| (Click on a 'Start Time' to view the video) |
| 00:03 | yeah being meeting by an oil executive I mean it's extraordinary that have you seen the news today John he's being asked to leave no no the news today is that um the um Dubai has been arranging Mee meetings to do with Coop 22 but as part of them with a number of countries has been organizing oil and gas deals yeah and and and the same man who's is involved in both but I mean he shouldn't have been appointed because he's got a obvious conflict of interest I mean who appointed who appointed well |
| 00:47 | the country it's up to the country to appoint him you see it's not down to the UN or um you SE or anyone the country has the has the right to appoint the person as we did with um loc who did the Glasgow one coule years ago so it's not something that uh is open to someone else to do a point outside the country but it doesn't imply therefore you've got to select your country carefully for these meetings yes uh the irony is the thing that we're asking for uh according to climate activists uh SRM will open the door to |
| 01:32 | the oil industry to continue uh business as usual but they're planning to do that anyway ex exactly exactly I so so um what what would be wrong with um somebody with these oil interests actually promoting SRM well I don't think there I think if it's it seem to be necessary there's no problem isn't there really there shouldn't be any problem from a logical point of view um well strategically I don't think they've been pressured enough in other words they're holding a a hand of cards |
| 02:17 | and right now they're just playing the business as usual card yeah been Bo absolutely to play the next card which might be not helped much though by the UK government's position to decide to basically every last drop of oil from the North Sea yeah yeah but but if the solution to um climate change in the short term is is is cooling drastic cooling then all the other things can uh fall into into second priority category or low priority category um so so I think yeah you there are good argu economic arguments to |
| 03:12 | uh uh to exploit um resources which are local to the UK rather than relying on Imports yeah good evening gentlemen is it um I don't know if you mid conversation John if you have to cut you off it's time to so if you've um uh got something to you want you want to discuss that let's propose it um so good uh good morning good afternoon good evening everyone again welcome uh okay and so uh we'll do what we usually do here what do we want to talk about today so we I'm quite happy if I don't quite |
| 03:59 | know what you're talk sounded like something to do with who's running the top yeah top 28 in the oil and gas industry basically okay I guess it was that um in fact I'd like to put something a couple of things about cop 28 just like to mention for information okay yeah okay let's put put I'm gonna put them in the chat and then and we can then talk about it well can we put it on the agenda put the links in the chat and top 28 and and basically it's the O ocean related things8 so ocean ocean related items should I say |
| 04:38 | yeah events probably but events all right that's try call it what it is if possible yeah uh okay anyone what else anyone uh Bruce Parker sent three items oh yeah um right I hope he's going to be here I didn't have time to it looked quite long um I only saw them when I woke up I've just been had had a nap after teaching all day uh so can would anyone like to put suggest them or can someone summarize them sure uh the first one basically says that we need to uh develop a set of maybe five or 10 um facts that all climate scientists |
| 05:31 | have to respond to when they uh talk about the issues rather than having them pick from a wide variety of facts and coming to different conclusions okay right so this is meant to be don't forget this the topic is nature-based ocean and Atmospheric cooling um so uh do you know so what what facts might it be then that the so it's something about I tell you what we'll put it near the bottom if Bruce comes along um then maybe he'll thanks for that Jonathan um but I think you know what I think I'm gonna I'm GNA |
| 06:18 | leave it near the bottom and uh let Bruce specify I I posted something did you did you see that a few all right a few hours ago um I've been asleep John yeah yeah on the on the same it's on the same thread as the as you call the meeting right this is where I usually put my uh comments in the hopes that they might get discussed well I call the meeting independent of any thread John yeah yeah yeah um so um what I mean is that you you post under a heading of anac meeting and then I respond uh on that same thread ah okay |
| 07:10 | so what what do you want what you want to anyhow I responded because uh we've got the uh concerns from the the broadside produced the um uh mistake the bad science paper right oh this one here yeah yeah yeah okay the bad science paper got it yeah yeah and and then um suggesting that that uh in effect we uh we're trying for a revolution changing the Paradigm from emissions reduction to yeah okay brightening the planet or something yeah um so what's the coing intervention uh Paradigm yeah um and a different |
| 08:05 | solution approach approach for a solution to climate crisis okay um so uh then last meeting we discussed the um yeah philosopher of science yeah about his remember that yeah we know about that structure scienic revolutions you got it here um I mean it's depressing that he you know says it what's the item John what's the item to discuss here on the agenda right um well um I want to know what to put up here for yeah John's wanting to talk about paradigm shift and the bad science paper right par okay |
| 08:51 | thank you is that is that right John yeah exactly yeah I'm shift and sence paper great okay that'll do fine that that's great thank you all right anyone I see Greg Slater um have we met you before I do remember those comies well I've I've attended a few but I'm not sure how much you and I have talked I may have exchanged email on occasion but maybe yeah the in any case I'm still relatively new to the this group and but um the topic that I was going to suggest and I'm new so I don't |
| 09:30 | know if it's appropriate but I just have a perception of U of A growing I don't know cognitive dissonance among the liberal Progressive activists of of whether the uh global warming and all the consequences are in fact a looming catastrophe or an ongoing catastrophe or just me and uh or is it what me means uh like not impressed not convinced okay not interested um that's my impression only but I I I just for example I just saw a I read a article uh from technology uh to what is IT Tech it's Mi te |
| 10:25 | technology magazine um on a about civil discourse on climate change yeah which was supposed to be about en encouraging civil discour rather than angriness or whatever but the gist of it was they were they were like they were saying let's do a go slow approach uh you know and these are presumably liberals who had been heavily propagandized to be terrified but it just seems and then you've got Michael man you've got other climate science saying no it's not that big a deal don't get don't get carried |
| 10:59 | away so this the idea whether whether others here get this perception that that there's RI either a dissonance or a rift that some people are insisting that you know it is you know presumably like like a lot of people who pretend these who are in these part parties but uh but but even activists saying you know and or it's a strategy you know we we gotta we gota we don't we want the public to be absolutely motivated to get to to to be active to push push for but we don't want to get them so scared that they |
| 11:36 | just go in the fetal position and hide under their bed so anyway that's that's the basic idea do do others have this perception basically or any comment on that I get the kind of drift um yeah are we allowed to see to see you Greg is I you Greg or Gregory um uh Greg and would you mind in introducing oh there you are yeah that's nice I I I put a a that's great to see a physical cap on my camera just so I I know I'm never surprised so yeah me would you just give a because we just like to hear a very brief background |
| 12:17 | what's your background um so I um my background is it's basically in in U solar physics uh the study of the solar atmosphere and I've involved in the development of many missions over many years actually for Lucky Martin which you know is there's you know it's a giant mega Corporation but a piece a tin little piece of it in Palo Alto is called the um solar astrophysics laboratory it's part of a sort of a a larger Advanced Technology Center but it goes back decades but anyway and we we've participated in many |
| 12:57 | development and operation and data analysis on a series of solar missions which are usually for the most part space born that observe in usually uh in in our case uh euv or x-ray to look at the Corona in particular anyway so I I I retired a year and a half ago and I'd been following U you know the climate problem and and and in particular geoengineering for many years and in in particular SII in my case although I was I'm aware of the other other Alternatives and uh you know I for many years I just assumed this would be this |
| 13:34 | would be done uh you know out of need and out of sort of rational analysis that we're given the time scills of everything else and we'll we'll just do it and and like a lot of people I just become more and more um frustrated that it is still this uh hated actually hated uh answer or me method of buying the necessary time you know yeah got it and and and and so I've gotten now that I have a little more time I guess I've gotten I've started to attend these you know different groups and I'm on a couple of |
| 14:12 | the thre the uh Google Groups so I've been reading I'm sort of overwhelmed in fact by the try to even keep up with the discourse on these things and that's this tiny piece of the whole thing but in any case that's that's more than you probably want to no that's fine that's great um Greg thank you I had no idea um so the solar atmosphere so you mentioned a couple so the only one I can think of is Parker probe would it be yeah the Parker probe uh we uh we didn't we didn't actually have any instruments on |
