Discussion with a Climate Doomer: Interview with Prof. Eliot Jacobson 

It's nonsense. Worry about them taking your food and heat away.

I agree with your point as a whole, but it’s entirely normal and imo rational to firstly think of the people you’re fondest of when you think we’re going extinct. Being pedantic, it’s not ‘infinite exploitation’ as resources are finite; we may not be too far off depleting a lot of these resources at that. ‘Insatiable hunger for resources’ or something may be a better choice as an example, dunno if my alternative’s great either lol, but it’s certainly not infinite. Rule of thumb is infinite is nearly always incorrectly used when used in real life examples, and I get people use it for hyperbole, I just don’t like it being misused for some reason 😅 I’ll stop now

It isn’t we it’s the capitalist western civilization which is self centred planet eater. The rest of the world lives in some what equilibrium before we came along and cursed them with the capitalist enslavement society we are willing to send our children to die for. Take a look around where’s the democracy and freedom in the western world? Listen to these too. One wants business as usual with a magical power source and the other just wants us all to die. Corporate capitalism is our problem and neither of these people can let it go or believe we can live without capitalism.

Infinite: 1. limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate: "the infinite mercy of God" ·  synonyms: boundless Resources are not finite. They are infinite. Past actions are a good measure of future actions. We have exploited resources in a limitless fashion with little regard for consequences since we became sapiens. Now we propose to infinitely grow on renewable resources. Yet, those aren’t enough, so we propose to go into space and exploit those resources too. Space may be finite, but many believe space is infinite. Hence, infinite exploitation.

Oh, I almost forgot to be afraid of “them,” whoever that is.

Every time I see an infant in a mother's arms, I think this exact thought.

If we don't have children then we won't survive. The entire west hasn't had children at a rapid enough pace to resupply their societies. No matter what happens, humankind will survive in some fashion. And we need to have these young people be part of that survivor ship.

Heck even without the future being so depressing... have you seen the price hikes on groceries, and just about everything else, these past couple of years alone?? Who the hell will be able to still afford kids 5-10 years from now??

Chemicals in our food will take care of the population problems.

As an obstetrician this is the darkness and suspension of disbelief that I live every day.

It's obnoxious/distracting. I don't mind hearing his points because they're good to question but it's so loud and shoved down our throat that it's just unpleasant. Elliot's calm and collected/patient.

Very annoying!

14:28 - This hapless host has a hopeless hopium habit... 🙄 Which is actually quite serious... Up there with the opiates. I just think he's a knob-heed... Full of himself. One reason why I unsubscribed third show in... He can't keep his GOB SHUT!

Data proves that humanity has never been safer, healthier or more prosperous than at any time in history, by almost any measurement you care to examine. This trend has accelerated over the last 200 years even with warming.

Good definition! It's a wild show.

The world is always ending for some, been that way since the dawn of time. Don't worry about the Earth, its infinitely above your pay grade. Worry about keeping the flies off your butt - that's a job you might possibly be able to handle.

@@anthonymorris5084 "Everything has been going fine, why should tomorrow be any different?" said the turkey the day before Thanksgiving.

@@tely5 And you could perish in a car accident tomorrow so let's spend our lives panicking. While humanity's quality of life is consistently improving, there is also no data or evidence that warming has any negative consequences. History proves that life flourishes under warming. The greatest diversity of life on this planet resides in the tropics not Greenland. Data also proves that death tolls from all natural disasters *including every single climate related disaster* has been in precipitous decline for the last hundred years. Humans in fact are becoming masters of climate. It is the height of absurdity to fear warming. Even worse is to make the claim that we can change the planet's climate and return it to some kind of perceived 20th century utopia. The goal, as it has been since humans began to walk upright, should be to work toward keeping humans safe from the myriad of climate threats that have been around since the beginning of time. You achieve this by generating inexpensive reliable energy and wealth creation, not by languishing in fear and expressing silly stories about turkeys.

Agro land is not decreasing. And the land used is more and more productive ( tech - namely, optical reading and software- is about to make even much more productive with less inputs in fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, etc). And a big chunk of or food prodution is not even growing on land anymore (water and artificial substracts). At the same time population is not growing, its just getting older. Massive decrease in population its expected in second half of the century. There s a bunch of big problems, as always, but food prodution quantity isnt one of them. Nuclear apocalypse is way more dangerous in impact and probability them any climate or agro or population problems...

@@srantoniomatos Lol

@JB-kf8sf because lol is a sure way to go trough university nowdays i guess...lol

Farmers are losing more crops due to extreme heat events. Food production is decreasing.

​@@samalford3289 no its not. Its increasing. Its increasing more and more since the last 2 centuries (industrial rev) and a lot more in the last 60 years (agro revolution). That s why population grew so much... Its gonna keep increasing due to tech improvements. Anyway, we produce a lot more then we need to consume. A lot goes to waste before and after its in our plate. Thats gonna improve too. Food prodution have problems. Like everything in life. Lack of food globally, its not a problem at all. Distribution is. Wars are a problem. land and clima isnt a problem.

