 A future question mark, your stage, your talk, here we go. This is not just my talk, this talk has a history. I have a co-author, Martin Düringkamp, who is a colleague of mine who could not come here, so I will give this talk by myself, but we worked together over the year on this talk because this talk has a history, and it's a bit of a history of scientists for future, which is an association of scientists that evolved this year basically with the movement of the students and people of Fridays for Future, and they were questioned, you know, that they took to the street and said, hey, we want the future, we want that things change, and they demanded for politics to change, and this did not directly happen, but it was questioned, so some... I've been to the talk of Science for Future of Congress number 36, CCC in Leipzig, that's the Spanish translation. And we were... I don't know if you've seen the previous presentations, but they are working so hard to make better models and better models, and this presentation is about the result of this, and what it means, and yet nothing changes, so they write publications, they write reports, and nothing changes. So the only thing we can say is, well, they're right, things have to change, and that's why we get together and create this association which says basically what we do is we go out, try to inform people on the research, on state-of-the-art research, and how the things are occurring, and that's why I'm here, so I'm happy what I'm doing here, so we go out to wherever, and you can come to us and ask for more discussions to get informed on the topic, on what is this climate change issue and this is the disclaimer now, I can move on, this is not a good move, okay, so it's, yeah, this is a bit, because the topic is very serious, and it's a bit different than I usually do at the beginning, and I will do a little bit better at the beginning, but nevertheless, normally I always do it a little better, I focus on the positive, and here we see, this is not an investigation of us, it's from the IPCC reports, the report of last year, a report that was basically done and put after the Paris Agreement, it was said that the world, that the governments of the world want to keep the temperature change to, keep the temperature change below the two degrees, and we expect less than 1.5, we can do it or not, that's the question. And so there have been a lot of questions about this, there have been a huge number of questions about this, and many publications have come out about this issue, and it's possible to keep the temperature below 1.5 degrees, and if it's possible or not, if it's possible to limit the climate change to these temperatures. And this is the current state, in this graph, in this graph we can see many things, we see, for example, at the beginning, the pre-industrial period as a reference, from 1800, and this is the pre-industrial period, and this was the temperature at that time. The changes after that, all the changes will be analyzed in reference to this period. What the climate, what the climate occurs is that sometimes it's variable, sometimes it's more severe, but what matters is the media. And where we're looking, here in 1998, there was a very hot year, and then for a long time there weren't so many hot years, and the people said, you see, the temperature doesn't change, so everything is fine, everything works. And that's not true, because you have to look in the middle. This is the floating middle, and it gives us the current temperature change, and it gives us the current temperature change, and that would be like a typical climate period, and what we see here is that the change is so drastic that looking at it for 20 years, it would have to go back to other periods, it would have to go back to many other periods to find something similar. So if we look, we look at that period of 2006, 2015, and the extrapolation of this was basically that in 2017 we would reach a change of a degree of temperature, Celsius, global. It wouldn't be the same everywhere, in some areas it would be hotter, it would be colder, but globally that would be what would change the temperature. And that's where we are at the moment. We have a change of 280 per thousand in pre-industrial times, to 410 per thousand in 2019, and we have a strong change of global temperature in the Arctic, and the excessive amount of CO2 is actually 40 gigaton tons of CO2 per year. And this was the average period from 2011 to 2017. So this is the report of the EPCC of last year. In chapter 2 we have this table. And in this table, we can actually show you how much we have to to show you how much we have to emit to see what change of temperature it's going to produce in two degrees Celsius. And then how much you have to put in the gas. And how likely you can avoid this or how likely it's that we can avoid it. So if we want to avoid it, we have 67% probability to go over 1.5 degrees. For that we have 420 gigaton tons per year. And this was, I think this was, since this is from last year, and since this report is from last year, this refers to 2017. In fact, two years ago, two years ago, and in fact it has not decreased, but it has increased. There are many differences. If we want to change the probability, the difference in the tonal changes, for example, for two degrees, it's going to be much more than two