| 14:45 | that but there's one you might have heard of because it's sort of a flagship of NASA's on solar mission for the last many years it's Solar Dynamics Observatory sdo and you might have seen many pictures from that but uh yeah there's canot satellite we have have the solar instruments on all the goh satellites there there are there are solar instruments believe it or not on on weather satellites but in any case yeah whole bunch of them but not in particular Parker probe but that's that's a that's a very um that's a very |
| 15:15 | U current um and and very interesting mission right now along with another along with the um solar Orbiter for the eua anyway all right yeah thank you thank you I mean it's all very interesting but um yeah let's move on try to stick to a topic but I am very uh you know how how they can have a probe that goes in towards the Sun and doesn't get sucked into it yeah anyway all right thank you very much Greg that's great okay um Jonathan please thanks I think there's an overlap between John and Bruce's uh topics okay |
| 15:52 | all right then joh presentation it shows that the people that want to create a Revolution have to become champ champions of the anomalies champions of the anomalies that show the error of the current Paradigm and and Bruce is also looking at what are what are going to be our Cornerstone Concepts that we can push and force other scientists to confront and those two groups overlap the anomalies to the only draw down carbon and the uh the other issues scientific issues that cause us to Champion SRM are sort of the anomalies |
| 16:30 | to the current Paradigm so I think think those two overlap but so you're saying Bruce's or Jon's two things overlap these two that that already there John and brucees oh John and brucees right yeah okay so maybe so perhaps I should just make it try and make it a little bit clearer for people so this is um so maybe I'll put John N and Bruce here like that um if Bruce are you is Bruce there has anyone noticed are you there Bruce yes I just joined I thought was for some reason you're blocked no I I thought it was four |
| 17:07 | o'clock but I'm in oh yeah okay it was different yeah so thanks hi Bruce um yeah so we're trying to I didn't get a chance to read your um email before we started here so okay so Jonathan um so jonan could you so paradigm shift this was something of the anomalies what was it um can you say again pleas right we have to um to to crack the current Paradigm yeah we have to Champion the anomalies Champion right have to become champions of of the the message about the anomalies of the data that doesn't fit the current Paradigm |
| 17:47 | because they're wrong and then when we get an overwhelming weight of anomalies we'll be able to create the ship uh okay it's not it's not that the data is is wrong the assumptions about the data are wrong the data is probably right it's how you interpret it the Assumption when you how you have interpreting the data and that's by and by and my thought was that by by specifying exactly what the assumptions are um yeah okay we we'll we'll we'll I think I've got got the general idea and |
| 18:19 | so we'll have a good old chat about that I think it's that's clear enough now what that's about um so but I want to spend all all meeting working out the agenda not not have time to have the meeting so got it thank you very much Bruce we'll we'll uh talk about that because I've got a comment about I can say about that as well okay uh someone else had the no hand up okay uh welcome if you to join anything else yep um yeah Clive I was gonna there's a paper just come out that I've come across that's |
| 18:46 | got an interesting title it says a Souls overtake greenhouse gases causing a warmer climate and more Weather EX streams towards carbon neutrality I'll put a link in the chat to it uh it basically says as time goes by reducing aerosols is going to be more of a problem than the greenhouse gas emissions as we go on anyway that's just something to have a quick look at okay I know we're interested in a assol yeah definitely I certainly yes I think we are that's right certainly I am um so maybe we'll keep it in this make a |
| 19:19 | mention of it here okay uh so this so this is a report is it um so paper in nature Communications uh the links the link and the title of it is in the chat nature paper okay uh aerosol uh loss of aerosols worse than I'll put this greenhouse gases like that yeah great anything else from anyone uh maybe that's enough then maybe that's enough these last two seem somewhat similar as well is global warming a seriously a serious threat but it's about certain about liberals so they seem to be Rel clarify |
| 20:07 | just to clarify that yeah the question is does anyone share my the perception that there is this cognitive split going on between different components of the liberal Progressive view of global of global warming as either this cat ongoing catastrophe that every we put everything else and deal with it or you know we got time that's the Bas it's it's about the perception rather than whether indeed that's the ca you know which of those is the right answer you know what I mean yeah in the perception I would say I would say yes |
| 20:44 | there is split in the perception uh among people in general but anyway let's we'll say some more about that anything about science at all so okay this is about the scientific process isn't it um this is about perception I think more generally among people not just scientists but everybody or well at least liberals anyway um and this is about kind of something cop and we got science that can be it I mean we've spent 20 minutes thinking about the agenda so maybe it's time to start let's actually start um |
| 21:21 | actually Albert um uh I know you very kindly answered me you said you corrected me on something about nuclear which is not on topic here today um I can't remember if you've I think you look a bit familiar have you sorry I can't remember have you been on one of these before I think you have actually yeah okay that's right what was your background again sorry uh I'm with the global village Institute for appropriate technology in Summertown Tennessee and currently in doing ecosystem restoration work in the |
| 21:51 | Yum balam Nature Preserve in yucatana of Mexico okay yeah okay I think yes leading experts on biochar aha biochar okay great okay I gave a little talk in this group uh on biochar and uh I'm part of the board of directors of the US biochar initiative okay all right thank you for reminding me of that I think um maybe not this particular type of meeting but the H hpack group okay um thank you for that uh okay Chris any anything more to say about these put in I've put in the chat LS to some stuff to do with cop 28 um there's |
| 22:32 | a first of all there's a thing called the cop 28 Dubai ocean declaration that um a group of scientific institutions and others lotss of people have signed up to um and uh just saying that you know how we need to do more research and various other things which might be of interest and then there's um several other things about next one I put in there is about how cop can try and help accelerate research around carbon removal potential of the ocean and then the last two bits are just at C 28 there's a thing called |
| 23:04 | the ocean Pavilion and I've put a link into to that and also a link into the actual program of the events on the Pavilion they're going to run through from about uh later this week about 10 days worth of events yeah that's the copy declaration I was mentioning yeah quite a lot of ocean things going on at the cop also people like UNESCO ioc have got event happening there and other folks as well ioc um International ocean graphic commission right International ocean oceanographic commission okay yeah |
| 23:42 | that's part of yeah okay there's quite a lot of things happening related to the ocean there basically the the Dubai declaration is just trying to push even more that the ocean is a very important part of the whole climate issue yeah it was recognized for first time last time but they're just trying to keep pushing it further good okay that's very good uh right so then that was that one ocean Pavilion here okay so people can look at those but I'm I'm not um but I don't mind kind of looking at looking at it |
| 24:15 | now a little bit yeah all right I guess I guess there's a lot of things that we look at don't we and so yeah people may find some talks of interest in for their particular sort of areas of Interest amongst stuff that's going on yeah over would take greenhouse gas is causing a warmer climate more weather extremes so yeah there was a nice interview recently I saw on YouTube with um Paul Beckwith with Jim Hansen on that uh okay yeah there we go the other thing I was going to mention was that paper in the nature |
| 24:49 | Communications and uh in the AMR it says they've done they it is a modeling type of exercise where they've been looking at the global impacts changing greenhouse gases Aerosoles and tropospheric ozone following a carbon neutrality pathway and using a a big Earth System model and the results suggest that in future aerosol reductions are going to significantly contribute to warming and increase the preing intensity of weather and be basically be more significant than greenhouse gases ultimately because of the reduction |
| 25:22 | aerosol so anyway the paper's there it's it's an Open Access paper you can right go through the link and pick it up thank you yeah so that that's that's in a way that's that's great because well uh that's that's consistent with Jim Hansen's um view uh and his paper which we've been discussing for a long time here I think people here generally agree with Jim Hansen I haven't heard anybody disagree here actually um Rebecca hi um mine is just a brief one and preps like if I said it now it would |
| 25:53 | be over and done with um the small rebrightening team is still rallying forces to support Steven Suter in particular with testing field testing Marine Cloud brightening um tax deductions in the USA are available if you donate the it the donations go via the climate foundation and I think possibly there's onetoone matching I'm not sure if that's available for the re Brighton project we're looking for $75,000 to support an engineer to work with Steven and um he's not getting any younger and none of us are either for |
| 26:28 | that matter but um like this is just the first thing I know that we we're our little team is working very closely with all the other teams around the world so that we're not at Cross purposes and we're coordinating Brian Von herson's metaphor is the or thing he likes to draw a comparison with is the um International astronomical Union thank you so much Clive um where where that Union the I coord ordinated all the efforts we're speaking closely with blue cooling thank you Clive for that tip a |
