Peter Wadhams – IPCC Underestimates & Political Cowards

The government can make a commitment saying in 30 years time will it reduced our co2 emissions by 80% they can quote any number they like because they have no intention of keeping to it I want to thank you for coming to another scientists warning Program. I’m your host Stuart Scott along with my co-host Victoria Earth, and we’re coming to you live from cop 24 in Katowice Poland Here’s a contact address and I’ll present it again at the end Victoria is an associate professor of sustainable business from the University of Plymouth in the UK And I’m the executive director of the scientists warning org Organization and a member of survival University Today’s virtual guest Dr. Peter Wadhams Dr. Wadhams is an expeditionary scientist. He’s an expert in Arctic polar ice dynamics He’s an emeritus professor of ocean physics from Cambridge University and today’s program IPCC underestimates and political cowards This is Dr. Wadhams behind him is a British nuclear submarine He for 40 years went under the polar ice cap To determine the thickness of the ice because satellite measurements can only determine the extent and so professor Wadhams Research was unique in the world because he was able to see the volume decreasing And that is his book a farewell to ice kind of tragic story of the disappearance of the polar ice cap now I want to note to you that just two days ago in Nature a very august journal this Article appeared global warming will happen faster than we think and I want to call your attention to one of the three authors Dr. Ramanathan is the director of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. And Dr. Wadhams has spent several periods down there so I believe Dr. Wadhams fingerprints are on this document as well These are quotes from the middle of the document, but the latest IPCC special report under plays another alarming fact Global warming is accelerating So when I interviewed, Dr. Wadhams on the internet a couple of weeks ago I asked him What are your thoughts about the recent? IPCC 1.5 special report and here is some of what he said. It is a genuine attempt to Work out what what we would have to do in order to keep the temperature rise down to 1.5 And it does raise the alarm because most IPCC reports are quite complacent This one is saying we have to do something we have to do it rapidly. So in that in that sense, it’s very positive But when you look at the detail it it has a tendency to go back to the old complacency because it says that This can only be achieved by a massive change in our way of life But then it doesn’t actually specify what that massive change must be it simply specifies continued efforts in the same directions as we’re Meant to be using under the Paris agreement for a two degree warming So it’s simply saying let’s do a two degree warming effort, but work a bit harder So that doesn’t imply massive changes to your way of life. There was a very nice description of the of the IPCC report by Selma crook who’s the vice chairman of IPCC at the recent conference here in Tokyo and She was seemed quite happy about what the the report was saying and and Really didn’t seem stressed at all about what we actually need to do what hoops we have to jump through if we really are going to Reduce our emissions to the point where we can keep the temperature down to 1.5 the idea in in the report effect is that total emissions have to be zero by 2050 that means we abolish all fossil fuel use and Everything is by renewable energy But there may be some carry over some small carry over just a few renegade Countries doing something and she mentioned the Chinese coal program which is massive And you can allow if you have some kind of overrun Because somebody is still emitting co2 then you will need to do some co2 removal So you need to have some air captures and some director capture to get rid of? but those small amounts of co2 that are still being emitted by recalcitrant emitters like everybody in the world and That’s the very dubious thing because what it really means is we’ll have to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere as hasn’t the main way of keeping the co2 levels down with the Removal the reduction of emissions is just not going to happen. Also, she’s Very much against the use of geoengineering and Specifically they say in the report and she says personally they don’t like geoengineering because we don’t know We don’t understand the risks of doing it. So whatever it is, whether it’s Marine cloud brightening or putting aerosols into the atmosphere. We do it we don’t know what the results will be They may be disastrous. They may be bad So let’s not try it so if we’re going to have to do something drastic to Get to keep the temperature rise down to 1.5. It should be direct air capture not geoengineering and The distinction is it’s very interesting because what we’re doing now to the it is absolutely disastrous so to say we shouldn’t try geoengineering methods because we don’t know whether they’ll Be good or bad is is a little bit daft because we know that what we’re doing now is bad so Anything else? We try might well not be as bad. So I asked Dr.Wadhams How accurate do you consider the modeling of the IPCC to be and this is what he responded you see the fingerprint of Very core modeling in there the people who wrote that 1.5 Degree record didn’t include any ice scientists that I recognized anyway when they realized they had to actually include what will happen to ice in the report they go to Standard modelers using these already discredited models that don’t predict that ice won’t retrieve very much right till the end of the century and has already been proven wrong by what’s what’s actually observed to happen, so they’ve just parroted that and come up with these things which are completely wrong and dangerously wrong because if if the ice free summer starts soon will then that Brings on a whole load of other feedbacks that are going to get worse very rapidly like a further feedback on on sea level rise because Greenland was stopped melting more rapidly a further feedback of albedo because the snow lines are going to be melting back Faster and so all that the bad Feedbacks that you get associated with ice retreat are going to get bad more rapidly So if you if you don’t say there’s going to be an ice retreat You don’t have to think about what those other feedbacks but in fact If you do accept there be an ice retreat then you have to say that all these feedbacks might happen as well Regardless of whether we can keep warming to 1.5 degrees These are things that are going to happen without present. I want to make an apology I see at least one member of the ipcc in the audience I think the title was provocative enough to catch eyes and I don’t Mean to be attacking the IPCC. I mean to be holding them to a higher standard than they currently have been exhibiting because it’s it’s a It’s a joke in the industry that the reality is always at or above what the IPCC has been predicting now albeit, I give them a lot of credit for Honestly trying but I think they’ve been hobbled by the policymakers they’re meant to advise it’s a question of Limits that have been put on them in part, but there’s also omissions there also, they they are not Factoring in the reality on the ground such as the disappearance of the ice caps so I went on to Discuss with Dr. Wadhams, is it really true that carbon dioxide reduction promises made by governments are inadequate and How do you reconcile that with reality? yes, I mean it’s pretty blatant, but it could have been foreseen because you know that the government’s are cowardly and the Politicians are cowardly that governments are cowardly and that politicians are cowardly No, I hope that’s not libelous It’s a personal opinion, but they are certainly not stepping up to the plate their money interests always dominate over there They’re what they’re squabbling up about in this rulebook. What they’ve been squabbling about for 25 years is who’s going to Make more money or give away money or it’s always about money. It always goes back to money The health of the planet the health of the population of the planet is seems to always take a backseat to economic concerns. That’s my View of the the failure of what’s going on out there So the government can make a commitment saying in 30 years time. Will it reduced our co2 emissions by? 80% they can quote any number they like