degrees. Now, there are of course a lot of uncertainties that we would like to show in this table, in this theme. For example, the feedback from the system of the Earth, that means that the Earth responds to these emissions, and the Earth also emits CO2, and this also has a long-term impact. And also, other uncertainties, this has been discussed in previous talks, that models also have uncertainty. If we take all these things in consideration, and for a change from the climate by 1.5 degrees, it's quite likely that, with two thirds of probability, it's going to be below 1.5 degrees with 420 gigatons of CO2. This is what comes out in the report. What it says is that the prediction is probably well conservative. The emissions of 400 gigatons... At that time, there were 200 gigatons of CO2. And then we have 250 gigatons of CO2. And then we have between 100 to 150 gigatons of CO2 emitted by energy plants. And this is of course one reason why these coal power plants have to be shut down. And what that means is that this change from 1.5 to 2 degrees has been a lot of research. The first example is that in the United States, there is a lot of research going on. The first example is that in the United States, there is a lot of research going on. There is a lot of research going on. The first example is in the Arctic. There are a lot of talks about ice barriers and so on. But that's not the only thing we have to look at. It's very important that there is ice there. Because we also had ice in the other talks. Ice reflects the heat of the sun. And it's absorbed by the Earth. It's a re-elementation system. And not only is it the iceberg, it's all the biosphere that has to survive somehow. And the priority of an Arctic without ice is between 1.5 and 2 degrees. The line with points is 2 degrees. And the solid line is 1.5 degrees. The priority within that time that this happens, if we look at the likely barrier, the probability that we have an increase within less than 20 years. And in the possibility of this, with an increase of 2 degrees, this is once every 10 or even with the other study, it's more likely. With an increase of 2 degrees, the priority of this is once every 10 years. And this is too much. And that generates a very big impact. So for some other models, this is, for example, for Africa, and because my time is limited, I could do this study in Tehran. Temperatures extreme, with temperatures above 50 degrees, existed in 2009 and 2010, in the months from December to February in Africa. And these months are months of temperatures in which people cannot leave their homes because it simply makes too much heat. And we have these probabilities, these probability curves in densities. These curves show us how often this happens. So here we have the current state, between 2006 and 2015, that's what they call current. And we already have that positive temperature change. And this happens more or less twice every 100 years. And if we see the blue line of the change of 1.5 degrees, this would happen once every three years. And if we had a change of 2 degrees, this would happen even more. That's what it means for people who live there. It's going to be very difficult to live there. Yes, let's go for example to Australia. It's an example that is extremely warm, but in Australia what's also important there is the temperature of the water. The corals that live there, the corals bleaching, so basically the corals die. Of course, as you've seen, the temperature is now also bleaching. There was this hot summer and an extreme coral bleaching here. The summer is too hot between 2012 and 2013. How often does this happen? And we can see that this would be the pre-industrial curve here, where this very warm temperature has hardly ever happened. This is the pre-industrial curve. And as we see, this would be every three years and at the moment this would be every two years. And in the other two scenarios this would happen every two or three years. This is an example for Europe. How many times would this happen? I always remember these things because I used to go out of the house a lot during that period. And because of the heat, a lot of people died. And I remember being in Cologne during that period. And we were 40 degrees and I was sick so I had 40 degrees of body temperature. There was an external temperature of 40 degrees and this could happen every 100 years. At the moment this would be like every four years and this would change, this would increase with five or two degrees and much more. So we will have a lot of very hot summers. This is the prediction of this study. What does this mean? Now I go back to the IPCC reports. I will go back to the IPCC reports. And these reports are very diplomatic, always. And they describe it as reasons of course there is some background to this. So the summary of this IPCC report from 2018 the summary of this report from 2015 is that unique systems and you can see that that makes quite a difference going to warmer temperatures up here we have two degrees so you can see between 1.5 degrees and two degrees. How can you see the difference? The difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees. Two degrees. In fact, the difference means that those who are going to suffer more and those who have contributed less. And that's of course bad because those who have contributed more and then they