…nuclear power stations are safe. They are at the bottom of the list of things to worry about when talking collapse of Global Industrial “Civilisation”. Overpopulation is at the root of all of our problems…..

former nuclear engineer here... I often hear people mixing up the decommissioning process, which is very lengthy, with the time that it would take to put spent fuel in dry casks from the start of shutdown (approximately 5 years). We probably won't have that 5 years the way we're acting, but I do want to reiterate that the decomission process involves returning the land to future use for whoever wants the land. We simply won't be doing that. However we may be able to provide spent fuel pool cooling and be able to safely transfer spent fuel to dry casks where convection is sufficient to cool the decay heat of the irradiated bundles. I used to say guy mcpherson was a nutcase because of his overly simplistic ideas of nuclear meltdown, but now it looks like we're trying to make that happen by kicking the can as far as possible. I do think he could do better to learn the nuance of the nuclear world so he doesn't trigger people like me... but he's probably ultimately right unfortunately. With nuance we can take action that may be able to protect some life on the planet.

​@@ryanbachman3850 thanks for this clarification. I just wanted to write similar things. To cool a reactor which is switched off is not a technological challenge, especially when you are using convective cooling.

​@@hg6996it ain't gonna happen 😅

Especially when wet bulb conditions arrive and wet bulb conditions are already manifesting in many parts of the world. Wet bulb conditions are a combination of heat and humidity in which humans cannot survive. As wet bulb conditions become the norm, workers cannot go outside to work for more than 5-10 minutes at a time. They won't be able to manage a gradual cooling of the reactors. The resulting melt down will be catastrophic...one more nail in our coffin.

Thanks, I was thinking how unfocused and pointless his talk is. I needed your confirmation because thus guy was old and have grea hair so I thought they would have their s together.

Yep, he's a dreadful interviewer. Thinks he needs to expound as much as his invited guests. I hate interviewers who do this.

This is so cringe. This interviewer is way too emotional to talk with Doomers. He needs to take himself to therapy, not try to work this stuff out on our backs.

​​@@jonquiljoneshahaha that's pretty funny and you're probably right about the therapy 😂

Even Gaia inventor James Lovelock decided that he was wrong about global warming before his recent death.

Great comment

Bipedal hominid cancer cells.

ABSOLUTELY! These bourgeois, white, western, clowns are completely wedded to the status quo, just as much as the Fossil Fuel Industry ghouls who run the capitalist system. They will argue for incremental improvements, as long as those improvements don't do anything about the actual problem- CAPITALISM. A permanent, orderly recession is the only way to an infinitesimally small chance of preventing the human extinction from this point forward. Quibbling over 2030, 2050, or 2075 as our last year on the planet is merely a way of dealing with the hopelessness of our predicament!

I think you're wrong. And I've looked into this topic way, way more than you would expect from some random guy in some random RU-vid forum. The answer is *not* 0. The answer is < 0.

With you on that

Yep. Eliot was great at communicating his points around a terrible interview.

@JB-kf8sf that is literally the definition, many ways of becoming narrow minded. and they all have choices, it just feels like they have none, by ignorance usually.

You assume you are not of the collection of the narrow-minded. But clearly you are. It is narrow-minded to believe ( yes, believe) that nothing is working and the only solution is to tear it all down and start anew. Thinking there is no other solution but the one you can imagine, is pretty much a definition of narrow- mindedness.

@@Phenn5589 i know many of my limitations, you should stop assuming things, that is what narrow minded people do.

Moral agency is a made up concept to artificially separate us from other species. Free will is nonexistent.

@JB-kf8sfit’s going to take a large group effort to untie ourselves from the destructive machine that runs our economy

I'm not saying that it will or won't be. I'm saying the future is still in our hands. We continue to choose to fail but we can instead choose to succeed. I suggest the later.

Most of the people alive today…will live longer, healthier and less violent lives than 99.9% all of our ancestors in human history…..enjoy today, these are the good times!

@@climatechat only in the last few days have I been watching your videos and I’m very impressed with your approach. As someone of a similar age I have lately been quite depressed about the opportunity missed when mankind failed to transition to a sustainable future in the 1980s when the science and the outcome was clear enough. But I like your soft optimism. I suppose every year including this one is the beginning of a new opportunity to make things better for the future.

Insurance? My travel insurance company left me out to dry when I contracted Covid-19 overseas. I cannot imagine these companies paying out during societal collapse. 😂

How humanity goes out is up to us

Agree completely, thanks! And the window is welded shut.