because they have no intention of keeping to it And so that’s the terrible thing about the Paris agreement That all the nations of the world agreed for the first time that they would reduce their co2 emissions but they all produce voluntary figures for what that reduction would be and as soon as the economic situation changes or they can identify some southern need they’ll say oh sorry, we can’t keep to that commitment because of X x and y but they’ll never come back and say oh we’re doing better that we’re going to do better than we originally said because we Developed the new techniques for reducing Emissions and we’re we’re really striding ahead It’s always that they they will find ways not to do what they say. They’re going to do so That’s why I really despair that by 2050. We will have zero emissions I think about 2050 we’ll have emissions that are quite possibly higher than they are today and that everything that all of the Politicians have said about an emissions reduction is as you say hot air Now I want to use this moment to make an award for Climate villains. I’m going to be doing this every day We have enough bad actors to share the blame or share the spotlight. Shall we say and in this case? I’m going to cite Theresa May as the climate villain of the day. She’s unwanted dread if alive and She’s unwanted for flaunting the UK’s Carbon Reduction commitments and instead expanding fossil fuel infrastructure and fracking commitments While reducing or removing incentives for renewable energy sources. This is despicable Back to the Nature article and I want to point out this particular Quote would you read it for us? Yeah, certainly better assessment can motivate action but will also be politically controversial? It will highlight gaps between what countries say, they will do to control emissions And what needs to be achieved? collectively Limit warming now. I find this to be very very polite talk Basically politically controversial Okay, let’s let’s proceed so if the national commitments are hot air how can we prevent a catastrophe as what I asked Dr. Wadhams That’s why we absolutely have to have air capture because we can’t trust people or politicians to actually Make the adjustments to our daily way of life that are needed to to reduce our emissions Down to zero again returning to the article the excessive reliance on negative emissions Technologies that take up co2 in the IPCC special report shows that it becomes harder to envision Realistic policies the closer the world gets to such limits It’s easy to bend models on paper but much harder to implement real policies that work I think the point I want to make here is that the IPCC report has been limited to science and they’ve been told Probably instructed not to offer Solutions. Ok, don’t advise us don’t offer us policies but the politicians are It’s easy to ignore and easy to adjust the models a little bit but much harder to implement according to what the models are demanding Okay, so if direct air capture is not likely to happen in time or at the necessary scale What are the alternatives the people who don’t believe in direct air capture or would rather we didn’t do it? The alternative they always come up with is aforestation And if magically we could all plant millions of saplings and everywhere in the world including in deserts and so on if we built if we have reforested the world then the extra carbon dioxide adsorption will be as Good as if we did direct air capture The trouble is the calculations showed that the reaforestation would have to be about half the land area of the planet Which of course makes it difficult to grow any food? Plus the fact that at the moment we’re tearing down forests as fast as we possibly can in the Amazon and the Far East everywhere including Germany now so if we’re tearing down forests in order to take account of needs of 10 billion people then we’re not going to Do to green carbon dioxide levels down by the afforestation because we’re not realistic so it’s a that that’s a very weird thing that this trying to say we don’t need to do direct a capture of Co2 because we can do reaforestation and there are well-meaning groups go around spending money on Having little copses of trees that they plant and having children plant trees and so on it’s all it’s a well meaning that the effects trivial compared to the Stripping away of forests are being done on an industrial scale. So We can’t depend on reforestation But certainly as the Germans are stripping away their forests in order to burn coal. Then one may as well give up in despair Yes, the Germans are stripping the way or are threatening to strip away. The Hamaker forests. Very close to Bonn, Germany for another lignite coal mine dirtiest coal on the planet and the Germans have already Said earlier this year through their Environment Minister that they will not meet their goals under the Paris agreement So I wanted to raise the question of the lack of scientific integrity. I told Dr.Wadhams I’ve heard that scientists with data and conclusions that threatened the mainstream scientific narrative are routinely overlooked or censored and I asked him to discuss that a bit. I was invited to China and to give a thought to the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the book of all the presentations left out my chapter which was about Subsea methane in and it turned out that one of the editors was a guy from Harvard we didn’t believe that methane can be emitted from the ocean and just said I’m not having that in my book and So they left it out without telling me they were leaving it out So that’s the kind of low thing that scientists often sink to and sometimes makes you despair as to the integrity of scientists when we’re depending on the integrity of scientists to get the message of climate change across This we do have an influential member of the IPCC here. I’ll say please take a climate scientist on board and Dr. Wadhams, I believe is the is the foremost and it’s been commented endlessly on my the videos I put out why is dr. Wadhams not part of the IPCC This is the final part of the the nature document when it says for decades scientists and policymakers Have framed a climate policy debate in a simple way scientists analyzed long-term goals and Policymakers pretend to honor them those days are over Serious climate policy must focus more on the near-term and on feasibility It must consider the full range of options, even though some are uncomfortable and fretted with risk Policymakers have less time to respond than they thought and in fact, the whole article is really about mirroring in a way what Peter Wadhams were saying that there is an issue with the reality the real politics of Actually implementing these solutions and when we’re looking at what needs to be done We cannot just pretend the world is somehow going to change and we are going to be able to do things in political realities that don’t exist The slide will advance too quickly So I want to read what I had underlined that nations need to make their forests and farms more resilient to droughts And prepare coasts for inundation. I believe our biggest threat not ocean rise Our biggest threat is the lack of food If we have a few more seasons of droughts such as we’ve seen this year It will be hard for us to feed the existing population unless the eight nine or ten billion. We’re expecting by mid-century Now we have just a few seconds so please make a very quick question All right. Thank you very much for the work that you’re doing and I just have a question Is it do you think that we can even avert a runaway climate change is it actually still possible to reach this 1.5 degrees? that is the as we used to say in America the $64,000 question, of course now $64,000 not a lot of money My personal opinion is know that we are already in runaway condition and we have to be scrambling back It’s a safety as quickly as possible Through letting scientists test geoengineering for heaven’s sake Let let them determine what’s safe for? heaven’s sake okay reforesting the planet, but certainly Clamping down on the bad actors and there are plenty of those and getting the fossil fuel industry out of the climate negotiations Now we’re out of time. So I want to thank you all for coming again. I’m Stuart Scott, Victoria Earth my co-host Coming to you live from cop 24 in Katowice Poland and there is our contact address if anybody would like to get in touch Thank you for coming You