change. And that's why you're going to change. And that's the problem. That's why there are reasons for concern. The impact on the monetary, the impact on the money has a relation to how much it's going to cost. And it costs billions of dollars and that's the fact of having a difference between 1.5 and 2. Just to have a buffer late impact. And we have others, which is like, for example, the freezing of Groenlandia. If we get closer to this, the coral water is expected that 90% will die with the two degrees. This is clearly a problem for the nutrition of the people who live and who, for example, fish in the ocean and the corals. The corals are the place where the fish are raised. So it's going to have an impact on the fishery. The mangroves are also going to have a very big impact. The Arctic region is going to have a bigger impact. The flooding in the coasts is also going to happen. And the river floods and so on. And we're going to have more morbidity due to the warming. We're also going to have an impact on the use of the land. This is a scale difference. Look at the scale. The scale here goes up to five degrees. If you see that detail, the smaller one is 1.5 degrees below. And what's going to happen here is that there's going to be a shortage of dry land, erosion of the soil too, vegetation loss. These two things are related. I'm going to talk a little bit about that later. The wildfires that cause some damage that we're seeing lately in Australia. There are no coincidences that this is happening in relation to this. The performance of the tropical forests is declining. And it's making a series of differences from two degrees to five degrees. More specifically, what does this mean? The wildfire... the damage of the fire... is increasing by 50% in the Mediterranean region. If we go to four or five degrees, there's going to be a lot more casualties than millions of people exposed. If we see now the instability of the food supply, this is going to be a problem for people who have less money. It's going to be like a billion people who live with less than a dollar a day. This person is going to be a problem. If we go to two degrees, we're going to be waiting for food shocks. That means there's going to be periods where there's going to be no food. If we go to four or five degrees, what's going to happen is going to be a food distribution problem in global terms. This depends on what kind of scenario we're counting on. We'll see, but we'll see it later. Other consequences is that we're not only talking about temperature change. We're also talking about the water temperature. The water takes a lot of CO2 from the atmosphere, and that leads to acidification. That means the pH of the ocean is going to go down. And this has an impact on animals that accumulate calcium carbonate, for example, in the shells. Shells, for example, that depend on the calcium in their... if they can't... if they can't develop these animals, these shellfish, for example, are in the first wave of the food chain. So that's going to be a problem. In 2000, I found this... there's this Aragonite restoration, that basically... this is the point where the increase... of these... basically the increase of these specific animals doesn't work anymore, the organisms. This depends on the pressure and the higher the pressure, the earlier it reaches this point. This is what you can see on the right side. They investigated it, mainly in the polar regions. And at this point, at this point, it would reach the surface of the ocean from 2030 onwards. So all these animals in the polar regions wouldn't be able to create their shells. And one of the problems here is that when you look at these shells, they have a big impact on the oceanic logistic chains. What these animals do is they take CO2 and with calcium they create these shells and then they go down to the ocean and the CO2 disappears. And if that doesn't happen anymore, this type of CO2 elimination doesn't work anymore. I'm going to skip this quickly. These are all the things that are going to happen in this report and they compared it to a lot of regions that are going to happen for a change of temperature between 1.5°C between 1.5°C to 2°C and from 2°C to 3°C. There are all kinds of things. There is this report in Chapter 3. Please read it. These reports are very good. They are scientifically good too. If you are a scientist, they are very good because they have a lot of literature on how they do it to ensure it and they say that it is what they can say with what probability. This is very good science. I won't specify all of this, but for all regions it's going to have a lot of impact. For example, in Southeast Asia. There are all kinds of changes of precipitation and especially in the harvest it has a very high impact. If we don't go down... If we don't go up 1.5°C it would have a third less food and harvest. That's not good. If we change the temperature it would be worse. Small islands are known. Small islands are known. The ocean level is rising. The salty water there and the salty water is also rising and is contaminating its water reserves with sugar. This is a problem with 1.5°C and with 2°C it is a very severe problem. That's why these islands have a very big interest in limiting it to 1.5°C. In the Mediterranean we are waiting for a reduction in the rivers of more or less 9%. That's very likely. Here in a range. And there is a risk of water loss. And from 2% we have 17% less water in the rivers. That's not good. In Germany for example there is a lot of food coming from Spain and they already have a problem with their harvest and it will get worse. West Africa and Sahel in West Africa and in Sahel there is a prediction of less soil for maize for maize harvest of 40%. 