| 27:03 | couple of weeks ago um the main point is we're really trying to get up and running with some practical field testing I mean it's at first it's in the wind tunnel in Edinburgh that Stevens funded we are begging we're down on our knees for 75,000 to support this engineer and it's it's not saying other Technologies are not useful like okay we all have we all have an open mind about um SI but anything anyone can do um one person here has kindly reminded me that tax season is coming up in the US and if any |
| 27:40 | of our lovely UK friends have ideas on an oping organization in the UK anyway that's enough but we're we're really TR to get going with this 75,000 and if we divide among ourselves it's not a huge amount each kind of thing for our grandchildren thank you very much okay so that's an invitation to donate yeah to to re bright. |
| 28:05 | org thank you very much Rebecca which will go to Steven Salter's engineer um for a field test on um Marine Cloud brightening okay thank you for that okay and right so where are we with this okay I think we're coming down to this about these so would you would you like to I think so um John you so let's let's ask Bruce um and see if it's the same thing is this right so a paradigm we want to discuss is there a paradigm so I think Bruce you're saying that how come scientists have the from the same data they come to |
| 28:44 | different conclusions this is a very kind of um kind of zoomed out conversation about sort of how science Works isn't it um but let's try and keep it to this the topic at hand no nature based you know ocean atmospheric Cooling and presumably so different science uh different scientists come to different conclusions about that you know we'll say yes we need more Aerosoles um Marine Cloud brightening and people will say no no no no no but Michael Michael M was say no no you don't need that you just need to stop um |
| 29:18 | emissions Bruce would you introduce it please yeah the um that's probably one I the first comment I made that that scientists are all working from the same data and scientists using the same data should come to the same conclusions that's the whole idea of the data so the question is if they're not it's the assumptions behind it that they're not being clear about and was what I was recommending is that that some we we get a bunch of Sur Real science you know climate scientists together and say |
| 29:49 | let's do a thorough climate model like for business as usual and include all the things we know we know should be included Ed natural emissions anthropogenic emissions aerosols uh all the different things that go into warming the planet and say okay let's and along with all the assumptions um you one one of the main assumptions in the model for instance is methane if methane emissions the ipcc assumed that methane emissions would be cut in half by 2050 if not if they stayed the same that's almost half a |
| 30:21 | degree of warming difference so with half a degree as that that affects what what other conclusions you come to so without knowing the underlying assumptions particularly on on methane and feedbacks you don't you you're not really sure what your answer means and we we as we as lay people don't know what it means so we have to we have to exactly what they're saying um and and so by my thought was by getting to them to put up a a model with all the detailed output uh we could then sit down okay this is what this out this is |
| 30:52 | what this model means either we're we're going to be in trouble or we're going to be okay okay okay um who'd like to respond to that uh Robert you've got your hand up well yes uh I I do want to um bring it together with um uh the uh the previous um nature paper that um uh Chris uh shared on aerosols um overtaking uh uh carbon as a as a warming C course uh and that the abstract of that paper says that the information on Aerosoles reverses the knowledge that the changing ghgs dominate the climate future changes |
| 31:40 | so uh this uh that's essentially what a paradigm shift is when a uh the the assumed knowledge of a a a previous uh world view is overturned by uh by new information and uh and so what what we're seeing is the uh the bizarre situation that uh essentially the whole IPC ipcc is saying we must do absolutely nothing to increase albo because of the danger that it will um allow people to continue driving uh fossil fuel cars and uh so like it's so important to stop us uh D using fuels that uh we're willing |
| 32:30 | to sacrifice the uh benefits that H albo uh could provide and so I think it it turns the moral hazard uh logic around in uh against those who are saying um we must absolutely prevent any albo increase because that's what they're saying and uh and so uh it it comes together with what Rebecca was saying about uh the the need for um engineering analysis of of marine Cloud brightening uh this has been prevented actively prevented by uh by people who are saying oh no we can't do that because it would |
| 33:12 | um it would undermine the uh the uh the need to accelerate the decarbonization as fast as possible and even at the same time we have people like Nate Hagen and Simon micho uh uh uh speaking with a number of very articulate and informed people to say that the uh uh decarbonization uh Net Zero agenda is flatly impossible we have uh Paul Beckwith um as you mentioned in in his excellent interview with uh Jim Hansen and in uh other recent papers just pointing to this extraordinary spike in in temperature that we've just seen in |
| 33:56 | October where uh the idea that we can manage this Spike without action to brighten the planet is is flatly absurd and so it's uh it's really an immediate uh challenge for cop you know what will cop say about albo and and the need to to recognize um uh direct cooling thank you okay thank you Robert yeah so it seems to be the same thing um that we've talked about before uh I mean I've I I tried to put it in as succinct as possible to say that um you know you have a a a dying heart attack victim walks into the hospital and then |
| 34:40 | is refused Retreat treatment on the grounds that well it might disincentivize them uh adopting a healthy a healthier lifestyle so they don't get treatment so they die uh that's how ridiculous it is so so it does come back to what Bruce is saying uh this perception well no no no no they're not going to die so different scientists come to different conclusion no no no they're not going to die they're they've got another you know year or two to go so if they adopt a healthy lifestyle maybe they'll they'll |
| 35:09 | get over it okay thank you there's lots of hands up uh Greg please thank you on that point on this topic um well I mean if I understood uh Bruce I believe who submitted the topic is saying put all the effects in and U and see which ones really dominant just look at all these effects may maybe a misconstrued but I mean of course these these models are extremely expensive high-end models they take millions of dollars that get from them uh to to actually do Solutions at the the Fidelity you need to say anything but |
| 35:50 | one one thing I would say about the disagreement of science I mean in my career I mean scientists both have vested egotistic interests they have they have they have carried along an opinion for uh long periods of time developed it they have they're very protective about their View and they are ideological about their view Beyond which in the case of of science which is asked to advise policy it becomes even harder for a scientist to be to be uh independent of his own political and moral and ideological viewpoints in the |
| 36:26 | case of you know field like my own there's already enough TR with Scientists being ideological about their own models and theories that just happens among scientists because they're humans first and science scientists second really and this the discipline of science is a good one but adhering to that rigorously as a person as a human being is that's the tricky bit but um but in a in in a in a in a more academic uh field where there's no consequences of you know it's a lot it's it's easier |
| 36:58 | to entertain Alternatives and be driven by the data rigorously than in in a as I say in a in a topic which is in which science is being asked to make policy which and that involves political political sentiment among scientists as well liberal conservative uh how you want what kind of a society you want and so it I think it be that's a huge effect on the on the ability to be driven solely by the data um and the third thing is of course the the air bars on all this stuff are so large that you can find you can find room for your |
| 37:42 | own opinion just like Matt I mean so I got my own numbers here they disagree with yours but I mean the uncertainties in these models even the highest end models have huge uncertainties because you know just the grid size all the aspects of numerical modeling come in you have to have all the physics in you throw you so I'm sticking with these equations which have these approximations I'm going with these equations this is my experience in modeling of the solar C of the solar atmosphere you get get all kinds of |
| 38:13 | crazy stuff anyway so those my response to that and perhaps perhaps uh Bruce could um address my concern about how plausible it is to do the kind of modeling he wants to check things out just because they're so expensive maybe I misconstrued his question or his point do you have a answer brief answer to that Bruce yeah it's we don't need down to the you know to the square meter what the effect of the global climate's going to be uh the models tend to be in pretty much agreement that says you know I I |
| 38:48 | call sensitivity analysis if I the ipcc I think was saying that if for every uh 400 um gigatons of or addition to the atmosphere of so many PPM that will raise the temperature so much we kind of know what the sensitivity is U climate sensitivity is another issue so my my thought was that by trying to come up by trying to State what are my expected emissions going to be in the next 50 years because ipcc says we're going to get to Net Zero a we aren't um yeah hang on a minute Bruce are you saying there's a climate |