Dan & StCy clearly are physics illiterate. Electricity and or electric cars are not a solution in any way. Most electricity comes from fossil fuels creating steam. None of the things these people are offering as solutions can exist without diesel driven industry and displacing thermal mass (materials) which is the large elephant being hidden by focussing on carbon.

That's going a bit far... but not by much. Let me nuance that a bit. If we don't get to carbon neutral by 2035 then the chance our civilization ends is > 70%. According to the late Prof Will Steffen who was a leading climate risk assessment expert from Australia... getting to 0 emissions within 10 years is not possible. And like Prof. Jacobson said people will fight it tooth and nail every step of the way... just like people dieing of covid were screaming about being given a covid shot on their hospital beds calling it poison... But he could be wrong. And fusion power could change many things... if somehow we're smart enough to share it. Also social tipping points are a thing... and if enough people get on board fast enough public opinion can change very fast... one year the Earth is flat, the next it's round. Unless you're a MAGA fan in which case it'll always be flat...

I wish these narratives would stop with the "we we we we". I'm not the one who decided to organize entire continents around fossil fuel-powered vehicles as the primary mode of transport. I'm not the one who comes up with fast fashion. I'm not the one who comes up with planned obsolescence. Rich and powerful people, and the corporations and governments they direct, are responsible for this. They're the ones making all of these decisions, and the "we" in this relationship are just the overwhelming percentage of working class people who are just doing what we can to get by and live. I'm not going to stand by and assume responsibility for this just because of the catchy and sanctimonious rhetoric around blaming "human nature". It all comes down to power, and incentives. Maybe "we" should stop incentivizing infinite growth, private property, and the shrugging off of responsibility through economic externalities.

I think you're right. Logic is limited to work on the goals that more basic instincts direct. Collectively we are driven to do what we are driven to do, and a big part of that is competing with each other. Humans have no greater love or hatred for anything in the universe than other humans.

Uh oh, sounds like it's too late, the crying is all part of the hormones thingy. Uh oh, well congratulations.

@@grindupBaker lol I don’t want kids ar all

Bravo

You imply that things will be OK if we don't implement SRM which, unfortunately, is not the case. The only reason you do SRM is because the impacts of doing it are far less than the impacts of *not* doing it. We know it is generally safe because it happens naturally a few times a century when a big volcano goes off. Also, you may not know that we are doing SRM today on a massive scale and cooling the Earth by 0.5ºC or more. Every year, we are putting about 100 million tons of sulfur in the lower atmosphere (through burning coal and oil) where it lasts about a week. Instead, we could 5 million tons in the stratosphere, where it lasts for a year or so, to cool the Earth even more with far less pollution. What is truly scary is that we are not doing anything now to stop climate change. Fossil fuel emissions are at a record high, carbon dioxide removal is still in the research phase, and there is very little research on SRM.

@@climatechat Yes I fully realise that things will not be OK, and that SRM will lower atmospheric temperatures very quickly. However if SRM is implemented, countries, govt's, corporations, individuals will all dive headlong into pumping out GHG emissions faster and harder. This would result in the acidification of the oceans so much more quickly. And this result is much much much more scary than heating the atmosphere. This outcome would cause the mass culling of all the species on the planet via direct ocean warming and acidification, the out-gassing of CO2 from the oceans, and the increased rate of global ice-melt causing sea levels to rise at an astonishing rate. In this case I respectfully disagree with you.

@@basilbrushbooshieboosh5302 What you are saying is that you don't believe we will take climate action seriously in the future. If we don't, things will be catastrophic. If we do take it seriously, we will (1) phase out fossil fuels, (2) remove CO2 from the atmosphere , and (3) implement Sunlight Refection Methods to cools the Earth while we do the other 2 things.

@@climatechat No, what I mean is that I don't think that nations will be able to agree on what action to take and or that will only agree on pissant options, and secondly that national populaces globally will oust their govt's if the remedies are too demanding against their lifestyles, which I undoubtedly think they would be.

Yes, discussed this with Simon when co-founder of JustCollapse Aspro Booth invited him to speak at the University of Tasmania for Global Climate Change Week. Not only can the transition not be done, but it shouldn't be tried - this is a #hypergrowth of toxic ecocidal mining designed to maintain business as usual with a 'green' veneer.

But he's assuming that's for this industrialized civilization, but it too must be replaced to prevent collapse.

Unfortunately there isn't a path to replace industry that's even close to having majority support... There isn't even a will for it to happen except for a very small minority

He made the mistake of predicting specific dates so he gets ripped on, but other than that, he's correct it seems.

We're already living in the aftermath

Same thing happened to Peter Wadhams when he predicted a BOE in 2016 - never give dates.

2016 +/- 3 years was a date range presented in a peer reviewed scientific paper for when the Arctic ice cap extent would decrease below 1 million square kilometers. The authors had spent years studying the ice from submarines. It appears that they gave that range given on a linear trend based on the extreme melting in 2012 which turned out to be an outlier.

