Climate Change: Simple, Serious, Solvable | James Rae | TEDxUniversityofStAndrews 

@CITIZENsingingway.... You Source Hope.... Anything beyond surfeit can be a pollutant.... we're looking at a question of balance.... excess CO2 is not taken up by plants that are not allowed to exist.... and our current Agricultural and Industrial Methods are disruptive in the EXTREME.... for Natural Nurture FROM plant growth..... around the World. At the Same time we started hyper-injecting fossilized carbon into our atmosphere.... we began proliferating Iron Plow Tillage.... agriculturally disrupting photo-synthetic carbon sequestration.... effectively Doubling the Damage....at LEAST. We MIGHT be able to turn THAT around faster than anything else we CAN do.... EXPONENTIALLY increasing Soil Carbon Retention by adopting all-around no-till organic agricultural methods.... MANY beneficial Societal effects here... MO' Bettah Food&Health/Mo' Bettah Money (at the GROUND-level.... where LongGREENMoney makes Mo' Bettah Benefits in a bubble-UP ECOnomic model) & LESS+LESS money for the Manufacturers of Agri-Toxins.... where Mo' Money makes BUT Mo' Profit$forPoi$on$ and LITTLE el$e.... be$ide$ Profit$ for Political Power in Proliferation of Popular Pain AND Penury.... and THERE'$ your trouble.... NOW we know why it's so hard to even TALK about making beneficial changes much less understand root Need for So doing AND....Root Cau$e for NOT. Go ahead.... Wave your magic Wand.... even WITHOUT climate crisis.... these agri-poison$ cause Air/Water/Food AND Health Pollution.... so IF you should find yourselves mentally incapable of grasping a WIDER Scope for this Impending Horror... understand clearly NOW.... that carcinogenic and other-wise Toxic agri-chemical residues are CURRENTLY doing to your body&being what the manufacturers of those chemicals are doing to all Life IN and ON Earth. It is Time to Change.... not just how we generate and use our energy (Roof-topSolarW/BatteryBack-upNOnukes) but how we grow the very food we eat....and in So doing we CAN.... in MOST likelihoods.... RESOLVE our Climate AND Pollution PROBLEMS.... in REAL Time. ThankYou CITIZEN SingingWay for theTimely Work you do.... YOU and ALL the others WHO.... Source Hope.

We have had a rising sea level for 20000 years coming out a glacial maxima. At c. 2mm per year that's 200mm per century. His claim of 1 meter is way off and indeed 2019 saw a drop.... due to water being dumped on land and growth in the ice on Greenland and Antarctica. We seldom get the environmentalists providing due and proper context. We are exiting an ice age and still have a distance to go to exit. Sea level has risen 140 meters in the last 20000 years we still have about 1 to 1.5 mm rise due to ice age exit. Florida sea level stories are a scam. Florida is sinking due to massive water extraction below the population on the south east coast which is 40% of Floridas population. I do not dispute there has been some anthropogenic contribution to warming. I believe the data is fraudulent in that the revised temperature data plays to correlate to CO2 with the past being reduced and the present being raised. The temperatures reported now show daytime being largely unchanged but night temperatures being higher - a function of where the thermometers are with heat island effect. I accept some warming but it is not a crisis at all. It is within norms and this notion of preindustrial is rubbish. Life on the planet arrived 500 million years ago during the Cambrian when CO2 w 5000 ppm. CO2 has declined to 180 ppm at the last glacial maxima. We were one glacial cycle to complete loss of ALL life on earth when CO2 would have dropped below 150ppm and photosynthesis stops working. This video is loaded with the usual bias and light weight science with political and self interest agenda. I hold a degree in Physics and have worked as a Scientist.

@@davidramsay6142 1 year ago

MeowPau sea level has dropped since this lecture..... one year ago

@@davidramsay6142 my original comment is over a year old man chill

@@davidramsay6142 With sea level measurements strange things happen. The satellite altimetry since 1993 shows consistently twice as much sea level rise as the global tide gauge measurements. An impressing gap of about 2 mm per year is building up. Checking this fact i realized that the satellite altimetry does not measure the level of sea relative to the coast but the change of water masses. IPCC needs these data for verifying their claims. For the measurement of the supposed growing risk of inundation for the people living at the coast it seems that only the tide gauge measurents are relevant. Of course corrected by the vertical tectonic changes of tide gauge. It seems that both measurement methods cannot be combined, they are completely different things. Nobody calls the attention to this fact to my knowledge. Since IPCC can control the altimetry data sets they do not call the attention to this and use the altimetry to produce the scare they need to justify their work and sea level rise has the highest scare potential. The world wide distribution of modular mass produced and more sophisticated tide gauges, combined with cheap Continuous GPS altidude measurements would be necessary to calibrate and check by citizens the dubious satellite altimetry measurements. It will possibly result that Sea levels should have risen much more taken in account the supposed net mass loss of the polar ice shields. The thermal expansion will also result almost inexistent since the tide gauge measurements show no acceleration. The tide gauge measurements seem to be a phantastic possibility to control by citizen projects the IPCC boy scouts. What do you think?

