it. There is no way to stop it and Fukushima is by itself an exterminator.
Okay so essentially there was no conclusion beyond "predicting is hard" and some random graphs showing expenditure in AGI, and the number of nuclear weapons each country has. Thanks. If only I knew that at the start
When a society is predicted to collapse seems less important in my mind than how to choose a less collapse-prone model for society, unless your main concern is how much longer we can squeeze out a quarterly profit before nuclear Armageddon or some such thing. Luke Kemp himself worked out that the average civilization lasts 340 years, where civilization is defined as "a society with agriculture, multiple cities, military dominance in its geographical region and a continuous political structure". This type of linear, growth-based society does not actually represent most lived human experience. Most humans over time have lived in cyclical, non-growth-based societies of hunter gatherers. The reason this has largely represented the lived human experience is that a cyclical philosophical model of society is more stable than a linear model of society. So what we are saying is all societies that are not hunter gatherer societies collapse on average over the course of only a few short generations. Hunter gatherer societies can collapse too, but tend to be much more stable and more likely to adapt than collapse. The question is not if but when. All societies also have cautionary tales about the move from cyclical to linear with characters who represent a break from the cycles of nature and a ramping up of the feeling of exceptionalism: Icarus from the Greeks, the Echidna from the Apalech of what Anglophones call Australia, the Morgoth/Sauron of Lord of the Rings, the Lucifer of John Milton, etc. These characters broke from being ruled by nature and tried to establish a new self-centered paradigm in which they attempted to supplant the greater powers that be. They all crashed and burned. So again, the question is not if but when, and we have cultural memories to warn us well in advance of the risks.
It's only a question of time before reality catches up with these doom mongers and they're forced to crawl back into their primeval slime before emerging to later espouse another possible planet ending situation.
I don’t know what to say. There are so many suppositions that are just not true. Draughts are no worse than any time in the past. Ocean acidification is not happening. Species decline has nothing to do with climate change. CO2 is not the control knob for global temperature. You would not be around if not for capitalism. I’m sorry but this video is way out there as far as logic and reason. IPCCs 1.5 degrees was pulled out of thin air and has no basis. The GCMs have enormous errors that far exceed plus or minus 10 degrees out past 10 years in the future. Heat island effects account for more than half of the measured temperature increase over the last 100 years. Please stop scaring our children with these baseless claims and pushing a false climate catastrophe.
This amazes me. There are so many “scientific” inaccuracies, I can’t even comment on them. One over-riding issue is that the model errors out to 2100 are at least an order of magnitude larger than the scales on the projections indicating that the data estimates are fantasy. Another is the Arctic sea ice extent which has effectively not changed since 2007 in spite of the CO2 rise. Temperature extremes are likely because we are in a solar max and the earths magnetic field has been weakening significantly over the last forty years. This has a huge effect on the earths energy balance easily explaining the current warming trend. Greenland has no inland temperature monitoring stations and coastal Greenland monitors are highly influenced by ocean temperature moderation. There were no monitors in Greenland interior in the early 20th century when rain very likely fell quite often since I’ve levels were lower than now at that time. Also the global average temperature is not being calculated correctly. Weighted averages are not being used causing a warming bias in the data. Satellite data is not accurate because of the measurement zones and misinterpretation of the data. This presentation is just scaring people with no concrete scientific justification.