40% that's a lot. That's not a region where people have where they have food left. There is a risk of lack of nutrition with 1°C and 5°C and with 2% it gets worse. Apart from the fact that it's too hot to get out of the house. South Africa is similar but not so drastic. There are already problems with lack of nutrition in dry areas like Sahara and it gets worse in the tropics. There is also a problem with the harvest. We have heard it apart from extreme heat waves. There are many details in this table about what would happen with these degrees. What is strange is the drawings are actually now worried about this. We are very worried. Currently the change is changing and it's a cycle called glacial cycle and we have a glacial cycle with a position to the sun relative to the position with the sun and it depends on the position we have more ice that reflects more the sun so it gets colder and then it gets colder and then it changes and then it gets warmer and this has been happening for many years, it's a cycle. Basically we are in a different trajectory and we are in a trajectory that we are approaching too far away too hot. It's not very clear if there is any possibility to heat itself up without us. There is also a possibility that the earth continues even without us there are many possibilities of what could happen with the methane in the oceans it could be a reduction of CO2 elimination in the oceans that will become less the longer the saturation will be. We have the death of the tropical forests in the Amazon last year but it will also happen without human impact with climate change and this publication by Steffen in 2018 estimates a reduction of tropical forests of 40% just with a change of temperature of 1.5% so we will lose many tropical forests. We have a death of trees in the boreal forests well, they don't die they are burned and there are other reasons why they die and a lot of CO2 is emitted by forests that are emitted in the atmosphere and there is again less sunlight in the atmosphere for the ocean level oceanic I see a communication system and one thing will detonate the next and that sometimes happens by circulation as a sea circulation one thing can evoke can produce and this can continue and if this happens at a certain time at a certain time with a certain intensity at that time as humans we will not have with the current technology we will not have the possibility to stop this and that is the reason why the climate scientists are worried we must say that these points of return occur points of infliction currently it is at the level in which it is wrong in fact four weeks ago a publication in climate change said that we can be wrong in our prediction of 100 gigaton in fact we can have the prediction is much worse and in fact we can be in the upper limit of how we predicted the change all this is very worrying all this situation now this should evoke to do something about this and that is the point in fact things need to be made but until now many things have not been made the greenhouse emissions here we can see from 1970 until now and here we can see that not only has increased all this period but also the increase has increased all this period of time and the biggest increase is CO2 carbon dioxide the other gases here is methane or nitrogen gases CO2 agriculture and soil use that is more or less constant this is probably because of the burning of the forests there has been a reduction in CO2 emissions in the last few years as you can see on the right and there was a small decrease but that was because of the economic crisis now despite this scientists how can we reach an increase of 1.5 degrees some said some say we only reach 1.5 degrees or others say what happens if we reach more than 1.5 degrees and what happens there there are many different scenarios if we say that if we say with CDR if we don't have CDR if every year we decrease a percentage of our emissions and we want to reach 1.5 degrees this is the curve of 2018 we should have started this year if every year we decrease the emissions 18% we will reach the objective of 1.5 if if we want to go down to 2 degrees we have to decrease our emissions 5% every year if we see it in Germany politicians politicians always say this year we want to reduce the emissions for 15% or something but this doesn't tell us what happened so it's very important to keep in mind that we have a budget of CO2 normally countries publish how much budget they have of CO2 emissions if we take this budget how are we going to spend our current budget how are we going to spend our current budget and this is what we should ask all politicians for example how do you think they are going to use this budget there was an article in the Deschbegel that said that a budget in Germany to reach 1.5 degrees is 7.3 gigatons if we continue our emissions in Germany in Germany it's almost twice as much as the average of the average and in that case this is our budget for Germany and the question is how