| 39:22 | sensitivity that's different from the equilibrium climate sensitivity no I'm another sensitivity another what do you mean what's the other Sensi sensitivity if the temperature is one and a half degrees Yeah and and I change my parts per million of atmospheric CO2 by 20 that will raise the temperature a certain amount that is I thought that was equilibrium climate sensitivity no but the equilibrium climate sensitivity happens hundreds of years out oh because that's doubling of CO2 you right it's I |
| 39:52 | I did I did a thing years ago which said for what's equivalent of a gigaton of CO2 versus a watt per square meter squar versus n nitrus oxide versus methane and raise and change the temperature okay all right um so yeah I think there's the the curve is like sort of within it's fairly flattish isn't it but it depends where you are a certain range yeah yeah what I was trying to to show with the doing the models is that because of the the because CO2 emissions are not going down we're going to have |
| 40:28 | to remove hundreds of gigatons of Co like 30 50 gigatons of CO2 per year at a ridiculously high price and says we're not as a society we can afford it but we're not going to allocate it so just trying to get people to understand if we don't do geoengineering where are we likely headed yeah I know within a tenth of degree I need to know roughly where we're headed to say is going to be catastrophic or we going to be okay right okay so I understand that um but I'm not sure that on answered uh Greg's |
| 40:59 | question I don't need an expensive model to figure that out you don't need an expensive model okay okay Greg you're chugging your shoulders all right we can we can go to someone else if I'd like I'd like to I'd like to exchange with you private emails perhaps that this GRE yeah Bruce okay Bruce I think you've accepted that all right so let's move on thank you for that uh I was going to say I just trying to be brief that you know we have all this thing about the climate models you know |
| 41:33 | different grid size and slightly different assumptions and things and they're all way off from each other and this is what Jim Hansen says but then Jim Hansen's point is well what about doing it in a different way what about studying the historical climate record with proxies that agree with each which I think it's I call them corroborated proxies seen anybody use that word but I think this is the idea that proxies you have to you have several proxies and they have to agree with each other so you have you know you have a pretty uh |
| 42:00 | accurate climate record and he's he was talking about the senzo going back to you know um the end of the dinosaurs 65 million years or whatever it is and seeing how that so that's a different way of looking different way of assessing the climate isn't it with with the historical climate record rather than models so maybe this is part of the um discussion here okay Chris uh please uh you're muted chis I was just going to comment on what Robert tulip said I don't as I understand it from what I've read I |
| 42:35 | don't think the ipcc has ever said that it's against si or anything like it because it will stop um the fossil fuel being phased out there's people who's who against si say that certainly but I don't think the ipcc has ever said it or even said anything like that there maybe some individuals within it maybe but the ipcc itself has not said any such thing I don't believe at all they certainly have don't it doesn't come up in their uh uh their their reports as a very strong component of |
| 43:11 | their of the way to address it it's down it's soft pedal I think do you have a response Robert T I would just say that it's implicit uh I I think that it's not something that can be U like it it's a it's it's a assumption that I'm making about what is the plausible political background um for the hostility to any work on albo and so I'm I'm just trying to um understand uh how it can make sense in their own minds we mustn't forget of course that that the ipcc is not a wholly |
| 43:54 | science-driven exercise government have a major influence they appoint the M the important people in it at the top and so on and they finally sign off on the the um final SPM for policy makers so um it's a lot of it is driven by government rather than the scientists yeah but still I don't see that the scientific Community has um uh argued against the exclusion of um albo from the policy framework and we saw that in for example the cryosphere paper there was just an absence of discussion but one thing I would say is |
| 44:36 | some stuff I've read recently it does seem to be some people think that there is a bit of a shift to more people thinking that SRM really does need to be researched and potentially used that's certainly one of two things I've seen in the on the web in the last uh month or two suggest that's becoming getting a bit more Credence than it has been in the past well it's an explicit call in Hansen's global warming in the pipeline paper it's an explicit call in the uh conversion of the leaders of Extinction |
| 45:06 | Rebellion so uh it's it's based on some fairly simple observations so you hopefully we we're seeing a paradigm shift great okay thank you Robert okay Robert Chris yeah lots of interesting things I was going to make a similar point to the one that Chris just made with regard to ipcc I think that it's very Danger ous to make assumptions about the rationality of the ipcc process because it is not an entirely rational process and uh it is not driven entirely by scientists and even if it were driven by scientists I think |
| 45:40 | somebody's already commented about the fact that the scientists themselves are subject to human influence and a degree of unreason and a degree of um ideological uh propulsion to preserve their own careers and all sorts of other personal vested interests that they have so you know you could ask you know why is it that um SRM which remember was the very first form of a response to climate change that was on the B on the Block in 1965 when ni when President Johnson commissioned his report SRM was the only thing that was |
| 46:20 | mentioned they didn't talk about anything to do with carbon decarbonization or reducing emiss it only talked about SRM well actually they talked about putting reflective stuff on on the sea in the report the Johnson one of 65 that was I thought the only one not SII actually I think I'm not sure that's right anyway I I won't we argue the point but the point is that they didn't talk about reducing emissions back then so these things are there is a degree of fashion here that one has to remember |
| 46:53 | and they and they and it moves in odd ways and and I and this links neatly into the points we were making previously about Thomas and this paradigm shift because a paradigm shift is really about something pretty fundamental it's not a kind of a tweak an extra bit of extra bit of knowledge or filling in a knowledge Gap it's about a radically different view of the way that the world works you know think Newton and Einstein you know it's it's a fundamental change in of something not a just not just filling in a detail and um |
| 47:28 | we so we we want we need to be very careful about assuming that every little bit of uh every time a little bit of data anomaly is reconciled that that constitutes a paradigm shift it might it might not and time will tell but so I think we need to be we need to be very very careful about this I think also this point about the models um again just to really emphasize something that's others have already said the models are very complex expensive things and again the individuals who are responsible for Designing them and for |
| 48:01 | maintaining them and for using them have a huge amount of vested interest personal vested interest in promoting them which is why one of the standard ways of the ipcc dealing with these differences between the models is to get a series of modeling teams to produce outputs for the same scenario inputs and then they come up with this magical you know idea of averaging the results which is exactly where the Net Zero idea came from that is entirely based on a on a paper by a New Zealand guy called McDougall who I got who got uh a dozen |
| 48:39 | or so different modelers to do exactly that on a set of parameters inputs that he that he designed and he got them all to come up with their results and then he averaged them now there are mathematical issues about whether or not it's legitimate to average these numbers because they're not actually aable but that's a separate thing so there's all sorts of bizarre questions about the way these things done it's clearly open to a lot of criticism but the big problem I think that we shouldn't forget is that |
| 49:09 | we tend to be stuck in the weeds here we're into the detail we between us if not each individually we understand a huge amount about the science and about uh the Min shy of of the science and the climate but of course the people that really matter here the people that have actually got their hands on the levers of power the politicians understand diddly Squat and they're entirely entirely in the hands of the advisors that they choose to consult and they don't even have to accept the advice of the consult of the advisor they consult |
| 49:42 | so uh I mean for those of you in in the UK you may have just seen a couple of programs on Channel 4 called the climate the great climate fight and it's just three popular TV personalities really getting it is really giving the current government a very very hard time about the way in which they have they've their green policy has become decidedly Brown just just expressing their disbelief at the ignorance of the politicians and and we shouldn't we we we we shouldn't imagine that these British this particular British cast of |
| 50:20 | characters is anything unusual you know that we're somehow unique in the world and and and it may well be that come the next election we'll have a new cast of characters and they'll be very much more enlightened and at the same time in some other country they'll go in the other direction so it's a kind of a real mess globally and the problem about this whole issue is that the whole world has got to move in unison together or more or less in unison and certainly the major players so how we how we conspire |