Dw she will have my babies

Of course but renewable energy continually generates energy from the sun and wind, unlike fossil fuels that generate energy one time.

You can read my post above. For the parts of humanity that are best off it'll be between 2036-2044. I don't really attempt to give all my reasons for saying that... but trust me when I say I've put a significant portion of my life energy into thinking about it. It'd take me 4 hours talking at 220 wpm to cover the reasons why. But in a single sentence the answer is "food insecurity " leading to a rejection of the social contract by citizens... which will make it impossible for the technological agricultural apparatus we have constructed to keep its gears turning. People don't realize that it takes millions of people working in concert to make replacement parts tractors etc... that can't happen in light of what's unfolding in the 2030s...

and overshoot

The ice age is ending. Rejoice...

Too true. We have acceleration ahead in near future. Except that it's in the wrong direction. That methane will bite hard.

It took the IPCC 2 decades to even look at adding it to the models.....all the data now seems to show we were overly conservative with the predictions we CHOSE to use.

The Green industry footprint is *much* smaller than the fossil fuel industry. For example, for every one ton of lithium we mine, we mine 50,000 tons of oil and 100,000 tons of coal. Switching to 100% renewables would reduce total mining/extraction by 99%! Now that's degrowth!

Untrue. There is no necessity to use fossil fuels to make an EV. None. The energy needed does not have to come from fossil fuels. There is not a "massive" amount of rare earths needed for EVs. There is no doubt that the shift from ICE to EVs is a step in the correct direction.

There is about 30 pounds of lithium in an EV. A typical internal combustion engine (ICE) car will burn 4000 gallons or 24,000 pounds of gasoline over its lifetime and that doesn't include the energy to extract, process, and transport the oil. Also note that batteries will use (and some are using) renewable energy for many parts of the production process. And batteries, unlike gasoline, can be recycled at end of life. Bottom line is that there is no question that EVs are more environmentally friendly than ICE cars but both are not as friendly as walking, bikes, e-bikes or public transportation.

I think you should interview Max Wilbert, co-author of "Bright Green Lies" for a perspective that supports Elliot's position of protecting ALL life. We humans cannot endlessly kill off our non-human kin and live on a dead planet. To think otherwise is height of arrogance.

Electric cars have been around for over a century. They have not been nor will ever be a viable solution. Electric cars are a luxury pleasure form of transportation like a motorcycle and will never be reliable enough to meet the demands you are placing on it.

@@JMW-ci2pqyou don’t have a clue the guy is doing it he’s driving on sunshine and I have seen this myself as I build off grid homes that are now using lithium ion batteries to store energy instead of lead acid batteries and the cost of at home batteries is plummeting along with the 45 year collapse in the price of solar panels to a point today that solar power is the cheapest option for new electricity generation and even off shore wind power is cheaper than coal power 😮

@@nickkacures2304 No dude you don’t have a clue. Go learn how all that stuff is made and the materials acquired. Then Learn some physics about energy density and scale; longevity. Never mind the intermittent functionality from climate conditions. Global heating is much more do to material displacement than co2 (which all of those things you just mentioned come pre foot-printed with). Stop wasting my time. You have less than 4 or 5 decades before 1000 foot king tides make all these stupid talks redundant and silent. People like you hide behind ignorance of physics which gives the industrial sociopaths all they need to blow “sunshine” up your asses.

Copper, copper, copper, so much is needed, and the yield per tonne of finely grinded rock is less and less now. Currently it takes more then all the power of Germany to rotate those thousands of massive sag and ball mills that circumscribe the globe in remote locations. They rarely stop rotating except to change the massive internal wall liners.

@@nickkacures2304 no dude. You are literally speaking non-sense. Every item you speak of can not exist without coal and oil (specifically diesel). Of which because of energy density (physics) has much more potential output than “alternatives”. Not to mention the mining and refining for all that you are spewing your non-sense about. On top of which your statements require ignoring displacement and gravity and spin effects upon global warming (like most climate related hopium non-sense). You need to learn physics prior to making statements. Stop being duped. I posted a detailed physics outline for you that either this channel or RU-vid is blocking. Physics is physics they can not block that. Go study rotational inertia and the effects of moving mass from one radius to another. Humans move about a billion tons per year in this way. Zero climate mainstream publications discuss this. There are zero theoretical physicists working on climate as they would lose there positions if they did. I’m an example of this. Learn first then speak.

There is green methanol, green ammonia, etc. that ships can run on. Not at scale yet, but companies are working on it and predict lower costs than fossil fuels within a decade.

