‘Climate Change: Science and Policy’ Lecture by Mario Molina, Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Рет қаралды 33,697

Күн бұрын

In his lecture ‘Climate Change: Science and Policy’, Mario Molina shares the story of the work which led to his Nobel Prize. He was instrumental in showing that CFCs damage the ozone layer and campaigned to ensure a worldwide ban was put in place. The lecture was delivered at the University of Minnesota, and offers insights into the current challenge of limiting climate change.
This event was part of the Nobel Prize Inspiration Initiative (NPII), a global programme designed to help Nobel Laureates share their inspirational stories and insights. By taking Nobel Laureates on visits to universities and research centres around the world, and by capturing their thoughts on video, the Initiative seeks to bring the Laureates into closer contact with the worldwide scientific community, and especially with an audience of young scientists. The NPII in St. Paul was delivered in partnership with 3M.

Пікірлер: 81

@godzilla870 4 жыл бұрын

Sometimes the "chemistry" needs to take a backseat to the real discussion about the implications of Chemistry; the challenges we have created for ourselves by the advances in science itself. Technology is not the only solution, it's an ethical and moral change that needs to take place.

@JCW7100 2 жыл бұрын

Advances in science also bring us green technology though, right?

@clustermetropolitanodeener6716 3 жыл бұрын

You are an inspiration to young generations now and in the future...We miss you, Dr Molina

@bjrnclausen978 5 жыл бұрын

44:21 There is no binding measures in Paris agreement. Paris agreement should be equal to the thick read line.

@jdcampbell9613 4 жыл бұрын

Bjørn Clausen do you know of any more advanced lectures on climate science?

@christiansieglin731 3 жыл бұрын

Fantastic conference

@stephenajones4438 16 күн бұрын

I want to ask one of these guys how we got into and came out of an ice age.

@ruchpat1 3 жыл бұрын

Thank you Noble Prize for posting this video.

@phil3768 5 жыл бұрын

A simple clear message of the problems we face. Dr. Molina understands the science. He ends with an optimistic view of what we can do. More people need to hear this message.

@JCResDoc94 5 жыл бұрын

it was good actually. the question time was redeeming. & the lecture was meant to be formulaic; it is a prize speech after all.

@IRMentat 5 жыл бұрын

Main tank starts at 23:36 Root to that is intro, background and limited supposition on others motives.

@IRMentat 5 жыл бұрын

39:53 he’s taking about fossil fuels and the alternatives. Seems to miss the point that most of the alternatives use fossil fuels to catalyse their production.

@IRMentat 5 жыл бұрын

46:25 and there’s the rub. Planet wide compliance required.

@JCResDoc94 5 жыл бұрын

i love that the comments are open btw. bravo Nobel. As long as it lasts

@lusz9107 4 жыл бұрын

I assume this is just a warm up.

@JCResDoc94 5 жыл бұрын

Love it, a fine entry. the question time was gr8 ^_^. maybe i will have kids.

@lindseyclifford2370 5 жыл бұрын

I won't

@jeffcokenour3459 5 жыл бұрын

First Nobel laureate I've heard who spends his lecture time speaking about popular social issues. He repeatedly said he didn't want to bore us with the chemistry, but isn't he a chemist? Isn't he supposed to speak of chemistry? I don't remember Feynman saying I won't bore you with the specifics of quantum electrodynamics and then going on to talk about how french fries are impacting the world.

@wandapoe1394 5 жыл бұрын

Enlightening...

@amazsanton5216 5 жыл бұрын

Some industry owners and earth flatters don't want listen scientific facts, Dr Mario M. was presenting years of study and observation done over climate change by many scientists

@gallusmcgonagall6029 5 жыл бұрын

Do ''scientific facts' still have the same efficacy if delivered by Nobel Laureates who are skeptical of the climate claims? There are many who draw attention to the facts who don't seem to be 'listened' to. .. and not just by flat earthers. Even if the Climate Change lobbyists show human caused warming is a major factor, your government and mine is making an 'industry' of it. A minor greenhouse gas, CO2 is the one atmospheric ingredient that both Government and industry can tax and levy. Water vapor which is the greatest of all greenhouse gases is harder to tax. Once convinced of an absurdity, the masses will commit atrocities in its name... And will do the work of the conmen for them. Nothing quite like virtue signaling how much one cares for the planet.