are we going to get here of course we can calculate this for each person for each German and we get to the calculation of 90 90 tons per person until the end of my life that's for each person if we go back to the report we have the different scenarios as you can see there are different ways to do this and these are different economic scenarios you can see here that most of the scenarios have negative emissions in fact everyone has some include carbon depending on what kind of economic scenario depending on which economic scenario this is more or less and here is up to the green part agriculture and forests and other use of land of land you can also reduce CO2 planting trees this is a very efficient way but of course the area that can be used is limited and the area that can be used is less and less for climate change and we have to look at that and the base of all these scenarios they put it in a table on the list and I said if we want to reach 1.5 degrees of change we have to do all our renewable energy basically we have to be very very fast and change our logistic energy the second part is we also have to mitigate consumption we have to use less and use smaller things well we do have to do this within the next and the third part we have to do it within the next 10 years so we can't wait this is very very urgent this is very very important urgent this is a difficult table to read but the important thing is that the biggest reduction comes from the CO2 emissions that's because all the other gases are also included in our scenarios we have to invest in a different way the best options that we have for the scenarios of 1.5 degrees are those that come with sustainable development because people who don't have enough food for who don't have enough food to survive can't look to help the planet so we also have to look at how people can live on this planet this helps us to protect the climate then they say well we have to think about how to eliminate CO2 around the middle of the century and we also have to change the fossil energy to electricity this is also agriculture it's very easy to plant trees and then buy biological mass to produce and then burn it and capture the CO2 and put it on the ground or what we can also do is directly pick up the CO2 with these machines these machines take the CO2 from the air and then you have to store it and this was a model but in its time these exist and basically this can collect 100,000 tons of CO2 per year so we want to go for tons we have to build millions of these in the end the problem with this is also a bit discussed basically we have we have a energy use of this 12.9 gigajoules per ton of CO2 and if we want to eliminate 15 giga tons of CO2 per year which is one of the scenarios we would need a quarter of the global energy just to maintain our CO2 levels and the funny thing this was a professor a professor of our university in Oldenburg presented this he said this is absurd but the climate change is going to destroy so much that it has to happen and with the gas biological to do this at high level we need a lot of space to produce this amount of biogas and the other advantage is that of course we have to store it somehow that prevents the gas from escaping because CO2 has a higher density that oxygen is left on the ground if there is air and people live there you can't breathe and obviously there are different sectors this is for example in the EU where emissions come mainly from agriculture transport and energy but also from other industries and it is important to know that this is not the same in all countries but it depends it depends a lot on the salaries of the people but the countries with very high salaries have very high CO2 emissions it is that the emerging countries are practically at the same level now while countries with less strong economies mainly emit through agriculture so the question is how we can reduce the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees it is a good question there have been many studies for Germany and the EU for the energy infrastructure for example there was one study from this year with a CO2 reduction from 95% to 2050 there was a study for the whole EU for a neutral EU in greenhouse gases so obviously technically this is possible but the main thing is that it is very efficient and one of the things for this is to use electricity because electricity is very efficient in many things at the moment mainly we use 23 terawatt and for the reduction of 95% of CO2 we would need a reduction of 300 2000 terawatt or more and the efficiency of cars with batteries are much more efficient than any other type in Europe the level that we have today we are still assuming that we can make a reduction if we want at least we have to assume that it is 100% of the negative emissions of the and I really like the low one because they actually calculated completely with electricity electricity electricity logistics here in a very detailed study very good so technically this is possible and also what happens in this German word that there is no air or sun during the season and we have a lot of gas for gas and we could use these strategic gas to save our energy in gas because gas is provided by electricity so to conclude the climate system is already in a critical state the prospects of a land with 5% more hot are very bad all the IPCC reports tell