| 50:47 | to have enlightened politicians in all the major economies simultaneously all pulling together in the same direction I'm not entirely sure but that actually is what we have to do because otherwise none of the things we're talking about whether it's you know harving uh emissions by 2030 or getting SRM uh up in the sky or wherever Marine Cloud brightening you know by 2035 or whatever none of that is going to happen because all of it requires considerable uh labing powers to be exercised by governments many |
| 51:24 | governments around the world so I think when so so when we come to talk about you know where we're going one of the questions which I it kind of fits into this General narrative uh as you can probably tell from my tone I'm becoming increasingly despairing about the prospects of resolving this in in anything other than a catastrophic Manner and and and I have given and I'm increasingly giving thought to the sort of Jem Bendel scenario you know let's accept that it's all going to end in disaster how do we cope with that and I |
| 51:55 | think that you know one of the things that that might be a bit of a wakeup call and I'm just going to throw this out as another topic that is be discussed as and when is at what point does do one say look you know this mountain is you know it's still climbable but it's becoming increasingly unlikely that we're going to make it and perhaps we should be thinking about how to set set up a bivak on the hillside you know how are we going to see this through because it looks like it's not going to be a happy outcome for a lot of |
| 52:26 | people and a lot of other life forms so perhaps the sooner we begin to think about the fallback plan it's not exactly a plan B but you know the the the uh what do we do when the really hits a fan that actually that might start to focus people's minds on oh my God is this really serious know it's not quite what the pur are doing that's a different a different approach but you know I just I just throw that thought out there I'll stop okay okay not not quite who the what did you say politicians are |
| 53:00 | doing did you say not quite how what's who is doing thinking about plan but the alternative big biver plan do at this stage because we we're still focusing and our entire discussion is about how do we make this happen yeah yeah right yeah okay okay so yeah well um I think somebody writing a book I don't know you or someone Robert to to just actually say that you know it's they're not going to make the right decisions all the decision- making process is you know is use is you know dysfunctional or |
| 53:31 | something so let's think about Plan B here because the politicians are just going to keep letting us down because they've got no idea and just see what comes out of that I mean it's an alternative thought process isn't it um yeah I was gonna I'm so I'm um look out if you people might have seen I like to follow this guy Peter Zan who's a very you know knowledgeable geographer he speaks rather with um sweeping statements but there was a video I saw this morning giving a lot of detail on |
| 54:04 | fertilizers and basically the whole agricultural um situation and how we're going to lose a whole lot of fertilizer from China and Russia and uh and so good luck to people on you know around the world with low incomes and so so forth so I'll put that around so there is even if the best decisions are going to be made about the climate even if ideal decisions are made about the climate like it's still see people are still saying there's trouble ahead um for all sorts of reasons de globalization |
| 54:35 | demographic changes and all sorts okay um now I was going to ask you to speak John um just because this was your topic as well let's have hear from Chris and see if there's something brief that Chris wants to say about it y well I was going to say was what Robert was just saying about politicians and climate has been exemplified by the some of the stuff we've been hearing at the covid inquiry in the UK where the politicians hadn't got a clue about the science um they were Bamboozled and didn't |
| 55:04 | understand simple graphs and all sorts of things um and uh that and they something else I read contrasted the approach to sort of National Security when people tend to take a worst case approach to an issue and and plan for that rather than the opposite which is what's happened with covid and with obviously with climate they they basically waiting until till you get a real catastrophic situation before they will will shift probably as Robert sort of suggest I think U and it's a complete different attitude of mind and we really |
| 55:39 | need sort of National Security type approach to address this problem that would be a very different way of looking at it I just one other thing I just wanted to come in I meant to mention and I didn't I just looked at my notes some of you may or may be familiar with a concept called postnormal science i w I'm not going to go into this in a lot of detail I'm something chat in a moment yeah it does uh it is it's an idea that was that emerged in in Oxford um about 20 years ago and and it's quite a powerful way of |
| 56:12 | understanding the role of Science in these Paradigm shifts which is where this conversation started but I the two academics involved two guys called funich and rabbits I'll put it in in the uh the Yeahs and you it does provide us with a with a with a way of understanding the role of Science in situations like covid and like um and like climate change where you know where the values are uncertain where the policy decisions are Urgent where the science is unclear and so on and so forth and I think you a few moments just |
| 56:48 | looking at that might be quite instructive for folk yeah I'll pop it in now okay thank you Robert just just on that theme of postnormal science it it does go back to and the whole concept of anomalies and the uh the tendency within a paradigm is to say the science is settled uh the the framework of research is clear but then as anomalies emerge as we're seeing with the albo anomaly for the um carbon Paradigm for climate change uh people start to say well our old Paradigm doesn't answer our questions and so the |
| 57:25 | uh the scientific Community moves into a postnormal science um uh challenge to fundamental assumptions rather than U solving small problems it's about solving big problems to add caution here Robert because I'm not convinced that what we're looking at here actually is a paradigm shift because the basic science about why the climate is warming what you know what global warming is is not really in dispute I mean there are some details and there are there are some uncertainties but the basic science has |
| 58:00 | been more or less settled for quite a long time you know possibly a century or more um and the argument is all around the sort of the details and actually the arguments are more about the politics than they are about the science I mean one of one of my constant mantras is that we knew enough in terms of the science about how to deal with climate change 30 years ago we could acted we've never ever been short of available actions deal with climate change and and nothing that has change nothing none of the additional information that is |
| 58:34 | emerged none of the additional detailed information that has emerged in the last 30 years or so has radically altered our view about what the issues are with climate change or how or how climate change works I it's all nice stuff but it's not kind of I don't I don't see a kind of a radical shift here in the science I think there is a huge l kuna between the science and the policy but on the science I'm not sure I I might be wrong about this but I don't sense that we're actually looking I I |
| 59:05 | would I would say that there is a shift in terms of the role of albo that there's been a a systematic uh over um assumption about the role of carbon and an under assumption about the role of albo in as the primary and it's also about yes the science is settled about the causes of ch climate change but um the the assumption is then that that also means the science is settled about what to do about it and that's where the uh the paradigm shift is is needed well I don't agree with that last point I think you know you could quite |
| 59:41 | easily have um a stable knowledge about the causes and still have plenty of disputes about the politics of what to do about it because I think the responses are a whole that's a whole different realm that is you know where you become where the science becomes kind of separated from anything else that's the problem are you really disagreeing it sounds as say you're saying it's problematic enough with this with politicians having no idea um without um you know the this thing about new information about aerosols um being |
| 1:00:11 | a par a paradigm shifter is would that I think the problem you the problem here is that because the politicians have been so inept for such a long period that the that the N the nature of the problem has Chang changed before our eyes 30 years ago the issue with aerosols wasn't such a big deal I mean you know it wasn't that much of an issue now it is an issue and it's an issue because we've allowed you know the emissions to grow so hugely in that in that period and we've been so uh useless |
| 1:00:41 | about dealing with it so you know that's that's the situation I mean people understood about albo 30 years ago that was that was all in the knowledge bank then yeah yeah I mean that's right because Jim Hansen put that in stormore grandchild and he called it the um the what was it the fan bargain then um and he mentioned it again um the other night with with um Paul Beckwith and said the payment is coming Juni but I think there there is they he he said that they realized there's the Arab bars |
| 1:01:14 | you know it's it's to one they now know which end of the Arab bars it is um so whether you call that a paradigm shift let's not argue about that for the rest of the time maybe it is maybe it isn't but it's it's helpful to know where they are on on the Arab bar I was going to say that a friend of mine says um well the reason most a lot of politicians the reason they're a politician is because they couldn't get a proper job you know that's one thing he says and and and he also says in Britain well the Civil |
| 1:01:41 | Service used to be quite good you know they they had um um proper professional knowledgeable sensible people including scientists in the civil service but then we joined the European Union and they didn't need them anymore so they kind of drifted away and became IR relevant now that we've left we've got nobody that knows how to do anything anymore so in a right Old State anyway okay John niss you've had your hand up a long time and this was your original proposal uh yeah I wanted to comment first of all on on the |