100 thoughts on “Peter Wadhams – IPCC Underestimates & Political Cowards

  1. Excellent. Always good to hear the p.o.v of Peter Wadhams.
    However… Though all of the last points are valid to a degree, it isn't quite as straightforward. Though it was refreshing to hear Stuart Scott admit personally that humans have run out of time.
    As for sequestration technology (atmospheric GHG capturing…), no technology exists in sufficient scale, scope of efficiency to accomplish this in time.
    Remember, the main issue here is TIME. And methane (CH4) dissemination.

  2. The IPCC has to hedge by overestimating how much time we have left due to scientific culture. Subtract 10 years and you probably have the actual date. Even if the USA went on a crash program to reduce carbon emissions, there is no way you are going to get the developing countries off their pursuit of consumer capitalism. I would be shocked if we did not have a blue water event within the next 5 years. 2 seasons of global crop failure, you are going to have global civil unrest and social collapse. Game over folks.

  3. There all this talk about removing carbon from the atmosphere, but wouldn’t that make things much worse in the near term by preventing global dimming? Aren’t we in a damned if you do damned if we don’t scenario? as Guy Mcpherson outspoken affirms?

  4. The COP's are absolutely useless. They focus on the risk of using geo-engineering- which is just theory at this point, and yet completely ignore the 50% risk of warming over shoot by 2030! A bullet is coming towards you, and they recommend studying the design of the gun first, then think about getting out of the way. Total insanity going on right now at the top of all governments in the world. $ before self preservation is the order of priority. INSANE stupidity instead of leadership is all we have at the moment to fight the greatest ever threat to the genus Homo. WOW

  5. Stuart, thank you so much for your honesty. There is so little of it in the climate change science/policy arena right now.

  6. I would like to nominate PM Morrison and the Australian LNP for this award (Climate Villain). I realise Oz is only a pimple on the arse of the world but for sheer bastardy I think you should squeeze them in at an early or late time slot.

  7. Thank you for your efforts! I'm happy to see you expose the failure of the IPCC to adequately protect humanity from economic predation leading to extinction.

  8. An excellent presentation, a call to action and no punches were pulled!
    The elephant in the room is of course, the neo-liberal global capitalist economic system, the cornerstone of which is infinite growth on a finite planet.
    Politicians such as the villain Theresa May, are beholden to to powerful actors whose vested interests lie in maintaining the current status quo. The corporate media is also complicit.
    Only truly progressive and equitable policies such as in the recent manifesto drawn up by Thomas Piketty and others can tackle inequality, disillusionment, and climate change.

  9. Ok I'm not saying the changes needed are small – they are massive in scale – but they aren't that hard, except that there is huge resistance from vested interests and the establishment. Everyone can easily get on board with these changes and make them happen once we all decide to.

  10. Politicians won't do anything. Greed, power, and money rule the world. They'll escape to their bunkers and hope everyone else kills each other off.

  11. Peter Wadhams has been working on and under the ice when most of those bureauquacks were still in kindergarden. He should be in charge of the IPCC…..we are so screwed. Be prepared for disaster we are on our own….seriously for the sake of your loved ones/family have a disaster plan short and long term

  12. Expecting the major governments of the world to do anything in actually reducing emissions is a complete waste of time. The only accurate projection is a do-nothing or "business as usual" scenario, and that needs to be admitted.

  13. WE need to burn the dirtiest coal possible while planting billions of trees & hope that we can keep global dimming long enough for the trees to start having an effect.