@goxdie000 4 жыл бұрын

@@gallusmcgonagall6029 I dare you to find just one Nobel laureate that is skeptical about climate science. And so what if there's an "industry" being made out of it? Aren't fossil fuels also an industry? Why not switch from a dirty industry to a clean one?

@starleyshelton2245 Жыл бұрын

@@goxdie000 Dr. Ivar Giaever. Dr. Scott Denning. The problem is there is no realistic solution to climate change. We do not have a way to replace carbon as even a simple majority of energy in less than 50 years. The only viable alternatives for non transportation needs is nuclear and hydro. And it takes a minimum of 20 years to build a plant. Renewables are unreliable, use massive amounts of land, short lived at about 20 years, and non recyclable. The recommended response is assumes an unknown technology we have not even invented yet. Shutting down current systems without a replacement. That is like jumping off a cliff today when the net won't be available as currently out of stock.

@rinpham4360 5 жыл бұрын

good things

@burgesspark685 5 жыл бұрын

I was hopefull about this lecture and then i listened to it Its full of inaccuracy and misconceptions The guy may be an expert in chemistry - but he really hasnt done his research into climate science. He seems to have a very superficial knowledge of the facts

@rstevewarmorycom 5 жыл бұрын

Burgess Park And you're an uncredentialed dumbass at it, you have NO standing to question.

@brobdignagian6529 5 жыл бұрын

Burgess Park And you know that they’re inaccurate misconceptions how?

@jeffwood7295 4 жыл бұрын

Burgess I-I just dont think you were capable of understanding what he was saying - pretty straightforward I thought !!!

@mrdot1256 5 жыл бұрын

LOL I loved Arctic sea images; Dr. Molina "forgot" to mention that in the same time Antartica ice grew in size and that it actually grew in size so much (record size) that even "experts" had to acknowledge it. Also, there is so much scientific criticism about publication that first suggested 97% consensus and you don't have to be "climatologist" to understand the so-called consensus is highly stretched term. Also, he forgot to mention that "climate models" built by "climatologists" failed to successfully predict change in temperature with 5% error... Why so forgetful, Dr. Molina?

@Elite7555 5 жыл бұрын

Actually, the growing sea ice in the Antarctica is somewhat troublesome as it is the same ice that vanished from the main land. The now free mainland absorbes more radiation than when it was covered with ice (as ice has a great albedo). Also it has the potential to change oceanic movements. So it isn't as black and white as some sceptics would like to have it. And of course it doesn't change the fact that the earth is becoming warmer overall. Actually, scientific consensus isn't a vote or something like that. If most studies on a subject come to a certain conclusion then that is the consensus, even if most scientists would disagree. Most doctors disagreed that they would have to disinfect their hands before seeing a patient although statistical evidence showed that it decreases mortality. To understand that, you don't need to be an expert, that is right. Science isn't about our whims or oppinion. Everybody can check all the published studies on the subject. It is impossible to predict the future CO2 or Methane emission. And there are a lot of fluctuating variables. But you can take an educated guess. And it isn't about predicting a precise number like a weather report. It is about analysing a trend and painting different scenarios. As of today, all the predictions that Arctica would shrink, that the golf stream would slow down, that sea levels will rise, as will the global temperature have become true.

@suaptoest 2 жыл бұрын

@@Elite7555 The easiest way to check climate change forecasts when comparing long-term sea-level change. In our country, we do not see any change in the last 100 years. Cities are still being built to a level that is projected to be below sea level in 10 years. Is that common sense consensus?