| 1:02:11 | modeling um the uh the business of having uh an ensemble of models to in order to find a uh something that you can uh give High confidence to uh is a systematic error uh because the um the models that are most likely to be outliers are the ones that are attempting to capture the Dynamics of the situation um in fact there was a metaanalysis of models uh which showed that that uh this was the case that the um uh that the the outliers were the ones which were were trying to do the right thing and the others were copying |
| 1:03:05 | out okay and that's how you got um that's one reason you get lousy climate models um I want I actually went to a lecture on modeling by a member of a modeling team in C and he described how there are modeling teams all around the world competing to produce the right answers and and and how are these so you know how are these answers judged um and they're judged by uh how close uh your team's answer is to the average um but ultimately uh the the ambition uh is is set by um a panel whose whose names are |
| 1:04:06 | mysterious we don't know who they are but they um they want to have certain answers out coming out from the models and one of the answers they always want to have is a huge difference in outcomes but uh depending on on the missions um and so how how do the models uh adjust their algorithms to produce a huge Divergence in results for for uh different emission scenarios because that's what they want to have but well hang on I'm not trying understand he's saying that they want the models to come |
| 1:04:48 | up with a very different conclusion for a slightly different emission scenario is that is that what you're saying yeah that's right so you so you want to have the temperature whizzing up if you're on RCP 8.5 okay and you want to have it coming down RCP yeah 2.5 now the only only way they can do that is to assume that the clim that we're almost in equilibrium uh with the climate uh uh where in in the climate so um uh when you're away from equilibrium it's like boiling a kettle when you start boiling the kettle |
| 1:05:34 | the temperature rise is proportion to the power that you put in but um uh at some point you get a whatever setting you've got you get an equilibrium temperature you you turn up the of the water you mean because it can't go yeah yeah yeah yeah it reaches equilibrium that at the equilibrium point the temperature is sensitive to to your setting of the heat right the equilibri point it's 100 it's 100 degrees isn't it the kettle you talking about you to climate models now no I I you know when I get near near to |
| 1:06:24 | near boiling I I turn it down to two from 10 to two two yeah and two will stabilize at a certain temperature and three will will okay so you talking about nonlinearity in sense so the the main point here is climate modelers are trying to get the right answer and this is exactly what Jim Hansen said again with Paul bewick he said they're trying to because the aerosols um you know because they had a climate certain climate sensitivity they thought it was that they and they make the Aeros you know I think they got that the right way |
| 1:07:03 | around but they think the aerosols do certain amount so anyway it's all dependent on what they think it should be is there anything else to say other than that to say John about modelers not really just seeing what it comes out as but trying to get the right answer yeah so they uh Hanson shows that they suggest climate sensitive is way above uh so he talks about um 6 to 10 deges for the climate sensitivity uh which has the implication uh that um for a doubling of co2e uh the eventual temperature will be 10° |
| 1:07:51 | and on that ground he says that that we probably get uh since we're more or less at the doubling point now um uh if if we if we even if we didn't do any more emissions but we did maintain the SO2 um we would be going we would be getting to four degrees by the end of the century yeah so that you know now having decided that uh that's a that's a catastrophe so we uh so we've got to apply cooling then it's just a matter of how urgent is the cooling and how how the hell do we persuade people who who are |
| 1:08:42 | totally against yeah okay thank you John um uh so the critical thing for me is looking at the tipping points and it seems to me that ipcc have ignored the Tipping points they they they ignore them by saying oh well um they haven't been activated yet okay we've got to keep the temperature below 1. |
| 1:09:14 | 5 to prevent them being activated and they're about to say we've got to keep them below two degrees to prevent them being activated yeah yeah so they they they move the gold p yeah to suit them but actually the Tipping points in the Arctic were activated around 1980 or in the 80s okay the typic elements began it it didn't you could see the the record of the CIS volume yeah an exponential decline in CIS starting in in the 80s okay and again back then yeah so so so that that's that's the science which the IPC and Co are ignoring it's not that they |
| 1:10:04 | they they're manipulating data or anything they're just ignoring yeah okay ignoring the acceleration yeah okay and we've said this before they they ignore it because they don't they can't find it difficult to model so they just leave it out and then that's now yeah now um that is is somewhere in in the bad science paper but I I've have uh asked I made some suggestions that they make much more of that point because that it it's that it's the typic points that give the huge |
| 1:10:41 | urgency uh to everything yeah and I do think it's a security issue so we ought to be talking to those security people yeah the cascading tipping points you mean yeah and we ought to be talking to the people who are non-scientists who are terribly worried about the climate crisis and the fact that n there is not for okay if you can reach out to them yeah yeah so we we need to to find people who are thought leaders on the need for for cooling I'm sure there are some there are definitely are there's there's the |
| 1:11:21 | uh what are they called the um uh what dalean B and Van those guys you know vanalo H vanalo quite a bunch yeah there is a refreezing the Arctic group yeah okay all right thank you very much John let's move on um we haven't heard I think Greg who's who was next was it Jonathan or or GRE I think we haven't heard from you yet Jonathan you think you've had your hand up for a while let's let's hear from you please Jonathan oh thanks um I think think that one Paradigm Shift we could make is we |
| 1:11:58 | could instead of modeling the planet we could model the global population as if it's an addict and the cops are kind of like the addict is going to rehab for two weeks each year where it gets a lot of harsh lectures about its addiction and about how it's destroying itself and then it goes home after the rehab hopefully to make change in its lifestyle but maybe it doesn't and then it goes back so we've had 28 or so rehab sessions so to speak and the addict is still addicted and it doesn't look like |
| 1:12:37 | they're going to change um and if you probably observed over time places like France where they tried to do some sort of reasonable increase in tax on on carbon and and Fuel and stuff and they ended up getting a uh a series of month-long riots so I don't believe that that the real issue is science at all it's the fact that in the psychology of human nature we cannot unhook from cheap fossil energy um and so what we have to model is the psychology of addicts and addiction if we want to get anything |
| 1:13:17 | done and that might cause us to have a paradigm where we say look we can't do anything about ghg emission it's we're addicted we're too far gone we can only do cooling direct cooling uh you know with SRM and and albo and stuff so maybe that's the shift we have to to get the the leadership to to make is look we can keep talking about these targets you're not going to make let's just accept that you're not going to make them and shift over to cooling as the main strategy okay thank you I mean we could |
| 1:13:54 | say that um there might be a chorus of people saying oh you can't give up you can't give up but yes okay thank you Jonathan I'll just say I've said for a long time that Humanity seems to have about the same amount of intelligence as a bucket of sugary water with yeast in it the yeast in a bucket of sugary water which um you know which eats the sugar and produces so much alcohol that it eventually kills itself um we we we like the alcoholic makes but um that's about how much I would just like I would just like to add |
| 1:14:29 | um that to Jonathan's point that if there is an acceptance that um we cannot uh cut fossil fuel usage in time then that really has to be um combined with a recognition that that other methods to remove uh dangerous carbon from the system are needed other than emission reduction and my sense is that there hasn't been a sufficient modeling of a uh of a high emission um High albo scenario and uh I know people see uh risks inherent in that but it's something that would buy the time for the development of greenhouse gas |
| 1:15:13 | removal technology and I'm thinking and I'm thinking especially biochar biochar and uh and uh ocean Technologies uh have enormous potential to scale up to like uh eventually larger than total emissions larger than total emissions okay so to what to have more of a cooling effect than total emissions is that what you say well the the point being that if the cooling is driven by uh managing albo then uh that is possible in a world where um the uh um fossil fuel economy continues because as and I think Jonathan's comment in in the |
| 1:15:57 | chat um hits uh this point the psychology of addiction means that the ability to get off fossil fuels is is just unfeasible so all of this talk about uh using carbon to um uh keep within targets is uh is just not feasible yeah okay thank you Robert thank you uh okay got that yeah it's just not feasible yeah thank you uh Greg please well just briefly um I think Jonathan's point of just actually trying to Model Behavior of societies in faces of threat you know you can use historical data uh is it to me is a good idea um |