  14. The speaker, Stuart Scott, mentions that "it's been commented endlessly on my videos I put out why dr. Wadhams is not part of the IPCC".. Can someone briefly summarize why? I've seen a few UPFSI video's but haven't come across the reason..

  15. Assuming deforestation were halted, the amount of reafforestation required to return to 350 ppm or lower would be about 5 Spains (not "half the Earth.") A large area to be sure, and a Herculean effort, but there is enough fallowing land and second growth forest (not being farmed or actively managed) to more than meet that target. The drawdown to that level would take about 50 years from first tree in the ground to full build-out. Keeping the program going has the potential to take us back to 260 ppm before returning to a steady state point of equilibrium with the solar orbit. These calculations account for the ocean CO2 feedback so the calculated drawdown from the reafforestation program would necessarily include a comparable ocean decarbonization (and the potential for revival of coral reefs as temperatures slow in their warming).

  16. Excellent set-up of diligent human beings that dare to speak up, tell the truth and debunk the political game – thank you, Stuart Scott, Victoria Hurth and Peter Wadhams for all the wake-up calls and your honesty.

  17. Well meaning to be sure, but there’s nothing that can prevent this calamity from killing the vast majority of us within the next decade and brutal and horrify as this may be, it’s ultimately a good thing because a global collapse is the only solution to the myriad of problems that beset us.

    All we can hope for is that a few of us may find a way to survive what is clearly an extinction event.

  18. To achieve the mentioned emission neutral human society, there also cannot be any animal agriculture and meat consumption.
    Hard to believe that this will really happen 🐄

  19. On a positive note, according to Jimmy at Bright Insight, the recent Crater discovery on Greenland indicates that the World was wiped out in about an hour and we survived that just fine!, It takes about 10-12 000 years to get here so, .. we got that right?

  20. "Positive feedback won't lead to runaway warming; diminishing returns on feedback cycles limit the amplification. "

  21. Little bit of Malthusian pessimism creeping in here – quoting extreme estimates of population rise. Also, Wadham’s is right to be dismissive of existing politicians, but there are new political movements rising – Yellow Vests (possibly) – that could shift the dominant economic profit paradigm.

  22. Politicians cannot in democratic societies forceably initiate changes against the will of the people. People are resistant to information which threatens their complacency and the mass media, to maintain their influence, pander to this complacency. The scientists can only provide information, if the media refuse to present this information in a way that is universally convincing then they can do no more. Greater control of the media is necessary and mis-information should be punished as a crime against society.

  23. And what about global dimming. After 911 the temp went up in 24 hours of no air travel. Geoengineering is BAD. Everything humans do with ‘oil’, just destroys the planet.

  24. Peter Wadhams is a nice man, but its too late, every day coming 200.000 new polluters to this planet. Nobody will stop this and oil is used more and more. So take your health insurance cards, possessions, money, credit cards, language skills, diplomas and fancy titles. In 10 till 12 years you can burn it with the rest of this planet.

  25. I would yell "FIRE!' but our theater has no exit.  The positive feedback loops have started.  It is to late to do anything.  The Exxon scientist saw this during the 1980's.  If I was the CEO of Exxon at that time I would have done just what he did.  The best we can do is to maintain social stability as long as possible.

    The forces of nature are in place and beyond our control.  Just three too hot and or too wet or too dry springs and food for billions of people disappears.
    We humans have enjoyed @ 10,000 years of stable weather.  That window for agriculture is closing.
    Soon, world food production will fail.  When do we plant our corps?  Any culture is three days of hunger from disintegration.  
    There is no place to migrate to.  Where are you going to go?
    Scientist are not politicians, theologians, philosophers, or poets.  Their knowledge of or use of rhetoric to warn of our situation is at best poor. 
    It is now clear that homo-hubris-sapiens are about to disappear.   Our society is just another about to disappear.  Nothing new here, this is quite natural.  We humans are just part of a natural cycle.  Any scientist can tell you this. But no politician will or can tell you the truth. Dictator or democrat; no politician can, will, or should tell us these obvious facts regarding our habitat.
      The human response to climate change seems like the human response on Easter Island as they were cutting down their last tree.
      They thought their god's were more important than their trees.  Then they learned that their god's could not create trees. 
      We think that profit and finical growth are more important than the environment.  To the economist the  environment is extraneous to our economy.  We are about to learn that profit and finical growth can not create living organisms.  
      The god's of profit and finical growth have made us blind to the absurdity of cutting down the last trees on our island.
       I have passed through a morning period.  I am embracing my death.  I try to love all I see.  In my view it is too late to "do" anything.  Our day has passed.
       Just for the record, I have spent most of the last 25 years wandering about in the wildernesses of the Colorado Rocky's, the highlands of Northern California, Maui, and my beloved Central California Coast.  I could do this because to get food all I had to do was go to town.    
    When there is plenty of wild life, living off the land is very difficult.  My hat is off to our ancestors.
    We are looking at the collapse of habitat for all manuals as well as fish, birds, and vegetation.  There will be no "living off the land."    I have been hungry in the wilderness.  Lethargy and weakness take over.  Every action takes great effort.  It appears to me to be a hard death.  But perhaps no more difficult a death than those who have gone before us.
    It is as if the specter of death has appeared at our party.  Everyone at the party sees it.  No one admits it at first.  A few whispers, that's about it.
    A rumor of the specter begins to spread.  A rumor that everyone at the party can see and does see.  It is clear that the specter of death has not come for a particular person but this time has come for everyone at the party; including our pets. 
    As the last grocery store closes I plan to be wandering up a unnamed stream.
    Into the unknown I go as we all must. 