How much does he gain for his propaganda

Diplomacy ends up exhausted than gunpowders ( laser weapons !! Coming soon ) it should be vice-- versa...the other way around . can't call it civilized ..can I ?

which one?

nice thought... but will need some kind of geoengineering as well to counter Sulphates, etc.. in atmoshere that are currently helping to deflect , ( Global Dimming ).. if we stop burning Fossil fuels , then the Global dimming that comes with the Co2 stops/ dissipates quickly.... Instant warming then , as Co2 hangs for 100's - 1,000's of years...

the premise of your argument is false. co2 lags not leads warming. a simple experiment with two coke cans proves that. CAGW is a fraud.

Thanks, Crystal. CO2 lags warming at vostok station: reason being its in Antarctica, which is practically not even on Earth. Efforts to understand the GLOBAL temperature response to CO2 as we transitioned from the last ice age confirm what we'd expect from Physics from 1860 on: temperature LAGS CO2. (Coming out of a glacial period: Antarctica warms from orbital perturbations. So does the Arctic. Eventually, this shuts down the AMOC, which warms the Southern Ocean, which outgasses CO2, and THAT warms the planet, about 800 years after Antarctica started warming due to purely orbital effects).

Chicken or Egg????????????????

midbrew it sounds as if you are saying that co2 somehow warms the planet? co2 cannot warm the planet and the notion that co2 does warm the planet is ridiculously absurd. co2 acts as insulation and therefore slows cooling. co2 also has a low saturation point. just as three or four coats of red paint will make a barn about as red as it will ever get, co2 can only trap so much heat no matter its density due to the radiation spectrum it blocks. Look at it this way, at night, unless a warm front moves in, it will always cool down no matter where on earth you are. This is because the sun is not shining. It is that simple. Remove the heat source and the area cools. Hopefully you now understand why claiming co2 warms the planet is totally absurd. Science requires precision not folly.

Who knew Corona would take up the job in a year?

@@lunalovegood7842 two words: quarantine babies.

That's why we have the idea called offsetting. The energy Used on production is partially offset by use of LED's. Now, that does not happen with good old CFL's does it?

The logical solution to the problem you proposed is not replacing working lightbulbs. Simply only use LEDs as replacements as opposed to buying another traditional bulb. On the other hand, who still buys traditional bulbs in this day and age anyways?

I can hear the Greens convulsing

YES Nuclear.

Or unless we start leading a less luxurious life.

Look up Scotland’s energy system. I believe they are using wind power which generates more electricity than they can use. There are many other sources, sun, wind farms, geothermal power ran my school.

Wind/solar power could maintain human prosperity if enough time was invested into it. If every single building had enough solar panels, humans would last. Fossil fuels and nuclear could eventually be a limited supply, if they are used enough, while sunlight lasts forever.

.... WELL done.... Son.... well DONE.

@thomasbrogueira......... the biggest problem with nuclear power is Insurance.... only affordable at Federal levels.... 'US'. Nuclear Power is economically untenable..(..never mind ECOnomically..)... it always was.... having been historically the single MOST subsidized form of power generation while creating FEWER jobs and less electricity ($/Kw) than ANY of the others.... even as Solar and Wind.... having been STARVED historically for State'n'Federal funding.... are currently generating MORE jobs and subsequent payroll taxes than ALL the others COMBINED.... and we're JUST getting started.... Nuclear Power puts TOO much wealth and political power into the hands of TOO few people. Roof-top Solar w/ Battery Backup does the obverse.... keeping Way more of that money ON THE KITCHEN TABLE.... with the remainder flung to ALL Four Winds of a Distributive ECOnomy....

paul slade The amount of CO2 affects how much water vapour is able to be free in the atmosphere before it forms and falls back down as clouds and rain. If CO2 concentrations are doubled, it allows for 4x the amount of water vapour to be present in the air. This increase the heat absorption proportionally by about 20x thanks to the increase of water vapour However, if CO2 levels are reduced, the amount of atmospheric water vapour decreases exponentially (and with it, the increase of absorption and therefore global warming.) A quick google search will yield you with far more understandable and detailed explantations, but that’s the long and short of it. TLDR: High levels of atmospheric water vapour is a product of global warming, not the cause of it.