| 1:16:47 | it's soft science but it it I haven't heard it really done too much um but I would say say they I would cast it rather than saying we just can't do it it's just I mean we are going to get off fossil but the likelihood the time scale you want to what are the likely time scales and not just from the technological perspective if we were all on the same page today and we just pursued it quit having Wars and everything else and just pursued it as the project that's the time scale in the short end but the time scale if you look |
| 1:17:19 | at the behaviors of societies and try to estimate what is the most likely T um time scale when you factor in our ability to procrastinate or whatever um I think that's a worthwhile uh approach I just wouldn't have the radical statement that we can't get off fossil we are getting off fossil it's just the time scale so anyway that's my comment okay yeah okay all right thank you I just mentioned that Peter WAMS has joined and just congratulations Peter on the bad science paper it's really opened up some very good |
| 1:17:57 | conversation uh yeah thanks it's a good uh it's a it's a nice uh title for a bad paper bad that's a good paper it's great yes thank you very much Peter right we have a a new person I I recognize the name uh uh Jasper um would you and we obviously there's been a bit of uh emails nice to see you we we we just ask you to say a couple of words briefly uh your background um and you've got your hand up as well please Jasper should we call could we call you Jasper is that what we what should we how should we address |
| 1:18:37 | you yes uh Jasper is fine okay um my uh basic data I work for the World Bank on clean energy finance and climate policy ideas for EFI vice president see the World Bank and I'm something of an entrepreneur um I have a systems engineering perspective on all of this um I I ran the dangerous climate change assessment project at the University of Oxford from 2009 to 2011 which is essentially a it's almost like journalism it was a a deep dive expert elicitation trying to get a sense of where the Tipping points are um I think |
| 1:19:15 | that there are four things that we need to do to stabilize climate and they are ramp up clean energy really fast to 6,000 gwatt per year year of solar plus wind combined uh sustained for 15 years to get to what works out to about 17 a half megawatts per person per year which is a a good you know generous amount of energy uh abundance in a fully electrified World um we need to sorry that was that was 17 megawatts per person 17 and a half megawatts per person per year yeah that's for everything that's for |
| 1:19:50 | everything that's that's not just for your homebased consumption that's all of the implicit energy in the entire human supply chain okay but and you said per per megawatts per so it just 17 a half megawatt hours no no no megawatt hours per person per year okay got it now okay all right keep keep going yeah yeah so that works out to be about we need about 6,000 gws of production capacity for Combined wind and solar if if what wind and Sol are going to be the the main bases for the Future Energy System and |
| 1:20:21 | and if we sustain that for 15 years then at the end of those 15 years we have 17 and a half megawatts per person per year of uh primary Ed Supply in the form of electricity from wind and solar and then we need ancill amounts of of of energy storage and so on all right this this is your background you're giving us yeah oh I'm just telling you what the four things that I think we need to do and then I was going to shut okay so so something about um more energy and you worked it out you've done some right and I'm and I'm spearheading |
| 1:20:49 | a project U which is going to be both inside the World Bank and outside slide a bit uh about ramping up clean energy production equipment manufacturing about by an order of magnitude as soon as possible right so there's a gigafactory complex being built in India right now 20 gigawatts a year solar um plus Power Electronics Plus batteries and so on we need 300 of those have you seen uh the tuings and throwings about um misho and Mark Mills who people who say that there simply isn't enough mining capacity for all |
| 1:21:22 | this r noes it's needed I think I think it's I I have heard that and I'm aware of Michel going around saying that I think he's uh Bonkers I think it's just not true um I I pay attention to people like um Christian baa who Professor uh solar economy at uh Lapin Ranch University in Finland who's one of the world's leading yeah techn economic modelers and he thinks it's nonsense all right so management by the way I think the argument just to pick up and I'm going to let go the four things |
| 1:21:57 | you need to do albo management is one of them and the fact that there was a recently a paper published showing that the West an Arctic ice sheet is doomed now it's too late for that because of the ocean waters no matter what we do now uh will continue to undermine the grounding line uh and that that's going to lead to five meters of sea level rise that I think by itself is a powerful argument for uh introducing albo management because the only remaining hope we have of preventing that and I don't even know if it's technically |
| 1:22:25 | feasible would be to cool down the ocean waters uh and air temperatures around West Antarctica and so I think that's a compelling argument The Tipping Point has already been breached West Antarctic is going to slide into the sea the only remaining hope we have to stop that from happening is albo management not as an alternative to getting off of our fossil fuel addiction I think the getting off the fossil fuel addiction is something we can do not quickly but we can do um but even if we do that it's not enough |
| 1:22:53 | we now need to cool you know around Greenland around West Antarctic around the Arctic Ocean and so we need to take some version of what uh Professor WAMS has put forward and implemented ASAP and for a record I don't think any government is going to do that they're to chicken because it's too much of a political Hot Potato I think we need to get a committee of three three to five billionaires to put together the money to build Marine Cloud brightening ships and the first generation the first dozen or so of them as a proof of |
| 1:23:23 | principle and then after that has already occurred governments here and there might be willing to be courageous enough to continue on with that program um but not I don't think without that so I I maybe the core focus of a group like this should be to find those three to five billionaires and see to it that they put that money up to build that first generation of ships okay U very interesting thank you very much we're working on that we're working on that Jasper and uh uh if you could uh give us |
| 1:23:49 | your email then we'd like to speak with you a about if if you're able to suggest for example how the World Bank or or IFC or or other bodies could engage with this emerging science that would be very welcome yeah I'm not sure it it can engage I think the best that I can try to do is explore that very carefully because I I I would be risking my own reputation as a reasonable person amongst people who don't understand the situation yet if I went started advocating loudly for Alo management but |
| 1:24:21 | what I might be able to do is to start a conversation within the World Bank about well what about this news about West Antarctica what what are we are we going to do anything about this should we upgrade our knowledge base to understand what the options are for dealing with this rather than coming along and saying what I already know to be true which is we have to do albo management maybe I just maybe I can cautiously you know broach the question people in the world Bank tend to be careful civil servants I think um uh J James Hansen's |
| 1:24:51 | comment that uh a fleet of um uh Marine Cloud brightening vessels is the uh most innocuous way to introduce um albo increase U presents a really useful um uh starting point to to engage people who are skeptical yeah so I'm going to put my my uh emails in the chat the one that you'll want to use if you're sending me a lot of spam would be my personal one which is jastro sky at Gmail and if you you know for official Communications where you're trying to get me involved in something official it's I put my |
| 1:25:27 | world Bank email address there as well it's completely different okay that's great thank you very much for that Jasper no worries thank you for letting me SP for a few minutes slightly off we have an agenda we do at the beginning but um no that's very very good to hear that yeah I I I didn't hear Four Points I heard three ramp up green energy ramp down fossil energy so I'm involved in the World Bank effort to try to persuade the Chinese to uh ramp down their coal Fleet replace it with clean energy that |
| 1:26:03 | project that I've initiated to get us involved in that so ramp up green energy ramp down Brown energy do CDR and do albo management CDR I'm writing a report right now A scoping report on on the various different CDR technology options um my main recommendation on that will be it's all mostly early stage technology and we don't know enough yet about how the numbers work so what we need to do is create an open source repository of techn financial models of all of the different um CDR options of which there |
| 1:26:33 | are dozens and that would be continually updated on an open source so that domain subject matter experts can uh contribute bits and pieces to these open- Source you know Excel spreadsheet models of the different CDR options to help us avoid Mal investment in ones that are basically unlikely to be scalable uh and to assess the scalability and and likely price points of of the ones that are most promising so to have an Apples to Apples comparison by using a open source repository of techn financial models of C CDR options that's my that's my |
| 1:27:07 | current Pig on that okay so okay and then I think yeah and albo management and CDR and then yeah stop the emissions and start the uh so what is it R ramp down a brown energy and ramp up clean energy with the other ramp up green energy ramp down Brown energy do CDR and do albo management yeah those are the four yeah great thank you that sounds like the three-legged stool uh idea in um okay bad science paper so that's consistent this is what we want we want consistency yeah okay right let's see um I've you know we we |