    Good Luck to You.

  26. Don't worry capitalism can solve any problem , it's the perfect system , you just have to believe you need faith and hope . Look at the positives , this will help stop the obesity crisis in the west , people won't waste food they'll literally eat it out of your rubbish bin .

  27. Excellent program! It is about time IPCC experts started listening to (and including) men like Prof. Wadhams…He has an unsurpassed expertise in Arctic ice conditions…and to omit (dare I say censor?) his evidence for reasons of political expediency is a sin against humanity.

  28. I believe we are screwed. But people like Elon Musk should stop their other activities cars, batteries, Mars etc. and concentrate on atmospheric carbon removal. CO2 and methane. Let others handle the renewables. Then we need population control and reforestation and ocean healing. So, we are going to ALL die fairly soon.

  29. I am ashamed of these scientists who sell themselves to these companies that do not want to change, cling to subterfuge to try to denigrate other colleagues, exchange their souls in detriment of a retirement by the oil producers, the gasoline car producers, the politicians corrupt people who are interested in profit on the population. a shame.

  30. Live every day for the day, worrying about the end of the world from climate heating, when the people that are the Elite don't worry is a complete wast of time, so were out of time, I don't think now that humanity deserves to live, we don't have what it takes to be a humanity that natures and cares about other species. So it will be a good thing if we extinguish ourselves, before we are let loose on this solar system or any other.

  31. The arctic ice cap has lost 75% of its sea ice volume over the last 40 years.  At this rate, its gone entirely in 13 years only the last foot or so of thickness is far more prone to wind and waves breaking up the ice and blowing it away much like a lake loses its ice in spring.  It will likely be the second year of an El Nino cycle that produces the end to arctic ice in the late summer within 10 years.  To fully understand what to expect from there, this link of a lecture from Jennifer Francis explains what will happen as we lose the temperature gradient of our arctic cap weakening jet streams and causing blocks or persistent jet stream patterns are likely to cause more persistent droughts and floods.  Once the ice cap is gone, the potential for prolonged melting of Greenland and permafrost goes way up and with it, the risks of Methane release, sea level rise and all that comes with SLR:

  32. The greatest risk from climate change is not storms, flood, drought, desertification or forest fires, its from sea level rise (SLR).  To understand where SLR comes from, Eric Rignot says it best. Rignot is one of the top glaciologists in the world and easy to watch with a friendly accent etc. . Simply put, he’s flown over Greenland and large parts of Antarctica to measure, more than anything else, ice sheet thickness (SLR potential) and changes to thickness indicating ice on the move or retreat, and upon summarizing the land ice potential of ice sheets to SLR or the pie, and all of the individual ice packs contributing to the pie, assess risk. This is what gives his words credibility for Eric has actually been there, been a part of the data collection and has packaged his findings in this presentation. Its a great vid for those who are interested in the nuts and bolts but the conclusion at the 47 minute mark is this: – greater than 1M SLR is very likely by end of century.
    – SLR commitment with 1.5 to 2 degree C warming:
     6 to 9 metres SLR. (this is the holy shit moment, acknowledging this
     very fact)
    – Time scale of major shift (100 to 200 years, not 1,000 years)
    – ASE in West Antarctica is in irreversible retreat (1 m sea level rise).
    – 2 out of 3 marine based sectors retreating in Greenland (3 m SLR)
    – East Antarctica losing mass at an increasing rate (Totten 4 m SLR)
    – the pace of change is fast i.e. decadesWhy did the IPCC become so climate change alarmist a month or so ago with the declaration that if the world doesn’t address climate change massively by 2030, it spells disaster for the planet? 2014 was the hottest year on record going back to the 1880’s. 2015 beat 2014 and 2016 beat 2015. 2015 & 2016 were El Nino years while 2017 and 2018 were La Nina years. In the hottest month seen in 2016, the world was 1.5 degrees above  the industrial average. (we didn't notice because it happened in December) What did Eric say, 1.5 to 2C commits us to 6 to 9m of SLR?

  33. The greatest danger from SLR may not be from displacing some 75% of the earth's population that lives off the ocean coast lines throughout the world (although it won't help), the greatest danger of sea level rise is likely to come from the threat of earthquakes and volcanoes triggered by melting ice weight displacement on earth's crust (i.e. melting ice sheets in
     Greenland/Antarctica). Its best explained in the link below: Excellent lecture from the link above. Little gems like earthquakes having a season (November through March) triggered by ice loss (like the earthquakes that  hit Alaska a week ago, yes they were likely triggered by man made climate change, the resistance has built up over 10's of thousands of years and we gave it that extra push) are dwarfed by the impacts of climate change on earthquakes and volcanoes. This is where it gets biblical… earthquakes and volcanoes triggered by the greatest threat of all with SLR, greater than coastal flooding that is in itself, predictably highly disruptive to civilization.  Rapid SLR has the potential to change the atmosphere dramatically through volcanoes. Its the end game of climate change… the dark truth of human karma.  Can you see it now?  We lose our cap within 10 years triggering high potential for heat waves to melt permafrost and melt Greenland ice sheets.  The threat of methane release is realized and unexpected warming further threatens to melt ice sheets and sea level rises.  With SLR the threats of earthquakes and volcanoes become realized.  The true threat of climate change is within our lifetimes.  The IPCC has one thing right.  If we don't reduce C02 emissions world wide by 50% by 2030, catastrophe is certain… about as certain as the world losing the arctic cap and all that follows and that's cause for major alarm.