@@climatechat No. The comment regarding density is accurate. Learn Earth is being desiccated at an increasing rate. Earth loses H2 leaving behind the O due to accelerating thermal-mass loading of both atmosphere and oceans. Ocean rise due to thermal mass increase is logarithmic (expansion). Ocean Heat Content (Science Talk With Jim Massa): ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-cn3B9apcnQA.html Ocean Temperatures for Last 700000 Years ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5YKeSI2g3z4.html There is no mistake as to temp increase overall b/c of humans. How much energy and resulting heat and waste and unearthed material does it take to support one human for one day Living within an average to low income civilized environment? Technology is not going to save us, ecology will! | Theunis Piersma | TEDxFryslân ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-s6cbN_DR8FA.html It takes @least 3square miles of healthy wild-lands to support one one kg hawk. It takes x square miles of healthy: tropics; reef; glaciers; etc to support each and every 3square miles of healthy wild-lands for each and every 1kg Hawk and so on… For each and every volume of healthy wild-land & for each and every 1kg hawk a minimum volume of healthy reef; varied types of forest; grass-lands (like savannah); glacier; potable water;etc . Is needed This ratio holds for nearly if not ALL vertebrates (yes this includes ALL monkeys, even the hairless ones). Ergo the number of any apex species is limited to the benefit of all others which promotes bio-complexity. This obeys thermodynamics and gravitational harmonics. ~90% of All anthropogenic thermal mass since slash & burn (including heat and CO2) is in the oceans. Ocean Temperatures for Last 700000 Years ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5YKeSI2g3z4.html There is no mistake as to temp increase overall b/c of humans. For each added milligram of any thermal-mass: mined; drilled; burned Earth's rate of heating accelerates continually. Earth's Atmosphere&Oceans experience an increase in avg pressure. Earth's Oceans experience an increase in avg rate of expansion. Earth's rate of out-gassing H2 increases Earth's rate of Bio - Complexity Loss increases continuously. Earth's rate of Extinctions of Species and Life Viable Eco-Systems Accelerates. MEERs incoming energy is largely micro-wave earth and oceans take up nearly all of this. What is emitted must pass through the atmosphere (see isothermic atmosphere). Emitted energy is an anagram of the motion of earth including its em field. Reflected light is a red shift. ergo momentum is lost to both reflection and gravity&spin. aerosols think of thermal expansion laws. exciting aerosols causing force (motion) putting pressure on the surrounding atmosphere. ie heat source now distribute that thermalytic pressure isometrically vuala! into the oceans with it following thermal-mass-density physics In open space, How do aerosols behave in relation to & with solar radiation and Sol’s Gravity? 6th Grader: Picture the Earth Add a hand crank above the atmosphere at both polls. For every calorie of energy added to the surface (-11mi from bottom of Marianis Trench to top of Mt. Everest) there is the affect of pressure increase. For every volume of bio complexity lost, incoming solar plus geo thermal energy is unbound other than being used in anthropogenic systems. Ergo scalar heat. Add industry. The affect is increasing pressure against the direction of incoming radiation and against EarthGravity(effects of thermal-mass expansion. Inertial state change with respect to angular acceleration with respect to Earths rotation et-all). The big hand cranks should be in equilibrium with both upwelling thermal-mass & incoming thermal-mass. The hand that "twists" the cranks (like squeezing the atmosphere & Earth between thumb and forefinger) is spin and rotation of Earth (sort of a spiral within a spiral; PhysicsGirl on RU-vid did vid that shows this motion). Pause Ice under the cranks causes thermal-mass to condense more efficiently. "MEERs" reduces this efficiency. Aerosols increase the efficiency within the max/min of the bound system. Angular Momentum Demo: Hoberman Sphere(Professor Boyd F. Edwards): ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-64t-dVtDwkQ.html Solving one of the toughest Indian exam questions (angular momentum & velocity) Tibees ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-TxXuo9ukVxU.html Why are there TWO high tides per day? Dr. Becky ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Mr89IgzsMVk.html JEE Advanced Problem #146 (Isothermal) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-td_Gz4HsvCM.html&lc=Ugz19VheHi-1w7Djrgp4AaABAg.9bu62Y a1jXN9bu_kf1mRYs Solution to Problem #146 - Isothermal Atmosphere ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-pMhKjr3tKhM.html Damped Harmonic Oscillators -Physics This Week ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-UtkwsWZnp5o.html wHk&index=311 Nuclear Bomb Test Data Was Used To Discover That Earth Core Is Oscillating Anton Petrov ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-97Syhz-STR0.html When Water Flows Uphill ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-zzKgnNGqxMw.html Earth is a Dynamo: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-fqmFYux5dXw.html For every milligram of material that changes it's inertial state/position relative to core and mantle there is added cavitation system wide that translates to CC/heat PhysicsGirl Cavitation: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jbgvQNhFDTo.html Earth's Plate Tectonics May Be Actually Driven By The Moon, Study Suggests Anton Petrov ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-FPnmZclKevs.html Humans extract&relocate ~30Billion Tons of material/yer not includingice melt. Science Talk With Jim Massa - Antarctica, Greenland's Ice Loss ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-V9Imo0DUqUQ.html Glaciers Are Disappearing Almost As Fast As You Can Ski Down Them | Climate Games Physics Girl ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-CNAWnZ49QhU.html Tech weighs more than all organisms (Science Talk With Jim Massa): ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-4xU-HiT3XJw.html lol Black Bear News (Kevin Sandbloom) www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/22/worlds-consumption-of-materials-hits-rec ord-100bn-tonnes-a-year

