28 – The consequences of climate change (in our lifetimes)


1:48 “Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland”
Ola M. Johannessen et al, Science November 2005

2:10 “Recent Greenland Ice Mass Loss by Drainage System from Satellite Gravity Observations” — S. B. Luthcke, et al., Science November 2006

2:12 “Melting of Greenland Ice Sheet Satellite Gravity Measurements Confirm Accelerated Melting of Greenland Ice Sheet” —
J. L. Chen, et al., Science 2006

3:19 “Satellite gravity measurements confirm accelerated melting of Greenland ice sheet” J. Chen et al., Science, 2006
3:22 “Recent Greenland Ice Mass Loss by Drainage System from Satellite Gravity Observations” — Luthcke et al, Science, 2006
3:24 “Lower estimates of Antarctic sea level contribution from satellite gravimetry” King et al, Nature 2012

3:26 Recent Antarctic ice mass loss from radar interferometry and regional climate modelling” — Rignot et al, 2008

3:28 “Recent Contributions of glaciers and ice caps to sea level rise from GRACE”

3:30 “A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance”
Shepherd et al Science 2012

4:01 “Recent Contributions of glaciers and ice caps to sea level rise from GRACE”
4:24 “Toward prediction of environmental Arctic change”
W Maslowski, JC Kinney, J Jakacki – Computing in Science 2007
5:25 “Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise” — WT Pfeffer et al., Science 2008
5:40 “Global sea level linked to global temperature” —
Martin Vermeer and Stefan Rahmstorf, PNAS 2009

6:10 Table adapted from “Ranking Port Cities with High Exposure and Vulnerability to Climate Extremes”
— R. J. Nicholls et al., OECD 2008

8:02 “Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise” — WT Pfeffer et al., Science 2008

8:57 “Climate: Observations, projections and Impacts” — Met Office 2013.

10:05 “Precipitation and its extremes in changed climates”
— T. Schneider and P. A. O’Gorman, Journal of Climate 2008
11:30 “Effects of climate change on global food production under SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios” — Parry et al, Global Environmental Change 2004
11:52 “Threats to Water Supplies in the Tropical Andes” Bradley et al., Science 2006

11:55 “Evidence for Upwelling of Corrosive “Acidified” Water onto the Continental Shelf” — Richard A. Feely, Science 2008

12:01 “Coral Reefs: Present Problems and Future Concerns Resulting from Anthropogenic Disturbance” — RH Richmond, American Zoologist 1993

12:06 “Global Warming and Coastal Erosion” — Zhang et al., Climatic Change
12: 08 “Global response of terrestrial ecosystem structure and function to CO2 and climate change: results from six dynamic global vegetation models” — Cramer et al., Global Change Biology 2001
12:25 “The Recent Increase in Atlantic Hurricane Activity: Causes and Implications” — Goldenberg, Science 2001
12:34 “A link between reduced Barents-Kara sea ice and cold winter extremes over northern continents”
Petoukhov, V., and V. A. Semenov,

14:08 I backtracked this new “CAGW” label, and it seems to have started with author Michael Crichton in 2007, but was popularized in 2010 with an opinion piece in the Washington Post.

14:42 Table adapted from “Ranking Port Cities with High Exposure and Vulnerability to Climate Extremes”
— R. J. Nicholls et al., OECD 2008

15:07 “Projected impacts of climate change on marine fish and fisheries”
Anne B. Hollowed

15:12 “Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change” — UK Government report, 2006

17:47 Someone queried my statement “the amount we’ve spent on developing the world’s first nuclear fusion reactor is barely 2/3 the cost of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.”
I don’t have my notes with me so I can’t give you my source for the billion. So let’s look at a couple of other ratios.
According to the website of ITER (the Experimental Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor), if all the manufacturing is done in Europe the estimated cost of building ITER, supported by the United States, the European Union, India, Japan, China, Russia, South Korea, has been estimated at approximately .4 billion (at April 2016 exchange rates.) That’s around a third the estimated cost of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico ( billion).” (SOURCE: http://www.iter.org/faq#Do_we_really_know_how_much_ITER_will_cost) “Based on the European evaluation, we can estimate the cost of ITER construction for the seven members at approximately EUR 13 billion, if all the manufacturing is done in Europe.” )
Or, looking at it another way, the cost of building the National Ignition Facility — a key research project into nuclear fusion — was less that 10% of the cost of the BP oil spill.

Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, explains the causes and consequences of climate change and what can be done to combat it.

29 thoughts on “28 – The consequences of climate change (in our lifetimes)”

  1. Mind looking at a documentary called "cowspiracy"
    In a nut shell it tries to emphasize the enviromental impact of animal agriculture, including it's contribution to global warming.

    I don't think all their claims are true, but it does appear that animal product consunption does have some impact. Atleast according to this.
    At the moment, I'm inclined to believe that reducing animal product consumption is compatible with reducing one's enviromental impact.

    I'm not supporting these points per se as much as I want to know if you find this arguement credible.

  2. Our global problem is like this, a full glacial cycle takes 100,000-years and CO2 varies 100-ppm, from 180-280-ppm.

    During all those ice-ages the maximum CO2 was 305±5-ppm, ok, we passed that about 1916 and since then added a 100-ppm.

    That's a glacial cycle in only 100-years and it's all ABOVE the highest CO2 value ever reached in a million years, acidifying the oceans 10-times faster than an extinction event.

    We must exit the Steam Age for electrons, most grid power is for thermal end-uses not electricity so to switch will only take 5-years, maybe 2-months if it was a war.

  3. I have read that two studies, published in Nature (2003) and Science (2012), concluded that ocean acidification is accelerating at the fastest rate in 300 million years. This time frame passes the end-Permian Great Dying, which was caused (alongside vulcanism and an anoxic event) by melting methane hydrates. Does this imply that human activity could ultimately put most multi-cellular life on Earth in jeopardy?

  4. Do you think you could ever do a refutation of Ben Shapiro's climate change opinion. Its more focused on the effects of climate change than the reality of it, but the problem is that he posits, "in order to fix climate change we would need to plunge the industrial world back into a preindustrial 3rd world age."

  5. Since this is the "opinion" part of your piece, I can weigh in with an opinion. It's not reasonable to believe that alternative energy sources will "NEVER replace fossil fuels because our energy needs are just too great." We can reduce our energy needs through lifestyle changes, through better home design, building materials and techniques, and through the development of individual, even perhaps point-of-use energy production. Just a few years ago, the prevailing thought was that inventions like the gravity-light could not possibly work. But now they are being used very successfully. Transforming our way of life has been done many times in the past. Humans adapt very quickly to new norms. Scaling back and simplifying may become the new norm, along with the benefit of more life fulfillment, connection, and happiness.

  6. Here's what I want to know. Do Scientists who publish papers title them, themselves? Is there an editorial review before publication? If so, Johannassen and his peer-reviewers and editor should be roundly scolded for not even THINKING of how easy it would be to misinterpret that title.

  7. Thank you thank you thank you, its nice to see someone on the internet who understands what their talking about and more importantly, CITES academic SOURCES! I've been searching far and wide for you :)

  8. 1. There are some situations where "alarmism" is a realistic and accurate way of motivating people to action. Such as, when there is a true emergency which demands an immediate response. Which this is. 2. "never be able to" stop using fossil fuels? Certainly that is correct if we want to continue with our current myths of unlimited growth and the superiority of this age to any other. However, lifestyle changes can and have been done in the past. Our actual way of life will change — for the better! as we transition to 100% renewables — see theclimatemobilization.org

  9. To be fair with Al Gore, he was more of a politician. He knew that typically to get people (especially Americans) to act on an issue, the biggest motivator is fear.