  34. The gap between where we are now versus where we need to be is huge. We have already fallen into the first 'trap' caused by global warming. The first trap is that the climate system is GUARANTEED to transition into a much worser form than what we're currently experiencing. Can't get out of that trap, regardless of what we do in the near term. The second trap is the one where there's no escaping. We're not in that trap just yet, but getting all too uncmforatebly close (and may be in it, but we just don't know yet).

    So only emergency action on a worldwide basiis can have a reasonable chance of avoiding the second trap, of which there is no escape. Seem possible? Doubtful. I believe that avoiding 1.5 C of warming is already lost and that 2.0 C of warming is likely lost.

    I believe we'll eventually switch into "emergency mode" but it will be too little, too late. We will have fallen into the Climate Change trap for which there is no escape.

    Oh well

  35. We've heard the scientists now we need to hear from the sociologists, the security and defense experts, maybe chuck in the historians and get a sense of what living the collapse of civilization will be like. Europe and more specifically Germany at the end of both world wars might be a starting point. Not pretty, forget social equality, nuclear disarmament, LGBTQI rights and save the whales, it would be the strong rule and all the others better have something the strong either want or need. That's my guess and if correct, happy days are here again.

  36. We are going to have to capture the CO2. There is no way around that. If that is impossible then how impossible is completely stopping transportation, manufacturing, agriculture? Because that is what needs to be done. That is what's impossible. CO2 has to be captured and if that's impossible, then we are truly doomed. It has to be removed from the atmosphere. That's not even talking about methane. That's a whole different ball of wax. These scientists are unaware of the futility of this situation. They spout off what needs to be done like the world can just wave a magic wand and suddenly the change is made. Easy peasey. Who pays for it? The governments? Where will they get the money? Oh yes, the magic wand. Hey, maybe they could collect enough taxes to pay for it. Just make everyone poor that aren't already. Yeah, that's the solution. Tax everyone into Oblivion. These scientists are so intelligent let them figure out how to bring civilization to a halt and start over using only renewable sources in time to save the world from ourselves. The reality is, there is no slowing this down, much less stopping it. The climate will change there is also no stopping that. People will die by the billions and there is no stopping that. After the dust settles, humans will start over again or go extinct.

  37. I have 3 ideas for a US Green New Deal.

    1] Sell off half the US gold holdings for as much as possible. Not that this is in any sense necessary, I have agreed with Stephanie Kelton view on what a fiat dollar means for over 6 years now. But, it does help send the message that who will need gold when we are all dead? So, let us get serious about this.

    2] Start building a few factories to build solar panels using the best tech we have now, just like we built factories to build B-24 bombers. What the world needs is a glut of solar panels.

    3] Double all the unemployment benefit payments for all workers who's job is eliminated by this fight. For just as long or longer then the current system would allow. Then they will not feel so damaged and it will stimulate the communities where the money is spent.

  38. Reforestation is an option. At 3:20 he mentions "this can only be achieved by a massive change in our way of life" then at 15:55 he says reforestation won't work because we won't change our way of life. Direct air capture will not work because we put the carbon there to extract the energy from the molecules that contained it. To recapture it we will need to expend a lot of that energy.
    Stopping the use of fossil fuels and using only the sun's energy is our only option. Wind, hydro, and bio-fuels are sun energy one step removed.

  39. Thanks to all concerned for a great video. There was righteous anger with well placed words to power. My copy of Peter's book is no longer as pretty since I am going back to it so often it is quite dog-eared.
    I do not want to go down quietly into the night, and so I have been proposing the Windyday Concept. This would be to build battery and solar panel factories in every city since we will not have enough basic materials for the New Green Deal everyone is asking for. Stanford just put out a paper touted as the road map for this Revolution. But they say batteries and solar panels, as if they will magically appear. China should keep their production, so that means except for Tesla, and North Volt in Sweden, no one is building batteries on scale. Europe will be having a capacity of maybe 800,888 vehicles by 2023, and that doesn't count industrial storage. So we are fucked.
    I propose worker co-op factories building batteries and solar panels in each city, but I have been shouting this and there has been no support from Climate scientists. Do you know where I got this idea? From the OECD and the IEA in 2010. They were supposed to implement this and we would have had 1 million chargers in France and Germany be 2015 with 40% of all vehicles electric by 2017. G and F have about 14,000 chargers each and less that 2% of vechicles are electric.
    Where was your support for this idea when it was rolled out, and why didn't you do more to make them keep their word? I know that everyone underestimated the Greed of Davos, but now we can try to get out in the street and do something now.
    I almost was able to start a battery factory in a Eastern European country but the Swiss financial industry fucked me over in an interesting way. And I am a Doctor helping people with back pain. So if I could do it, what is stopping you people?
    BTW my video on YT "Back Pain and Climate Change"

  40. Pretty good video. But Dr. Wadhams has shown that he is clearly a proponent of geo-engineering. As far as I know, he is not a climate modeler, and does not use Climate Models. His association with the Arctic methane fear mongers makes his opinion suspect by the scientific community. Other than that, a good video. Certainly the increasing water shortages are causing the shit to hit the fan already.