Talk to you in a decade. "companies predict lower costs" Very dependable.

you are just being ignoranr. Learn the physics i sent you

@@stevealdrich2472 Considering that electricity from wind and solar is already generally cheaper than fossil fuels and are on a path to be *much* cheaper (including battery storage where necessary) by the end of the decade, such claims are not far fetched.

Agree, the one word Elliot didn't use was empathy, he has it for the natural world, Dan doesn't.

If you believe, as Eliot does, that the rest of nature trumps humans, then being "Pro-doom" is a natural outcome. I think it's possible (but not necessarily likely) that we will be humbled by ecological disasters and will take a different, more sustainable path (or, at least, we will try). I'm not in the "hoping all humans die soon" camp.

Guy would say "86 tipping points."

And a bottle of Chianti.

Mmmmm😂

It's not geoenginnering *instead* of fighting biodiversity loss. We must do both. And SRM will help other animals and plants by preventing the temperature from going over survivability limits.

@@climatechat but these are geoengineering solutions that will cause harm to biodiversity as well as require more consumption of depleting resources. Every action has opportunity cost

@@tomatao. Of course, but every inaction has a cost too. And in this case, inaction will harm biodiversity much, much more than action will.

@@climatechat when I mention opportunity cost it's implied that other actions are taken. That's what an opportunity cost is, the cost of not doing something else

We'd say that they are related phenomena in confluence - #Overshoot and #PeakOil, in that the population of consumers affects the depletion of the resource, and, likewise, the availability of the resource affects the population. It's an ecological relationship of an unusual kind, but just like the deer on St Matthew's Island, it can only result in #collapse.

Point taken, thanks!

I feel like this is a crucial conversation (actual conversation) for wayyyyyy more people to be having. There have definitely been humans who have lived and are still here, who have maintained a much more sustainable lifeway, (never perfect, no such thing) and the fact is, all humans are an immature species that *need* the common sense wisdom of the ecocentric worldview/paradigm, to remain in alignment with how the earth works. Our immature species has made mistakes, always, and some of those people learned from those mistakes and have wisdom traditions to keep themselves in alignment with earth, it’s not fantasy and it’s not liberal propaganda. It existed, it still exists. And scientists getting on the same page with this, actually listening to indigenous elders and teachers and their teachings, rather than dismissing it all with references to the times that past ancient humans overshot carrying capacity, as proof that humans are profoundly and fundamentally flawed- well, it’s not totally accurate and it’s not helpful. There’s degrees and nuance here to explore, and just making false equivalencies is a lazy way to avoid being challenged

In Lutrawita, otherwise known by it's colonial name, Tasmania, this island about the size of a European country, once sustained around 10 thousand humans for many thousands of years. This relatively stable population was able to be sustained because of the high-functioning ecosystems and flourishing biodiversity - habitat that regeneratively sustained human populations within ecological limits. Following colonisation, this island now has collapsing ecosystems and a collapsing climate with which to sustain a population of half a million who are kept alive with fossil fuel energy, dams, global exploitative supply chains, and various other extractive efforts, all to continue the absurd project of infinite growth on a finite planet. Madness. Don't just collapse. JustCollapse.

@@eliotjacobson I should mention I have the utmost respect for your contributions to math, science, and the CC conversation. I apologize for any disrespect sir.

@@aquigriffin Dude, I don't think you need to apologize. It's all good. And I agree with you. The idea that humanity's fate was always inexorably sealed, as dictated by some 'principle', that doesn't exist in nature outside of the brains of western academia, I would tend to disagree with. With indeed Native Americans being just one possible example. But no matter how technologically advanced or primitive a society may be, the game remains the same. Control your behavior, live within your means, and figure out a way to do it and make it stick. We have all the mental/psychological resources to do so, even if it seems like societal inertia is a very steep mountain to climb. That was always, and will always be the challenge.

Yep, as Bill Rees puts it, we are in the "plague phase" of the human project.

It did indeed prosper for billions of years, at far higher temperatures and with far more CO2 in the air. Honestly where do you all think that the carbon in hydrocarbons and calcium carbonate came from? Magic or the atmosphere? Clue magic isn't real.