Guy from Europpean Union here. We've banned them.

The only person here scaring children is you, spreading your right wing propaganda. Electric energy is not twice as much, and everyone could easily have electric if billionaires stopped hogging money. This is a kids video, that's why he was being silly.

@@MeowPau so you agree he is being silly that's what I said. It doesn't matter why we both agree he was silly so what's your gripe. Scaring the kids would not be his dancing, but the profits of doom about the planet heating up. Unless you think that wouldn't frighten children? If billionaires were not greedy I agree we would all be better off. But you said the electric would not be twice as much. Twice as much as when? Because if it was all on renewable without subsidy and having to cover all its own overheads, it most certainly would be.

@@MeowPau BLESSINGS on your House.... and Everything you DO.

@@MartinA-kp8xg ....EVERYTHING is subsidized.... from Soup to Nuts.... literally.... Can you do some work just a bit on your Clarity of expression in Syntax..? It's just a bit difficult to understand EXACTLY what you're ON about. We'd ALL dearly LOVE to know.

@@nealtauss1715 who are we, don't presume to speak for others too. If you want to criticise me have the balls to do so without the need to say we.

None of the hurricanes nor the wildfires were caused by climate change or global warming. Hand wringing is not an answer. Unless you are willing to go back into a cave, along with 7 billion others, it's not going to happen. It is far better to use our resources to prepare for any negative issues, end abject poverty and innovate.

bart thomassen thomassen, It's not a matter of opinion or belief unfortunately. The severity and frequency of natural disasters is one of the key 'features' of climate change. If you wish to argue about scientific facts, take it somewhere else. I don't see you arguing about the existence of magnetic field around your smartphone. Why is that? Because the existence of magnetic field doesn't stop you from making money. Climate change does. So it becomes personal and we come up with all sorts of ideas to protect our revenue. Innovate? For sure! But we don't innovate anymore, it's against the current economic model. What you call innovation is nothing but tiny incremental upgrades that allow corporations to remain stable. True Innovation would be creating a new paradigm of human civilization. How about creating FREE housing for everyone? Simple, truly sustainable and energy efficient living? Zero living cost, zero energy cost. What about free food? With the science and technology we have today, it's entirely possible to achieve that and more. How about making everyone healthy on birth, so that people don't ever need any medical treatment aside from accidental injuries? In the last 25 years of my involvement in science, I've seen thousands of successful research projects that could be used to create all of the above! So why haven't we done a thing? Because it would break the existing economy and world order as we know it. That is unacceptable and thus all those papers are either collecting dust in the vaults of big corporations like IBM or been buried deep in the maze of bureaucracy and lawsuits. But hey, climate change is a hoax! Let's keep rolling, mining, cutting and fracking. We have infinite amount of resources here, right? We don't pollute, don't lose fertile soils. What matters is that each and every morning your starbucks coffee is ready for you on time! Now, don't get me wrong, I've been around long enough to realize that corporate capitalism isn't going away any time soon. There won't be any revolutions or civil wars. We are zombified sufficiently to feel insecure to even think of radical changes. I'm not advocating such changes. But based on my [not outstanding by any means] knowledge in this field, any attempts to do a large scale solar radiation management, ocean fertilization or geo-engineering in general, would most likely end our civilization faster than a nuclear war. We are little kids playing with matches in the forest on a hot summer day. Knowing very little but having tools and eagerness to try stuff. So yeah, let's try a planet-wide geo-engineering! What could possibly go wrong!

@@thomassenbart three years later, do you still have the same opinion?

@@tyfode224 Absolutely, even more so. I have watched with interest each natural disaster and or weather event, read the IPCC's reports and if anything, I would double down on my comments above. A good book I am currently reading dealing with all thing AGCC is Apocalypse Never by Michael Shellenberger. Also, Bjorn Lomborg's numerous and autoreactive writings and videos demonstrate the same anti catastrophist truths. We also now have the data from Germany, which has gone Green more than any other nation and now is being held hostage by Russia because of their over reliance on Russian fossil fuels after having shut down their nuclear plants, all of which were 100% clean. Yup I totally agree with my former self on this topic.

Sadly, I agree. we are screwed!