| 1:27:49 | haven't looked at this uh agenda haven't been managing this at all but I think I knew that there was only these two things so is there um was there something else to say from you Greg sorry I've left this right to the last five minutes about this cognitive split was this part of the same thing that we've already been talking about um well um I guess what I had in mind was just I've had the impression I I do think there's the conversation uh the societal conversation and Technical about geoengineering is is moving |
| 1:28:24 | shifting glacially so to speak to toward considering it more the various options but what what I think what at the same time what I what I see is there was this I'm I'm strictly talking about people who totally accept the reality of climate change and at some level it's a big problem but of course the world has you know you can Lael list 20 huge problems that we're not doing anything about you know um and and the question is is there is there sort of a perception that shifting it from the big |
| 1:29:01 | problem that is existential Etc and catastrophic above all others that we have to focus on or shifting it over to the to the list the laundry list of I say you know a couple dozen enormous problems that are causing enormous damages you know exhaustion of oceans all these problems and that we're also not doing much about and when you shift it over to this L list then you can kind of it's easier to ignore you know okay we got all these big problems that are that we're not doing anything about but this is just another one of those but |
| 1:29:32 | it's not it's so that the point is is there is there a movement upon by nons Skeptics I'm leaving aside the Skeptics entirely the climate Skeptics but is there is there such a movement which is I think un fortunate if it's happening but um and again I would say that Michael man and other scientists who have are now arguing you know we got time um and even even among uh the scientists climate scientists who were modeling SII I mean I think we've talked about this or endlessly talked about but |
| 1:30:13 | very frustrating that they they seem to be of the opinion of there time um so they seem to be of the opinion of what there's time time we got time and and so I I just I'm just not sure where where this you know sort of the global or the overall societal opinions uh which includes the components of masses socalled of which I'm a member and the technical people and the governments and everything are are sort of backing off in the certainly there's this this whole distrib spectrum of of of opinions |
| 1:30:52 | and everything but I I have I have a sense right or wrong that there's a there's this there's a shift that's happening toward away from catastrophe and to you know another one of these huge problems we have we need to deal with I I don't know if anybody has a comment on that that that's about it let me see if I got this right so it sounds like you're saying that there's a move away from the sort of Doom and Gloom and oh it's another big problem that we understand and there is so people are |
| 1:31:23 | not there's a loss of urgency to to away from away from you know um rening garments and nashing teeth and and and and whatever and and toward yeah it's it's a huge problem all right but you know it's like all the other huge problems again that we're not dealing with very well yeah okay so you're concerned that there's a loss of uh okay um taking it seriously yeah well not not this this is just a perception I have yeah the the lack of the action is not is yes okay that's your perception okay |
| 1:31:58 | any anything uh Chris please yeah um well certainly that wouldn't be my perception at all um but of course it depends which sort of people you interact with and the things that you read and see on the internet but certainly wouldn't be my perception my perception would probably be more the opposite that you're getting increasing concern and wanting to do something about this existential problem but that's just my impression yeah yeah I mean I I I I relate to what you're saying Greg I relate to it in my |
| 1:32:28 | own my own head actually sometimes I say things to myself this is such a huge problem you know I should be working harder on this but then I say I'm already working so hard um I need some time to just sort of relax and do something else just watch TV or something and so but then you know there we go but that's right there there are lots and lots of kids we don't we obviously we can't see everybody we know that kid kids are getting very some kids are getting very stressed out you know and and so forth I don't know |
| 1:32:59 | um okay any yeah so quick f up cly there was someone did a a search to see how many people had been searching Google for climate anxiety and that apparently had been going up quite significantly right so that does suggest that um the concern is not going away I would have thought in that sort of community was interested and believes in climate change right and that'll be um is that presumably that's the english- speaking world then is it that would be uh us pres it would be yes of course yeah is not everybody in the world at all yes |
| 1:33:35 | yeah great okay thank you all right any last comment from anyone any anyone want to remind me of something I might have forgotten I haven't forgotten about the homepage seev I just haven't had time and I'm still I'm teaching again at at the moment but yeah have haven't forgotten you know it's on my list I'm I'm thinking about it okay well thank you one got one thing I I did spend quite a long time producing a critique comments and suggestions for the bad science paper uh which you might like to look at in which |
| 1:34:13 | I ra raise this thing about the Tipping points we need to be very clear that the Tipping points are the the major concern and uh there's clear clear evidence that the Arctic amplification is is causing A disruption of the jet stream and it's tending to to get um stuck and and that's giving rise to uh to to weather extremes so you get heat domes where the uh where the jet stream gets stuck over one place and it gets hotter and hot hotter and hotter and then you the records are broken so that's happening |
| 1:34:55 | more and more it's accelerating this this trend okay thank you John yeah the thing about so have a do please do have a read and see what you think please comment on my comments yeah thank you and I think yeah thank you John and I think Suzanne thanked you for it as well and they're going to be considering that for the next um kind of update um we have a link do we have link to that uh assessment to what John's email or to the paper itself you you can find a thread that's available on prag Noak and |
| 1:35:34 | hpac okay a thread thread a thread called um bad science okay I I'm sure I can find that thank you yeah yeah yeah yeah so this this has been a positive thing this paper that um Peter WAMS has was part of as well and this gentleman called Graham what's Graham Taylor yeah yeah um and some of us commented it on the paper um that's that's saying pretty much what we've been saying that that uh you know that that it's much worse than the ipcc is saying and so forth and aerosols need I think it's saying that |
| 1:36:15 | trying to remember aerosols need to be done so but anyway anyone who sees it will see it's quite clearly written uh it's got a got a lot of information it seems to be saying the right things um and I think this is what's needed something that's readable there are so many scientific papers that you know only a small number of people have the education to really read and understand Ian I struggle with a lot of them I'm I'm not a proper scientist anyway but so a paper like this really hits people |
| 1:36:41 | between the eyes so I think the action that Peter you and grahe Taylor have taken is absolutely what's needed uh so let's see where it goes let's see where it goes okay thank you very much everybody and um I'll send out the I don't see many people reading the trans I'm not sure if many people are looking at the trans has anyone looked at the transcripts that I've produced from this from this has anyone used them yes I I value them okay I'll keep doing them if one person looks at transcripts and |
| 1:37:13 | great and watches the videos okay so I'll keep doing what was the other thing oh yeah I've we get three emails don't we or we get sometimes you get we often get three emails it's the hpac it's the Noak and the prag um nobody really complains to to occasionally we get you get the odd complaint and we will just just delete the other two don't we I mean that's what I do I approached um herb Simmons I haven't seen him here tonight but the hpac main main man and said what about combining consolidating |
| 1:37:46 | Noak with hpack in terms of just the list so that people only have to get at least get two two emails instead of three and um so any comments briefly I mean if you want if you've got to go because we've had down 90 minutes then thank you and see you next time see you in in two weeks thank you very much but but any comments on that I'm not going to spend a long time on this just well I have which is I mean of course with your email client you can you can direct any a recip any uh sender to a given folder I think you could probably |
| 1:38:21 | segregate a that way and then you could just delete you know as you need I don't know you you could have it so any sender that any any case where you get all three senders you have that rule okay well that's clever I mean there there are things you can do with the U the email client to push things around and and not have it show up and okay Greg that's that's helpful thank you um I think I'm just going to go ahead though so that but no people don't otherwise there's a lot of people got to |
| 1:38:51 | try and s out how to do clever things for their email client I know that some people don't want to do that uh so I think we're going to but if if the hpack people who they have to had this discuss among their steering committee if they will allow me to make the neak invitations through through their thing because as it is I control I can just say you are invited that that's it you know um okay that's it thank you very much see you again in two weeks thanks and look forward to all the emails I |
| 1:39:18 | stay could I stay on with yes you can John with Peter perhaps yes sure anyone wants to just hang about then that's fine I I won't end the meeting I'll leave you talking but um if if if you're otherwise done then thank you see you again soon y so hello Peter how how are you I'm fine thanks yeah I me well I'll do I'll turn off the recording and I'll go quiet yeah please keep going |