Religion, socialism, and environmentalism are all authoritarian anti human cults. All three incessantly profess that humans are a problem, evil, sinful, greedy, destructive, flawed. Endless repentance and self flagellation are required. This borders mental illness. Environmentalists also foolishly believe that the Earth is some kind of pristine, nurturing place of harmony and purity that humans, like a parasite are wrecking. In fact, the Earth is a hostile place that will kill you at any given opportunity. Humans have made it safer and more livable with each passing decade. People can now enjoy nature without the threat of dying. Humanity has also continuously become better stewards of the environment as well. Climate zealots have even adopted original sin mentality. That we all came from this pristine Garden of Eden where the weather was perfect, and life was filled with honey and butterflies. Then the evil humans came along and wrecked it all. Now we must all repent or face an apocalyptic hell. Sound familiar? Your pessimism and utter self loathing personifies all of this and confirms the danger of these cults.

Doomers are also a very funny form of meme culture on the internet filled with gloomy people who listen to depressing Russian music from the 1980s which is why I find this crossover so enjoyable. If you look up doomer music you'll see what I mean - you know you've found it when you see images of a tired looking guy smoking a cigar who looks like he came out of a comic strip :)

Seems your a little full of yourself so you might want to add narcissistic to your credentials😂

@@anti-christ.666 i dont think so friend i am a pretty humble person who correctly see's a catastrophe approaching narciss nars, narsssis, how can i be that if i cant even spell it? nar·cis·sis·tic /ˌnärsəˈsistik/ adjective having an excessive or erotic interest in oneself and one's physical appearance. "a narcissistic actress" Similar: vain in love with oneself self-loving self-admiring

@-LightningRod- OH of course! You are so smart

@@anti-christ.666 Well,...i tend to rely on people that are far more educated than i am friend. Is a dictionary smart? Is the ability to use Google smart? maybe YOU should use Google before you fling words around that YOU don't understand perhaps?

I agree with much of what you said, but we won't work less. As we have to move away from having the equivalent of 400 billion fossil fuel servants to do our bidding, and as many time-saving but planet-destroying gizmos get banned or replaced, we will have to do more manual labor at our own homes and to keep society running.

I think it is less accurate to say "collapse will happen faster", than to say our present destruction IS the collapse, and what we need to do is stop the growth and move toward sustainable population and consumption of resources. Probably the sustainable number of humans on the planet, long term, is well under a billion, and the longer we go with any kind of growth and any exploitation degrading things and anything that maintains even present levels of degraded systems, at all, makes the long term sustainable number of humans go down. So, it's not like we need to do anything. It's like, we can do something now, and perhaps eventually get to a sustainable number of humans a hundred or so years from now of some 100 million, or, we can do NOTHING and perhaps go completely extinct, or level off with a few hundred thousands with an average lifespan of 8 years. My numbers may be a little off, but I bet they are in the ballpark.

Regarding "No Hope that's gonna happen". In terms of the formula he is asserting, I do not disagree. However, the optimal objective is to make the decline smooth with a maximally fact based population, because that gives you the least amount of destruction on the way down. Doomerism that I disagree with is to let it destroy itself. I think the way to go is to manage the decline to be as well understood and smooth as possible.

Regarding blame, if you make it worse than it needs to be, YOU would be culpable. We need to keep the facts as well known as possible and keep the misery and injustice as low as possible.

Regarding the long term "million year" thing, there is lots of evidence that if we allow our planet to overhear extensively, it could get a runaway effect like Venus, because unlike a billion years ago, our sun is now much warmer, so that getting too hot could much more easily get us past controllable equilibrium. Also, this is NOT about belief. Scientists have talked about this sun heat level. The hopeful opinion of someone who knows nothing about it does NOT improve the information.

"precision fermentation has the same rebound problem like efficiency" How so? I'm curious.

@@karlwheatley1244 people will use more protein or will feed animals. I think fermentation is super difficult to control, this is why biogas is not a game changer. See the critical papers of declining yields in these bioreactors. They have to restart the fermentation over and over.

Yes, but we only need to put 5% as much in the stratosphere because it lasts about a year there vs. a week in the lower atmosphere. A fleet of 200 specially built planes could do it.

Yes, a little bit. But climate change will harm plant growth much more. See some of my programs on AMOC collapse or the planet getting browner due to vapor pressure deficit (VPD) caused by warming. www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-stopped-getting-greener-20-years-ago/

@@climatechat it will harm plant growth more in some places than others. Limiting light isn't the only option for preventing tipping points like amoc collapse

@@tomatao. Again, while SRM may impact plant growth more in some places than others, climate change will impact plant growth far more in most places. What alternatives to SRM do you propose to avoid an AMOC collapse? I'm not aware of other techniques that can do it (and it's not certain that SRM can do it).

Thanks!