us that under no circumstance we should over 2 degrees of increase and in several regions of the earth there is already a change of 2 degrees the carbon reduction is difficult to avoid but this reduction has many disadvantages not advantages but it must be done very fast and I am very sorry but our governments in really good applause so it is not a technical it is a political that's right thanks thank you very much thank you very much 2 minutes for questions we have microphones in the halls we have 8 minutes I am sure there will be questions the signal we have internet questions do you see nuclear plants is like a temporary solution I have seen some discussion that they need 10 years to build a nuclear plant it is a realistic to have power plants to have nuclear plants this is a this is an active discussion and it is not very easy reactivate atomic plants because they have a certain life expectation and to reactivate them somehow I would have to this life expectation and there are several security problems and if you want to avoid them you have to invest a lot of money and work to reactivate them you need a lot of time for that so the question is is it worth this and I would say the fastest way to do it it could be done there are risks of course and after Fukushima and Chernobyl basically everything we have seen what are the risks so I would say that probably it is not the best way to do it there are other ways to solve it now we go to the microphone first I want to thank thank you for the chat it was very informative my question is there was a chat in our university in Darmstadt a few years before a person who compared the IPCC the IPCC prediction with what actually happened and the damage that occurred in the climate change and what she found that what always was reduced the estimation was reduced of what really happened I hope not the problem is that the IPCC reports are always they take their decisions very carefully and they are very conservative the reports are lower they are more conservative with the result so if you try to predict something and it happens then immediately people would do it so it is very probable that they try to be very exact but if they had to choose they would choose the most conservative predictions that's what she was also saying and well in the end in conclusion I showed a few positive days with results where they participate in the UN the the governments if they have to accept it they have to vote on it so people are very well now let's go to the microphone first thanks for the talk if it's only a political do you have any idea of how to force politicians to make the right decision because what we are doing now is only voting and that doesn't seem to work I'm very happy because I think that protesting and protesting doesn't work because the people who go to the street they get a lot of pressure and the politicians look at who are my voters and if their voters aren't in the streets maybe they aren't that important so the important thing is to go to the people and go out to the street and talk to the people and especially those people who aren't in the street who are the potential voters of these people who aren't in the protests so that this one also goes out and puts more pressure together going out to the street and do whatever it is to talk to the politicians we, Angela Merkel in Germany she is physical she knows she understands all this it's not that she doesn't know it's simply that the pressure comes from the wrong side at the moment we have one time for one last question thank you very much for all this informative talk in the description of the talk I was expecting something more about the climate capitalism and the arguments and I was in discussion with many other people and what they sometimes said they didn't criticize the anthropogenic and well they didn't criticize the climate change at all and with the climate change progenics there is like an increase of solar activity in the last decades which increases the temperature like the diagram is like only from 1860 the diagram is only from 1816 but if you look if someone looks at the last millennia there have been higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere but the temperature is not related to the temperature yes, one question yes, well don't look at these things because sometimes they are easy to counter-argument the thing is that I did this talk because it helps if you go into our climate skeptics say this and they say climate change skeptics say this they say all kinds of things they could make a whole talk about the counter-arguments of these people and if you do it in the end people look at the skepticism I did a lot of these things I did a lot of these things because why this now people can go out and say ok this is currently the case with this people can go out and say this this is the current situation and can go out to the street and explain it and obviously the solar radiation is also in the models the changes the variations in the previous centuries are pre-calculated in the climate models at the moment because only if you can imitate that in the current models for today or for the past you can only then you can predict it for the future and that's how the climate models work so all these variations are included but we can talk about this later thank you we don't have any other questions