@jean-francoisguilbo7833 3 жыл бұрын

when you realise a topic can not be argued you are already in dictature

@davidwilkie9551 5 жыл бұрын

The flipside of inappropriate "deregulation" is re-criminalization(?)

@rstevewarmorycom 5 жыл бұрын

Whatever works!

@mariusbratu1349 5 жыл бұрын

your theory with Mr. Crutzen is a fallacy better to give back Nobel prize...now Mr. Crutzen is doing filosophy and writing articole about antropocene sad

@dougmorris6208 5 жыл бұрын

Very pleasant speaking man. Unfortunately he lost credibility when he stated that solar and wind power were competitive with carbon based energy.

@dm6801 5 жыл бұрын

Doug Morris please explain

@rstevewarmorycom 5 жыл бұрын

Doug Morris They are MORE than competitive, they are between twice and four times cheaper!! You see, you're believing liars because you love fossil fuels.

@John-lf3xf 5 жыл бұрын

Doug Morris lmao

@Elite7555 5 жыл бұрын

In terms of raw energy output, they are more than competitive. But they are not as reliable and take up lots of space (they cannot be stacked uppon each other).

@goxdie000 4 жыл бұрын

Lost credibility? It is a FACT! More than competitive in many cases.

@BenX74 5 жыл бұрын

Wind and solar are competitive?! Yeah, and that's why we need to subsidize those like crazy here in Germany - utter nonsense! Sorry, you've just lost all credibility to me.

@PopescuSorin 4 жыл бұрын

i know you are big on coal but you need to transit to clean energy like solar or wind

@P1A2T34 4 жыл бұрын

Popescu Sorin, wind and solar are a joke. Equivalent capacity of fossil fuel plants need to be on standby. Grid scale storage is way off and will always be a economic burden. Germany has the highest electricity cost in the world because they made stupid decisions e.g. phasing out nuclear and thinking renewables could do the job. Their CO2 emissions have gone up because of low grade coal burning to make up the difference. If it wasn’t for French nuclear plant buffering their supply, the lights would have gone out years ago. Total failure. This what happens when people spouting platitudes like “we can do it with wind and solar” make energy policy. The average joe is forced into energy poverty and the economy becomes weaker while China builds a coal fired power station at a rate of 1 every 2 weeks.

@chetankhope4348 3 жыл бұрын

@@P1A2T34 Just because they didn't implement that doesn't mean the idea is stupid. Proper implementation is must

@pfwag 5 жыл бұрын

The climate is changing: the earth has been warming since the early 1700s when it came out of The Little Ice Age. Prior to that it had been cooling for about 500 years since coming off the top of The Medieval Warming Period, where the earth was about 2C warmer than today. Prior to that... IT'S A CYCLE.

@rstevewarmorycom 5 жыл бұрын

That was local weather, NOT climate!! And no, it was NOT 2 C.

@BenGrem917 5 жыл бұрын

It's a cycle we can and are influencing. Saying "it's a cycle" is nearly meaningless. Every cycle is driven by a set of factors, what are those factors? Can we influence then? How do we influence them and how much? That's climate science, buddy. It's a done debate. Get on board or get laughed at for being as bad as the Flat Earthers.

@starleyshelton2245 Жыл бұрын

@@rstevewarmorycom It is not local when you have evidence of it on every continent including antarctica over about a 450 year period. That is planetary and climate. Then the Maunder Minimum on top of that which was also planetary and lasted decades. Again planetary and climate.

@headshot9754 5 жыл бұрын

So if I could summarize this it would say something like this. The guy knows something about the ozone layer and probably should stick to that. The rest of it is a series of claims that science isn’t perfect but just trust us we have a rate. What I would say is stick to your O-Zone layer and get off the weed because it’s making you say things that are complete nonsense about climate change. At one point he throws up a graph that has CO2 skyrocketing.That graph is everything you need to know about whether or not CO2 is driving temperature. He makes mention that CO2 is fairly level going back in the ice record. There are changes however and there seems to be a correlation but the question is his temperature driving CO2 or CO2 driving temperature. He makes the statement that it’s 95% likely that the CO2 is driving temperature. But gives no evidence of it. He just pointed to some united nation globalist piece of garbage and we’re supposed to believe it. He then throws up some graphs of extreme weather. I would challenge you to go to the United States hurricane centre and download their information and plot it. You will see that not only are the hurricane frequencies not increasing but their intensity’s are also not increasing. In fact there was a 13 year Where a named storm did not enter the golf of Mexico in recent years. Now Every storm that comes along is proof of climate change. He refers to losses from recent storms in the US and fires on the West Coast in California as if this has never happened before. A local drought in California does not equal catastrophic changes in the climate. In fact the 30s marked the biggest drought in the history of North America and some of the highest temperatures recorded. Yet the globalist climate alarmists ignore this information. We now have the answer because we’ve almost doubled the co2 and the temperature is extremely stable. If CO2 is such a driver of temperature why isn’t the temperature going through the roof. It’s the scientific principle if you’re trying to decide if something affects something else. Change one of them and see how the other responds. He shows a graph of the Paris accord from 2015 going forward three scenarios.However the graph is nonsense. What are the graphing CO2 output? Temperature? It seems to imply that if CO2 output goes down the temperature will fall. It also seems to imply that if CO2 output goes up the temperature will rise. But given that CO2 in the atmosphere is almost double right now, would it not just rise anyway. Temperature is not a function of how much CO2 is being put in the atmosphere but how much CO2 is in the atmosphere at any given time. There you have it you don’t need to add any more CO2 the atmosphere if it’s driving the temperature to Have the temperature go up. You would actually have to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere to stop the temperature from rising. They won’t say this because they know it’s complete nonsense to think you can stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere. So they throw up this confusing graph.

@marietta1335 5 жыл бұрын

"At one point he throws up a graph that has CO2 skyrocketing."That's where he lost me, too. I couldn't believe CO2 would rise that fast and that high while all the time, Dr. Molina was saying it was "likely" due to man's greater use of fossil fuels since the 1950's. "Likely" is not a very scientific word.Thank you for pointing out the flaws in his lecture.

@Sealight007 5 жыл бұрын

Okay, he got the Ozone correct, but the rest of his talk is prattle.

@HO-jp1by 5 жыл бұрын

Can't wait to see your presentation on the topic. Will be riveting, right?

@Elite7555 5 жыл бұрын

Well, there are lots of people who think the hole in the ozone layer and CFC as the cause are bollocks. What do you tell them? Why do you accept this but not the evidence for global warming?

@BenGrem917 5 жыл бұрын

@@Elite7555 A wonderful question.

@carnelian7711 2 жыл бұрын

@@Elite7555 exactly, we solved ozone problem but people think this is hoax🤦🏾‍♂️

@manuelplate6370 4 жыл бұрын

I am out at 19:38 Minutes. Really stupid. Cook et. al., that came to this weird 97 number was proved wrong years ago.

@SimonvandeBeek 2 жыл бұрын

? Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree.

@suchou6231 3 жыл бұрын

Why does he keep looking at him as if he needs confirmation from him

@robertmcwilliams927 5 жыл бұрын

Thought science was about facts not probability?

@BenGrem917 5 жыл бұрын

Ever study QED? Science is about models that make useful predictions about reality. Climate science does

@JoseSilveira-newhandleforYT 5 жыл бұрын

@@BenGrem917 Wrong! Science is about facts and numbers confirmed by measurements. Models are mathemagical means to achieve ANY result you want! Anthropogenic climate change is not a fact - it's a political tool!! The Nobel prizes are also political tools and do not give real credit to the science developed, but only to its political convenience!!

@VexRep 5 жыл бұрын

@@JoseSilveira-newhandleforYT Wrong. Science is an inductive process of investigating the world around us and therefore relies on probability.

@goxdie000 4 жыл бұрын

The study of probabilities and statistics are essential for science.