​@@eliotjacobson No, thank you Eliot, you put forward the case for life rather than selfish human concerns. When we put life on earth first we surely as a consequence improve our own futures. If only that was understood more widely. So thanks from this Northern European Bee. Bombus Monticola

Yes, that's why we need to *policies* to ensure that all individuals do the right thing (vs. hoping that voluntary individual actions will get the job done).

@@climatechat Unlikely that there’s a single historic case of something like that happening. Governmental power exists to defend the claims of ownership of the ruling class, all other concerns are secondary. Never does policy lead, it only begrudgingly follows the attitudes of the majority of the population. Unless voluntary reduction in impact is adopted by a majority, there’s no functional way for such to ever become politically acceptable. Individual actions are paramount. They got us here, only individual actions will get us out. Policy may follow those choices, but it hardly matters.

Where in the peer reviewed literature does it say there will be no more humans on Earth by 2026? Wikipedia on Guy McPherson: "In 2018, he was quoted as saying "Specifically, I predict that there will be no humans on Earth by 2026", which he based on "projections" of climate-change and species loss."

The rising middle class in developing nations will demand coal fed electricity- they already are! 600 coal burners being built in China alone.

Humans have added ~140 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 to the atmosphere so far and have added ~1.2 ppm of methane. And while methane is much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, it lasts in the atmosphere for about 12 years while CO2 lasts for hundreds to thousands of years. So CO2 warming is dominant but methane is a strong #2. After we cap leaking wells (we are finally working on that due to Biden), the impact of those leaks mostly goes away in 10 to 20 years.

We can't master entropy. Entropy masters us.

@JB-kf8sfI…. I don’t believe you. I also don’t Feel like your qualifications warrant such confidence in a random comment

@JB-kf8sf Nope. "Extremely Hot Summers" (defined as the average summer temperature for a particular place being >3σ above the 1951-1980 mean) have increased 20,000% (200X) in the past 50 years. In other words, a summer that was so hot that it only happened every 1000 years, now happens every 5 years. That's not a prediction (it already happened) and is not based on models (it was measured with thermometers). www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/7/10/1959697/--Extremely-Hot-Summers-Now-Happen-200X-More-Often-Than-50-Years-Ago

Old enough to remember that! He welcomed Hansen, Regan shut the door on him

You posed a question in the chat regarding "Mark Austin" - the name rings a bell; was he Stuart Scott's contact in the CIA? I watched a video by him (MA) talking about Cask and Containment of Nuclear power plants. It cracks me up that Stuart had a contact in the CIA !! As I recall, in the early days of Covid he (SS) said his contact (MA) believed it was an accidental lab leak.

Who? 😉

I’m glad he was labeled as a doomer-it’s what drew me to listen in. It’s what I’m on the lookout for, in a word: honesty.

​ @nirvonna it's not "honesty" - it's a pejorative label given by hard of thinking people to those they wish to mock. "Honesty" is referring to physical reality as it is found.

@@abody499 The point remains that the label doomerism drew me to watch the video-I seek out so-called doomers because they speak to me; they clearly point out facts that so many prefer to deny. They share my perspective on the state of the earth. I’m a doomer in the sense that I recognize that civilization is doomed, if not Homo sapiens themselves. That’s all doomer means to me, easy to define: A doomer is a person who recognizes that civilization is doomed, that there is no fixing it, that it’s not possible to prevent collapse if not human extinction. Michael Dowd, who recently died, called his RU-vid channel Post Doom, and he was as positive a person you’d ever encounter. I don’t see the word doomer as “a pejorative label,” rather, I immediately recognize my camp in the term and am drawn to the person like a magnet. It works for me.

Excuse me sir but if you want to change the world you should start by recycling the device you're typing on which was built with rare earth minerals and shipped to you with many oil fueled transportation systems. In fact your breathing is releasing CO2 at an uncomfortable rate. Please stop immediately for the good of the planet.

Jacobson is taking action what are you talking about

Yes! Good point.

Sam, you know that there are only 20 to 30 do-nothing doomers who have refrained from breeding. Getting baby-trapped at 20 by a low-quality female doesn't incline one to discuss overpopulation, right?

That's Bill Gates' plan....

The Billion gates plan

There will be select breeding only. The poor huddled masses are all being sterilized by forever chemicals.

Magical thinking - Vat grown bacteria requires the continuation of the energy intensive ecocidal system that is exacerbating the predicament. No - Can't rewild on the industrial scale required in climate and ecological breakdown, nor without overstepping the carbon budget we don't actually have.. Just say NO to Soylent Grey.

The most effective and fair way to price carbon is "Fee and Dividend" combined with a border duty. See my TEDx talk on this: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0k2-SzlDGko.html

@@climatechat Thank you for directing my attention to your fine lecture. I read and watch about climate change so nothing was new to me; I enjoyed listening nonetheless.

Disagree. Humans are lazy and won't do anything that will impact their comfort. Two our social construct patriarchy is based on a top down society not on a common social plan