    The Artic is releasing stored carbon. A methane release has been on going with around 2000 to 3000 parts per billion of methane in the Northern Hemisphere. The rate of change of carbon equivalents in the air is close to 500 ppm. Whatever changes are going to take place are locked in. Run away hot house earth is the most likely event. The heat levels now are lowering insects populations all over the world and marine life isn't far behind. Crop failures are ahead along with co-extinction. We can talk in our bubbles however the main event to change these events was lost in the 1980's. The main questions to ask now are in the relam of how do we as individuals respond to the environment around us? What makes the most sense for you personally? How does the individual prepare? I do not have answers that for my own life yet. The things I do know is that climate change is out of humanity's control and hot house earth is the likely outcome along with the burning of all fossil fuels for whatever remains of human history.

  42. Hi Peter, Do you notice how the world's youth are increasingly aware that the pollies are not making genuine moves to prevent a planetary disaster and are now collaborating globally to change the way this matter is currently is being approached ? Can you see a way for their growing numbers and innovative approaches to make a difference ? Your suggestions will be appreciated.

  43. It looks like we will have a Climate Event parallel to the "Love Canal" Tragedy- only it will have to be a global event–in order to get the attention of the policy makers.

  44. Stuart….. the integrity of yourself and Peter shines through like a beacon. God bless you both. I agree with you in that we're headed to a very bad place at an accelerating rate of knots.

  45. Conservative right wing govt's have to be removed along with carbon from our atmosphere. lets put a carbon reading on gov't policy.

  46. "We are already in a runaway abrupt #climateChange situation and we need to be scrambling back immediately to change our system if we are to be able to survive this crisis" We need carbon – air capture and we need to put a high price on pollution now. #CarbonTax The commitments made by policymakers are commitments that they have no intention of honoring. It is up to us individuals to make a lifestyle change and the leading cause of GHG emissions are the fossil fuel industry and the #Meat and #Dairy industry. Do the right thing for yourself and your children by being part of the solution #Vegan #crueltyfree #SeaShepherd #Sustainable world for the first time.

  47. Here's an article from The Guardian on how Spain is tackling coal.

    This is the kind of Just Transition that should be used for reskilling in reforestation at a national or state level.

    Re tree planting, agree local projects are small in scale though their full benefits need to be considered. They provide skills in tree planting, local food and habitat. Planting eg 200, 500, 1,000 fruit trees and native trees does little compared to the mass deforestation but much in terms of local food, amenity, awareness, education, ownership and habitat. The decline in species such as birds and insects is a key part in awareness raising as is local knowledge and monitoring.

  48. Agree with the carbon capture issue. Some numbers on it. We produce around 35 billion tonnes of CO2 per year plus fugitive methane which is grossly underestimated. For CO2 alone that is around 25 cubic kilometres in dry ice alone and much greater as a gas. For the excess atmospheric CO2 were talking around 500 billion tonnes or around 330 cubic kilometres of dry ice equivalent. This does not include CO2 absorbed by the sea which is around 90% of that emitted nor does it include positive feedbacks which inflate the hypothetical storage needs. This doesn't include construction emmissions.

    Any country or community want to take this on with the risk of mass CO2 poisoning?

    This would take a huge amount of energy and produce a lot of CO2 to freeze or store as a gas and that CO2 would also need capturing. Carbon capture and storage at best is a distraction and at worst an ineffective ponzi scheme.

    If CO2 were used as a means of extracting heat for district heating, storing it and allowing it to heat (change phase and volume) for energy generation then CO2 would only be involved in the process ie it would not be sequestered.

    Like wise making fuel form CO2 will require energy but again CO2 is only invovled in the process, it is not sequestered.

    Also when we burn hydrocarbons and produce CO2 the volume of CO2 is much greater than the initial hydrocarbons and dramatically increases cannibalistic energy (energy to run the power plant) so even if the geology were suitable it would still not contain all the CO2.

  49. It is unbelievable that politicians and decision makers still believe we can save the world by reducing CO2 emissions. The only way forward is negative carbon emission and/or geoengineering.

  50. Cowardly? NO! The politicians are reflecting the decisions of capitalists in control of the energy production. Democracy is deformed by class rule. Face it! It's capitalists acting within their system of wealth appropriation, the wage system.

  51. You guys should debunk the crap that's denying cc. Maybe get some comedians and produce funny yt vids that destroys the reputation of such people. potholer54 on yt does a nice job regarding that, but he's a one man army only.

    btw the politicians are not so much cowards as they are stupid old men financed by cynical old billionaires.

  52. Well said, The monstrous horror that is May is despicable, a liar, and poison for our futures – as well as orchestrating e Brexit disaster for little England.

  53. Are they banking on a 90 percent or more reduction in the population? Will the rich 10% survive the 3-5 Degree C warming in gated, fortified bunker condos? They have started buying them already –

  54. Speaking of the unspoken issues that are being ignored, Dr Scott, population is being ignored in these discussions. We have to decrease the number of humans on the planet, or find a way to make food that does not require land. Humane population reduction may be the only way to avoid inhumane population collapse. Experts in population dynamics seem to be absent in this discussion. As we are about to accept as inevitable the loss of a large share of global food production, it is time to accept famine as the business as usual outcome, and to discuss its alternatives. It would be useful for you to include an expert in this subject who can navigate the landmines of the population issue without avoiding the issue altogether. I am not volunteering, but I could do it. I have taught the subject for three years. We need to break that ice.

  55. I start to believe in "mitigation" the moment the CO2 concentrations in Hawai go DOWN and not up and up! A big problem is that politicians are somehow more interested in magic like Astrology and Faith groups than Natural Science! Those who "lead" us are mostly stupids who believe in woo woo like the christian faith, islam, judaism and many other religious bs.

