Climate change…why the urgency? | Prof Jaime Toney | TEDxUniversityofGlasgow 

I m loving Ted talks

Here before the world ends

Absolutely prescient!

Hello,In my city has protests because climate change i made some captures

does anyone know the source of the first image of the earth from space?

There is no urgency where it matters.

11:00 The remarkable thing: it's also vastly more, by orders of magnitude, than the amount of energy gained by burning all the carbon that created that amount of excess CO2.

Was here early

Hello! We discuss more on politics and business, the world over, than Climate Change which we consider as academic but one day we shall be faced with the reality that we have destroyed the Planet Earth our base of Life and Existence. Thank you. Best Regards.

I think if the earth were to speak to us today it would say "please leave".

A four hour lecture probably wouldn't be enough time to truly understand the depth of the problem , no evidence was provided to prove that it's not too late . If I were inclined to gamble I'd hedge my bets on humanity having at best a 5% chance of survival , hope and faith in humanity did not come into the equation and that's more realistic I think .

It would be nice to hear two important words in environmental systems….. population control. Without that discussion… there is no reverse gears.

Since the mid 1990s there has been little real interest in global warming because it's been static at about 1°C. Global warming was a long term concern in the 1970s and 1980s with it increasing at about 2/10°C per decade. USA crude oil exploration companies had derived the practical concern for global warming that once global warming hit 1.3°C, on track to be reached in 1998, it would cause measurably stronger hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico requiring stronger and higher offshore oil platforms. There were other concerns as well such as expanding sea water causing global sea level rise. Then in late 1994 it was announced global warming for no known reasons had suddenly paused in the early 1990s when global warming was reported at 1.1°C in 1991. In 2022 global warming was reported at 1.06°C. The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) obsession with human caused carbon dioxide emissions has for over 25 years been a laugh to the engineering and scientific audience. In 1990 - 1991 a large study of carbon dioxide's levels and effect in the atmosphere was done by large oil companies with the results being carbon dioxide from human activities was non poisonous and responsible for 1/100°C of earth warming due to its greenhouse gas behavior. In the 2000s another study couldn't find even 1/100°C of warming from human caused carbon dioxide emissions and concluded between 4/1000°C - 6/1000°C of warming. The reality is that these human caused carbon dioxide temperature forcings of 4/1000°C - 1/100°C are just a share in earth's greenhouse effect that is always in saturation from the strong greenhouse gas water vapor and can't be changed that adds 10°F (5.55°C) to earth's average temperature. Earth's greenhouse effect absorbs all the greenhouse radiant energy. There is nothing left over. There are people without a full high school science education or a life history going back 40 years that have been taken in by the marketing of the United Nation's IPCC that human caused greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming which is impossible to well known science. It is high school taught science earth's greenhouse effect is the model of system always in saturation from the strong greenhouse gas water vapor that adds 10°F (5.55°C) to earth's average temperature and takes place within 20 meters of the earth's surface. After 20 meters from the radiating surface all the greenhouse radiant energy has been completely absorbed by greenhouse gases. Its further heat transfer is by convection i.e. gas molecules bumping into each other. At 1% average tropospheric water vapor over 99% of earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor. It's suppose to seem cool and a bit of a brain conundrum to high school students causing it to be fascinating that with water vapor varying hugely across the earth's surface water vapor still always holds earth's greenhouse effect in saturation. The variation is accommodated by the qualification of "within 20 meters of the surface" a great deal of the time all the greenhouse radiant energy is entirely absorbed by greenhouse gases before that distance. In the back of the United Nation's IPCC science report of about 200 pages it states the truth it took its greenhouse gas samples at 20,000 meters altitude and only that one altitude! If this were real science it would be expected the entire air column would be sampled, but it's not real science. That 20,000 meter altitude greenhouse gas sampling statement is a legal disclaimer of data transparency. It can be legally argued a high school science educated person would know from that 20,000 meter altitude sampling statement the IPCC is not dealing with active greenhouse gas behavior or earth's greenhouse effect and is therefore in-fact is not dealing with greenhouse gases in a manor conducive to the discussion of global warming. This is the same marketing practice as when a beverage is labeled as "All Natural Fruit Juice Flavors" and in the ingredients it states the truth "contains no actual fruit juices".

No use of talks 😅 action have to be taken. We have end oil companies

“Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.” Albert Einstein. Sounds like all the fuels sources we took out of the ground, which held CO2 underground, have now caused our atmosphere and oceans to heat. All that heat now has to react in an extreme way.

The Mauna Loa is a Hockey Stick from 1956, avoiding all the Earth CO2 sites from1800 on. So we don't KNOW what the true CO2 is because it could be a average of 255ppm. GIGO, SMH

The statement the Sierra Nevada mountain range became the first to have no glaciers corresponds to 300 ppm co2 from the earlier chart just 20ppm above the preindustrial 280ppm. Surely the exit from the ice age is the cause of ice loss where incremental anthropogenic CO2 is marginal at best... it's as if the presentation is not linking causality to mans CO2 through the data and yet the message is it's all mans fault. Not convincing at all.

I was here

Poor thing is so nervous

Your about 40 year too late!

Bad talk. Didn't explain why this is so importsnt

Everyone go vegan! Now!