  10. Happy ho ho, we can continue to grow population and energy consumption as long as we "do it right." The UN estimate of population "leveling-off" at 11 billion depends on continued gains in womens rights and education but, failing those, the current growth rate of over 1% will double population to 15 billion in 60 years. The population tripled since 1950 while energy consumption quintupled. Concurrently, the ocean fish stocks fell by 80% and all large mammals except humans have become endangered. Look at the overall impacts of humanity, with climate change as one element, and you see that the lemmings are probably right to enjoy today without worry for tomorrow.

  11. good stuff.
    watching this it happens to
    be Thursday 25th August 2016.
    this afternoon and yesterday
    have been far too humid for
    me in Hampshire.
    i seem to notice the humidity
    far more than the temperature,
    and i am sure we didn't have
    this much humidity this often
    in the 60s, 70s and 80s.
    I moved to the north of England
    in the 90s for over a decade, and
    then moved back to the same
    postcode, and am sure it's not
    my imagination.
    any thoughts on humidity
    would be appreciated, I won't
    be disappointed if you don't .

  12. The British accent meshes very well with the heir of nonchalance. And truth. Can't overlook truth, right? I mean, you'd think… Whatever.

  13. I've seen all your videos so many times that now I just use them as a calming thing to listen to while I play games. Pardon the irony, but you've been blessed with a very nice voice. By the Noodly Appendage's touch, of course.

  14. When you see James Hansen having a say the doco .has to be fraudulent propaganda .Monkton is almost always correct James Hansen is now a proven failed scientist . If he knows this then he is a fraud The only question is ..Is J Hansen a fraud or a failed scientist ?I don't know I do know he has to be one of the two

  15. I really appreciate the message at the end. This was a great video in general, as is expected of your content, but the ending really did tie it up with a positive message that is often lacking in youtube content.

  16. Hello Potholer54. I believe that this video is probably the most important one in your series. It crystallizes all of the information of the other videos and comes to a conclusion on the proposed effects of continuing to emit CO2 into the atmosphere. In another string you mentioned to me that human beings put 3% of the total gross amount of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. You also said that this 3% is the 'tipping point' amount that 'destabilized' the previous 'constant' level of CO2 during the past 2000 years and that proves that the recent warming is due to human activity (and please correct me if I'm wrong). My question to you might sound a little 'dire' but I feel it needs to be said. If we, as humans, disappeared from the planet tomorrow (thus eliminating this extra 3% of CO2 being spewed into the atmosphere) would this phenomenon 'erase' or 'correct' or reduce the warming of the planet in the future? If so, by how much? Or, is this feedback loop too far gone to be reversed?

  17. Here's a recent review of some of the observed effects of anthropogenic climate change (not that further evidence will make progress in convincing AGW denialists):

    "Assessing the observed impact of anthropogenic climate change"

  18. Do a search google search for 'the europe that was' and you'll see that the UK was once connected to Europe 16000BC!
    7000BC the UK was finally cut off…sea level rise cut us off…and this was WAY before the industrial revolution and humans were pumping Co2 into the atmosphere.
    We now drive eco cars, coal is being phased out with wind and solar, CFC's are a thing of the past….'Man made climate change' is the biggest hoax of my life time! sure there's climate change and extreme weathers but the climate has always changed and we've always had extreme weather and always will!
    Humans used to skate on the river Thames in the 1700's as the winters were so cold….and that was before the industrial revolution.

  19. NWO scumbag….packing out the contemporary LIES….Hans is a big player for the despotic New World Order… he is right to wear black… on his dark mission to help create the long sort after one world government system… yes we know about Agenda 21…! And ahem, do you know about Agenda 22….we are coming for you…..the NWO shall fall_ the facade is crumbling quicker than the cohorts realise ;)

  20. It seems that we can't financially afford to do enough.  Therefore we must gather the greatest minds and develop a sustainable NEW economic system.  Lead on!  :)


Leave a Comment

five × one =