  56. While  May & Trump can be viewed as two of the biggest bad act actors, at least Trump is fairly transparent — his attitude is basically 'I don't believe it, we're not going to set CO2 limits; and I don't give a shit."  Your basic definition of ignorance  and  apathy.'

  57. Plants like C02.Weeds are the fastest plants or kelp.?
    Can you discuss the carbon fixing fungi they are trying to inoculate seed with?

  58. I find bouncing figures around is a waste of time, WE HAVE TO ACT!!! ACTION IS MOST IMPORTANT!!! Governments across the Earth must set in motion State of Emergency Laws ie; 1 small car per family, 1 small home per family, water and electricity consumptions at a bare minimum. SCHOOLS MUST START PLANTING FOOD THAT WE USE DAILY: Romain Lettuce, sweet potatoes, kale, celery, broccoli, cauliflower, tomatoes, cucumbers, garlic, etc.. All production plants like clothing companies, sporting industries, pharmaceutical giants, cleaning chemicals companies, the oil and plastic industries, motor vehicle companies, the likes of Mc Donalds and other fast food companies. All these companies HAVE TO REDUCE THEIR PRODUCTION BY MORE THAN HALF PER YEAR WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It has always angered me that every season theres a new clothing line, or new colours to decorate your diner table or bedroom/bathroom/outdoor etc.. What happens to all of this unsold stcok??? What happens to all the motor vehicles the over produced (pulling resources from the Earth) and not sold? It lands up squashed into the size of a square box!!!!!! All the farming of live stock especially cows, chickens and pigs, there is always an over stock of these products avaialbe in the stores, these products expire before they have been sold and land up on the dump but the cost to the environment has already be done but none of us see this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am so so VERY ANGRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Its just discussion after discussion after discussion after discussion for the last 25 years and we are in a worse position. All I see is that Earth will burn and that! THAT WILL stop us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  59. We could retrieve vast amount of lands if we could only give up eating so much meat, so reforestation could become meaningful!

  60. From my online book "ANOTHER WORLD IS POSSIBLE"  on Ecohumanworld website.

    We live on one planet but we are divided into two worlds that couldn't be more different.
    The first one is real, biological, the one we cannot survive without because it created us. The second one is artificial, the one we made, the one where we feel safe because we can change and adapt it all we want so that it fits our needs. This is an aggressive, technological world that is now, at the turn of the century, entering a phase that is damaging for each one of us. It is urgent that we change this overly productive and excessively consumerist world and adapt it to the capacity that this planet can still tolerate.

  61. Protesters and treehuggers was right all the time. They need to listen to ordinary people, they always knows what's best.

  62. There is a Strange Global Human Psychology going on. As yet we are Unable to Use this Psychology to Accelerate Alternate often Old Fashioned Pro Enviroment Activity. For Example we carry out activities for Money such as Build a House out of Wood. But we can't put Significant Numbers to Planting Trees and Growing them, hence Keeping a Good Supply of Wood plus all the other Benefits. This in Turn then would give Less land for Farming however this is only a Problem if We Completely Forget how many problems we have solved in our History. Hence our Psychology and Structure is Preventing us from using Our Problem Solving Capabilities. We can Easily Double or Triple Farm Production Per Hectare, Hence Freeing Up Land For Trees. Also better and more Water Production, Transport Systems are possible, again we know how to do it but the Psychological Carrot is Missing.

  63. I've watched scientists say this for decades now. Nothing has been done about it. Why bother when it's not going to change anything? There simply is no escape, because capitalism doesn't permit anything unless there's a profit to be made.

  64. Actually the IPCC is a climate denier worse than any government. Unable to stand up and YELL FIRE 🔥. I’m disgusted and sick of being mocked because I’m vegan for the planet. I feel sorry for the young people who will be robbed of a future because of our unwillingness to start a massive attempt to mitigate this disaster. Too bad Winston Churchill isn’t around to kick us the ass.

  65. I've made documentaries and other films in about 150 countries, and the more I research these topics (and the more I see here from experts) the more I realize (and excuse my Latin) … WE ARE COMPLETELY FUCKED. So there we have it.

  66. I was recently very honoured to have Dr Peter Wadhams comment for the second time on one of my blog posts.

    "Peter Wadhams says:

    May 28, 2019 at 2:59 am

    The analysis of climate sensitivity by David Wasdell is very important. I have been through it with him several times and am convinced of its validity. I mentioned it in “A Farewell to Ice”. The point is that here is a big difference between the short term sensitivity, which is used to calculate warming over a few years, and the long term sensitivity which represents how much warming the earth is going to be subjected to if you don’t add more CO2 but let the effects of the present levels work their way fully through the climate system. Short term sensitivity is 2-4.5 C, but long term is more like 10C. The crime of IPCC and other modelling outfits is that they are aware of this difference between short and long term, but still use the short term value even when they are doing hand-waving studies of what is going to happen over the next century or two. In fact it;’s not just the case that the magic 1.5C or 2C warming is already “baked in” to the global system – in fact the baked in figure is more like 4-5 C. Hence the vital need for carbon drawdown. Best wishes Peter Wadhams."

  67. I think the one step all folks can take everywhere so they do not feel helpless. Lobby your local town, village, city council to publish a statement on whether or not that council is of the opinion that abrupt climate change is a threat to the future survivability of our species on the planet. A simple yes or no to start. The next steps should then start to look obvious to each individual.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *