upgrading technology, and powering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. along with of these television companies supporting c-span2 as a public service. newhen we started planning this energyum and climate summit many months ago, we had no idea how timely it would turn out to be in march of 2022. we are seeing firsthand why energy independence is critical nto national security. none other than elon musk said a few days ago we need to increase

oil and gas output immediately. across the nation including here in northwest colorado, we are seeing critical decisions being made on our sources of energy. these decisions will determine whether the lights will come on when you flip the switch and if they do how much it will cost to keep them on. there are many conferences across the globe that discuss climate change, global climate accords and global warming. but none of these include a discussion of the impact on individual freedom, prosperity and standard of living. we aim to change that with our program today. the goal of the summit is to build a better understanding of the nexus of u.s. energy policy, climate science and the impact on individual freedom and prosperity. this understanding we believe will lead to better, more realistic solutions which can address these issues without

stbankrupting our families into fastly lowering our standard of living.ur when we were planning the recent campus liberty tour debate which took place last week at the university of miami in florida and boulder we had an incredibly difficult time finding anyone willing to debate alex epstein. the question was should america rapidly eliminate fossil fuel use to prevent climate catastrophe and an especially notable response from the pulitzer prize author who declined the invitation to debatehi was this there is no rm for debate on these issues. we couldn't disagree more. the debate is urgently needed to ensure that the impact on freedom, prosperity and distinct groups living are included in any discussions of energy policy and climate change. a steamboat institute is proud to offer today's program as a substantial contribution to the national discourse on these

critical issues. as a 5o1c3 nonprofit educational organization, the steamboat institute relies on the support of individuals and foundations to carry out our mission of promotingg america's first principles and inspiring active involvement in the defense of liberty. i would like to thank our sponsors of the program including the title sponsor liberty energy and thank you, chris, very much. round of applause for liberty energy. [applause] i would also like to recognize and thank the major foundation sponsor the charitable foundation executive director and her husband who traveled all the way from southern california to be with us today so thank you to the charitable foundation. [applause] we have many other sponsors andn i encourage you to please take a moment when you can to read their names in the program and all the signs out in the hallway

for their generous friending of the programs. finally i would like think the board of directors and energy and climate summit committee who is helped in planning today's program was invaluable. you can find all of their names inam the program and i would lie to ask all of the board members and the energy and climate subcommittee to please stand so we can thank you. [applause] now it isst an honor to introdue the first speaker to kick off thest program this evening. stephen is a national respected leader in science policy. he servedet as the under secrety for science and the department of energy under president obama where he was the lead author of the department's strategic plan. with more than 200 peer-reviewed papers in the field of physics and astrophysics, energy policy and climate science, he was a

professor and theoretical physics at caltech and also served as the vice president and provost for almost a decade. currently a professor at new york university and in a review of the book unsettled would climate science tellsit us, butt doesn't and why it matters a professor of global energy at the kennedy school road the book is essential reading in a timely breath of fresh air for climate policy. the science of claimant is neither settled nor sufficient to dictate policy. rather than an existential crisis, we face a problem that requires a pragmatic balancing of cost and benefits. following the remarks this morning he will be joined on stage by the radio and podcast host who covers all things energy on the jackiey daily sho. she will select your questions

to ask so be sure to submit your questions using the code that you will find on the cards on your table. let's give a warm welcome. [applause] ♪♪ a great choice of music. it has been an adventure to be speaking the truth of claimant the last couple of years and i would like to tell you a little about that. from my title unquote settling climate and energy it's triple. unsettled refers to a crucial point in climate science.

it also refers to perhaps you will feel as i did when you hear about some of them contrary to what you hear in the popular and political dialogue and finally i would say what we all nationally and globally do about the situation remains quite unsettled in the subject of great debate. it certainly at the forefront of theod discussion today shows changes in the surface temperature from about 1880 up to the present and you can see it starting in about 1900 it's gone up by about 1.1 degrees celsius. at the same time, we see human influences on the claimant growing largely through the accumulation of carbon dioxide atmosphere and here i

show you the measured carbon dioxide from about 1960, and it's gone up. it started out 300 whatever on the graph and is currently about 420 parts per million. we knowas that that increase is through largely the burning of fossilil fuels as we produce energy that the world needs. but you could also see the relationship isn't so simple because from 1940 to 1970 the temperature actually went down even as human influences grew. so the scientific story is a little more complex. what we would like to know is how will changes in the claimant in the future influence the ecosystems in human society and of course the bottom line question what are we going to do about it. answering that last question means we have to strike a

balance. on the one side, we have the science with its certainties and riuncertainties and the hazards and with the risks as the climate changes. on the other side, we have a growing demand for energy, reliable and affordable and clean mainly with low greenhouse gas m emissions. then then in the middle, we have a set of considerations of values, priorities, society's tolerance for risk, equity between generations and between north and south who developed the developing world and then finally leave god if we think about the different responses are they going to make a difference and how much are they going to cost and i want to take you through these three elements, the science on the left side, the demand on the right to slide into some discussion of the responses indl

the middle as i go through the next 30 minutes or so. so,, that montage that opened up the session this morning was just wonderful. and you've got a sense of how the political sphere or the nonexperts think about the science. t president biden on the first day of his administration signed an executive order saying we are going to follow the science. a special envoy carry even back in 2014 said there shouldn't be a s doubt in anybody's mind that the science is absolutely certain and if you can pause the rest of the sentence i would to hear it because it is something that, nevermind. and then there's all kinds of other folks that use the phrase existential threat, climate crisis, claimant emergency, claimant disaster and so on. the president, senator sanders,

a major figure in the international finance, bill gates, my good friend the last two should know better because they are scientists but nevertheless you hear those words from them. when the most recent un report on climate science was released in august the un secretary-general said it's code red c for humanity despite the fact you can only find the words climate crisis once and that isn't a scientific finding but a description of how the u.s. media have over exaggerated the situation. and then thehe current secretary defense has declared an existential threat w of course almost a year ago he has a better idea what an existential threat really is. where does the science come from as opposed to the science?

and guests assessed annually. i'm sorry. it gets assessed by the un in a series of reports once every seven years. of the last report was in 2013 of 2014 by the un. to the next the next such report on t the science and only impacts. thee science issue report was issued on august 9th the end of the impact report was issued about a month ago. but then we have the u.s. government issuinger reports of once every four years the last one came out in 2017 and 2018. these reports are meant to survey, assess and summarize the science at as it appears in the literature and the forgone experts and decision-makers. the reports say an important and surprising things when you read them because i have and many scientists have.

however most on the slide i showed you that appeared in the montage have not read those reports. i guarantee that otherwise they wouldn't be saying the things that they are saying. at least they are honest. i am often reminded of a scene from the movie the princess bride. 1 ofof the characters the bald y on the right to their keeps using the word inconceivable. and at some point he gets so annoyed with him he says you keep using that word. i do not think it means what you think it means. i don't think the science says what most people thinks it says and that is on the basis of the reports not something i am making up and in fact when you read it you realize that it isn't broken and if we do not face a certain disaster unless we take a rabbit in a sweeping

action. there's very little justification for that and in the end it's going to be a balancing act. you might asked how did the science that is good legitimate science solid or on solid gets turned into the certain science people talk about and it's a game of telephone. it starts from the observation data and the primary and literature and it goes into the assessment reports by the un and u.s. government and goes into the summaries for policymakers of those assessment reports, which are often not in agreement with what's actually in the t report itself, in part because they are not written by scientists. then it goes on to the media. and then out to the public and thed decision-makers. and along with this game of telephone, there's much better behavior as one is down the chain. confused with climate, they

highlight recent trends without the historical context, the term implausible scenarios for the future emissions is business as usual and the alarming contradictions. when i started to watch this closely about four years ago, i decided to write a book which tries to get around and give a sense of what the reports actually say. in one of the best introductions i've had over the last year, i was lightened to william kendall. i don't know, i didn't know who he was. i'm not a historian. i discovered he was a guy in the early 16th century who was the first to translate the bible from the original greek and hebrew into english and the forerunner of the king james.

and needless to say, he annoyed a lot of people when he did that, made the bible evident to the less educated folks. he was burned at the stake for that among other things. i've been called a denier which isn't quite as bad, but we will see what happens. [laughter] let me sell you a little bit of the surprises in the science. this isne very little happening over the past century this is a the number of hurricanes and tropical storms since 1970, so 50 years and you can see it goes up and down but it's certainly not increasing. there is another measure of hurricanef activity which accounts for stronger storms ths more heavily into the weaker storms and you can see there are ups and downs both globally and in the northern hemisphere but

again no long-term trend over 50 years. and the fact the literature says that indian food in the in the t reports say that the u.s. government report in 2018 said there's still no confidence andn any report claimed over decades as robust. there was a landmark paper of 11 authors that gave their individual opinions anonymously. in 2019 what they said is most have low confidence that there's any other observed trend apart from the northwest pacific that can be detected or attributed. then the most recent report from the un said there's no confidence most reported trends over decades to a century and measures of hurricanes frequency

or the intensity. there is a little bit of a footnote that i'm happy to go into in the questions that they think that the have seen that strengthening with a fraction of major storms that increased a bit but it's pretty controversial and i can elaborate on that if anybody has a question. let me turn to the sea level rise. you often hear of sea levels or if you don't know anything about geology, that doesn't sound alarming but in fact they've been rising for 20,000 years and this is the record of sea level rise over at about 20,000 years and you can see it'san gone up by about 120 meters, 200 feet in 20,000 years. it's different 20,000 years ago. of course you have slowed down as you see about eight top thousand years ago but it's still rising. the question then isn't whether the sea level is rising but has

it accelerated since human influences becamee significant let's say since 1900 and the discussion hinges on tens of a millimeter per year differences in how vast. we would like to know whether the acceleration is due to humans at all and what's going to happen in the next century or two. let y me show you since i live n new york city part of the time we have really good data at the tip of manhattan. this is the rate of the rise as observed from 1920 up until last month. and how fast does it go up each year and you can see that on averagee it's looking like about

3 millimeters a year. that is a foot a century, not something to get too alarmed about it interestingly it goes up and down and you can see in some years it was down less than 2 millimeters a year and then a five and high at five and it's thought that these have gone to the long-term cycles of currents in the north atlantic. the national atmospheric association a couple weeks ago issued a report saying that sea level rise for the next 30 years was not in at 1 foot over the next 30 years. it's going to happen no matter what. if that were true it would take this graph up to where the star is in 30 years. now who am i to dispute but we

are going to find out pretty quickly whether it's going to go up or that rapidly or not. obviously if it does we should be thinking differently than perhaps we are now. on the other hand, here is a statement from a paper published by collaborators at columbia university certainly within the mainstream that says the use of the models that are used to make these projections for the adaptation actions is unwarranted anywhere near the degree. nevertheless, they took out these projections with great s confidence. let me turn to weather extremes. historic heatwave is virtually

impossible without human cost changes. european floods were involved ib the latest science of global warming. the connection around of the world fires, floods commended fish, climate change, fuels, extreme weather with no return to normal said "the new york times" and may be the best one from the globe, welcome to the apocalypse it is going to get worse. let's talkan about extremes anda reminder that claimant plays out over decades and to do that i want to talk about denial, not climate denial but denial river. [laughter] so there's a map of cairo and in the middle is rhode island and the southern tip of rhode

island, the medieval egyptians built a structure where they measured the height of the nile river. it was very important to them as you might imagine. cops, taxes for whoever at the time. that's what the building looks like today and i was fortunate to have visited about 20 years ago. if you go inside of the building you see a vertical chamber with three outlets to the river at various levels and a pillar in the middle suspended from the beamam and of course we can chae the cubic centimeters. so a number of people over the century have compiled a record of the readings of the height of the nile and this is one such record it shows the annual minimum reached in any year. this is a pretty good manager

over about 10% of africa that is an area of about one third of the continental u.s. so think mississippi scale measures the hydro climate in africa and you cants see this record starts in 640 and year by year the annual minimum.nd and it's interesting because you see there are a lot of ups and downs every year. some can be uper high at 5.5 and later you are down to one so a lot of variability. the second if you take an average it's as a 30 year average. what's remarkable it still shows a lot of variation. and what you can imagine is there was so many in the seventh

and eighth century screaming new normal, we have to do more sacrifices and if they waited a couple of decades it would have come back even higher. and we are still doing this today. it turns out the height and the minimum is controlled by the levels of the lake and in 2006 nasa publishes a paper that says lake victoria falling. and last year there was a press release. i want to do one more just to show you how misleading the media are and this is about greenland losing ice. greenland has been losing ice faster and fasterr and there's n article from the guardian in december of 2019. a wonderful picture and they say

it's risens from 33 billion in the '90s to 254 billion a year in the past decade. that's pretty scary. it's going up and up. i was able to publish in "the wall street journal" about a month ago the complete graph of how much it loses every year. you can see it's gone up a lot since 1990 but it also went up from 19221940 by the same amount andce human influences were less than one fifth of what they are today and then it goes down so this has hardly anything to do with the global warming under the influences and its cycles

that extend over the north atlantic. nevertheless the guardian emphasizes this. most media coverage doesn't. when i publish this, i got a lot of grief from people that wrote into "the wall street journal." i was just showing the data but that's very disturbing. there's no clear trend of the temperatures where we had a tremendous heatwaveme last summ. this shows the numberf of record highs in a number of stations in the u.s. starting basically over the last 100 years both from the u.s. and the 26th stations in the pacific northwest. what happened was just whether. if we saw the same thing happened five years after then you could start to talkk about climate, but we are not there

yet. but i want to do more on the impacts and then get onto solutionse. and see. talking about the economic impact into this is one of the bottom lines allegedly the best advice from the best scientists in the country in the absence of the reduction of emissions, climatic changes going to impose on the u.s. economy with hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century and to back that up with an interesting chart that shows how much damage is whatul we see under the high emissions scenario and the sectors of the economy at the end of the century versus how much wouldan we save and at this

thischart is remarkable for sevl reasons. 1 is that they are given two different digits. it's 155,000,000,070 years from now. second is the degree of granularity today must be five, six, seven urged trillion dollars at 155 billion it is kind of small potatoes never mind the uncertainty. nevertheless, the media when this came out were all over themselves. climate change in the economy, climate report with economic consequences and climate change

across the u.s., billions, claimant reported ones have damaged environment and shrinking. if you don't read the report it sounds pretty bad. this is the last graph in the report in the last chapter, and it shows temperature rises up to 9 degrees fahrenheit. we got a few percent. there is a similar graph i'm sureis he will have more to say about it when he talks about it at lunch. it's a few% for a few degrees. they knew that's the case and for the economic sectors it will

be small relative to the impacts of other drivers. claimant changes only one factor. the technology the demographics et cetera et cetera. and here is what it looks like if you look at the u.s. economy growing at 2% which is about what the fed he and everybody else thinks it will do, we start here today and you get the curve. if there is a 4% climate impact in 2090 you get the orange curve mainly things get delayed by a couple of years. i would love to share a stage with all gates and ask them is this what you meant by the climate crisis? it's kind of a bump in the road. the most recent report that came out about a month ago backed off a little bit and said the aggregate economic impact could be higher than what we said in the previous report, but we have lowd confidence in that statemet

and again we could go into the details of that. let me talk about a response and now, what do we do about all of this? so, there are global greenhouse gas emissions going up at a few% a year, more and more. and if we are going to try to just stabilize human emissions at a level some people deem to be prudent, we have to go to zero emissions, take this curve down by 2050 and of the un has said this will avoid the worst effects of climate change which is kind of a meaningless statement because you don't know how bad it'sng going to be. with economics it doesn't look so bad. and they map out various pathways of what it will take in ordero to do that versus the trajectory that we are currently

on. the un has convened a series of conferencesea over the last 25 r 30 years the most recent one happened in glascow and it was the conference of parties 26 and my take away from that is that the fundamentals of the situation that have been evident to anybody that bothered to study it as they came to me as i started to learn about this, they've become a parent to everybody and would summarize the situation as that. so there's wiley coyote. he's been chasing after roadrunner and he's found himselfan off of a cliff and what's more interesting is when you look at his eyes he suddenly realizes there are some fundamentals in the situation

that are going to spell a really bad outcome. that's what is happening and i want to tell you about those fundamentals. wele d will start with demograp. the demographics is destiny. right, this is a graph of the historic and projected population of the globe starting in 1950 and we will grow to about 9 billion by the middle of the century 30 years from now. and as you can see most of that growth has happened in asia. some at the bottom of the graph in africa as well, but asia is what really opens up and the rest of the world is pretty static, so that'spm demographic. the second is development. this is a complicated chart.

it shows the energy use per capita against of the gdp per capita for a number of different countries year-by-year since 1980 up until about 2017 and while there's a lot to learn by starting the chart in detail, the broad lessons are pretty simple. 1 is that rich people use more energy were more well-off people use more energy. second, there's a big swath of countries up here including the u.s. which iss over here, you're up over here whose energy use per capita is constant. the problem is there's only about 1.5 billion over here. there's another about 6 billiono people here whose energy use is going to increase as they

improve. so you can put those two things together, population and development and also realize that fossil fuels have remained predominant in supplying to the world's energy currently about 80% from coal, oil and gas, wind and solar while they are growing rapidly down here fossil fuels are the most reliable and convenient way of getting energy and you put that together and you can project the world's energy consumption is going to growow by 50% from where it is today and most of that growth is in asia. then if we don't change the policies, the great majority of that energy will continue to be supplied by oil, gas and coal. these are fundamentals. there's some projections as well but the basic outlines of the situations are pretty

self-evident. so let's look at the developed world where we are all living as i said energy is crucial and ubiquitous. it's everywhere and it's what makes the society go. it's also provided by complex systems, whether it'sri the grid or the fuel supply chain for oil. the systems have to be highly reliable and they are made highly reliable by having proven hardware and operating procedures. it doesn't change rapidly. the systems change only for exactly that reason. this shows the energy supply over the last many decades maybe a century or so and you can see it wasde added by oil and gas. wood is only a little bit down at the bottom and recently we have seen an uptick in the

renewables. the reason they change again is the big capital expands things have to work together. you can't changeng cars unless u also change the fuel and the way that you deliver the fuel so lots of pieces have to change together. people say what about efficiency. there is a phenomenon called rebound that says if i make something more efficient people will use more of it and there is debate about how important that is but it does in fact weaken the impact of the security. finally, changes are going to be disruptive. we want to see changes in economics,ic employment, behavi, geopolitics and large and rapid changes will be very disruptive. i would like to say you need to change energy subsystems by orthodontia, not tooth

extraction. biden administration's plans and goals to reduce emissions real quick, the goal is to reduce emissions by 2030 so seven years from now. by 50% relative to 2005 and to grow net zero by 2050. to zero out emissions from the power sector 13 years from now. they've been coming down largely because gas has been substituting forth coal but also windss and to a lesser extent solar generation. we are going to eliminate gasoline and diesel from light duty vehicle fleet. you won't be able to buy because the policies t come to pass a gasoline or diesel engine by 2035 and i was in a conference

ending yesterday where the ceo of ford said well we are not going to stop producing them necessarily, the gasoline engines but we've established a separate division to do those as opposed to electrification, but the companies if you watch the ads they are into this. there are restrictions on oil and gas productions despite what the secretary of energy has had recently and the claims. many people in the room probably know how difficult it is to get a permit and to get production underway order to secure financing. i think the most dangerous thing they've beenve doings is to drie the climate risk into all aspects of the financial situation. but there's 1800 fossil fuel power plants and if you want to make t them disappear, you needo

make 11 of them disappear so let's watch that to see if it comes toto pass. there's 280 million gasoline and diesel powered vehicles in the country. they all have to go away. so, concerns, stranded assets, unreliability of the grid, and we are going to become less energy secure because we are discouraging domestic and oil and gas production. the secretary of energy was talking wednesday and i heard him speak and for the first time she reached out to the oil and gas g company and said we need o get you to produce more. but that message hasn't gotten through to all of the parts of the government as oil and gas and coal production so the administration has to decide what it wants but it's having a hard time doing that.

so i think there's going to be a backlash as the measures start and particularly as people realize it is only 13% of the global emissions they will be asking tell me again why we are doing all of this. if they were to go to zero emissions tomorrow it would be wiped out by a decades worth of growth in the developed world so it's not a solution to the problem. let me not to talk about this because i think robert will talk about this but we do not have a way today to produce the grid that is simultaneously playing in the sense of low emissions, affordable and not much more expensive than we have now and also reliable. if you put in a lot of wind and solar, that's cheap generating

capacity, wonderful, but it's highly unreliable and if you want to make it reliable, the moste expensive thing you are paying for is that reliability. do you want it to be 90% reliable, 99% reliable, 99.9 and each extra bit of reliability costs more and more. by the way we are at about 99.9% today. talk about the developing world a little bit and then we will wrap up, energy demand is correlated with well-being. emissions from the rest a of the world are growing because fossil fuelson are the most convenient and reliable not necessarily the cheapest but in fact are the most convenient and reliable way to people to meet that demand. countries like china and india have a compelling near-term self-interest and getting the energy that they need. they are dealing with the wolf at the door as opposed to the

cholesterol and something that might happen several decades from now. and who can blame them? as pointed out, it is immoral to deny countries the energy they need or not pay them to reduce their emissions using more advanced forms of energy that will cost more. so i think it will be very interesting there's going to be a debate after i leave the podium and it will be interesting to see that explored in the morality of how do you hu simultaneously satisfy energy demand and reduce emissions? when i look at all of this adaptation is going to be the dominant response, that is what it's going to do. it doesn't matter whether the climate is changing for human or naturalu reasons. it's proportional to.

it's local and we will build seawalls, let's say or shift the kind of crops that we are going so it is as opposed to spending something that is half a rolled away or a generational way that doesn't require a global consensus. it is autonomous. .. >> it will significant derail

us. >> and adaptation and also if you know what you will adapt to also it will warm a little more in the arctic and the sea level will rise but it is vague as i showed you. let me wrap up we must not rise climate science and economist one of the principal architects of the affordable oucare act whatever you might think about obama care herect are some things he said after the act was passed the lack of

transparency is a huge political advantage. it was really really critical to getting the affordable care actwa passed. at least one key provision was a very clever basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the american voter. for an educator and expert to say that that if we misrepresent the science or the potential various energy technologies we do great damage when we try to persuade people. we take awayhe r the right to me informed decisions because after all as i showed you this is a values discussion in the end and distracts from more urgent needs we've seen a couple of more urgent needs from 30 or 50 years from now.

we tarnish the reputation of science into other matters and then most depressingly we have depressed and people and that is the wrong. what should they do going forward? they should cancel the climate crisis. and then to acknowledge the task in the challenge to reduce human influence. we need to better represent the science and energy andt climate literacy are so important among the general public. i would also advocate the review of the reports to make sure they don't have the misleading sections that are in the current reports.

we have to keep watching the claimant if nothing else it is data rhythm science we need to know what it is doing and continuously and without precision i would put a greater focus onme adaptation right now we don't have a good framework and in the developing countries we need to simply promote their development and resilience and to execute national strategies to be wealthy enough to do the adaptation. i am all in favor of developing like technologies batteries in our noncarbon chemical fuels but none ofha that is ready for prime time particularly it shouldn't cost much more than the current way of doing business most

importantly i would formulate ai' grateful decarbonization pathway winning the nobel prize in 2018 was an optimal place for decarbonization balancing disruption against doing it to rapidly with something bad happening with the climate. we need to find out what that is and put together a planti that incorporates technology, business and economics and regulation and behavior and implement as necessary depending on what we see the climate doing. precipitous action is a far greater danger to the nations and the globes well-being than anything we can imagine. with that, thank you for your attention and i'm happy to take questions or comments.

[applause] you need to listen to this is all things energy where you find a podcast. welcome jackie and to submit your questions. >> it's great to be here with you. i have a lot of questions that set in during the presentation we will take them one by one. how did you land a job of the obama administration with your independent view on climate change? >> one's views involved as one grows in the science and technology evolve. ni joined 2004 to figure out

the armed petroleum and with energy technologies and to have that development of technologies that wasn't very focused on the science at the time. and then bought in 2013 taking a hard look at the science at the behest of the physical process and then realize it's not as solid as people think it is the political dialogue became more and more hyperbolic and he became are unrealistic. and they have to this more

than just writing in the op-ed column. >> you come from the political left. m and with that catastrophic narrative.ti do you see any realistic viewpoint with respect to my own political affiliations i have never registered as a member of any party i have always been an independent serving the obama administration but in view of what scientist should be doing in the political realm is to provide advice and analysis options. i have tried to do that when i wasnk in the private sector and in the government.

think it's best if we try to stay a political as does the military and judiciary. many of my colleagues don't subscribe to that unfortunately. politicians and industry leaders in a closed room it is a very different kind of conversation. >> you mentioned the public reaction how strong you see that coming on? now the whole climate agenda has taken a backseat given the ukraine but people will realize with affordable and g reliable energy supply and

that will color a lot of the thinking going forward. onthink we will see by 2024 elections. >> what about cloud feedback? >> so with the feedback first. how what happens in differentlo ways it's the way in which crowds change that affects the warming itself. the temperature of the atmosphere goes up you can think that might make for more clouds they help reflect sunlight so that would be a negative feedback in the sense the increase of clouds would

udmake it cooler than it would be otherwise. it has the opposite effect but it is complicated. but the problem with clouds istm the climate not models cut the atmosphere into boxes so you only have one number to describe those conditions of millions of boxes and maybe temperature or humidity eight on —- humidity but unfortunately they occur on much smaller spatial scales. and then just depending upon people try to do the best that they can and observations and principles.

and that is one of the biggestnt uncertainties in the models. and looking at such small changes you can get almost any answer that you want. and with good climate decision is when the problems in the model. >> with no detectable signal and with the atmosphere and then to increase well-being. but not in the details with the radiation flow and then

with good physical reason changing by growing amounts of ca —- co2 will have effects on the climate but the problem is these are physically small effects and this is about 2 watts per square meter where the overall flow in the energy system are two or 300 watts. the human influences today are a 1 percent effective why do i care about 1 percent but the climate is also sensitive i rise of two or three to go on —- two or 3 degrees is 1 percent rise of temperature it is sensitive and there are many other phenomenon that can influence the climate at that level. natural variability is one of them so it is a difficult business. and some faction over the last decades whether 100 percent as

the un says were 50 percent as i believe getting into some of the details but the second question that depends and what you said there is a lovely quote from a guy he was a political social scientist working in the 1970s he worked at brookings so he was on the left and wrote a wonderful paper called up and down with ecology talking mostly about local pollution and smog he was worried about the growing number of vehicles and he has a great quote that says that environmental deterioration is often the common man improving his standard of living he was worried about the proliferation of oil we have the same situation now with

developing countries and i don't know that is good or bad it's probably okay not to do it if. other things were equal but the problem is other things are not equal. >> can you speak to the atlantic conveyor belt how much history do we have to draw conclusions please define atlantic conveyor belt. >> so one of the major features is an important one is the warming of the waters of the northern tropical atlantic with the creation of the gulfstream that carries a lot of heat and then the sinking of the water as it

becomes colder and more saline goes down to the bottom and flows down under the atlantic in a slow current. takes like 1000 years to goas all the way around past south american shows up in the indian ocean. it is a great conveyor belt. but the concern is maybe it will slow down a little and not carry heat as rapidly from the equator to the polls really get colder or warmer? what do we know about it? it's hard to measure those hit over the last couple of decades remember the nile that goes up and down.

>> the buildout of temperature measurement despite of urbannc areas that those temperature modelsor present a real concern? >> i'm not so concerned when you measure the temperature in the city it's a few degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside you see that on the weather report every day it is a real phenomenon and some people got concerned at the record of global temperature that i showed you rbat the beginning was being contaminated by the growth of the regions more rapidly than it should have been. i have to say that the people who compile the surface record

temperatures doing a pretty careful job with four or five independent estimates and one of them the most recent among my good friend and health toy. get that program started. i don't find much to criticize. peoples and isolated stations they are showing pictures of weather stations that are in locations to make your hair raise or one event moved the people try to take that into account. >> what about the rest of the world building coal mines? should we spend money on decarbonization only went up to make energy more expensive while they enjoy lower energy

cost quick. >> you have an answer for that. that is outside of me as a scientist he may have a personal opinion but it's not worth much. this is a values issue for society something that we should be debating out of the science is right or wrong we need an actual representation but that is a moral discussion and we hope that kind of discussion we should be having in the political sphere not to say don't you care about your grandchildren? >> thank you very much. [applause] a great way to start the morning.